EDIT: changed the tile to be more clear; I'm mixing AD&D and B/X: what are you favorite rules to import/export?
---
I have written extensively about why I love B/X*. It is my favorite format of D&D, but mostly because it's very easy, simple, manageable, streamlined. The organization is much better, IMO.
However, when comparing specific rules, I often favor using AD&D. For example, I prefer AD&D's:
- Attack progression (+1 per level for fighters).
- Fighter boost (1 attack per level against HD lower than 1, multiple atacks).
- Magic-user nerf (chances of learning spells and I kinda like the idea of components. kinda).
- Turn undead rules (undead leaders make everyone harder to turn IIRC).
- Race separate from class.
- d6 HP for thieves.
OTOH I dislike:
- Messy attribute bonus instead of the neat -3/+3 of B/X.
- Bard and druid strange class progression.
- Weapon versus armor table (that contains arithmetic erros and not even Gygax used, apparently).
- d10 HPs for fighters.
I have been thinking of writing about my favorite AD&D rules, despite not being a big AD&D fan (well, except for the DMG, I love that book).
So, what are your favorite/least favorites when comparing AD&D to Basic (or even 2e, RC, etc.).
*https://methodsetmadness.blogspot.com/2023/01/a-glance-at-basic-d-bx-and-some-clones.html (https://methodsetmadness.blogspot.com/2023/01/a-glance-at-basic-d-bx-and-some-clones.html)
There's just more to AD&D. Compare the page count. There's more things covered, more options,more advice, more details. Basic plays fine, but AD&D has always felt to me that it has more depth
Quote from: Mishihari on May 14, 2023, 12:19:51 PM
There's just more to AD&D. Compare the page count. There's more things covered, more options,more advice, more details. Basic plays fine, but AD&D has always felt to me that it has more depth
With all due respect to AD&D, which is a cool game system with lots of depth; more rules, does not necessarily equal better.
Well, if we go by page count, it is easy to see B/X is better if you like objectivity, AD&D if you like completeness. So, I was looking for specific examples as mentioned above.
Another thing I dislike in B/X (but not BECMI, RC): the borked cleric progression. Easy to fix, however.
AD&D 2nd is best Waifu.
Let me put it this way. I'm mixing AD&D and B/X: what are you favorite rules to import/export?
Quote from: Eric Diaz on May 14, 2023, 02:27:59 PM
Let me put it this way. I'm mixing AD&D and B/X: what are you favorite rules to import/export?
The last AD&D campaign I ran was essentially creating characters in AD&D then running it like Basic. That is pretty much how I learned to play anyway, because we moved from BECMI straight to AD&D as soon as I could afford the books and I naively assumed it was close enough if we simply used the new charts and spells. Weapon speed and attack vs. armor...all that kind of crap seemed incomprehensible and superfluous, so I never used it. Then we ported over Palladium Fantasy class and Rolemaster stuff for combat so...yeah. I don't know if I've ever actually played strict BtB AD&D in my life, honestly.
Back in the day I always found AD&D (1e) a disorganised mess with text walls and the PHB I have has all sorts of notes, pages turned over, things underlined and highlighted in it.
Moldvay Basic (never got chance to run expert) on the other hand was great for a bunch of 11-12 year olds getting into the game. Less crunch, more play time.
Red Box basic moved the game on even further and every time we'd break off to play something else we'd always go back to the Karameikos campaign in BECMI. That's not to say we didn't have fun with AD&D. Sinister Secret of Saltmarsh stood out as a fun time and a few other modules too but on the whole BECMI did everything we needed from zero to hero (and we dabbled with Immortals but Gold Box rules are kinda clunky, not TSRs finest hour).
AD&D I think we managed to get near enough 10th level and retired the game with everyone rich and happy. Never went back (though the BECMI campaigns ran for years).
I think it's all down to personal choice. AD&D had more of everything if you wanted it. We didn't need more than BECMI gave us hence we stuck with that.
Most gamers mixed and matched pretty freely back in the olden days -before grogtards came along and tried to make the way 99% of players actually played into some kind of taboo. The most common form of cross-pollination was ditching the initiative rules from 1E AD&D in favor of the rules from Moldvay, Mentzer, Holmes or just about anything else -including a coin flip to see who goes first.
Quote from: Eric Diaz on May 14, 2023, 01:14:00 PM
Well, if we go by page count, it is easy to see B/X is better if you like objectivity, AD&D if you like completeness. So, I was looking for specific examples as mentioned above.
Another thing I dislike in B/X (but not BECMI, RC): the borked cleric progression. Easy to fix, however.
But then when you leave B/X, and use the RC; you get the weakened thief.
Quote from: Elfdart on May 14, 2023, 09:53:38 PM
Most gamers mixed and matched pretty freely back in the olden days -before grogtards came along and tried to make the way 99% of players actually played into some kind of taboo.
I think OSRIC (plus Monks) is a pretty good rendition of how we actually played - no psionics, no weapon-vs-armour table, no weapon speed factors. Age 14 I wasn't familiar with B/X or BECMI though ("kiddy D&D"). For init it was 1d6 each side each round, higher roll goes first, probably round the table. No AD&D segments, no BX combat phases. Content was mostly homebrew open world stuff (with lots of loot - AC-6 at 6th level) with modules dropped in. Started at 3rd level, with Unearthed Arcana cavaliers, weapon spec, thief-acrobats - no 'Fantasy Vietnam'.
If some how I was pinned down to running a game that could only use rules from BEMCI/RC or AD&D (and versions of either), then I'd most likely use RC without race as class, and a few more classes adapted from AD&D 1E.
I agree with you on the -3/+3 range of the B/X attributes. Not coincidentally, also the typical bounds for magic items. To me, the wider bounds in AD&D has effects throughout the system, which I'd find it easier to avoid entirely rather than try to "fix" individually. ("Fix" because I don't like the effects, not because there is something inherently wrong with them.)
Outside those limits, I like what weapon master/specialization is trying to do, but I don't like any of the implementations in D&D. I like some skills, but I don't like any of their implementations, either. And I'm not sure anything could be done about that in either B/X or Advanced, without breaking some other things that I'd rather not break. Those things were tacked on later, and you can see the weld points. From my perspective, then, it would be roughly "take something that AD&D tried to do but do it in a B/X way". I get why some people would state that as going back to OD&D and applying a similar pattern.
I'd even be tempted to go that route, except at that point I'm instead where I did go: Make my own thing. There's a point where tinkering and mashups just lose something in the translation, as the side effects of changes are chased down and addressed.
Old school D&D rules are like a huge buffet. Take what you like and leave the rest. I prefer the core mechanics of B/X with other stuff thrown in as desired. Right now I am checking out OSE which is pretty much doing just that. The B/X core system is my favorite because the nuts and bolts of putting together stats for adventures is so much easier. Adding more class & race options is very easy to give players more options too. Back in the day we mixed B/X and AD&D published modules together all the time. Most things converted fairly easily. I love the AD&D books as reference sources for all kinds of things but the system as a whole is just too disjointed for day to day use at the table for my tastes.
To me this is totally a matter of personal preferences so only you know what you and your players really like/want.
I think OSE Advanced probably does the best job of mixing the two games, obviously leaning a bit towards the B/X side. But it adds a fair number of simplified AD&D options. Something like Advanced Labyrinth Lord, on the other hand, is probably more like how we played in the 80s, with stuff just kind of mashed together. We took the extra classes, spells, higher hit dice, and other options we liked and just added them to our game, which originally was B/X. So there were some discrepancies in power level or whatever, but we didn't care. Later, I played specifically in AD&D and BECMI games where the distinctions were kept.
Building on what others have said above, I've now settled on Swords & Wizardry as a great middle ground, albeit still with a few house rules, including a couple extra classic classes and races that aren't in the core rules. It provides the best of both worlds in having a lot of options, but with a super streamlined rules set that includes the awesome single saving throw mechanic. But you can pretty easily port stuff from either AD&D or B/X into it. Another feature I wasn't crazy about at first, but like now is that stat bonuses are generally just -1 to +1 so if you're doing 3d6 down the line, it's not as big a deal. But you could just as easily use B/X stat bonuses and import your custom stat rolling system. I use 4d6, drop the lowest, in order.
I started out with Basic, then leaped to 2e the moment I got my own books, and never looked back. I wanted skills (proficiencies), multiclassing, and races separate from class. I started out when 2e came out so I never even saw a 1e PHB till like a year after I got my 2e books, and didn't think it offered much that wasn't already in the 2e PHB or supplemented and expanded upon by the Complete X series.
I did hate the way that 2e handled ability score bonuses, though, and often thought of copying the -3 to +3 standardized range used in Basic a bunch of times, but always ended up using the 2e stuff out of force of habit, plus to avoid confusing with established 2e material.
Lots of people saying that they ditch AD&D initiative and weapon versus armor rules... I agree. I think these ideas are nice, but the implementation is terrible. Too complicated. But if these rules were simpler, I'd be happy to try them.
One thing I like about AD&D is that STR affects encumbrance. I don't use they AD&D rule, instead I allow one item (about 5 pounds) per point of STR.
OK, so I find myself in a similar situation, starting a D&D campaign with a group of newbies who I want to introduce to a pretty simple iteration of the game (at least at the beginning). What's the best Basic-like chassis to build off of and not give WotC any money?
Quote from: Eirikrautha on May 15, 2023, 11:08:20 PM
OK, so I find myself in a similar situation, starting a D&D campaign with a group of newbies who I want to introduce to a pretty simple iteration of the game (at least at the beginning). What's the best Basic-like chassis to build off of and not give WotC any money?
Especially for newbies I like
White Box: Fantasy Medieval Adventure Game best - it's Swords & Wizardry White Box (so single save), printed at-cost, in a very nice presentation. Can be complemented with free/at cost material from
Basic Fantasy RPG as desired (take 1 off BFRPG AC if you're a stickler) - there are some good BFRPG adventures such as JS Neal's
Monkey Isle.
Mind you you can get 5e Basic on Lulu and play 5e without giving WoTC any money - https://www.lulu.com/shop/mike-mearls/dd-5e-basic-set-combined-edition/paperback/product-15gke8w9.html?page=1&pageSize=4 - I'd say that was also very good for new players, and less lethal than OD&D as written.
Online version at https://www.dndbeyond.com/sources/basic-rules currently. It can be complemented with material from third party publishers and the 5e SRD. It would work great with Mystara, the Classic D&D world.
(Looking at the online version, it seems to have the entire SRD in it now, which turns it into standard 5e)
I'm wondering what the effects are of making certain changes. Like if you take the B/X ability score modifiers, that becomes particularly apparent in Strength.
A 13 Strength in B/X gives you a +1 to hit and damage, whereas you need a 17 Strength in AD&D for the same, and 18/75-76 in AD&D lines up with an 18 in B/X. If you're using B/X ability score modifiers and an AD&D module, do you re-calculate NPCs based on the B/X modifiers or do you keep the modifiers the same and adjust their Strength down?
Quote from: migo on May 16, 2023, 05:24:27 AM
If you're using B/X ability score modifiers and an AD&D module, do you re-calculate NPCs based on the B/X modifiers or do you keep the modifiers the same and adjust their Strength down?
I'd calculate their B/X combat stats based on their listed attributes in the D&D module. All the NPC Fighters probably have STR 18+ anyway. ;D
Going over Village of Hommlet, most of the Moathouse opposition have any damage bonus listed directly, eg +1 - I'd just use that in B/X. Only 2 enemy NPCs have listed stats:
The "Master's" lieutenant, a 4th level fighter-S 15, 112, W 10, D 15,
C 17, Ch 7-H.P.: 31; AC 1 (plate, shield, +1 for dexterity); move 6"; 1 attack by weapon. He has sword, hand axe, and dagger.
I'd use B/X statting: +1 to hit & damage for STR (instead of +0), -1 AC for DEX leaves AC unchanged at AC 1. He gets a +2 CON bonus in BX instead of +3 and d8 hd not d6, and I'd probably take 8 off his hp so HP 31>23.
THE NEW MASTER: 5th level cleric-S 18, I 9, W 18,
D 17, C 16, Ch 18-H.P.: 44; AC -1 (+1 plate with +3 for
dexterity); move 12"; staff of striking (20 charges) and mace.
I'd leave Lareth's stats unchanged, giving him +3/+3 in melee for STR, -2 AC for DEX 17 so AC -1 > AC 0. CON 16 gives +2 hp/die in both systems, but hd d8>d6, I'd take off 5 hp so HP 44 > 39.
Quote from: Eirikrautha on May 15, 2023, 11:08:20 PM
OK, so I find myself in a similar situation, starting a D&D campaign with a group of newbies who I want to introduce to a pretty simple iteration of the game (at least at the beginning). What's the best Basic-like chassis to build off of and not give WotC any money?
There are several to choose from. Old School Essentials, Labyrinth Lord, Swords & Wizardry, Basic Fantasy (which is completely free in pdf form) and several others. Any of the B/X clones will get you up and running pretty quick. You can always add advanced options in later after players have gotten a feel for the basic game.
Quote from: Eric Diaz on May 14, 2023, 11:31:23 AM
EDIT: changed the tile to be more clear; I'm mixing AD&D and B/X: what are you favorite rules to import/export?
---
I have written extensively about why I love B/X*. It is my favorite format of D&D, but mostly because it's very easy, simple, manageable, streamlined. The organization is much better, IMO.
However, when comparing specific rules, I often favor using AD&D. For example, I prefer AD&D's:
- Attack progression (+1 per level for fighters).
- Fighter boost (1 attack per level against HD lower than 1, multiple atacks).
- Magic-user nerf (chances of learning spells and I kinda like the idea of components. kinda).
- Turn undead rules (undead leaders make everyone harder to turn IIRC).
- Race separate from class.
- d6 HP for thieves.
OTOH I dislike:
- Messy attribute bonus instead of the neat -3/+3 of B/X.
- Bard and druid strange class progression.
- Weapon versus armor table (that contains arithmetic erros and not even Gygax used, apparently).
- d10 HPs for fighters.
I have been thinking of writing about my favorite AD&D rules, despite not being a big AD&D fan (well, except for the DMG, I love that book).
So, what are your favorite/least favorites when comparing AD&D to Basic (or even 2e, RC, etc.).
*https://methodsetmadness.blogspot.com/2023/01/a-glance-at-basic-d-bx-and-some-clones.html (https://methodsetmadness.blogspot.com/2023/01/a-glance-at-basic-d-bx-and-some-clones.html)
Check out Advanced Labyrinth Lord. It's a mash-up of B/X and AD&D 1st. you might like what you see. The no-art versions of LL and Adv LL are free on DriveThruRPG
Given the inherent lethality of old school D&D in all forms it's always been rather unfathomable to me why people would prefer lower HD for characters other than "It's tradition." That's the first thing we imported into our game when we got the PHB. d10 HD for fighters? d8 for clerics? d6 for thieves (not fucking rogues)? Yes, please! In the long run if you're rolling legit, there likely won't be a huge difference anyhow, but those few extra HP can be lifesaving at the lower levels.
Quote from: Persimmon on May 16, 2023, 09:52:57 AM
Given the inherent lethality of old school D&D in all forms it's always been rather unfathomable to me why people would prefer lower HD for characters other than "It's tradition." That's the first thing we imported into our game when we got the PHB. d10 HD for fighters? d8 for clerics? d6 for thieves (not fucking rogues)? Yes, please! In the long run if you're rolling legit, there likely won't be a huge difference anyhow, but those few extra HP can be lifesaving at the lower levels.
Regardless of the HD type used for various classes, we usually house ruled early on that all first level characters start with max possible hit points. Of course it can be argued that making starting characters too resilient will interfere with players decisions about how combat obstacles are approached. After all, one does not have to come up with clever solutions to problems when beating them over the head with a sword will get the job done. If one tries to play RAW B/X with the mentality encouraged by later WOTC editions then the game will be far more than lethal, it will be a series of suicide missions. Having run these older systems for players who learned to play from these newer editions I have seen this play out. B/X is especially dangerous since clerics don't have access to spells until 2nd level. To me, that was a strong hint that charging into battle at every opportunity wasn't the best survival strategy.
Quote from: Persimmon on May 16, 2023, 09:52:57 AM
Given the inherent lethality of old school D&D in all forms it's always been rather unfathomable to me why people would prefer lower HD for characters other than "It's tradition." That's the first thing we imported into our game when we got the PHB. d10 HD for fighters? d8 for clerics? d6 for thieves (not fucking rogues)? Yes, please! In the long run if you're rolling legit, there likely won't be a huge difference anyhow, but those few extra HP can be lifesaving at the lower levels.
In B/X the base assumption is all weapons do 1D6 damage, so the lower HD works fine. Oddly, due to how stat bonuses work, a 9th level B/X fighter might, on average, have more hit points than a 9th level AD&D fighter unless the AD&D fighter has a CON over 14.; they're both hitting 50 average HPs between 13-14 CON. Obviously at 18 CON the AD&D fighter is going to have a lot more. But say you have a 9th level thief w/18 CON; the B/X thief will average almost 50 HP, the same as the AD&D thief due to the cap of +2 HP.
I haven't worked out all the math, but stuff like this is pretty interesting. B/X allows for some very powerful characters if they have high stats, while AD&D seems to bump them up initially, and THEN recommends several stats above 15 for the bonuses. This is most likely straight out of the Greyhawk book to some degree, but the B/X stat bonuses are just better overall for non-fighter characters. It's very possible to have a B/X thief with high stats that overshadows a fighter of the same level in combat ability; throw in some magical armor and he might not even get hit as much. Hence, I think the AD&D progression promotes the fighter paradigm and probably has more to do with that than anything else just by going with the bonuses.
Quote from: Brad on May 16, 2023, 10:45:52 AM
Quote from: Persimmon on May 16, 2023, 09:52:57 AM
Given the inherent lethality of old school D&D in all forms it's always been rather unfathomable to me why people would prefer lower HD for characters other than "It's tradition." That's the first thing we imported into our game when we got the PHB. d10 HD for fighters? d8 for clerics? d6 for thieves (not fucking rogues)? Yes, please! In the long run if you're rolling legit, there likely won't be a huge difference anyhow, but those few extra HP can be lifesaving at the lower levels.
In B/X the base assumption is all weapons do 1D6 damage, so the lower HD works fine. Oddly, due to how stat bonuses work, a 9th level B/X fighter might, on average, have more hit points than a 9th level AD&D fighter unless the AD&D fighter has a CON over 14.; they're both hitting 50 average HPs between 13-14 CON. Obviously at 18 CON the AD&D fighter is going to have a lot more. But say you have a 9th level thief w/18 CON; the B/X thief will average almost 50 HP, the same as the AD&D thief due to the cap of +2 HP.
I haven't worked out all the math, but stuff like this is pretty interesting. B/X allows for some very powerful characters if they have high stats, while AD&D seems to bump them up initially, and THEN recommends several stats above 15 for the bonuses. This is most likely straight out of the Greyhawk book to some degree, but the B/X stat bonuses are just better overall for non-fighter characters. It's very possible to have a B/X thief with high stats that overshadows a fighter of the same level in combat ability; throw in some magical armor and he might not even get hit as much. Hence, I think the AD&D progression promotes the fighter paradigm and probably has more to do with that than anything else just by going with the bonuses.
Interesting points; and of course another difference with later editions is that the characters keep rolling for HP after name level rather than getting a fixed value, which skews things on the higher end.
Nowadays at first level I just have all characters add their total Con score to base HP, but all rolls are as is from level 1. This helps with survival at the low levels to a degree, but since we also use a fairly lethal Crit system, it doesn't matter too much, as death is still fairly common and even low level foes could potentially kill high level characters with good crit rolls. Also, since we're currently playing Swords & Wizardry, the ability score bonuses are pretty minimal.
Quote from: blackstone on May 16, 2023, 09:37:53 AM
Quote from: Eric Diaz on May 14, 2023, 11:31:23 AM
EDIT: changed the tile to be more clear; I'm mixing AD&D and B/X: what are you favorite rules to import/export?
---
I have written extensively about why I love B/X*. It is my favorite format of D&D, but mostly because it's very easy, simple, manageable, streamlined. The organization is much better, IMO.
However, when comparing specific rules, I often favor using AD&D. For example, I prefer AD&D's:
- Attack progression (+1 per level for fighters).
- Fighter boost (1 attack per level against HD lower than 1, multiple atacks).
- Magic-user nerf (chances of learning spells and I kinda like the idea of components. kinda).
- Turn undead rules (undead leaders make everyone harder to turn IIRC).
- Race separate from class.
- d6 HP for thieves.
OTOH I dislike:
- Messy attribute bonus instead of the neat -3/+3 of B/X.
- Bard and druid strange class progression.
- Weapon versus armor table (that contains arithmetic erros and not even Gygax used, apparently).
- d10 HPs for fighters.
I have been thinking of writing about my favorite AD&D rules, despite not being a big AD&D fan (well, except for the DMG, I love that book).
So, what are your favorite/least favorites when comparing AD&D to Basic (or even 2e, RC, etc.).
*https://methodsetmadness.blogspot.com/2023/01/a-glance-at-basic-d-bx-and-some-clones.html (https://methodsetmadness.blogspot.com/2023/01/a-glance-at-basic-d-bx-and-some-clones.html)
Check out Advanced Labyrinth Lord. It's a mash-up of B/X and AD&D 1st. you might like what you see. The no-art versions of LL and Adv LL are free on DriveThruRPG
This is good advice. I was actually writing an ALL hack before the OGL debacle hit, might finish the task one day, or start over with BFRPG CC version.
Quote from: migo on May 16, 2023, 05:24:27 AM
I'm wondering what the effects are of making certain changes. Like if you take the B/X ability score modifiers, that becomes particularly apparent in Strength.
A 13 Strength in B/X gives you a +1 to hit and damage, whereas you need a 17 Strength in AD&D for the same, and 18/75-76 in AD&D lines up with an 18 in B/X. If you're using B/X ability score modifiers and an AD&D module, do you re-calculate NPCs based on the B/X modifiers or do you keep the modifiers the same and adjust their Strength down?
TBH I just use damage as written, if attack bonus isn't listed a 4th level Fighter has +4.
I´m using published DCC, BFRPG and LotFP adventures and NPCs do not usually have abilities scores.
Quote from: Persimmon on May 16, 2023, 09:52:57 AM
Given the inherent lethality of old school D&D in all forms it's always been rather unfathomable to me why people would prefer lower HD for characters other than "It's tradition." That's the first thing we imported into our game when we got the PHB. d10 HD for fighters? d8 for clerics? d6 for thieves (not fucking rogues)? Yes, please! In the long run if you're rolling legit, there likely won't be a huge difference anyhow, but those few extra HP can be lifesaving at the lower levels.
For us, it was that the slight bump didn't really change anything. We either played with it as is, on the grounds that if you got into a fight without an edge, it was bad. Or we wanted more than a slight bump, if we were playing a different style.
There was a brief window when we ported the ranger into our B/X game where we flirted with the idea that all classes got 2 HD at first level, but still had to roll them. That was a strange mix, but fun in its own way. It meant that most characters were more resilient, but you'd get the occasional really tough guy and sometimes still the "one minor hit away from death" other extreme.
Quote from: Persimmon on May 16, 2023, 09:52:57 AM
Given the inherent lethality of old school D&D in all forms it's always been rather unfathomable to me why people would prefer lower HD for characters other than "It's tradition." That's the first thing we imported into our game when we got the PHB. d10 HD for fighters? d8 for clerics? d6 for thieves (not fucking rogues)? Yes, please! In the long run if you're rolling legit, there likely won't be a huge difference anyhow, but those few extra HP can be lifesaving at the lower levels.
At some point, most DMs and players put their foot down at stat inflation. For some, it's going from a d6 to a d10 for a fighting man's hit points, for others it's turning dragons into Godzilla.
FWIW I started reading the DMG cover to cover to see if I could find any gold (to use in my B/X games)... already found things I like and things I dislike.
Here are parts I and II.
https://methodsetmadness.blogspot.com/2023/05/ad-dmg-cover-to-cover-part-i-pages-1-9.html
https://methodsetmadness.blogspot.com/2023/05/ad-dmg-cover-to-cover-part-ii-pages-9-22.html
Maybe I should start a thread with the full text if people are interested in this discussion here.
Quote from: Eric Diaz on May 22, 2023, 08:52:53 PM
FWIW I started reading the DMG cover to cover to see if I could find any gold (to use in my B/X games)... already found things I like and things I dislike.
Here are parts I and II.
https://methodsetmadness.blogspot.com/2023/05/ad-dmg-cover-to-cover-part-i-pages-1-9.html
https://methodsetmadness.blogspot.com/2023/05/ad-dmg-cover-to-cover-part-ii-pages-9-22.html
Maybe I should start a thread with the full text if people are interested in this discussion here.
Sure, interesting posts, but this comment: "the art is not impressive"...
Nay, good sir, you miss the point. The art makes the DMG. It is much less sophisticated and more humorous than you'd expect, and lets the reader in on the secret to being a good DM. Where the text seems strict, uptight, unyielding, etc., the art is goofy, funny, evocative, and varied. Being a good DM is about rulings, not rules, and this whimsy expresses the point better than words. Some of the more serious stuff like the dude trying to escape a skeleton in some sort of underwater dungeon are the parts of running the game that drive home the imminent death aspect; PCs will die. But then you get the characters trying to infiltrate the wererats demonstrating the ultimate aspect of being a DM: dealing with utter nonsensical horseshit the players will devise to circumvent the maniacal plans you have concocted to bring about their doom. So you learn to roll with both and how the game is in the end a game, nothing more, nothing less. You take it seriously because it is FUN to take it seriously, but you also understand that serious fun is better with a little bit of lighthearted humor. It's like the John Candy eating popcorn story from Superbowl 23...that is the essence of the game.
Yes, nice!
I'm still on page 22, so I only glanced through the art so far, but I like this kind of different perspective.
Still think the art is not impressive, but yes, it might serve a function well.
AD&D has its diehard fans and detractors, but I'm a bit in the middle here so I like to hear from people that have different takes from me.
AD&D has a much more robust random dungeon gen system, wilderness gen, etc. All those little tables for generating stuff can be useful in BX.
Another thing to port over are the sections on gems and materials and their magic propertied.
Little things that never made it to BX.
My current TSR D&D and AD&D mashup looks essentially like this:
RC is the core book. So stat modifieers and most basic rules are done by D&D method: the -3 to +3 stat mods: Combat, morale, spells, monsters, wilderness exploration etc is done by the RC/BE/B/X. I skipp Weapon Mastery. AD&D variations can be used when addressing stuff not covered by the RC. Want to skin a dragon and make armor? AD&D covers that.
I simply add the AD&D core books as splatbooks. The players choose races and classes from the PHB( I add in half-orcs and assassins back into the game).
Spellcasters will mainly use spells from D&D because they are not as bloated in their descriptions. Rules for handling spellbooks is taken from AD&D 2ed. No specialist wizards or domain clerics. Specialist wizards could theoretically be handled as in the Glantri Gazetteer. Clerics of a specific god could theoretically be handled with Legend&Lore as a guideline, but no change to the clerical spell list by spheres. Except for druids of course.
I have implemented a nerfed version of weapon vs armor by decreasing all modifiers by 1 step closer to zero. This give far fewer modifiers to keep track of. The RC armors list , which I use, is a bit shorter list than AD&D's and I think I've found a manageable varation on the concept.
I don't use weapon proficiens. I use critical hits and a simplified progression for multiple attacks for warrior classes. So no 1.5 nr of attacks per round.
I don't use AD&D non-weapon proficiens except for when they tie into class abilities. Form example the Druid and the Ranger.
I think a stopp now so this post doesn't get any longer. But it is my way how to do it.
But in this day and age you might as well just use Advanced Labyrinth Lord, BX Advanced, OSE Advanced etc etc, to gain similar results.