| art by Jeff Easley |
This post is my opinion based on my own experiences and is not intended to be a definitive history.
I have recently gotten hold of a PDF of the Holmes Basic edition of D&D. For those that don’t know, this was the edition that was intended to smarten up and clarify Original D&D (the three white books), then encouraged players to move on to Advanced D&D, yet was also the direct ancestor of Moldvay Basic D&D, which is the set I first had and was my introduction to this hobby. I was going to write about just Holmes Basic and what can be borrowed from it in my B/X D&D Mystara campaign, but I’ve ended up thinking about all editions of D&D.
My Feelings on the Matter
I think a lot of people can get defensive and close-minded about editions. In my 40 years in the hobby I have seen a number of edition wars, waged in the Forum pages of Dragon Magazine, the early Usenet forums on the nascent world wide web and of course other online places like Reddit, EN World and various blogs. One thing that irks me is when people decide quite arbitrarily what is or is not “proper” D&D. This is often based on what edition they grew up with and played with their friends when they were discovering the game. I think it’s quite normal and natural to have a favourite edition, and that is probably going to be influenced by nostalgia. I myself wrote this blog because I wanted to get back to Moldvay Basic D&D, which I was given for Christmas 1982. It still is my favourite edition. But I try not to confuse nostalgia with being the “correct” edition, especially when talking to others.
I have always acknowledged that D&D is always changing. It has ever since it was first published. There are those who denounce the the three supplements to the white booklets, Supplement 1: Greyhawk, Supplement 2: Blackmoor & Supplement 3: Eldritch Wizardry as deviating from “proper D&D” which should be the three booklets (Men & Magic, Monsters & Treasure, Underworld & Wilderness Adventures) and nothing else. Thieves? Variable damage dice for weapons? Different hit dice for classes? Bah! Newfangled nonsense!. And I believe the game will continue to evolve. 5.5E probably won’t be the final edition. That doesn’t mean I will definitely play 6th or 7th edition if and when they are published, but I’ll try to have an open mind about them and not be bitter about WotC abandoning MY edition, or resentful to those who play the new ones. Players and DMs who prefer the older editions can still continue with the books they already have - the two downsides are that firstly WotC (or whatever publisher) won't be putting out more support for that edition; secondly new editions will split the fan base and a large number of players will move along to the new edition, reducing the number of potential players for the old edition.
I also think it is quite reasonable to like or dislike rules and mechanics within each edition. Some will veer towards the crunch-heavy side (5E and 3.5E spring to mind) while others will go for as rules-lite as possible (OD&D or its OSR imitators). Rules vs Rulings is often a matter of taste rather than objective quality. Sometimes the size of the books is more dependent on the options available rather than explaining the underlying mechanics - new races, feats, classes, subclasses, prestige classes, kits, spells, equipment, magic items and the like can all add to the page count. And I have seen lots of discussions (sometimes heated) about the pros and cons of different mechanics and rules, usually on the internet.
WotC can piss people off. And as a big corporation they have made some bad business decisions. That Pinkerton incident (yes I know it was about Magic the Gathering, not D&D, but it is still the same corporation) will haunt them for a long time. Good - they deserve to be reminded of it. And that attempt to rewrite the OGL did not go down well with anybody else. But I don’t think we should look at TSR through rose-tinted glasses either. Gary Gygax’s treatment of Dave Arneson, Lorraine Williams ousting of Gary in turn, TSR’s ferocious approach to amateur D&D work on the early web all show that big businesses will behave like big businesses. I remember on the Usenet forums before TSR went bankrupt it was regularly referred to as T$R, and some players were regularly advocating piracy as T$R didn’t deserve their money. Despite all these corporate shenanigans I have not been put off from buying TSR or WotC products as long as I am interested in the actual product. Other people can boycott WotC if they want, and I’m not going to argue with them. But I don’t have to join in either.
My personal experiences with D&D Editions
OD&D (Gygax & Arneson, 1974): I do have the PDFs, but I have never actually played it. Seeing as I don’t have Chainmail rules, I don’t think I’ll even try as it looks like a disorganised mess. But I do know that other people still play it and that retroclones of it have done well.
Holmes Basic D&D (Eric J Holmes, 1977): Like I said earlier, I have recently acquired the PDF. It is interesting and is the branching point for B/X from AD&D. I probably won’t use anything in it but it is nice to read as an important part of D&D history. The presentation and explanation has greatly improved from OD&D.
B/X D&D (Moldvay, Cook, Marsh, 1981): The first rules I owned (the magenta Basic D&D box with Keep on the Borderlands), and the rules I played with in prep school (ages 10-12). Very formative years, and lots of nostalgia. I still like the relative lightness of the rules even if I have sometimes found the race-as-class idea somewhat restrictive.
BECMI D&D (Frank Mentzer, 1983): I was given Mentzer's Expert boxed set rather than the Cook/Marsh one, with the Larry Elmore cover. I reckon BECMI is so close to B/X that they are effectively the same edition though with very different presentations - perhaps Basic D&D 1.5. I also have the Companion rules and the Masters Rules (though the Masters Rules are only as a PDF). Honorable mention goes to the Rules Cyclopedia, the most complete game in one book that I own, and it is often the D&D book I take on holiday. Incidentally this is the edition I used to play D&D with nephews and nieces a long time ago (we had a week's holiday together and they were between 8 and 12 I think - the oldest is now 26).
1st Edition AD&D (Gary Gygax, 1977+): This is what I started playing at boarding school, particularly the earlier half (age 13-15). Again lots of nostalgia during formative years. I had nearly all the hardback books. The fact that it was Advanced, not Basic, made us feel more grown-up.... There are things about this edition that I still enjoy and refer to, such as the appendices in the back of the DMG.
2nd Edition AD&D (David Zeb Cook, 1989); The later years of boarding school (age 16 to 17) saw the introduction of 2E and my D&D friends and I switched. There was of course the assumption that newer is better, but we ended up playing a mash-up of 1E and 2E, with older modules, assassins, monks and half orcs making their appearances in our 2E games. I still like how 2E clarified the rules, improved the Ranger and Bard classes, actually had a consistent mechanic for surprise and was a little less arbitrary than Gary’s 1E. However, it was also somewhat less flavourful and played it a bit too safe (I was disappointed at the initial lack of devils & demons, though they were brought back later). I bought more 2E books at university (including Dark Sun, Planescape and lots of Forgotten Realms books) but at university I never really found a group I was comfortable playing with.
3rd Edition D&D (Monte Cook, Skip Williams, Jonathan Tweet, 2000). I bought a lot of the books but I didn't get to play much - this was definitely a dry period, where I spent a lot of time world-building and dreaming of creating great adventures and supplements but never getting them further than my hard drive. There were some things about this edition I really liked, but others I was less enthusiastic about. One of the great things was the Open Game License which allowed all sorts of third-party products including adventures, settings and even whole games based off D&D, which led to retro-clones and the OSR. The thing I least liked about this was the increasing complexity - the skills system, calculating monster XP, the massive bloat in terms of feats and prestige classes. A lot of my world building and unpublished adventurers ended up summarising NPCs as race, class & alignment rather than doing proper stat blocks, which could get really big for high level characters.
4th Edition D&D (Rob Heinsoo, James Wyatt, 2008): I skipped this one. I did actually buy the three core books but on perusing I decided I didn’t like it. I didn’t even get to try the mechanics - I was put off by the radical changes to things like races, alignment, adding new classes & races, dropping established ones and telling players and D&Ds “Don’t bother trying to convert your old campaign to 4E, just start a new campaign with these new classes, races & cosmology”. And I just went “Nope.” The best thing that 4th Edition did was to push me towards the OSR (Old School Revival) where I found retroclones such as OSRIC, Swords & Wizardry and of course my favourite, Labyrinth Lord, which led me back to Basic D&D. To be fair there wasn't much opportunity for actual play during this period either.
5th Edition D&D (Mike Mearls, Jeremy Crawford, 2014): I bought the core books fairly early on, soon after each one was released, but I didn’t get to play until a few years ago at a board games cafe. Since then I’ve played more 5E than almost any other edition. The current edition always has a competitive edge over out-of-print editions, and although I was hoping to run a B/X game, the demand was for 5E. It turns out to be a pretty good, decent system - the campaign would not have lasted 2 years if I thought the rules were complete crap. It is more rules-intensive than B/X or AD&D, but not intolerably so. The campaign I have been running has recently ended unexpectedly. This is sad, but I do not regret the time and effort I spent running it. The two years or so DMing the campaign has meant I have gotten used to 5E and perhaps even some confidence in running it. Beforehand I had the books but really didn’t know what it felt like to play: Now I do.













