Best Intro to AD&D

[Falconer]

Since AD&D is not meant for newbie DMs (i.e. a DM who has never even been a player in a D&D game), what was the best introductory product for a newbie DM who had the ultimate goal of running AD&D? (And for the purposes of this discussion, let’s stick to published TSR products.)

I suppose it is possible that the best option is to stick him with the AD&D books right off the bat, knowing he will struggle through them but at least he and his players will be less confused in the long run.

If going that route, you could do worse than using a module like B2 which really walks you through the basics. That way you at least aren’t stuck wondering what the fundamentals like what the game is about and how it ought to be run, what the DM’s responsibilities are as opposed to the players’, etc.

The more obvious routes are by starting with the OD&D set or one of the three Basic sets. There is going to be a less-than-smooth transition at some point, but at least the learning curve will be less steep. The 1977 set explicitly describes itself as a lead-in to AD&D, which is spurious, so it should be judged on its own merits otherwise (which are multitudinous). But AD&D itself only presupposes previous familiarity with OD&D.

Other possibilities would be the later 2e-era Introductory sets, the Rules Cyclopedia, and the AD&D 2e PHB (I think these all had painful “this is just like Chutes & Ladders or Cops & Robbers” style openings). I think these are all bad ideas. While there is some “mechanical” similarity, the “tone” is very different. There is an inherent embarrassment of the rules there, so you will definitely be taught to hand-waive everything and just have DM’s Storytelling Hour. Besides this (or perhaps because of it), I found back when I was playing 2e (under another DM), it was really difficult for us to find fundamental dungeoneering rules, so I would pull out my 1e books to look them up.

[crub90706]

A friend ofmine introduced me to Gamma World. Weplayed that for a few months then I discovered the Basic D&D red box (I think this was sometime in '82). We played that until everyone was 3rd level, but instead of purchasing the EX D&D box I instead went out and picked up a PHB. From then on it was AD&D. But Basic is what I used to cut my teeth on as a DM.

Edit- B2 was the first D&D game I ever ran. It was very helpful to say the lest even though we kind of hazed over the keep part and went straight for the caves.

[Philotomy Jurament]

Good question. Thinking about it, it's amazing that a solid "intro to AD&D" product simply doesn't seem to exist. You mention the various approaches that do exist, and all them can work, but all of them have drawbacks. There's nothing that does all of this:

• Introduces the general D&D concepts in easily accessible form designed to teach the game
• Uses actual AD&D rules (i.e. maybe it needn't introduce everything, but what it does introduce should be actual AD&D)
• Captures the tone and feel of the (1e) AD&D hardbacks

[geneweigel]

1977 or 1981 basics are good but I'd suggest JUST the 1981 for sillier people and BOTH for the quick on the uptake people.

[Falconer]

So is 1983 Basic actually easier to comprehend than 1981 Basic which is easier to comprehend than 1977 Basic which is easier to comprehend than the original? I really wonder. I can’t really look at it objectively as if I didn’t already know what the game was. Original and 1977 Basic both seem very clear and uncluttered to me, giving just the information needed along with plenty of flavor and inspiration. The later sets seem to get more wordy and less interesting. But maybe they really are better intros for complete newbies? I don’t know.

The only real “problems” with the 1977 Basic rules are the lack of rolling for initiative, and the idea of a 10-second round as opposed to 1-minute. But I would consider even those to be nitpicks, easily corrected.

[francisca]

In my opinion, the Moldvay Basic Rulebook is the best intro to the hobby, because it functions well as both an introductory/teaching sourcebook and, perhaps more importantly, works very well as an in-game reference for new players.

Slog through B2 a couple times with it, and the players have the basic down and can either move right to AD&D, or gradually transition into AD&D by adding elements of AD&D a few at a time.

[Philotomy Jurament]

I think the 1983 set is a good introduction, but I dislike the "tone" and feel of it. The 1977 or 1981 sets are a better fit for the AD&D aesthetic, in my opinion. I'd probably lean towards the 1977 set, but there are some very strong arguments for the 1981 set, too.

[blackprinceofmuncie]

I agree with francisca that you can't beat Moldvay as an intro to the hobby. But, I think in some ways the various Basic versions are a poor introduction if what you want as an end product is a DM playing AD&D mostly by the book. I know most of the people I've played with through the years who started on their own with BD&D and later migrated to AD&D basically ended up playing BD&D with more spells and character options tacked on (i.e. they used the simplified initiative and combat rules of BD&D for characters made with the AD&D books). The BEST intro to AD&D is playing with a group who already know what they are doing. In terms of published TSR products which actually get people to play AD&D by the book, the AD&D books themselves along with a simple intro adventure like T1 or B2 are probably the best. If we open the field to any published product, I don't think you can beat OSRIC 2.0 for taking the AD&D rules and making the basics clear and accessible to a new player (although you'd obviously have to move to the AD&D books at some point to get a pure by the book AD&D experience).

[geneweigel]

1981 is more pleasing to the eye than 1977 is all I meant. So with this in mind its a better intro for the vapid who won't really read it end to end.

[thedungeondelver]

AD&D and DD1 and DD2



But I'm biased.

[francisca]

1981 is more pleasing to the eye than 1977 is all I meant. So with this in mind its a better intro for the vapid who won't really read it end to end.

Well, I happen to think it is better written, and as I said, its damn easy to find stuff in it when you need it.

Vapid has nothing to do with it.

I'll also direct you to my signature, as Gary thought the idea of a rulebook as a reference was important, as well.

[geneweigel]

I mean to synch up to AD&D. In itself that basic has a couple of clunks that'll throw you off AD&D.

[TRP]

What about OSRIC? Consider it's presentation of 1e.

ETA: Oops. After a closer read of the thread, I see bpomPhD beat me to the punch!

[Chainsaw]

What about OSRIC? Consider it's presentation of 1e.

I agree - I think it's superb. I really like Chapter III, pages 117-127 and 135-147.

[ScottyG]

Really, the best intro is by playing with an experienced group, but I believe you assume such a resource isn't available. In that case I would say the 81 set would be the best intro to the game. The rules books and B2 are a great introductory combination.