Friday, December 05, 2008

Sometimes a chart can be helpful...

...and this might even be one of these times. There are two foreign language gaming blogs that I check up on from time to time, even though I can't read the text. Normally I just check out the pics and mouse over the links in hopes they might lead to a cool site that happens to be in English. One of the sites is The Prussian Gamer, which is in German, while the other is Demons & Dragons, a Polish-language blog.

Anyway, I found this chart recently on Demons & Dragons:


That's a really nifty chart, but I decided to add some stuff to it. You'll probably need to click on this one to be able to read it.

13 comments:

  1. What about OSRIC? The 2nd Edition is out in PDF and it looks to me like it will be a force to be reckoned with. . .

    ReplyDelete
  2. Seconding the OSRIC query.

    Damned useful chart nonetheless, though!

    ReplyDelete
  3. Settembrini10:43 AM

    Wowsa, Demons & Dragons is super dobrze!

    ReplyDelete
  4. I'd quibble about making Holmes a precursor to Moldvay. It is in a temporal sense and the Cook Expert Rules at least make reference to its existence, but I don't see much evidence of descent. Holmes was, in intention, meant to bridge the gap between OD&D and the then-unpublished AD&D by clarifying the former and laying the groundwork for the latter. In point of fact, it wound up being its own unique thing, with its Dex-based initiative system and magic missiles that require to hit rolls. I love Holmes and think it should get its own branch on that chart.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Settembrini11:49 AM

    Sorry jeff, I can´t make the backlinking stuff work. Feel backlinked or whatever it is actually called.

    ReplyDelete
  6. I thought that the Rules Cyclopedia was a collection of all the AD&D rules. Was I wrong about that?

    ReplyDelete
  7. The Rules Cyclopedia was a compilation of the Mentzer Edition D&D rules.

    ReplyDelete
  8. What, no Arduin Grimoire? :)

    ReplyDelete
  9. Anonymous2:06 PM

    My quibble is The Holmes Companion. That draws mainly from OD&D, not AD&D. Otherwise, I love charts, thanks for that Jeff.

    ReplyDelete
  10. wulfgar2:17 PM

    Holmes is designed to lead directly into AD&D on it's own isn't it? Well maybe not designed, but at least there was some text in there about using AD&D for higher levels? Or am I mistaken about that?

    ReplyDelete
  11. There's a table at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Editions_of_Dungeons_%26_Dragons which does the same thing as the original chart, in a slightly easier to read way.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Anonymous4:20 AM

    Word about chart:

    Chart shows Two Ways of OD&D - two general roads taken. According to Gygax in circa 78', who gave idea that both systems: AD&D line is apart of OD&D line.

    So - any Holmes-not-in-this-line issue is pointless because it wasn't AD&D by name - it was introduction to Advanced, but still was closer to OD&D + Supps. and later Basics in general idea.

    @Oracle
    James M :) - I thought about Holmes as third way (similar to revised OD&D in shape of White Box), but it's not so diffrent from later "D&D line" (idea of Basic+ levels etc) and I just want to make clear this chart as possible.

    @Settembrini
    Wowsa, Demons & Dragons is super dobrze!

    Thanks (dzięki!) :D

    @Scott
    Yeah, and all Judges Guild stuff "approved for D&D" and so on - it wasn't point of this chart. ;)

    ReplyDelete
  13. I've a problem with the top of the chart. Try this out for the backstory and connectedness.

    http://www.slideshare.net/JamesWallis/a-thing-of-beauty-is-a-stout-green-toy-presentation?type=powerpoint

    ReplyDelete