[TSR/OSR] CHOOSE YOUR FIGHTA

Best Selling RPGs - Available Now @ DriveThruRPG.com
I started with Moldvay and didn't read Mentzer until much later. Moldvay, in my biased, nostalgic mind, just has a much better attitude. B/X goes to level 14 and that's more than enough, for me.
 
Last edited:
Moldvay was a far superior adventure designer and the reading list for Basic blows away Gygax's overhyped Appendix N. But the Red Box is unmatched as an introduction to rpgs.

I think B/X and BECMI are so close ruleswise that's largely a wash. And let's not forget B/X is by Moldvay/Cook not just Moldvay. Mentzer had the advantage of being able to draw on the much cleaned up Moldvay/Cook ruleset as his base.

Ultimately, I have to say Mentzer had the bigger, long term impact due to the Red Box but Moldvay is the richer, long term inspiration via his adventures.
 
opaopajr said:
:goof: I don't get it. :heart: But it's good to hear from you again!
Click to expand...
This Mentzer was apparently a rival to Arnie in their golden days of competitive bodybuilding (and Arnie's vicytory over him seems to be a point of contention among enthusiasts), but as a newcomer to the sport and an old hand at elfgames, I giggled like a little girl and made this.
 
I strongly prefer the art in the Mentzer sets to that in the Moldvay set. Erol Otus’ druggy quasi-Dr Seuss style is cool but IMO it doesn’t really fit with the tone and style of the set which should be more “classic high fantasy.” Willingham’s art is good and does fit and IMO they should’ve used more of it. DSL and Roslof are both pretty generic and undistinguished. I think Jeff Dee’s art is trash.

Content-wise, the Mentzer Basic Set is a great teaching tool for both players and DMs with its conversational tone and step by step instructions that give context why as well as what. The players book gets all the attention with its programmed solo adventures and Aleena and Bargle, but IMO the DM book is more valuable - learning to play is pretty simple, but learning to be a good DM is not and the Mentzer book does a better job of teaching that than anything else I know. That said, once you know what you’re doing the very structure that makes it such a good teaching tool - the conversational tone and explanatory asides - make it less than ideal as a reference for ongoing play. For that the more straightforward structure of the Moldvay book is better.

And beyond that I have almost nothing good to say about Mentzer’s C, M, and I sets. When he was re-editing and reorganizing on top of work that had already been done by others he produced good stuff. When he was creating stuff and expanding the scope of the game into new areas it got worse and worse.
 
Fenris-77 said:
Moldvay, Moldvay, Moldvay. I'll eat my hat if most people aren't just voting for what they played first. I know I am.
Click to expand...
Get eating. I started with Mentzer and now rate Molvay much higher.
 
robb said:
Get eating. I started with Mentzer and now rate Molvay much higher.
Click to expand...
The exception that proves the rule, as my answer will continue to be with any other smart asses. :grin:
 
Moldvay because it stops at level 14. I don't enjoy when characters get up into super high levels.

But the Cleric advancement scheme was weird.

And I do prefer Elmore's art over Otus's.

However if you're talking about an actual fight between the two, Frank could take him any day. He has the size advantage and looks meaner.
 
Moldvay wins out for me, because it was the first Rpg I owned and got the adventuring started, per se.

Mentzer came out a few years later, and by that time I was deep in the weeds, playing AD&D with my friends in the neighborhood. Mentzer D&D seemed like an unnecessary product to purchase, because I was not playing BD&D anymore, and because I'd perused a friend's copy of Mentzer Basic and had thought, "well, I already own that".
 
Fenris-77 Fenris-77 luckily you said most people because I started with Mentzer but these days strongly prefer Moldvay. I also much prefer the art in Moldvay and unlike T T. Foster it embodies what I want out of my games these days. I do think the Mentzer red box did a great job as an intro for kids but it seems to talk down to you as an adult. Out of the two, even if you include the Rules Cyclopedia in with Mentzer, I will take Moldvay in every way. I also much prefer the original B/X to OSE, not only is the art in B/X more to my taste but the lack of examples in OSE make it more of a reference guide than a good learning tool where a newbie can pick up B/X with the examples and figure out how to play.
 
Jackson, for me.
20240505_132814.jpg
 
Moldvay for me!
In my book Otus's art beats Elmore's six ways from Sunday, and 14 levels feel like plenty to me. Dee's "Morgan Ironwolf" is for good or ill permanently engraved on my hippocampus.
Mentzer's Choose-Your-Own-Adventure introduction was a nice gesture, but are we really all putting that much stock in CYOA instruction? Moldvay put a CYOA style gatehouse at the beginning of the green Palace of the Silver Princess and no one pats him on the back for that.
 
Moldvay. It is still the best, most clear and concise version of D&D. I loved the art from both versions. Mentzer was better if you were just starting solo without anyone to teach you but I don't how many people learned to play like that.
 
Exploderwizard said:
Moldvay. It is still the best, most clear and concise version of D&D. I loved the art from both versions. Mentzer was better if you were just starting solo without anyone to teach you but I don't how many people learned to play like that.
Click to expand...

Thanks to Mentzer, lots of us learned that way!
 
The Red Box wins hands down for me for the aesthetic/nostalgia value.

But if I were to run any game of D&D these days it would likely be 0e or a hodgepodge of 2e/5e. I never encountered Holmes or Moldvay until I was much older. I can appreciate what folks like about them, but they have no nostalgia to hook me in, and while I find Otis' art charming, Elmore epitomizes the Dungeons & Dragons and Paperback Fantasy aesthetic that I grew up with.
 
David Johansen said:
Moldvay is a better reference work, Metzer is a better tutorial, Holmes is a better game.
Click to expand...
Since Holmes is the only version of D&D/AD&D/WotC D&D I haven't played yet, can you elaborate on this? Should I put it to the top of my "to-play" list?
 
CaoCao said:
Uhm, it required a large table for maps and cardboard minis, not available to everyone. Mentzer did better, and with paper and pencil only.
Click to expand...
That was just for the introductory scenario. The map wasn't that big and don't think there are many who find themselves gaming at a table so small, that map wouldn't fit.

And the dragon cards was the feature here, not the map.
 
Spartan said:
Since Holmes is the only version of D&D/AD&D/WotC D&D I haven't played yet, can you elaborate on this? Should I put it to the top of my "to-play" list?
Click to expand...
Holmes is mostly a reorganized OD&D that only goes to third level. It doesn't use races as classes so you have four race options and four class options. One thing it doesn't have is damage by weapon type though that's easily implemented if you want it. It has a full dungeon crawl adventure in the core book. The attribute bonuses are a bit less consistant and Holmes uses the 'Chance To Know Spell" methode which I like better in versions where there aren't so many spells. Holmes also allows wizards to scribe scrolls for 100gp which can be a real game changer for magic-users.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Banner: The best cosmic horror & Cthulhu Mythos @ DriveThruRPG.com
Back
Top