Post/Author/DateTime	Post
BlackDougal 09-10-04, 11:40 PM	Recently my boys found my old D&D stuff and have been begging me to play. I was pleasantly surprised to find the old game still kicking when I found the D&D site. Last I'd heard was that they'd discontinued it & were only supporting AD&D. I didn't expect AD&D to last much longer either since it seemed everyone I knew was switching to GURPS or something else. So, the thing is that I was never DM, so I'm a bit nervous about being DM for the boys. All I have is the Basic Rules & The Keep on the Borderlands, which I think came with it. Is that enough to get started? Beyond that, any advice?
Mythmere 09-10-04, 11:56 PM	1. How old are your boys? 2. What edition are you going to play? (ie., which set of rules?)
ECOM 09-11-04, 12:52 AM	If I understand correctly you have the basic eddition (red box) of dungeons and dragons. With one adventure. Understand that the basic eddition and what is now 3.5 eddition are while simuler are two diferent games. the basic set only covered the first 3 levels of play and there were other box sets for further play. While they are different you can still use the basic set to see if your sons are really interested before investing in the core books about a $90 investment if you buy no adventures. I recomend that you play them threw the keep of the borderland then deside from there weather to invest in the books or not.
DinubaBear 09-11-04, 07:09 AM	It sounds like ECOM guessed right. Or I would guess the same way. Even if AD&D were still in print the characters would change once you got the other books. But since D&D 3.5 is what is now available, things will change a lot! No THAC0. Save progressions ability mods for every stat. Rolling high is always good now, and things have been streamlined a lot. Realize that Druid A is no longer exactly like Druid B. You can modify your characters a lot. Same basic world & same basic monsters, so the feel will be the same. Oh, and buy the core 3 books as a set (at Amazon, B&N or somewhere). It will cost a lot less than $90 that way. (Players Handbook, DM Guide & Monster Manual)
morning star 09-11-04, 08:31 AM	hop onto ebay and check out if anyone's selling the follow up to the old basic set . i believe ( and i may be wrong ) it was called the expert set and takes the characters into their level teens . Or just keep adding hit dice as the characters progress past 3rd level . that's what we did ( back in the day when we were broke teenagers who had to wait for a Bday or Xmas to get new rpg stuff) don't be afraid to improvise , be fair , have fun and welcome back . Good luck :D
BlackDougal 09-11-04, 10:26 PM	The boys are 10, 11, and 12. So, the game being sold as "D&D", which you all are calling "3.5" is a different game? What's up with that? When did that happen? Why are they calling it D&D if it isn't D&D? I actually have the basic set that preceeded the "red box". It never mattered, though, because it was still the same game. Even when that "encyclopedia" thing came out in the 90s it was still the same rules as my old basic set, just a different layout and lots of extra stuff. What's thaco? What does "save progressions ability mods for every stat" mean? What's the big deal about different druids? As I recall, the DM never used druids much, & there were plenty of other interesting monsters. What kind of character modifications are you talking about? Maybe you should start at the beginning to explain what this new D&D is like. I'd rather not have to buy stuff off ebay, but nearly $90 just to get started seems like an awful lot. Guess that's equivalent to all 4 or 5 (or however many there were) of the old box sets? Of course, I know well that the basic set only goes up to 3rd level. It served me well as a player since I really didn't need more than how to create PCs. Certainly we'd have to buy something else or wing it once they reach 3rd level, but I was just wondering if there was anything a new DM should have before getting started. Thanks, guys!
Mythmere 09-11-04, 11:06 PM	It's the same game, but the rules have gotten a lot more complicated. If you're playing from the box that had a red dragon looking directly out of the box into your eyes, that's the original basic game that went for three levels of experience, then you had to switch to AD&D. That basic game and AD&D are usually called First Edition, or "1E." They came out with a major revision to the rules I forget when. The 90's, about '93, I think. This is called second edition. THird edition came out, and then was revised with edition 3.5. At this point, TSR has sold out to Wizards of the Coast (the Magic Card people), who then became a subsidiary of Hasbro. The edition you have is easier to learn than any other. BUT, it's not what the other kids at school are playing. They are playing 3.5. There is a new basic set that has just come out to introduce the 3.5 rules gently (they are quite complex compared to 1E). I would get the new Basic set and learn the new rules with your boys as you play through it. Then once you reach third level (which is where the new basic set stops, like the old one IIRC), yes, buying a Players Handbook costs something like $30. You can delay this for quite a while though - the rules are almost all available for free on the net in a document called the SRD. A few crucial parts aren't there, leading people to buy the books, but you can go for quite a while for free.
morning star 09-12-04, 01:33 AM	black dougal , 2 things ( and you're right on both counts ) 1 - yes it's expensive and 2 - yes it's a lot more complicated than it used to be . if it was me and my kids , here's what i'd do . first get them to roll up a few characters , buy equipment , choose spells , explain what an elf is etc .with the stuff you have . then throw together a short campaign , maybe about 3 or 4 games to get them up to 3rd level . use the old expierience point progression ( 1 gold piece = 1 xp , killing an orc is.. checks old basic set ....10 xp etc ) and throw in a few xtra xp for anything clever they do or say ( and they will ). inter connect the games , something like the players have to collect 4 seperate pieces of an ancient magic staff from 4 seperate small dungeons to save their local town . and then ... if they're still all for it , go pick up something like the new basic set , which takes the new system step by step and has miniatures and just let them rip !!! beat of luck - MS :D
BlackDougal 09-12-04, 10:01 PM	Mythmere, I didn't play AD&D. We tried it once, but it was too complicated. Took all the fun out of it. We played plain old D&D. It was a whole lot more than the basic set. You definately did not have to switch to AD&D once you got to 3rd level. There was an expert set & more beyond that. AD&D was a separate game, which is why it had a different name. And, yeah, I remember when AD&D 2nd edition came out. As I recall that was about the same time than the D&D encyclopedia came out. It was all the D&D (not AD&D) rules in one book instead of 4 or 5 box sets. It sounds like 3.5 is really 3rd edition AD&D, not D&D. Do they still sell just plain D&D? You say 3.5 is complex compared to 1st edition AD&D? Well, AD&D was already too complex. It's hard to believe they made it moreso. Morning star, thanks for the advice. I guess I'll just dive in with what I've got. Maybe I'll check out the new basic set to see what this "3.5" is like. From what you guys have said, though, I think I may be checking out ebay. Maybe I can find one of those old D&D encyclopedias. Thanks again. You guys rock. Any additional advice is welcome.
Mythmere 09-12-04, 10:11 PM	Mythmere, I didn't play AD&D. We tried it once, but it was too complicated. Took all the fun out of it. We played plain old D&D. It was a whole lot more than the basic set. You definately did not have to switch to AD&D once you got to 3rd level. There was an expert set & more beyond that. AD&D was a separate game, which is why it had a different name. And, yeah, I remember when AD&D 2nd edition came out. As I recall that was about the same time than the D&D encyclopedia came out. It was all the D&D (not AD&D) rules in one book instead of 4 or 5 box sets. It sounds like 3.5 is really 3rd edition AD&D, not D&D. Do they still sell just plain D&D? You say 3.5 is complex compared to 1st edition AD&D? Well, AD&D was already too complex. It's hard to believe they made it moreso. Morning star, thanks for the advice. I guess I'll just dive in with what I've got. Maybe I'll check out the new basic set to see what this "3.5" is like. From what you guys have said, though, I think I may be checking out ebay. Maybe I can find one of those old D&D encyclopedias. Thanks again. You guys rock. Any additional advice is welcome. Just to answer the questions: you're right, 3.5 is an edition of AD&D. The version you have is one I forgot to mention in my little history. I'd still try the new basic set as a possible introduction to 3.5, but only for the reason that your boys can then say that they play D&D when they're at school; for sheer fun the games are, at the bottom line, the same.
morning star 09-14-04, 07:47 AM	BD - you're welcome . keep posting on this thread to let know how you're getting on . and remember - fun first :D
MinusInnocence 09-14-04, 08:30 AM	First of all, kudos and THANK YOU for exposing your children to our hobby. This is the kind of story I like to hear. While 3.5 is more complex than the Basic set you'll be teaching your kids from, it is worlds apart from the abomination that was AD&D 2E (which is what I started with close to 10 years ago). That game was ridiculous - it was like you needed to pass some compulsory math exam that didn't come with the text before you could be trusted to understand their rules. The books were all jumbled and it was just nasty. Then again, anyone lucky enough to learn how to play under those rules were blessed with 3E and 3.5, which were like a gift from God. It was like pulling teeth, teaching my friends back then how to play under 2E but 3.5 is much more approachable; indeed, it was geared toward younger players to rejuvenate the market. I second the vote to get a hold of the NEW Basic set, just so you and your kids can see what you're missing out on. If you really would rather play old-school, that's what matters... that everyone is having a good time. But if you give 3.5 a chance, you may enjoy it quite a bit. Good luck, and now that you're part of the select club of DMing... welcome to the world behind the Screen.
Rian Lightblade 09-14-04, 01:35 PM	Maybe I can find one of those old D&D encyclopedias. Thanks again. You guys rock. Any additional advice is welcome. Check out svgames.com for cheap PDFs of almost all the original D&D books
DrWorm 09-14-04, 03:40 PM	I played basic D&D for about a year before switchnig to AD&D. The problem you run in to with D&D is that races and classes are integrated, and that is what drove most of us to other games. The reason the game is more complicated is that it has grown to allow more characterization than was possible in the basic D&D set. I really loved that game, don't get me wrong, we played through level 11 before converting our characters to AD&D. One of the things I loved was the set that had all the relly cool effects for all the weapons. 3.5 D&D is really not that complcated to get the basics of. I have a 9 year old son, myself, and I would not hesitate to start teaching him if he was interested. Getting all new books can be spendy, but the new game is really well done.
BlackDougal 09-15-04, 12:54 AM	Morning star: Our first session should be this weekend. I'll let you know how it goes. Rian Lightblade: Wow. Thanks for the suggestion. It's good to see some of the old friends available as PDFs. I see they have the "Rules Cyclopedia", which I now know the proper name for. May have to get that one. DrWorm: The races being their own classes never bothered us. Frankly, we thought elf clerics and dwarf magic-users and such seemed a bit weird. Heh. Can you give me an example of what you mean about being more complicated to provide more characterization?
Sildatorak 09-15-04, 03:57 AM	Can you give me an example of what you mean about being more complicated to provide more characterization? I can't speak for Dr. Worm, but I can offer what I think he is getting at (it is what I would get at if that was what I had said). Their are multiple levels of character customization now. Aside from ones that have always existed there are several new options: you can now multiclass to better describe the character type that you want to portray, you can select what skills you want to put your skill points in so that you will be good at them, you can choose what feats (which are combat maneuvers, bonuses to skill checks, better ability at class features like turning undead, etc) you want to underscore what you've defined as your character's persona. It is a lot more complicated compared to the limited array of choices that existed in earlier editions (except possibly 2e, which had a ton of choices cobbled together if you had a decent number of rules suplements.) The rules about things have been solidified a lot more, too. In earlier editions many situations would require DM judgement calls to figure out what exactly happens. Take for example trying to push the bad guy off a cliff as you battle. 3e has a rule for dealing with this (bull rush). Knocking a sword out of someones hand? Chopping the head off their axe? These fall under the rules for disarm and sunder. It helps for consistency if you're gaming with different DM's in different games, but does make for a lot more rules to know. And about the D&D name confusing you: there is a good reason they switched it. Advanced Dungeons and Dragons is a mouthful and seems like it might not be the way to go. Since it had been so long since the D&D/AD&D split they could just call it D&D and avoid these concerns.
DrWorm 09-15-04, 11:56 AM	DrWorm: The races being their own classes never bothered us. Frankly, we thought elf clerics and dwarf magic-users and such seemed a bit weird. Heh. Can you give me an example of what you mean about being more complicated to provide more characterization? I guess what I mean is that it allows for characters that are not pidgeon-holed by their race. Now you may not have a problem with that, so this argument may fall on deaf ears. Lets take a modern setting as an example, where (in this case) Class=Job and Race=Body type. So if you were playing an action hero and you wanted to make a character that was different from what you see in the movies you might make one that is socially akward and perhaps not very strong, buy he is brave and wise. Or perhaps you want to make a computer wiz who is a muscle bound oaf, by nature of his Delta Force training. In D&D the greater freedom of characterization is the same way, only your imagination dictates what your character is like. Sure, a lot of Dwarves are fighters, but their culture has to have a spiritual side, so clerics should be present as well. Is the whole of Dwarven culture honest? No, that would be silly, so you have to assume that there are Rogues (what used to be called theives) as well. Magic...well it could be argued that they are not really mage-like, but then the Tolkien dwarves were known for forging magical weapons in magical fires, so you can easily argue for an occult class. See it is about playing characters that draw from the whole of society instead of just the characterizations that are typically expanded on in novels. Sildatorak also does a good job talking about skills and feats that flesh out the character and provide consistant mechanics to do just about anything you can imagine. Really the game that is now called D&D is a blend of the complex mechanics of AD&D, and the simple approach to gaming that was D&D. Many people would disagree with me, but that is neither here nor there. Think about this: Do you want your boys to play a strctly combat game that does not stretch the limits of their creativity? Don't get me wrong, I loved D&D, but it was limited. The current incarnation has a skill set that makes non-combat oriented games very doable. As a matter of fact I have had hours of gaming go by with no combat, only skill use and roleplaying. It really is quiet a lot of fun. Not that we are hard core emmersive fantasy types, but it is nice to play in the non-action parts of the story, as well as butchering trolls and saving the innocent.
BlackDougal 09-15-04, 11:58 PM	Hmm. Well, it's just a game, right? The old D&D classes each had roles to fill in the party. Characters from literature didn't fit into the classes because the classes were designed for the game and for co-operation and interdependency instead of for literary purposes. It seems to me that D&D characters don't need to be drawn from the whole breadth of society. Not every person in a society fits in an adventuring party. Not every person in society fits the function of the PC in the game. There are millions of different fighter characters you can create in old D&D. You can be a knight or a woodsman or a soldier or a mercenary or a bandit or whatever. Within each of those there are millions of variations. One person can play a fighter who was an archer. He was the son of a serf who found a way out of his father's fate through the army, has served his time, and has now taken up a life of adventure. Another person could play a fighter who was also a soldier, but infantry. He was a third son of a noble who joined the army because he couldn't stand the idea of a life in the church, which was the typical option. Again, he's served his time and is now adventuring. One may be quiet and introspective and cautious. The other may be loud, boisterous, and impulsive. That was all possible with the old D&D. And it was easy enough to make up your own class or something for the odd case when somebody really did want to try something different. I don't think I've ever played any game recreationally without changing the rules on occasion. That's half the fun of game playing. Heck, in D&D the stuff that the DM made up was more than half the fun. I guess I understand how the demihuman classes bugged you. I guess we generally liked the demihumans being more constrained as it fit our idea of them better. Humans are the infinitely flexible race. Still, if you'd brought up that concern in my old group, I'm pretty sure the DM would've worked with you on creating a class to support a different kind of elf or dwarf. We too had plenty of very enjoyable sessions without any combat, just pure roleplaying. Heck, we had a couple of campaigns that were almost entirely roleplaying. Any campaign in which the PCs reached high level, combat tended to get pretty rare. Nothing about the old D&D made you do nothing but hack and slash. Heck, isn't that the whole point? Otherwise we'd still be playing miniature wargames, right? The thing that made us start playing D&D was that it was unlimited. Thanks for your description of the new D&D, Sildatorak. It sounding more and more like AD&D to me. (Maybe worse?) This sounds ironically a lot like the old free Kriegspiel versus rigid kriegespiel. I'd always assumed D&D had been influenced by free kriegspiel. And talk about exercising creativity. That was the whole point of free kriegspiel. The talents of the refs were being wasted as they consulted rules as any clerk could do. Free kriegspiel said let the ref use his knowledge and skills. That's what separates D&D from most games that came before. The players have to draw on their creativity instead of just following rules. That's why the D&D combat rules are so simplistic. The rules aren't going to save you, you must rely on your wits. Simple combat rules mean that there's going to often be times when combat isn't the solution. The party that always resorts to swords will soon be dead. Similarly, the DMs adjudicate using common sense and creativity instead of rules. The game is suddenly opened up to any possibility, not just things there are rules for. As for the name, it still baffles me. I bought a Risk game last year. It included some wild variants, but the basic game was absolutely no different then the Risk my dad had when I was a kid. When they created a different game based on Risk, they called it Castle Risk instead of just Risk. My Monopoly game, the same as my parent's Monopoly game, though purchased decades apart. Selling a new game under the name of an old game makes no sense to me. Selling a game that has a perfectly good name (AD&D) under the name of another game makes even less sense. Wow. Sorry for the rambling. You guys have got me thinking about this game in ways I haven't in years. In some new ways too. Again, sorry for the longwinded rambling. I'm just trying to process this all and dragging you all along for the ride. Heh.
psionichamster 09-16-04, 12:59 AM	you know what? you sound like you don't really need to shell out the dough for the new texts... it's good to hear from someone who knows and appreciates the old and simple style...(or the make it up as you go along and hold on!!!) cheers, hope your kids love the game! the hamster ps...welcome back!
TheDoomBringer 09-16-04, 01:19 AM	Just download the SRD, do a quick search for it and you'll find it. Its free, it lacks the art and stuff, and is a pain to print out (100s of pages), but it works. 3.5E is the best DnD I've ever played (I've done 2E, a bit of 3E, haven't played 1E, but I've studied it a bit).
DrMorganes 09-16-04, 03:13 AM	As for the name, it still baffles me . . . Selling a new game under the name of an old game makes no sense to me. Selling a game that has a perfectly good name (AD&D) under the name of another game makes even less sense. It's the same game, just spun a little differently. Very little of the original rules still exist. Us old timers can still see their ghosts, but the new rules are actually far more streamlined than anything previously published. Wizards of the Coast dropped "Advanced" from the game's name when it released the 3rd Edition. They felt - and rightly, in my opinion - that "Advanced" had kept people from the game in the past. This time around they wanted the new version of the game to be as accessible as possible. Additionally, only the olde greybeards who've been playing the game for decades would even blink at the change. As you mentioned earlier, Dungeons and Dragons all but disappeared for quite a while. The entire sordid history was actually included in a collector's edition when the 3rd Edition was released. Fascinating reading... As far as the ages of your sons: don't underestimate them. My older brother introduced me to the game when I was 8 and he was 12 (using the so-called Advanced ruleset). Less than a year later I was running games for my other 9-year-old friends and using those same rules. When a friend later asked me to play using his Red Box rules, I was totally lost! :D There are millions of different fighter characters you can create in old D&D. You can be a knight or a woodsman or a soldier or a mercenary or a bandit or whatever. Within each of those there are millions of variations. One person can play a fighter who was an archer. He was the son of a serf who found a way out of his father's fate through the army, has served his time, and has now taken up a life of adventure. Another person could play a fighter who was also a soldier, but infantry. He was a third son of a noble who joined the army because he couldn't stand the idea of a life in the church, which was the typical option. Again, he's served his time and is now adventuring. One may be quiet and introspective and cautious. The other may be loud, boisterous, and impulsive. That was all possible with the old D&D. And it was easy enough to make up your own class or something for the odd case when somebody really did want to try something different. I don't think I've ever played any game recreationally without changing the rules on occasion. That's half the fun of game playing. Heck, in D&D the stuff that the DM made up was more than half the fun. Much of what you describe is simply roleplaying flavor, and may be added to any character regardless of what rules you're using and what class you select. In terms of early-edition classes, however, they were inflexible. Every fighter was a cookie-cutter version of every other fighter, likewise for archers, theiv - er, rogues (I'm never going to get the hang of that...), and - with the exception of their known spells - wizards. In addition to a given class's base features, 3rd Edition introduced the concept of Feats. A Feat is simply something special that the PC knows or can do. Examples include increased reaction time, special attack routines, bonuses to a certain saving throw category, or ways to modify the spells one can cast. Some Feats are more applicable to certain character classes, but very few Feats are actually restricted to a specific class. While all characters know Feats, not every character knows the same Feats. The Feat selection allows you to create very different characters using the same base class. Take, for example, the fighters Ned and Ted. In the old editions, Ned and Ted would have exactly the same abilities at a given level. Now, depending on the Feats they select as they gain experience Ned and Ted may be very different. Ned may opt to focus on archery, and select Feats which improve his combat prowess in that area. Ted may opt to focus on becoming the best there is with a greatsword (or two-handed sword, as they used to be called). His Feats would reflect this decision. Wizards are another great example for the versatility build into the new rules. The 2nd Edition introduced the concept of a specialist wizard - one who concentrated his arcane learning on a specific aspect of magic. 3rd Edition continues this option, but the additional Feat selections help to further customize your finger-wiggler. All wizards learn how to create scrolls, but perhaps your wizard opts to learn more about creating magical items and selects every item creation Feat he can. Your 11-year-old, on the other hand, might decide raw combat power is his wizard's interest, and go for an Evoker specialist (Evocation is the aspect, or "school", of magic relating to damaging spells) who doesn't require a spellbook to prepare his favorite spells (via the Feat called Spell Mastery), doesn't need to use most material spell components (thanks to Eschew Materials), can guarantee certain spells will always do maximum damage (thanks to his selection of the spell-manipulating, or metamagic, Feat Maximize Spell), and cast certain spells literally in an instant (thanks to Quicken Spell). Each wizard is still a wizard, and shares certain common abilities and limitations, but each brings a different set of strengths to the party. TheDoomBringer made a good (if somewhat ill-explained) suggestion: review the contents of the System Reference Document (http://www.wizards.com/D20/article.asp?x=srd35) (or SRD). Wizards of the Cost developed the new ruleset under an open license, which essentially allows certain portions of the game to be freely reproduced. The SRD lacks nearly all of the flavor text (including examples, sidebar clarifications, and the like), and in some instances assumes you have access to published material. However, it also contains ALL of the core rules you need to know to play the game. If you scroll down the linked page, you'll find that portions of the SRD are available in grouped downloads. I'd recommend you start with the Basic Rules and Lega (http://www.wizards.com/d20/files/v35/BasicRules.zip) download. Post back to the boards with any questions you may have. I speak for myself when I say feel free to use the Private Message option and contact me directly if you wish.
BlackDougal 09-16-04, 11:17 PM	Thanks for the link to the SRD, DrMorganes. I'm reading it now, and I probably will have some questions.
BlackDougal 09-21-04, 10:47 PM	Well, we had the first session this weekend. I decided to run them through the sample dungeon in the Basic book first instead of jumping straight into B2. I wanted to give them a taste of the dungeoneering before making them go through all the roleplaying the Keep requires. We had a dwarf named Gimli, an elf named Legolas, and a MU named Gandalf. I was a little disappointed that they weren't a bit more imaginative, but then I remembered my first PC. "Conan" Heh. They all got put to sleep by a gas trap. The MU got killed by green slime. He was pretty dejected until I pointed out that he could still advise his brothers while they played their characters. The other two were killed by goblins. There were some successful fights and looting as well. Afterwards, we talked about how the gas trap could've been poison that would've killed them all. I asked what they could've done differently, and I was so proud when one of them suggested that if they had spread out more they could've minimized the risk. We likewise talked about how they could've avoided the slime and what they might've done differently in the fight with the goblins. And that retreat should always be considered. It was loads of fun! They're looking forward to the next adventure and getting the chance to apply what they've learned so far. I haven't had a chance to read much of the SRD yet, but I'm sure I'll have some questions for you guys.
DrMorganes 09-22-04, 12:42 AM	Glad to hear everyone had fun! As always, that should really be your primary focus. Feel free to post back with any questions or concerns you happen to have - and welcome back!
ynot razalas 09-22-04, 10:02 AM	I just wanted to say thank you also, BlackDougal, for posting here. I recently started getting the itch to DM again (after a 14 year hiatus!). The post-mortum you did with your players reminds me of the first couple of times we played, and I think I will add it to my game when we begin next month. Also, if you ever get the urge to go to the new version (3.5), The old red box basic set is worth some money. Take a look at ebay some time, the money you get for the old set might go pretty far towards setting you up in the new game.