AD&D versus D&D

[GRWelsh]

Today I was thinking about why I prefer AD&D over OD&D. D&D was co-authored by Gary Gygax and Dave Arneson and was much more open ended and loose. I tend to view AD&D as EGG's version of D&D and the direction he wanted the game to go in (I'm going to avoid any discussion about Arneson royalties or establishing a tournament standard). To me, AD&D is like a culmination of the game up to that point, with everything consolidated into an improved system. I find AD&D superior for a few reasons: (1) game mechanics are superior based upon better explanations (not always but mostly), feedback of what players like, and playtesting; for example more options for ability score generation, high hit dice for certain classes, 1st level clerics being able to cast spells, variable weapon damage, and the 'not dying at 0 hp' option; (2) more and higher level spells, more magic items, more monsters, more play options with additional races and classes; (3) EGG's essays of advice, which I still enjoy going back and reading; (4) superior format in hardback books that were high quality and bound better than most books from the past ~45 years with tables of contents and indexes; (5) lots more illustrations, which I especially like for monsters... I'll never forget the first time I leafed through the MONSTER MANUAL!*

P. S. I wrote that down because sometimes people ask me why I like 1st edition AD&D so much and/or why I like the World of Greyhawk so much. I don't always have an articulate answer.

*I was going to list nostalgia as my sixth reason, which it certainly is, but that isn't a relevant point to make to a person who isn't roughly in my age category, so I left it out.

[rredmond]

Gygax's essays of advice are always a big draw! For me I enjoy AD&D (1e) mostly because of nostalgia. It's the game I played in Middle and High School. It's the game I play with my friends from HS now (via Skype), so yes nostalgia is big piece of it. I realize I play it in a stripped down, maybe OD&Dish way, if that makes sense. I try to stick to the core three books as much as possible (with of course using magic items, spells, monsters and inspiration from FF, MM2, DDG and a wee bit from UA). I enjoy the structure of 1e with a very rulings over rules feel. Love this discussion too!

[geneweigel]

I don't really play anything else. I just look at it as the "Gary way" so 1974 is plainly accessible for reference along with anything involving Gary including other RPGs penned by him because he was pretty consistent. Like for example, the Joss that Trent Foster had in his 1E companion (HEROIC LEGENDARIUM from 2021) is a perfect example of using "extra Gary" from 1992's DANGEROUS JOURNEYS: MYTHUS.

I will sometimes view the context of the prices of castles as compared to OD&D and AD&D to come up with a "Gary-like" market.

With large scale battles I use Chainmail with a condensed card of AD&D DMG (1979) figures jotted on them.

One thing that I will auto-reject is anything from "BASIC" or "EDITION" forms. These things are incongruous with the "Gary way" unless it is specific content written by him like the SLAYER'S GUIDES (2002) or THE BOOK OF MARVELOUS MAGIC (1983).

I will accept Holmes edited BASIC because Gary had a hand in it and personally asked Holmes to publish to coincide with the advent of AD&D.

Moldvay and Mentzer edits and their associated modules are off base.