OD&D, Holmes, B/X, BECMI and their Clones = That Different?

[tdenmark]

In 1982 we played Basic modules with AD&D. We had the Basic/Expert rules at the table next to the Player's Handbook, DMG, & MM. I don't think we really fixated on the difference. It was all a sort of melange of these editions.

As I've gotten up to speed with the OSR over the past 10 years or so I've come to know some of the nuances, but in the end the differences are really trivial. I mean is a +1 here and a -1 there that big of a difference? So what only a dwarf can use the +3 Magic Hammer? That's trivial.

What do you really think the differences are that matter between OD&D, Holmes, B/X, and BECMI? I mean the major ones of significance that can cause an issue when converting on the fly?

[Desparil]

Differences in the actual dice used for HD starts to matter once you get to four or more levels or hit dice. While ability scores largely turn to be a wash - although AD&D generates higher numbers, the different methods of scaling modifiers means that it'll probably only make a difference of +1 one way or the other - it only takes one look at some high-level pregen characters (such as in Module G1) to see that AD&D characters have quite a lot more hit points than, for example, the 11th level Lords or the Patriarchs on the Ninth Dungeon Level table in the Monster & Treasure Assortment.

[ThrorII]

In my opinion? B/X, BECMI, and OD&D are about 95% the same rules-wise. B/X was just a cleaned up simplified version of OD&D +Greyhawk. Later BECMI, RC and "Classic D&D" kept tweeking B/X, but it is the same system.

Look at the spells per day for clerics and magic-users - B/X uses the base OD&D chart
Look at the thief skills - B/X uses the almost identical Greyhawk chart
Look at the level progressions and saving throw charts - identical (or nearly) to B/X
Look at the Exploration rules - nearly identical to B/X (BX changed surprise distance rules)
Look at the Combat rules - nearly identical
Look at treasure charts - BX and core OD&D are very close

[Deleted]

Don't the Thief skills get kind of wonky in BECMI compared to B/X because of being stretched over 36 levels? That's an old chestnut that gets brought up.

Also iirc there's no "detect invisibility" in B/X for some reason.

[waysoftheearth]

A couple of differentiations that come to mind...

. OD&D has the expectation that every game will be a rules variant; later the expectation became every game would be (more-or-less) rules standard.
. OD&D has six-sided HD and damage dice for everything (hugely impactful!).
. OD&D has the distinction between normal and heroic/fantastic figures (to determine, frex, who can/can't be hit by X) that later vanished.
. (Related to above) OD&D has normal and fantastic combat resolution, which was later all rolled into one.
. OD&D has two sets of attack matrices (for each type of combat resolution), which were later reduced to one.
. the race/class split.

[Deleted]

Jul 15, 2021 17:32:13 GMT -6 waysoftheearth said:

. OD&D has six-sided HD and damage dice for everything (hugely impactful!).

See, this is another area where the terminology gets confusing. What you're saying is true, for 3lbb, and it's my preferred HD/Damage paradigm, but Greyhawk and the other supplements are still OD&D too, aren't they? They're not anything else. They're not B/X or AD&D or any of that. So they're in the OD&D line, right?

[waysoftheearth]

You're right ample; I should have written "3LBB OD&D"

[dicebro]

3LBB ODD is in its own class. It’s rather unlimited compared tho the rest.

[tdenmark]

I consider the power ramps mostly trivial.

LBB OD&D is close to the metal, there is very little wiggle room. So naturally the power levels ramped up with each edition so there'd be more room for differentiation, particularly at low levels.

If you put an LBB OD&D character in a first edition game they are maybe 2 or 3 levels lower in general power, but it isn't like you couldn't play it.

And yes dicebro, I think we all agree LBB OD&D is special. The more you read it, dissect it, and play it, the better it gets.

[talysman]

Most of the differences between OD&D, Holmes, B/X, and BECM seem to be behind the GM screen. So, if you are just talking about converting characters, with the GM using whichever rules they are comfortable with, there's only a couple things to consider:

Hit Dice/Hit Points: Post-Greyhawk OD&D and all the Basic lines are the same, but Pre-Greyhawk OD&D has lower HP for fighters, dwarves, elves, and halflings, higher HP for M-Us.

Race: Because of race-as-class, there are going to be discrepancies between OD&D of any variety and B/X or BECM.

Racial Minimums: OD&D and Holmes don't have minimum ability scores for non-human races, but B/X and BECM do. This doesn't affect play, but a mix of players from different editions should be aware that some people got to be their favorite race despite low rolls.

Equipment: Pre-Greyhawk OD&D players may have made weapon choices they wouldn't have if different weapons did different damage. Holmes players will probably be expecting to use daggers twice per round and may have avoided heavy weapons because they are slower to attack.

Magic: The number of spells an M-U knows equals the number of spells that can be cast per level in B/X. Holmes and post-Greyhawk M-Us will know more spells than that, giving them a better range of choices. Pre-Greyhawk OD&D M-Us have no limits on how many spells they can learn for each level.

[waysoftheearth]

I think the way "multi-classing" and level limits worked evolved over time too.

CM/3LBBs has switching classes and combination figures.
GH introduced splitting XP evenly across classes.
AD&D has dual- and multi-classed characters...

[tdenmark]

Jul 15, 2021 21:02:58 GMT -6 talysman said:

Most of the differences between OD&D, Holmes, B/X, and BECM seem to be behind the GM screen. So, if you are just talking about converting characters, with the GM using whichever rules they are comfortable with, there's only a couple things to consider:

Hit Dice/Hit Points: Post-Greyhawk OD&D and all the Basic lines are the same, but Pre-Greyhawk OD&D has lower HP for fighters, dwarves, elves, and halflings, higher HP for M-Us.

Race: Because of race-as-class, there are going to be discrepancies between OD&D of any variety and B/X or BECM.

Racial Minimums: OD&D and Holmes don't have minimum ability scores for non-human races, but B/X and BECM do. This doesn't affect play, but a mix of players from different editions should be aware that some people got to be their favorite race despite low rolls.

Equipment: Pre-Greyhawk OD&D players may have made weapon choices they wouldn't have if different weapons did different damage. Holmes players will probably be expecting to use daggers twice per round and may have avoided heavy weapons because they are slower to attack.

Magic: The number of spells an M-U knows equals the number of spells that can be cast per level in B/X. Holmes and post-Greyhawk M-Us will know more spells than that, giving them a better range of choices. Pre-Greyhawk OD&D M-Us have no limits on how many spells they can learn for each level.

Yeah, but are these really that different? Sounds like rearrangement of deck chairs on the Titanic. Not a single one of these prevents you from playing a character in one edition to another. Trivial differences. Like your daggers example, sure you could better optimize, but the daggers still work.

I could grab a monster from the 2nd edition Monstrous Manual and use it as an encounter as-is in an OD&D game.

Take some spells as described in the 1e Player's Handbook and give them to your OD&D Magic-User, you could play it without a hitch.

What systemically wouldn't work?

For example: ascending vs. descending AC. Now that is a real difference. Still you can do conversion on the fly. So from LBB OD&D up to 2nd edition it wouldn't be too hard to mix and match components. (I don't know about those power option books I haven't got into them, though I suspect they have something to do with the worst things about 4th edition).

[tdenmark]

BTW. I'm playing a bit of devil's advocate here. I want to know what you think are the real show-stopping differences that prevent cross-edition play. So far I've only seen insignificant points. They're the same game.

[tdenmark]

Jul 15, 2021 18:41:15 GMT -6 waysoftheearth said:

You're right ample; I should have written "3LBB OD&D"

There is probably more difference between LBB OD&D and Greyhawk than there is from Greyhawk to 2nd edition.

[tdenmark]

LBB: make up any rules you want!

2nd Edition: choose from any of these rules we made up for you.

[waysoftheearth]

Mmm. We often tend to focus on the players-exploring-gameworld side of play. But what about the referee-building-gameworld side of play? I'm not nearly so familiar with this part of the B/X, BECMI editions, but there could be differences in the risk/reward balance of the game design hidden in there.


edit: One of the reasons that it's practical/possible to recreate the earlier D&D edition retro-clones from the 3e SRD is that they are essentially all very closely related games.

[Vile Traveller]

If you're only using material from one edition it makes no difference to actual play at all. Most of the changes scale between editions, e.g. hit points go up for both PCs and monsters, so the end result is the same.

[dicebro]

Jul 15, 2021 20:12:42 GMT -6 tdenmark said:

I consider the power ramps mostly trivial.

LBB OD&D is close to the metal, there is very little wiggle room. So naturally the power levels ramped up with each edition so there'd be more room for differentiation, particularly at low levels.

If you put an LBB OD&D character in a first edition game they are maybe 2 or 3 levels lower in general power, but it isn't like you couldn't play it.

And yes dicebro , I think we all agree LBB OD&D is special. The more you read it, dissect it, and play it, the better it gets.

And I would argue the opposite, the supplements, Holmes, and the rest are more constraining. The LBBs have the most wiggle room.

[Deleted]

Jul 16, 2021 8:05:04 GMT -6 dicebro said:

Jul 15, 2021 20:12:42 GMT -6 tdenmark said:

I consider the power ramps mostly trivial.

LBB OD&D is close to the metal, there is very little wiggle room. So naturally the power levels ramped up with each edition so there'd be more room for differentiation, particularly at low levels.

If you put an LBB OD&D character in a first edition game they are maybe 2 or 3 levels lower in general power, but it isn't like you couldn't play it.

And yes dicebro , I think we all agree LBB OD&D is special. The more you read it, dissect it, and play it, the better it gets.

And I would argue the opposite, the supplements, Holmes, and the rest are more constraining. The LBBs have the most wiggle room.

In this regard, I agree, and would further elaborate that later editions of D&D formalized and codified things that are merely suggested in 3lbb. For instance, instead of saying there's Assassins in the world and letting the referee decide how that works, later editions and supplements give step by step rules for how Assassins are supposed to work, and the exact chances they have of success, etc. It's taken out of the hands of the person running the game. A lot of people seem to like having things done for them, but the whole appeal of the original presentation of the game IMO is "here's this idea you can tinker with." 

[dicebro]

Jul 16, 2021 8:47:41 GMT -6 @ampleframework said:

Jul 16, 2021 8:05:04 GMT -6 dicebro said:

And I would argue the opposite, the supplements, Holmes, and the rest are more constraining. The LBBs have the most wiggle room.

In this regard, I agree, and would further elaborate that later editions of D&D formalized and codified things that are merely suggested in 3lbb. For instance, instead of saying there's Assassins in the world and letting the referee decide how that works, later editions and supplements give step by step rules for how Assassins are supposed to work, and the exact chances they have of success, etc. It's taken out of the hands of the person running the game. A lot of people seem to like having things done for them, but the whole appeal of the original presentation of the game IMO is "here's this idea you can tinker with." 

Absolutely, I am of the impression that the 3LBBs without the supplements are an entirely different species of game that actually encouraged the referee to change the laws of reality.  The introduction of supplements heralded a new era of closing the borders. And Holmes, Moldvay, Mentzer and Gygax (specifically AD&D) worked even harder to put the genie back into the bottle. I’m not making a moral judgement here. Just a neutral observation. 

[Deleted]

Jul 16, 2021 8:56:33 GMT -6 dicebro said:

Jul 16, 2021 8:47:41 GMT -6 @ampleframework said:

In this regard, I agree, and would further elaborate that later editions of D&D formalized and codified things that are merely suggested in 3lbb. For instance, instead of saying there's Assassins in the world and letting the referee decide how that works, later editions and supplements give step by step rules for how Assassins are supposed to work, and the exact chances they have of success, etc. It's taken out of the hands of the person running the game. A lot of people seem to like having things done for them, but the whole appeal of the original presentation of the game IMO is "here's this idea you can tinker with." 

Absolutely, I am of the impression that the 3LBBs without the supplements are an entirely different species of game that actually encouraged the referee to change the laws of reality.  The introduction of supplements heralded a new era of closing the borders. And Holmes, Moldvay, Mentzer and Gygax (specifically AD&D) worked even harder to put the genie back into the bottle. I’m not making a moral judgement here. Just a neutral observation. 

It's hard to argue against this when pretty much every single person who worked at TSR at the time and was involved in the game design portion of the business have made variations of this statement over the years. The Tim Kask blog post is the shining example. It's telling that Gygax never ran AD&D after he was ousted from TSR, though. If he ran D&D at all and not whatever current project he was working on (Lejendary Adventures, etc.), it was just the original box set and nothing else. 

[dicebro]

Jul 16, 2021 10:58:53 GMT -6 @ampleframework said:

Jul 16, 2021 8:56:33 GMT -6 dicebro said:

Absolutely, I am of the impression that the 3LBBs without the supplements are an entirely different species of game that actually encouraged the referee to change the laws of reality.  The introduction of supplements heralded a new era of closing the borders. And Holmes, Moldvay, Mentzer and Gygax (specifically AD&D) worked even harder to put the genie back into the bottle. I’m not making a moral judgement here. Just a neutral observation. 

It's hard to argue against this when pretty much every single person who worked at TSR at the time and was involved in the game design portion of the business have made variations of this statement over the years. The Tim Kask blog post is the shining example. It's telling that Gygax never ran AD&D after he was ousted from TSR, though. If he ran D&D at all and not whatever current project he was working on (Lejendary Adventures, etc.), it was just the original box set and nothing else. 

I have proof of that here: dumbelfgames.blogspot.com/2021/07/gary-gygax-refereed-od-in-his-golden.html

[ThrorII]

Jul 15, 2021 17:28:29 GMT -6 @ampleframework said:

Don't the Thief skills get kind of wonky in BECMI compared to B/X because of being stretched over 36 levels? That's an old chestnut that gets brought up.

Also iirc there's no "detect invisibility" in B/X for some reason.

Yes, that's where the 'BECMI tweaks' occur, along with spell progressions. The core rules are still OD&D and B/X however.

Detect Invisible is listed in the B/X spell list, but they forgot to put it in the spell descriptions. That was a publishing error, not a rules change.

[ThrorII]

Jul 15, 2021 17:32:13 GMT -6 waysoftheearth said:

A couple of differentiations that come to mind...

. OD&D has the expectation that every game will be a rules variant; later the expectation became every game would be (more-or-less) rules standard.
. OD&D has six-sided HD and damage dice for everything (hugely impactful!).
. OD&D has the distinction between normal and heroic/fantastic figures (to determine, frex, who can/can't be hit by X) that later vanished.
. (Related to above) OD&D has normal and fantastic combat resolution, which was later all rolled into one.
. OD&D has two sets of attack matrices (for each type of combat resolution), which were later reduced to one.
. the race/class split.

B/X encourages the DM to change rules. The difference is OD&D as written was hard to figure out sometimes, and people HAD to make their own rules; whereas B/X was better stated, requiring less of that. Other than the throwaway line about playing monsters in OD&D, I don't see much difference between the games.

B/X default is 1d6 damage for everyone. Variable damage is an optional rule (that everyone used).

In all honesty, the fantastical/normal combat split was for use with Chainmail, while it seemed that everyone (including EGG and the rest) used the 'alternate combat' rules (d20). So this is only a half-truth in my opinion.

Yes, the Race/Class thing changed B/X from OD&D (to a point), but Holmes kept race and class separate.

But......Let's look at OD&D (with and without Greyhawk) vs. B/X, however:

1. OD&D human classes are Fighter, Cleric, and Magic-User (Thief with Greyhawk). B/X has the same classes.

2. Elves were fighters one day, m-u's the next (OD&D) or multi-classed (Greyhawk). B/X combines them to one class in a form of multiclassing.

3. Dwarves and Halflings could only be Fighters (OD&D) or Thieves or F/Th (in Greyhawk). B/X they are just fighters.

[tdenmark]

Jul 16, 2021 8:05:04 GMT -6 dicebro said:

And I would argue the opposite, the supplements, Holmes, and the rest are more constraining. The LBBs have the most wiggle room.

Apologies, I didn't make my point well.

Yes, LBB lets you do whatever you want in theory and the editions get more restrictive, however that is not what I meant. I'm talking about from a design POV.

For example in LBB +1 is a WAY bigger deal than it is in 2nd edition. So if you are creating new monsters/classes/magic items etc. you have less wiggle room for creating new content, particularly at low levels. ie. a weapon that does +2 damage is FAR more lethal than one that does +1 damage. But, once hit points were increased then you can do a lot more variety of things: +1 to +2 to +3 aren't that big of a difference anymore.

For a contrasting example. Japanese RPG's measure things like hit points in 1000's. This way you have room between 1 and 10000 to work with. You can do 500 points of damage, or 250. But you can't do that with single digit hit points. .25 points of damage? .5 points of damage? A +.75 dagger?

This is why D&D editions naturally had a ramp up in all these numbers, it gave the designers more to work with.

[tdenmark]

To summarize. All I've seen so far is pointing out the difference in numbers, not the differences in systems. Yes, there have been additional systems layered on top of OD&D, but the core remained.

It wasn't until 3rd edition that a real revision to the core systems were made. Even then they were relatively conservative - as they should be. There is a reason the game is classic and so popular, any core system change is likely to disrupt that. *cough* 4th edition *cough* *cough*

[Deleted]

Jul 16, 2021 17:59:29 GMT -6 tdenmark said:

To summarize. All I've seen so far is pointing out the difference in numbers, not the differences in systems. Yes, there have been additional systems layered on top of OD&D, but the core remained.

It wasn't until 3rd edition that a real revision to the core systems were made. Even then they were relatively conservative - as they should be. There is a reason the game is classic and so popular, any core system change is likely to disrupt that. *cough* 4th edition *cough* *cough*

I feel like there's a beating heart to 3e that was overlooked and forgotten because they moved onto 3.5 so fast. I'd be interested in revisiting it someday, as it was initially released. Maybe run a game for a few months as an experiment. 2023 will be the 20th year anniversary, after all. 

[robertsconley]

Jul 15, 2021 5:03:10 GMT -6 tdenmark said:

What do you really think the differences are that matter between OD&D, Holmes, B/X, and BECMI? I mean the major ones of significance that can cause an issue when converting on the fly?

Basically the answer I gave on Stack Exchange a decade ago.

rpg.stackexchange.com/questions/13212/what-are-the-big-differences-among-the-dd-editions

D&D (1974) - The original game had only three classes (Cleric, Fighter, Magic User). Cleric spells up to 5th level, Magic user spells up to 6th level. Every attack except for certain monster abilities did 1d6 damage if it hit. There wasn't a lot of difference between characters in terms of combat capabilities. Characteristics didn't have many modifiers.

OD&D plus Greyhawk Supplement (1975) - The Greyhawk supplement transformed OD&D into a form of older edition D&D that is recognizable by most gamers today. Characteristics have more modifiers and exceptional strength was introduced. Variable damage dice for different weapons and creatures was introduced. The number of spell levels increased.

Holmes Edition, B/X D&D, Mentzer D&D (1977, 1981, 1983) - Similar to OD&D plus Greyhawk including selected elements from other supplements, with the rules rewritten for clarity and organization. Playing a Race meant playing a class. For example a Dwarf used only the Dwarf Class. Both B/X and Mentzer were divided in distinct books that focused on a specific range of levels. Later the Mentzer version was combined into the Rules Compendium. The biggest difference between these rules and AD&D was found in higher level play. Mentzer D&D had specific rules for running domain, mass combat, and even becoming a immortal i.e. god.

AD&D 1st Edition (1977) - OD&D plus Supplements plus Strategic Review articles are combined, rewritten, and organized into a three book set. One of the reason behind this edition was to standardize how D&D was played to make running tournaments easier. The most popular version of older edition D&D. Bonuses for characteristics roughly go up to +4 and are capped at 18 except for exceptional strength.

A lot of extra details are added in Gygax's distinctive writing style. Some sections are poorly designed or understood like the unarmed combat rules, initiative, psionics, human dual classing, etc. While other are widely adopted, classes, races, spells, magic items, etc. Characters select a race and a class. Non-human race can multi class which involves splitting experience between multiple classes. Non-humans were generally limited to a max level (often low).

AD&D 1st Edition plus Unearthed Arcana (1985) - This version shifted the power level of the game upwards by allowing increased level limits for non-human, new classes that were slightly more powerful, and weapon specialization for fighters. Later AD&D hardback books (the two Survival books) expanded the use of non-weapon proficiencies as a skill system.

AD&D 2nd Edition (1989) - Still basically AD&D 1st Edition but the rules have been reorganized and rewritten for clarity. Some content like half-orc, demons, and assassins were removed or changed due to media pressure. Character customization was expanded by using non-weapon proficiencies as a skill system and by allowing characters to take kits that confer various benefits. Combat has been redesigned to overcome the issues with initiative and unarmed combat that were part of the previous edition of AD&D.

Because of the success of Dragonlance, much of AD&D 2nd Edition run was focused on customizing the rules for specific settings or themes. TSR released a lot of different settings like Dark Sun, Birthright, and others.

AD&D 2nd Edition Skills and Powers (1995) - Player's Option: Skill and Powers introduced several rule systems that allowed extensive customization of a character.


D&D 3rd Edition (2000) - The first edition created by Wizards of the Coast, 3rd Edition took the idea of Skill and Powers and developed a cleaner system for customizing characters by designing the classes so a level of one class can stack on top of another class. A single level chart was introduced and a each level a character could take a new class or add another level of a class they already had.

In addition feats were added to allow characters to further customize their abilities. A true skill system was introduced and integrated into the game. The underlying d20 system worked by rolling equal to or higher than a target number and adding various bonus. This was used across the game in a standard way. Problems developed at higher levels as the number of options increased to the point where players had a tough time resolving their actions.

In addition, when various supplements were combined, characters could be built that were considerably more powerful than other combinations. This version was also noted for releasing the d20 system under the Open Game License, which ignited a vigorous third party market.

D&D 3.5 Edition(2003) - This edition featured only small changes to the core game (and was mostly-but-not-entirely compatible with books written for 3rd Edition), but had its own extensive line of supplements which magnified the role of feats, prestige classes, and multiclassing in character customization.

This version of D&D is still the baseline for many D20 games some still in print and active development. Notably the Pathfinder 1st edition game by Paizo is based on the System Reference Document for D&D 3.5.

D&D 4th Edition (2008) - This edition is a completely new game with only a few game mechanics carried over from the 3rd Edition. It has a simple set of core rules and defines all character and monster abilities as exceptions which are described in standard terms. Higher level combat has been simplified, and each class has been designed to have a specific role in combat. Every class has a diverse set of combat options to use. The use of a battlegrid and miniatures is part of the core rules. Classes and monster generally have a high fantasy flavor. There are multiple ways to heal centered on a new mechanic called healing surges. Combat takes noticeably longer than any prior edition except perhaps for high level 3rd edition combat. While not present at the game's launch, this edition is noted for popular use of on-line computer tools, particularly an online character builder that integrates content from all the supplements. Wizards of the Coast originally intended to create a "virtual tabletop" as well, but the project was never completed.

D&D Essentials (2010) - This was an alternative set of core books for 4th Edition, with simplified classes intended for first-time players. Essentials was designed to be cross-compatible with 4th Edition, with different versions of the classes usable side-by-side.

D&D 5th edition (2014) - This is the current edition of D&D. This edition is being released when the market leader is not the previous edition of D&D but rather a rival product made by Paizo called Pathfinder. Unlike D&D 4th edition this edition draws on much of the mechanics introduced in classic D&D (OD&D to AD&D 2nd Edition) and D&D 3rd Edition. It allows for more character customization than classic D&D but less than 3rd edition. The distinct features of D&D 5th edition are flexibility and bounded accuracy.

D&D 5e has a simple core along with several options that allows referee to make their game feel more like a particular past edition. Options include allowing feats (3e), tactical combat (3e & 4e), multi-classing (3e), and backgrounds (2e).

Bounded Accuracy is the most distinct feature of D&D 5e. As stated in this article the d20 rolls to see if the character hits or succeeds in a task have been changed to an absolute scale where the difference between the highest level and the lowest is drastically reduced compared to previous editions. In its place, higher levels characters and creature have more hit points, more options for completing tasks, and increased damage along with more ways of doing damage. An immediate consequence is that the difficulty of the to hit roll or the task is not expected to increase as the character levels.

[raymond]

Is it true that OD&D didn't use initiative so every round was what we now call simultaneous? Or is it a complicated question because combat could have been with Chainmail rules or with the optional rules which call for d20 to hit and d6 for damage.

[waysoftheearth]

Jul 16, 2021 15:29:27 GMT -6 ThrorII said:

Other than the throwaway line about playing monsters in OD&D, I don't see much difference between the games.

Geez Throrii. I'm not sure what "throwaway line" you refer to but it sounds like you want to dismiss it?

Jul 16, 2021 15:29:27 GMT -6 ThrorII said:

In all honesty, the fantastical/normal combat split was for use with Chainmail, while it seemed that everyone (including EGG and the rest) used the 'alternate combat' rules (d20). So this is only a half-truth in my opinion.

Whether "everyone" used the d20 attack matrices is unrelated to the distinction between normal and fantastic combat.
FWIW, I agree that d20 combat resolution quickly became standard, but it's also true that 2d6 resolution was used in the beginning (e.g., by Arneson, e.g., discussed in at least one A&E article i recall). Arguably, the small combat bonuses in the 3LBBs are written for the 2d6 system and were subsequently "scaled up" for the d20 system in GH.

Anyways, that's all quibble. I agree with the gist that these games are very largely similar. I thought this topic was about hunting out whatever differences between them exist. Apologies if I offended you.