Recent content by John Quixote

I'll agree with you in the broad strokes, but... man, as much as I like Elmore's art, I really like Dykstra's too. I can't even apologize for that. Fair enough, and I think my point would've landed better if I'd said 1979 and included the DMG, since lots of gamers do arbitrarily cut off "core"...

It's self-evident that the first two volumes of a multi-volume game system are going to be more "compact and limited" than the whole system. I would think the same of an AD&D arbitrarily cut off at the end of 1978 on the grounds that the MM and PHB are all one really needs to play.

The '86 and '92 Immortals rules are much more different from each other than any little differences between BX and BE. And yet, BX gets to be its own edition in the eyes of OSR gamers, while BECMI and 1070/RC/WotI get lumped. BXceptionalism makes no sense to me. As far as I'm concerned...

You probably have heard of it! "Ten-seventy" is the 1991 big black box (New Easy-to-Master D&D Game). "Eleven-six" is its smaller repackaging (Classic D&D Game, the 1994 tan box / 1996 small black box).

I voted BECMI, but if we're going to treat Moldvay/Cook and Mentzer as separate editions, I'm not actually running either one. I run 1070/RC/WotI. The 1992 and 1986 Immortals rules are more different from each other than the 1982, 1983, and 1984 Expert Sets are.

Beyond the Wall / Through Sunken Lands. Most would point to the playbooks or the "build the village" mechanic as the selling point, but for me, it's the magic system. BtW/TSL is like a B/X clone that caps at 10th level, with three core classes (fighter, rogue, and mage, where the mage also...

Advanced Labyrinth Lord / Advanced Edition Companion is the same. Outright says that you can have an elf and an elf fighter/magic-user adventuring next to each other and it'll work out just fine. And it does.

.

.

.

▯

▯

▯

▯

▯