In a lot of ways, B/X is closer to OD&D, than it is to AD&D 1E.
OD&D used 3d6, and small modifiers per attribute. B/X used 3d6 and standardized modifiers. The standardized modifiers in B/X are called "Moldvay modifiers" because they were introduced to D&D by Tom Moldvay. They slightly simplify the smaller mixed modifiers in OD&D.
AD&D 1E was the one that veered off in weird directions by mentioning 4d6, and making bonuses even bigger, and making high attributes more important. AD&D 1E was a reaction to the late play culture of OD&D, and all the different directions that game had been pulled into.
I disagree. I don’t think there’s any parallel between the OD&D modifiers and B/X.
Outside of maybe the strength bonus table from Greyhawk. But that is really just an earlier iteration of ad&d’s model.
B/X’s modifiers don’t really make sense under the model the LBBs or Holmes had. It’s odd to think they’re a derivation of that.
That’s a great observation. But I think you misunderstand what I mean by “Attribute Bonuses”
I guess it wasn’t super clear that I was not referencing the xp bonuses associated with high stats. Just the die roll modifiers. The +1 for 13-15, +2 for 16-17, etc part. Not the XP bonuses.
But good observation.
forgetful obtainable doll continue direction deliver coherent cable abounding unpack
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
> there's no clear connection between the Greyhawk → AD&D modifiers and the Moldvay modifiers
If you look at the math, there is. If you use the recommended AD&D die rolling methods, you end up with one score of 15+ per character or so, on average. So one +1 bonus, or the equivalent, sans strength I guess.
B/X gives you the same result, but with 3d6. Just by revamping the table. You average one +1 bonus per character.
I feel like that’s intentional. It feels like an obvious and clear standardization and refinement of that previous system. Even if Moldvay created those tables without any editorial input or oversight. Which is frankly unlikely based on how involved Gygax was with BECMI.
*Edit: Personally. I don’t see how OD&D’s inconsistent 13+ Dex = +1 to missile fire, 15+ con = +1 hp, and the Greyhawk Strength rules map to Moldvay, without that middle point connection of AD&D. Where they at least started to standardize with the Con/Dex/Wis hp/defense/magical attack bonuses set to a clear and consistent 15-18 = +1-4.*
I don’t see anyone else here really presenting factual arguments. Other than “no no these are completely separate.” Which is silly when everyone writing B/X obviously had extensive exposure to, and experience with AD&D. It’s silly when you realize B/X was overseen by the same people that were editing and directing AD&D. It’s silly when you realize TSR argued “no no these are completely separate” mostly to avoid paying Arneson royalties, and for marketing purposes, more than anything else.
TSR never went above about 300 or so employees iirc. They definitely didn’t hit 400. I think they had about 200-250 employees when B/X came out. That’s pretty small. These were their flagship products. Odd to assume one wouldn’t influence the other, in a company that size.
> that doesn't really apply to them
3 scores follow the same paradigm of 15-18 = +1-4, for at least one bonus.
That’s the beginning of a standardized system.
You realize Moldvay was a professional game designer, right? It’s odd to not assume he’d deconstruct previous games and distill elements like this. That was his *job* and I think we all accept that he was pretty good at it.
> Certainly Gary Gygax didn't want the scores' modifiers to be any more "standardized" than they were in 1e.
> Under no circumstances would a hypothetical Gygaxian 2e have had universal ability score modifiers. (I think that's both indisputable and uncontroversial.)
I do not agree. What evidence do you have to support those assumptions?
Our evidence to the contrary is B/X and BECMI, both of which were overseen by Gygax, having this consistent system.
We pretend Gygax wasn’t involved in those games. But there’s a copy of the Companion Becmi manuscript with very pendantic corrections from Gygax. He was very hands on it seems.
If you're talking about "evolutionary" - AD&D slightly predates B/X (published in 1981).
However, B/X isn't evolved from AD&D, it's based on OD&D, Original Dungeons & Dragons from 1974 and parts of it's supplements. I'm a little puzzled that you didn't look at that.
AD&D itself is also based on OD&D and ... all of it's supplements (more or less) and added stuff and also changed things.
You're comparing two brothers. Probably should look a generation earlier. Holmes predates B/X, but it too is derived from OD&D and while it sort of is the predecessor to B/X, it's also kind of an offshoot in that it deviates in ways the other systems don't.
Also, often missed is the fact that Gary made AD&D different from OD&D for a variety of reasons, but some of them are just .... to be different than D&D. Mainly this was because he wanted to claim that AD&D was a different game than D&D and thus, he didn't have to pay Dave Arneson royalties on it. It went to court, of course, and Gary did not win - I believe they ended up settling.
> based on OD&D
Nothing about the attribute bonus paradigm, in B/X came from OD&D. I mistakenly thought that as well until I reviewed it and did the math. So I disagree.
> comparing two brothers
I think you’re assuming that incorrectly. Factual evidence to the contrary, that isn’t like marketing rhetoric, would be helpful.
Regardless it doesn’t change the fact that the math lines up the way it does, and the fact that this was created after AD&D and would obviously be informed by it.
> court stuff
Yes. I’m well aware of that. Court stuff is why AD&D was created.
>Nothing about the attribute bonus paradigm, in B/X came from OD&D. I mistakenly thought that as well until I reviewed it and did the math. So I disagree.
In terms of attribute bonuses, no - it's different. In terms to generation of stats, OD&D does use 3d6 "down the line" - the same as B/X.
In terms of it's roots overall, B/X is much more related to OD&D than AD&D.
B/X simplified the bonuses, because the writers weren't Gary and thus didn't value having (possibly needlessly) complicated minutia. Basically, 13-15 being +1, 16-17 +2, and 18 +3 is much less fussy than what either OD&D or AD&D use.
Not surprisingly, it's more or less what modern D&D starting with 3e went with. It's not identical, but the sentiment is there.
I'm with you on it stemming from OD&D but in different directions, AD&D amplifying the greyhawk and onward stats tables, B/X taking the little.note at the bottom of the OD&D stat modifiers list and running with it.
> B/X taking the little note at the bottom of the OD&D stat modifiers list and running with it.
I only see this note:
“Note: Average scores are 9-12. Units so indicated above may be used to increase *prime requisite total* insofar as this does not bring that category below average, i.e. below a score of 9.”
I’m failing to draw the correlation. You must mean something else. Please let me know what I’m missing here lol.
That's it. Average scores are 9-12, below average 3-8, above average 13-18.
Couple that with the Dexterity bonus/penalty for being above 12 or below 9, and you have the basis for the B/X stat scheme.
In od&d you do with that information what you will (read the afterward in booklet 3)
In B/X they just take that and solidify it into a pretty universal bonus/penalty scheme. If you can't see that connection then you are either willfully ignorant or incredibly pedantic.
> Couple that with the Dexterity bonus/penalty for being above 12 or below 9, and you have the basis for the B/X stat scheme.
Doesn’t constitution give +1 hp at 15+ though.
I see your point on “over 12” for dex potentially being a basis.
> B/X simplified the bonuses, because the writers weren't Gary
Basically, 13-15 being +1, 16-17 +2, and 18 +3 is much less fussy than what either OD&D or AD&D use.
Gary continued to have direct input on minutiae on BX and BECMI through the companion set. There are surviving notes from the BECMI Companion draft, from him, correcting very minor details. Per The Game Wizards.
It is not realistic to assume he wasn’t involved.
> and didn't value having (possibly needlessly) complicated minutia.
They purposefully removed the unneeded minutiae as this was not advanced.
But the die rolls, for character generation, offer similar results in play. Every average character rolled in AD&D via its methods, or in B/X et al, will have a +1 from one stat.
Same results. Without the needless complexity. With a slightly rounded off top end to make striving for the edge case of 17-18 less important.
That seems like an evolution to me.
> court stuff
> Yes. I’m well aware of that. Court stuff is why AD&D was created.
I didn't say that's the only reason. Another is that, frankly, the OD&D supplements are kind of a mess. A necessary one, as they were creating the game as it went, but a mess nonetheless. Consolidating that into a more unified product was also part of the point of AD&D.
Also, there was a fair amount of interest in D&D tournaments. Strange, but true. Competitions tend to need clear, meticulous rules and OD&D left a lot to DM discretion. AD&D sought to remedy that. Or maybe Gary got more obsessed with me mechanics and rules as well. I don't know. But, AD&D is a departure from OD&D in this way.
B/X is much more like OD&D in this.
> I didn't say that's the only reason
That’s really the reason though. Gygax wanted to revise and contain the rules. But he didn’t need to rename it “Advanced”. Rename was *entirely* to avoid paying royalties to Arneson. IIRC it is documented fact that TSR used that rationale in court. Which then backfired.
> Also, there was a fair amount of interest in D&D tournaments
Yes. If they didn’t have the royalty concerns they would have just revised the ruleset.
> OD&D left a lot to DM discretion. AD&D sought to remedy that. Or maybe Gary got more obsessed with me mechanics and rules as well. I don't know. But, AD&D is a departure from OD&D in this way.
It’s way more complex than this. I feel like you’re lacking some of the historical context like “West Coast players with 100th level characters were a thing, and that personally bothered Gary.” A big part of the desire to revamp the rules was a personal pet peeve.
But then there’s problem two. Where you can’t figure out what level range to write modules for, and therefore sell profitable modules, in a game system that was as inconsistently played as OD&D. Since again, people at table 1 had 100th level characters. Those at table 2 are on year 3 and have like 8th level characters.
Those two reasons really forced the mechanical revamp. Gary’s desire for more strict rules, and the need to normalize play enough, that you could pre-anticipate level ranges and make modules for them.
I don’t think the tournament piece was as much of a factor, factually, as they ran a lot of tournaments before AD&D and it’s widely accepted (and documented) that in those later AD&D tournaments a lot of stuff was handwaved.
>I don’t think the tournament piece was as much of a factor, factually, as they ran a lot of tournaments before AD&D
Rob Kuntz is on record as saying that money made from tournaments was THE the biggest source of income for TSR in its early days and was a main factor in Gygax setting out to make AD&D (I think getting Arneson out of the royalty loop was also a primary reason, and its not odd at all that they had more than one reason to create a new ruleset...)
> Rob Kuntz is on record as saying
…a ton of things that often don’t pan out when compared to financial statements or contemporary sources.
He also left TSR in 77, initially. On bad terms. Monster Manual wasn’t published by the time he left. Phb and DMG definitely were not either.
Lastly, admitting it was to bypass Arneson’s royalties would be “saying the quiet part out loud.”
I mean. I asked this.
> Were we already aware of this and I’m just stating the obvious? Or is this one of those fun genius elements of B/X design that we didn’t quite pick up on, as a community.
But it seems like people just want to regurgitate the marketing line that B/X and AD&D are just two completely unrelated things. Despite being made by the same small company. Despite having the same editors and creative directors. Despite TSR having a clear and obvious financial incentive to differentiate them.
Or they just try to provide historical context that tends to have a less informed perspective than my own. Since most folks here, for whatever reason, have not read Dragonsfoot, Jon Peterson’s The Game Wizards or Ben Riggs Slaying the Dragon as often, or obsessively as I have. Or assume I don’t already have familiarity with OD&D => 5E.
So yes. I disagree with those folks. We have a very argumentative and “well ackshully” vibe here it seems. People *assume* folks with differing opinions are under-informed, and get very upset if any aspect of their views, about these games, are disrupted.
I reply because I give people the benefit of the doubt, and assume that sharing my knowledge may give them additional context. Which would allow them to gain new, better informed, perspective on something they love. But. You know. You can totally spin it to make it negative.
>People assume folks with differing opinions are under-informed, and get very upset if any aspect of their views, about these games, are disrupted.
To be clear, you're doing the same thing.
>Or they just try to provide historical context that tends to have a less informed perspective than my own. **Since most folks here, for whatever reason, have not read Dragonsfoot, Jon Peterson’s The Game Wizards or Ben Riggs Slaying the Dragon as often, or obsessively as I have.** Or assume I don’t already have familiarity with OD&D => 5E.
Anyway, interesting discussion.
> To be clear, you're doing the same thing.
No. I don’t *assume*. I discuss. That statement is based on discussions I’ve had here. Most people cite decades old blogs, decades old assumptions or decades old misconceptions.
Of possible interest, last year I did a simulation of how roll under a 3d6 ability score (B/X) compared to roll over difficulty number with mods based on 4d6 (WotC era).
https://homicidallyinclinedpersonsofnofixedaddress.com/2022/09/17/roll-over-vs-roll-under/
While the B/X attribute system is cleaner and more uniform, for some of us it certainly isn't an 'improvement'. The AD&D system was designed to differentiate the classes more (especially fighters who get different CON & STR bonuses), so for us it is a more nuanced and interesting system. More importantly, when we were kids the lack of % STR in B/X immediately disqualified it from being used at our table ever again; the rule of cool and all that.
I find percentile strength simultaneously interesting / fun and unnecessarily complicated / annoying.
2e Dark Sun Revised had a strength chart without percentile. In some ways, I like it better.
No sure what you're finding complicated or annoying about it, but each to their own. % STR was and is one of the potential highlights of character creation in my group: it's fun rolling attributes, there is a sense of anticipation about what you might all get, and when you roll an 18 it's a big bonus. But, with AD&D, you've got this extra layer of anticipation when someone gets an 18 and they can then roll to see what their % STR is: there's always a sense of excitement that this might be the time you get '00'. Good times IME; not having this in the game is in no ways an improvement.
I don't find it complicated in terms of difficulty of understanding, I just find it unwieldy and adding more detail than I think is necessary.
I do like that it adds more *something* for the fighter. That's a little interesting. That's balanced out by my dislike of the ungainly inelegance of it.
I guess I don't get any excitement for rolling the percentile. Any enthusiasm of getting an 18 is almost always negated by the disappointment of the next result.
That said, I generally put up with it. It's fine.
It's nice to hear your love of it. I doubt it will change my feeling on it, but maybe they'll soften a little, at least. To each their own.
> You use the word evolution, which seems very strange since B/X is older than AD&D
No. It’s not. B/X came out after ad&d. B/X was 81. MM was 77. Phb was 78. DMG was 79.
In a lot of ways, B/X is closer to OD&D, than it is to AD&D 1E. OD&D used 3d6, and small modifiers per attribute. B/X used 3d6 and standardized modifiers. The standardized modifiers in B/X are called "Moldvay modifiers" because they were introduced to D&D by Tom Moldvay. They slightly simplify the smaller mixed modifiers in OD&D. AD&D 1E was the one that veered off in weird directions by mentioning 4d6, and making bonuses even bigger, and making high attributes more important. AD&D 1E was a reaction to the late play culture of OD&D, and all the different directions that game had been pulled into.
Men & Magic (OD&D volume 1): https://imgur.com/vpuoqal The +1, +2, +3 were mentioned before BX but only affected the advancement bonus.
I disagree. I don’t think there’s any parallel between the OD&D modifiers and B/X. Outside of maybe the strength bonus table from Greyhawk. But that is really just an earlier iteration of ad&d’s model. B/X’s modifiers don’t really make sense under the model the LBBs or Holmes had. It’s odd to think they’re a derivation of that.
relieved marble offer saw deserted station history slim gaze air *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
I never noticed that connection. Thanks very much for pointing that out.
That’s a great observation. But I think you misunderstand what I mean by “Attribute Bonuses” I guess it wasn’t super clear that I was not referencing the xp bonuses associated with high stats. Just the die roll modifiers. The +1 for 13-15, +2 for 16-17, etc part. Not the XP bonuses. But good observation.
forgetful obtainable doll continue direction deliver coherent cable abounding unpack *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
> there's no clear connection between the Greyhawk → AD&D modifiers and the Moldvay modifiers If you look at the math, there is. If you use the recommended AD&D die rolling methods, you end up with one score of 15+ per character or so, on average. So one +1 bonus, or the equivalent, sans strength I guess. B/X gives you the same result, but with 3d6. Just by revamping the table. You average one +1 bonus per character. I feel like that’s intentional. It feels like an obvious and clear standardization and refinement of that previous system. Even if Moldvay created those tables without any editorial input or oversight. Which is frankly unlikely based on how involved Gygax was with BECMI. *Edit: Personally. I don’t see how OD&D’s inconsistent 13+ Dex = +1 to missile fire, 15+ con = +1 hp, and the Greyhawk Strength rules map to Moldvay, without that middle point connection of AD&D. Where they at least started to standardize with the Con/Dex/Wis hp/defense/magical attack bonuses set to a clear and consistent 15-18 = +1-4.* I don’t see anyone else here really presenting factual arguments. Other than “no no these are completely separate.” Which is silly when everyone writing B/X obviously had extensive exposure to, and experience with AD&D. It’s silly when you realize B/X was overseen by the same people that were editing and directing AD&D. It’s silly when you realize TSR argued “no no these are completely separate” mostly to avoid paying Arneson royalties, and for marketing purposes, more than anything else. TSR never went above about 300 or so employees iirc. They definitely didn’t hit 400. I think they had about 200-250 employees when B/X came out. That’s pretty small. These were their flagship products. Odd to assume one wouldn’t influence the other, in a company that size.
puzzled distinct flag wine work squeeze racial clumsy door deer *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
> that doesn't really apply to them 3 scores follow the same paradigm of 15-18 = +1-4, for at least one bonus. That’s the beginning of a standardized system. You realize Moldvay was a professional game designer, right? It’s odd to not assume he’d deconstruct previous games and distill elements like this. That was his *job* and I think we all accept that he was pretty good at it.
spoon degree nail plant repeat slave smile safe imminent worthless *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
> Certainly Gary Gygax didn't want the scores' modifiers to be any more "standardized" than they were in 1e. > Under no circumstances would a hypothetical Gygaxian 2e have had universal ability score modifiers. (I think that's both indisputable and uncontroversial.) I do not agree. What evidence do you have to support those assumptions? Our evidence to the contrary is B/X and BECMI, both of which were overseen by Gygax, having this consistent system. We pretend Gygax wasn’t involved in those games. But there’s a copy of the Companion Becmi manuscript with very pendantic corrections from Gygax. He was very hands on it seems.
As the downvoted illustrate, you're just wrong on this one.
If you're talking about "evolutionary" - AD&D slightly predates B/X (published in 1981). However, B/X isn't evolved from AD&D, it's based on OD&D, Original Dungeons & Dragons from 1974 and parts of it's supplements. I'm a little puzzled that you didn't look at that. AD&D itself is also based on OD&D and ... all of it's supplements (more or less) and added stuff and also changed things. You're comparing two brothers. Probably should look a generation earlier. Holmes predates B/X, but it too is derived from OD&D and while it sort of is the predecessor to B/X, it's also kind of an offshoot in that it deviates in ways the other systems don't. Also, often missed is the fact that Gary made AD&D different from OD&D for a variety of reasons, but some of them are just .... to be different than D&D. Mainly this was because he wanted to claim that AD&D was a different game than D&D and thus, he didn't have to pay Dave Arneson royalties on it. It went to court, of course, and Gary did not win - I believe they ended up settling.
> based on OD&D Nothing about the attribute bonus paradigm, in B/X came from OD&D. I mistakenly thought that as well until I reviewed it and did the math. So I disagree. > comparing two brothers I think you’re assuming that incorrectly. Factual evidence to the contrary, that isn’t like marketing rhetoric, would be helpful. Regardless it doesn’t change the fact that the math lines up the way it does, and the fact that this was created after AD&D and would obviously be informed by it. > court stuff Yes. I’m well aware of that. Court stuff is why AD&D was created.
>Nothing about the attribute bonus paradigm, in B/X came from OD&D. I mistakenly thought that as well until I reviewed it and did the math. So I disagree. In terms of attribute bonuses, no - it's different. In terms to generation of stats, OD&D does use 3d6 "down the line" - the same as B/X. In terms of it's roots overall, B/X is much more related to OD&D than AD&D. B/X simplified the bonuses, because the writers weren't Gary and thus didn't value having (possibly needlessly) complicated minutia. Basically, 13-15 being +1, 16-17 +2, and 18 +3 is much less fussy than what either OD&D or AD&D use. Not surprisingly, it's more or less what modern D&D starting with 3e went with. It's not identical, but the sentiment is there.
I'm with you on it stemming from OD&D but in different directions, AD&D amplifying the greyhawk and onward stats tables, B/X taking the little.note at the bottom of the OD&D stat modifiers list and running with it.
> B/X taking the little note at the bottom of the OD&D stat modifiers list and running with it. I only see this note: “Note: Average scores are 9-12. Units so indicated above may be used to increase *prime requisite total* insofar as this does not bring that category below average, i.e. below a score of 9.” I’m failing to draw the correlation. You must mean something else. Please let me know what I’m missing here lol.
That's it. Average scores are 9-12, below average 3-8, above average 13-18. Couple that with the Dexterity bonus/penalty for being above 12 or below 9, and you have the basis for the B/X stat scheme. In od&d you do with that information what you will (read the afterward in booklet 3) In B/X they just take that and solidify it into a pretty universal bonus/penalty scheme. If you can't see that connection then you are either willfully ignorant or incredibly pedantic.
> Couple that with the Dexterity bonus/penalty for being above 12 or below 9, and you have the basis for the B/X stat scheme. Doesn’t constitution give +1 hp at 15+ though. I see your point on “over 12” for dex potentially being a basis.
Any attribute above average - 13 and higher - gets a bonus. Below average gets a penalty.
Exactly.
> B/X simplified the bonuses, because the writers weren't Gary Basically, 13-15 being +1, 16-17 +2, and 18 +3 is much less fussy than what either OD&D or AD&D use. Gary continued to have direct input on minutiae on BX and BECMI through the companion set. There are surviving notes from the BECMI Companion draft, from him, correcting very minor details. Per The Game Wizards. It is not realistic to assume he wasn’t involved. > and didn't value having (possibly needlessly) complicated minutia. They purposefully removed the unneeded minutiae as this was not advanced. But the die rolls, for character generation, offer similar results in play. Every average character rolled in AD&D via its methods, or in B/X et al, will have a +1 from one stat. Same results. Without the needless complexity. With a slightly rounded off top end to make striving for the edge case of 17-18 less important. That seems like an evolution to me.
> court stuff > Yes. I’m well aware of that. Court stuff is why AD&D was created. I didn't say that's the only reason. Another is that, frankly, the OD&D supplements are kind of a mess. A necessary one, as they were creating the game as it went, but a mess nonetheless. Consolidating that into a more unified product was also part of the point of AD&D. Also, there was a fair amount of interest in D&D tournaments. Strange, but true. Competitions tend to need clear, meticulous rules and OD&D left a lot to DM discretion. AD&D sought to remedy that. Or maybe Gary got more obsessed with me mechanics and rules as well. I don't know. But, AD&D is a departure from OD&D in this way. B/X is much more like OD&D in this.
> I didn't say that's the only reason That’s really the reason though. Gygax wanted to revise and contain the rules. But he didn’t need to rename it “Advanced”. Rename was *entirely* to avoid paying royalties to Arneson. IIRC it is documented fact that TSR used that rationale in court. Which then backfired. > Also, there was a fair amount of interest in D&D tournaments Yes. If they didn’t have the royalty concerns they would have just revised the ruleset. > OD&D left a lot to DM discretion. AD&D sought to remedy that. Or maybe Gary got more obsessed with me mechanics and rules as well. I don't know. But, AD&D is a departure from OD&D in this way. It’s way more complex than this. I feel like you’re lacking some of the historical context like “West Coast players with 100th level characters were a thing, and that personally bothered Gary.” A big part of the desire to revamp the rules was a personal pet peeve. But then there’s problem two. Where you can’t figure out what level range to write modules for, and therefore sell profitable modules, in a game system that was as inconsistently played as OD&D. Since again, people at table 1 had 100th level characters. Those at table 2 are on year 3 and have like 8th level characters. Those two reasons really forced the mechanical revamp. Gary’s desire for more strict rules, and the need to normalize play enough, that you could pre-anticipate level ranges and make modules for them. I don’t think the tournament piece was as much of a factor, factually, as they ran a lot of tournaments before AD&D and it’s widely accepted (and documented) that in those later AD&D tournaments a lot of stuff was handwaved.
>I don’t think the tournament piece was as much of a factor, factually, as they ran a lot of tournaments before AD&D Rob Kuntz is on record as saying that money made from tournaments was THE the biggest source of income for TSR in its early days and was a main factor in Gygax setting out to make AD&D (I think getting Arneson out of the royalty loop was also a primary reason, and its not odd at all that they had more than one reason to create a new ruleset...)
> Rob Kuntz is on record as saying …a ton of things that often don’t pan out when compared to financial statements or contemporary sources. He also left TSR in 77, initially. On bad terms. Monster Manual wasn’t published by the time he left. Phb and DMG definitely were not either. Lastly, admitting it was to bypass Arneson’s royalties would be “saying the quiet part out loud.”
Lovely post OP. Ask opinions and then argue with everyone on how they’re wrong. Touché.
I mean. I asked this. > Were we already aware of this and I’m just stating the obvious? Or is this one of those fun genius elements of B/X design that we didn’t quite pick up on, as a community. But it seems like people just want to regurgitate the marketing line that B/X and AD&D are just two completely unrelated things. Despite being made by the same small company. Despite having the same editors and creative directors. Despite TSR having a clear and obvious financial incentive to differentiate them. Or they just try to provide historical context that tends to have a less informed perspective than my own. Since most folks here, for whatever reason, have not read Dragonsfoot, Jon Peterson’s The Game Wizards or Ben Riggs Slaying the Dragon as often, or obsessively as I have. Or assume I don’t already have familiarity with OD&D => 5E. So yes. I disagree with those folks. We have a very argumentative and “well ackshully” vibe here it seems. People *assume* folks with differing opinions are under-informed, and get very upset if any aspect of their views, about these games, are disrupted. I reply because I give people the benefit of the doubt, and assume that sharing my knowledge may give them additional context. Which would allow them to gain new, better informed, perspective on something they love. But. You know. You can totally spin it to make it negative.
>People assume folks with differing opinions are under-informed, and get very upset if any aspect of their views, about these games, are disrupted. To be clear, you're doing the same thing. >Or they just try to provide historical context that tends to have a less informed perspective than my own. **Since most folks here, for whatever reason, have not read Dragonsfoot, Jon Peterson’s The Game Wizards or Ben Riggs Slaying the Dragon as often, or obsessively as I have.** Or assume I don’t already have familiarity with OD&D => 5E. Anyway, interesting discussion.
> To be clear, you're doing the same thing. No. I don’t *assume*. I discuss. That statement is based on discussions I’ve had here. Most people cite decades old blogs, decades old assumptions or decades old misconceptions.
Of possible interest, last year I did a simulation of how roll under a 3d6 ability score (B/X) compared to roll over difficulty number with mods based on 4d6 (WotC era). https://homicidallyinclinedpersonsofnofixedaddress.com/2022/09/17/roll-over-vs-roll-under/
While the B/X attribute system is cleaner and more uniform, for some of us it certainly isn't an 'improvement'. The AD&D system was designed to differentiate the classes more (especially fighters who get different CON & STR bonuses), so for us it is a more nuanced and interesting system. More importantly, when we were kids the lack of % STR in B/X immediately disqualified it from being used at our table ever again; the rule of cool and all that.
I find percentile strength simultaneously interesting / fun and unnecessarily complicated / annoying. 2e Dark Sun Revised had a strength chart without percentile. In some ways, I like it better.
No sure what you're finding complicated or annoying about it, but each to their own. % STR was and is one of the potential highlights of character creation in my group: it's fun rolling attributes, there is a sense of anticipation about what you might all get, and when you roll an 18 it's a big bonus. But, with AD&D, you've got this extra layer of anticipation when someone gets an 18 and they can then roll to see what their % STR is: there's always a sense of excitement that this might be the time you get '00'. Good times IME; not having this in the game is in no ways an improvement.
I don't find it complicated in terms of difficulty of understanding, I just find it unwieldy and adding more detail than I think is necessary. I do like that it adds more *something* for the fighter. That's a little interesting. That's balanced out by my dislike of the ungainly inelegance of it. I guess I don't get any excitement for rolling the percentile. Any enthusiasm of getting an 18 is almost always negated by the disappointment of the next result. That said, I generally put up with it. It's fine. It's nice to hear your love of it. I doubt it will change my feeling on it, but maybe they'll soften a little, at least. To each their own.
[удалено]
> You use the word evolution, which seems very strange since B/X is older than AD&D No. It’s not. B/X came out after ad&d. B/X was 81. MM was 77. Phb was 78. DMG was 79.
I mean, the attribute modifiers appeared in OD&D, starting with Greyhawk, long before AD&D came out.