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.
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.
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.
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. . .
ReplyDeleteSeconding the OSRIC query.
ReplyDeleteDamned useful chart nonetheless, though!
Wowsa, Demons & Dragons is super dobrze!
ReplyDeleteI'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 Holmes was, in intention, meant to bridge the gap between OD&D and the then-unpublished AD&D by clarifying the former and laying the groundwork for the latter.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.
ReplyDeleteSorry jeff, I can´t make the backlinking stuff work. Feel backlinked or whatever it is actually called.
ReplyDeleteI thought that the Rules Cyclopedia was a collection of all the AD&D rules. Was I wrong about that?
ReplyDeleteThe Rules Cyclopedia was a compilation of the Mentzer Edition D&D rules.
ReplyDeleteWhat, no Arduin Grimoire? :)
ReplyDeleteMy quibble is The Holmes Companion. That draws mainly from OD&D, not AD&D. Otherwise, I love charts, thanks for that Jeff.
ReplyDeleteHolmes 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?
ReplyDeleteThere'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.
ReplyDeleteWord about chart:
ReplyDeleteChart 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. ;)
I've a problem with the top of the chart. Try this out for the backstory and connectedness.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.slideshare.net/JamesWallis/a-thing-of-beauty-is-a-stout-green-toy-presentation?type=powerpoint