AD&D and D&D [Archive] - Wizards Community

AD&D and D&D [Archive] - Wizards Community

Post/Author/DateTime Post
Aion
11-22-04, 08:03 PM I have no clue whats the diffrence, up to now I thought I played D&D till my friend told me we play AD&D. It would makes sense seeing how I only play with them and with no one else. But What is the diffrence? Is it just more complicated?
Kaya Kenobi
11-22-04, 08:22 PM I have no clue whats the diffrence, up to now I thought I played D&D till my friend told me we play AD&D. It would makes sense seeing how I only play with them and with no one else. But What is the diffrence? Is it just more complicated?

ADnD has too many restrictions, like dwarves cannot be mages, and certain races can only progress so far in a particular class, and minimum ability scores for certain classes and levels in those classes.. I can go on... But I won't. ADnD has its redeeming qualities, however some of the things about ADnD is horrible..
Seeker95
11-22-04, 08:23 PM I disagree with Kaya's value assessment of AD&D. The difference between D&D and AD&D is the same as the difference between Candyland and Chutes & Ladders. Very similar on the surface, but when you get down to the nitty gritty, they are very different games. Some people will like one over the other. Some people will like them both.
Kaya Kenobi
11-22-04, 08:38 PM I disagree with Kaya's value assessment of AD&D. The difference between D&D and AD&D is the same as the difference between Candyland and Chutes & Ladders. Very similar on the surface, but when you get down to the nitty gritty, they are very different games. Some people will like one over the other. Some people will like them both.

You are correct! They are very different, because stats play an important roll, like high wisdom for example:

3rd edition, a 24 Wisdom is merely a +7 modifier.
2e Wisdom, a 24 makes you immune to a large number of spells.

3rd edition, a 24 Int is a +7 modifier
2e, a 24 Int gives you a large number of NWPs, learn virtually every language possible, and immunity to illusions?

16 Strength in 3e is a +3 to hit and damage.
16 Strength in 2e is like a +2 to hit and +1 to damage

24 Con - 3e +7 mod, 2e REGENERATION!

AC = 0 in 2e is like AC 20 in 3e

THACO is a pain in the butt

Fighters in 2e are the only class to get multiple hits beyond a normal 2 weapon fighter.

Clerics in 2e get 7th level spells, whil in 3e they get 9th level spells.

Bards in 2e are very powerful, however 3e they are almost pitiful.

As I said, ADnD has its qualities, and it has its flaws.

Going beyond all that, what are the major differences?

Level caps, abilities scores, race restrictions, and a few other things..

What's similar?

wizards have d4 for hit points, fighters have d10s. Stuff like that.
Monteblanco
11-22-04, 08:40 PM During most of the eighties and up to mid-nighties there were two versions of the game: Dungeons & Dragons (D&D) and Advanced Dungeons & Dragons (AD&D). Both are derived of the original rules set (sometimes called OD&D). Both evolved differently and while D&D kept rules very simple, AD&D has much more options, being also a much more complicated game. Latter, the D&D line was folded and only AD&D remained (2nd edition by that time). When Wizards of the Coast announced the 3rd edition of D&D, they in fact meant the 3rd edition of AD&D, but, as there were no D&D line at that time, they simplified it dropping the "Advanced" from the name.

Sort of complicated, eihn? Fact is that most people that started the hobby in the 80s got D&D first. A few never moved to AD&D or at least returned to D&D as they actually preferred the simpler version of the rules. Although the current edition is based in AD&D, it stole many nice ideas, such as short duration rounds (6 sec in D&D 3.X, 10 sec in D&D, 1 min in AD&D) and equal abilities' bonuses from D&D.

If you're interested in D&D, give a look in sites such as this one (http://freespace.virgin.net/mark.bertenshaw/mark/RPG/dnd.html).
Lord_Anthrax
11-22-04, 08:50 PM IIRC AD&D(in name)came about as a result of TSR not wanting to pay royalties to Dave Arneson for using the name Dungeons & Dragons. He got paid off years later, thus the current edition is just D&D again.
Attila
11-22-04, 09:32 PM How did people learn to play 1e ADnD? I have the core books I inherited but started with 2e. The 1e core books appear to be just a collection of tables with little explanation of how to get started. It seems one would either have to have started with D&D or learn from watching others. Was this the case?
Stuntman
11-23-04, 12:53 AM How did people learn to play 1e ADnD? I have the core books I inherited but started with 2e. The 1e core books appear to be just a collection of tables with little explanation of how to get started. It seems one would either have to have started with D&D or learn from watching others. Was this the case?

AD&D 1st Edition was not very well organised. It took me quite a while to figure out how to play. The thing is that the PH didn't have any rules on how to handle combat. All of that was in the DMG. It was frustrating because if you just had the PH, you had no idea how good a +1 to hit was. You didn't even know which die to roll. The saving through was also confusing since they didn't really say exactly what it was in the PH.

2E organised the rules better. The combat rules were actually in the PH. Combat tables were replaced with THAC0 (To Hit Armour Class 0 (zero)). I felt it was much more easy to follow than 1E. Still many of the rules still are the same. They just replaced some tables with formulae.
Bulabase
11-23-04, 05:48 PM How did people learn to play 1e ADnD? I have the core books I inherited but started with 2e. The 1e core books appear to be just a collection of tables with little explanation of how to get started. It seems one would either have to have started with D&D or learn from watching others. Was this the case?
It took some doing. Usually people who started young had some pretty wierd games until they figured out what all the tables and rules meant. Many had older, more experienced gamers to guide them through their first experiences with the game. It was hard to learn, but fun to play. In some ways, it was simpler than the current version. Inconstsistencies and unclarity in the rules led to a lot of arguments, though.
shakedown47
11-24-04, 05:38 PM The difference between AD&D and the newer, 3.X D&D game, besides a lot of the mechanics, comes down to the difference in it's player base. Somewhere along the line, people started being interested in being the exception rather than the rule. AD&D had level caps, etc. for certain races to illustrate what the archetype of that race would be; i.e. dwarves could be clerics, but it's just not done. There are plenty of clerics to the dwarven god(s) but for a dwarf, it's not something you devoted your entire life to. Stuff like that.

For 3rd edition, somewhere things changed. Call it Drizzt syndrome. Call it boredom. Some people even call it stupidity. Whatever it was, people no longer wanted to represent what they had read in Lord of the Rings, Conan, Dragonlance, etc. They weren't content with being the average adventurer in their campaign world, playing a PC who represented one out of many. Instead, they wanted to be the different guy, the one who stands out from others of his race, and pretty soon you had adventuring parties made up of the five or six most exceptional individuals in the world.

To actually answer your question though, yes it is different, and yes it was much more complicated (although, as with all things, once you know it it's no more complicated than playing hopskotch or playing jacks), with rules for pretty much everything. And I mean EVERYTHING.
MerricB
11-24-04, 06:32 PM I have no clue whats the diffrence, up to now I thought I played D&D till my friend told me we play AD&D. It would makes sense seeing how I only play with them and with no one else. But What is the diffrence? Is it just more complicated?

Different editions of the game.

D&D (3E) is the successor to AD&D (1E) and AD&D (2E). D&D (3E) clarifies a lot of rules and basically has a simpler unified resolution system rather than the different systems AD&D has.

e.g. In AD&D (1E), to attack someone you roll a d20, and high is good. To pick a lock, you roll d% and low is good. To open a door, you roll a d6 and low is good. In D&D (3E), all those rolls will be made on a d20 and high is good.

Original D&D was published in 1974
AD&D (1E) was published in 1979
AD&D (2E) was published in 1989
D&D (3E) was published in 2000
D&D (3.5E) was published in 2003

There are also editions of "Basic" D&D, which uses many things in common with AD&D, but is also a different game.

Basic D&D (Holmes) - 1977
Basic D&D (Moldvay) - 1981
Basic D&D (Metzner) - 1983
By the third edition of Basic D&D, the designers had got it right, and the system remained fairly unchanged until 3E came along, when it was recast as a introduction to the new 3E system.

AD&D is "advanced" when compared to the 1974 D&D, not compared to the current (3.5e) edition of D&D.

Cheers!

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Aion 11-22-04, 08:03 PM	I have no clue whats the diffrence, up to now I thought I played D&D till my friend told me we play AD&D. It would makes sense seeing how I only play with them and with no one else. But What is the diffrence? Is it just more complicated?
Kaya Kenobi 11-22-04, 08:22 PM	I have no clue whats the diffrence, up to now I thought I played D&D till my friend told me we play AD&D. It would makes sense seeing how I only play with them and with no one else. But What is the diffrence? Is it just more complicated? ADnD has too many restrictions, like dwarves cannot be mages, and certain races can only progress so far in a particular class, and minimum ability scores for certain classes and levels in those classes.. I can go on... But I won't. ADnD has its redeeming qualities, however some of the things about ADnD is horrible..
Seeker95 11-22-04, 08:23 PM	I disagree with Kaya's value assessment of AD&D. The difference between D&D and AD&D is the same as the difference between Candyland and Chutes & Ladders. Very similar on the surface, but when you get down to the nitty gritty, they are very different games. Some people will like one over the other. Some people will like them both.
Kaya Kenobi 11-22-04, 08:38 PM	I disagree with Kaya's value assessment of AD&D. The difference between D&D and AD&D is the same as the difference between Candyland and Chutes & Ladders. Very similar on the surface, but when you get down to the nitty gritty, they are very different games. Some people will like one over the other. Some people will like them both. You are correct! They are very different, because stats play an important roll, like high wisdom for example: 3rd edition, a 24 Wisdom is merely a +7 modifier. 2e Wisdom, a 24 makes you immune to a large number of spells. 3rd edition, a 24 Int is a +7 modifier 2e, a 24 Int gives you a large number of NWPs, learn virtually every language possible, and immunity to illusions? 16 Strength in 3e is a +3 to hit and damage. 16 Strength in 2e is like a +2 to hit and +1 to damage 24 Con - 3e +7 mod, 2e REGENERATION! AC = 0 in 2e is like AC 20 in 3e THACO is a pain in the butt Fighters in 2e are the only class to get multiple hits beyond a normal 2 weapon fighter. Clerics in 2e get 7th level spells, whil in 3e they get 9th level spells. Bards in 2e are very powerful, however 3e they are almost pitiful. As I said, ADnD has its qualities, and it has its flaws. Going beyond all that, what are the major differences? Level caps, abilities scores, race restrictions, and a few other things.. What's similar? wizards have d4 for hit points, fighters have d10s. Stuff like that.
Monteblanco 11-22-04, 08:40 PM	During most of the eighties and up to mid-nighties there were two versions of the game: Dungeons & Dragons (D&D) and Advanced Dungeons & Dragons (AD&D). Both are derived of the original rules set (sometimes called OD&D). Both evolved differently and while D&D kept rules very simple, AD&D has much more options, being also a much more complicated game. Latter, the D&D line was folded and only AD&D remained (2nd edition by that time). When Wizards of the Coast announced the 3rd edition of D&D, they in fact meant the 3rd edition of AD&D, but, as there were no D&D line at that time, they simplified it dropping the "Advanced" from the name. Sort of complicated, eihn? Fact is that most people that started the hobby in the 80s got D&D first. A few never moved to AD&D or at least returned to D&D as they actually preferred the simpler version of the rules. Although the current edition is based in AD&D, it stole many nice ideas, such as short duration rounds (6 sec in D&D 3.X, 10 sec in D&D, 1 min in AD&D) and equal abilities' bonuses from D&D. If you're interested in D&D, give a look in sites such as this one (http://freespace.virgin.net/mark.bertenshaw/mark/RPG/dnd.html).
Lord_Anthrax 11-22-04, 08:50 PM	IIRC AD&D(in name)came about as a result of TSR not wanting to pay royalties to Dave Arneson for using the name Dungeons & Dragons. He got paid off years later, thus the current edition is just D&D again.
Attila 11-22-04, 09:32 PM	How did people learn to play 1e ADnD? I have the core books I inherited but started with 2e. The 1e core books appear to be just a collection of tables with little explanation of how to get started. It seems one would either have to have started with D&D or learn from watching others. Was this the case?
Stuntman 11-23-04, 12:53 AM	How did people learn to play 1e ADnD? I have the core books I inherited but started with 2e. The 1e core books appear to be just a collection of tables with little explanation of how to get started. It seems one would either have to have started with D&D or learn from watching others. Was this the case? AD&D 1st Edition was not very well organised. It took me quite a while to figure out how to play. The thing is that the PH didn't have any rules on how to handle combat. All of that was in the DMG. It was frustrating because if you just had the PH, you had no idea how good a +1 to hit was. You didn't even know which die to roll. The saving through was also confusing since they didn't really say exactly what it was in the PH. 2E organised the rules better. The combat rules were actually in the PH. Combat tables were replaced with THAC0 (To Hit Armour Class 0 (zero)). I felt it was much more easy to follow than 1E. Still many of the rules still are the same. They just replaced some tables with formulae.
Bulabase 11-23-04, 05:48 PM	How did people learn to play 1e ADnD? I have the core books I inherited but started with 2e. The 1e core books appear to be just a collection of tables with little explanation of how to get started. It seems one would either have to have started with D&D or learn from watching others. Was this the case? It took some doing. Usually people who started young had some pretty wierd games until they figured out what all the tables and rules meant. Many had older, more experienced gamers to guide them through their first experiences with the game. It was hard to learn, but fun to play. In some ways, it was simpler than the current version. Inconstsistencies and unclarity in the rules led to a lot of arguments, though.
shakedown47 11-24-04, 05:38 PM	The difference between AD&D and the newer, 3.X D&D game, besides a lot of the mechanics, comes down to the difference in it's player base. Somewhere along the line, people started being interested in being the exception rather than the rule. AD&D had level caps, etc. for certain races to illustrate what the archetype of that race would be; i.e. dwarves could be clerics, but it's just not done. There are plenty of clerics to the dwarven god(s) but for a dwarf, it's not something you devoted your entire life to. Stuff like that. For 3rd edition, somewhere things changed. Call it Drizzt syndrome. Call it boredom. Some people even call it stupidity. Whatever it was, people no longer wanted to represent what they had read in Lord of the Rings, Conan, Dragonlance, etc. They weren't content with being the average adventurer in their campaign world, playing a PC who represented one out of many. Instead, they wanted to be the different guy, the one who stands out from others of his race, and pretty soon you had adventuring parties made up of the five or six most exceptional individuals in the world. To actually answer your question though, yes it is different, and yes it was much more complicated (although, as with all things, once you know it it's no more complicated than playing hopskotch or playing jacks), with rules for pretty much everything. And I mean EVERYTHING.
MerricB 11-24-04, 06:32 PM	I have no clue whats the diffrence, up to now I thought I played D&D till my friend told me we play AD&D. It would makes sense seeing how I only play with them and with no one else. But What is the diffrence? Is it just more complicated? Different editions of the game. D&D (3E) is the successor to AD&D (1E) and AD&D (2E). D&D (3E) clarifies a lot of rules and basically has a simpler unified resolution system rather than the different systems AD&D has. e.g. In AD&D (1E), to attack someone you roll a d20, and high is good. To pick a lock, you roll d% and low is good. To open a door, you roll a d6 and low is good. In D&D (3E), all those rolls will be made on a d20 and high is good. Original D&D was published in 1974 AD&D (1E) was published in 1979 AD&D (2E) was published in 1989 D&D (3E) was published in 2000 D&D (3.5E) was published in 2003 There are also editions of "Basic" D&D, which uses many things in common with AD&D, but is also a different game. Basic D&D (Holmes) - 1977 Basic D&D (Moldvay) - 1981 Basic D&D (Metzner) - 1983 By the third edition of Basic D&D, the designers had got it right, and the system remained fairly unchanged until 3E came along, when it was recast as a introduction to the new 3E system. AD&D is "advanced" when compared to the 1974 D&D, not compared to the current (3.5e) edition of D&D. Cheers!