D&D for Beginners

cool, glad i dont have to spend a ton of money on this stuff
ill report back to you guys later, thanks for the advice!

one more thing if anyone has an answer,

what should we be using in the way of character sheets? are they necessary? ive seen a lot of different looking formats out there and if you guys just wanna post the ones (if any) you use, that would be a huge help

The advice you got is pretty tinted with rose colored glasses. Use the books you have, your friends matter more.

I, as DM, like to use a sheet I like for important information and then let the players figure the rest out. That wayI can keep track of their resources as we play easily.

Play GURPS instead. It has a bad rep for being hard, but its what I started with and it was easy for me to pick up. Keep the game simple, and put strict limits on character creation, just so things are easisr to deal with.

This desu
Just use GURPS Lite plus the Dungeon Fantasy stuff, and the only hard thing about it (Character creation) suddenly becomes very easy.

Here's every official edition of the game:

Original D&D 1974 white box
—consists of three booklets: "Men & Magic", "Monsters & Treasure", "Wilderness and Underworld Adventures"
—also four supplements were released, "Greyhawk", "Blackmoor", "Eldritch Wizardry", and "Gods Demigods & Heroes"
—and a set of basic rules, "blue book" basic D&D, in 1977
—Playing just the three little books is very difficult for a newbie because they're written for war-gamers and not very clear
—Playing with the supplements just makes things way more complicated
—Holmes basic makes everything easier to understand, but it's still REALLY opaque to a modern audience
—The verdict: don't start with OD&D

Advanced D&D 1st edition 1979
—Basically just everything from OD&D + the supplements, plus a bunch of stuff from Dragon Magazine like the bard and ranger classes, complied together; so it's more complicated and still pretty difficult to parse. If you're new, avoid this (and its retro-clone, OSRIC).
—1985 saw the release of "Unearthed Arcana", which drastically alters the nature of the game. Makes characters way more powerful (so that they can be more like the protagonists of a fantasy story than just rogues hunting treasure), but widely regarded to be over-complicated, unbalanced crap. "1e + UA" campaigns are sometimes known as "D&D 1.5". Avoid like the plague.
—The verdict: don't start with AD&D 1e; never play 1.5e

Basic D&D 1st version 1981
—Consists of two booklets, a "Basic Set" in a light red cover by Tom Moldvay and an "Expert Set" in a cyan cover by Zeb Cook and Steve Marsh
—This is essentially a revision of OD&D that drastically improves readability and playability, but it's still not the best version for new players
—The verdict: this is the 2nd best choice, if you can find it

Basic D&D 2nd version 1983
—The revision of the 1981 basic by Frank Mentzer actually teaches you how to play the game.
—Still consists of a red-covered "Basic Set" and a blue-covered "Expert Set"
—The verdit: if you can find this, get it and learn to play D&D from it, it's THE BEST place for new players to start
—This edition had three more sets of rules: the green-covered Companion Set, the black-covered Masters Set, and the gold-covered Immortals Set. The Companion Set has some pretty cool rules for running kingdoms, conducting wars, jousts, etc.; but don't worry about the Masters or Immortals Sets, no campaign ever legitimately reaches such high levels.

Advanced D&D 2nd edition 1989
—A revision and cleanup of 1st edition AD&D. It's pretty good if you just stick to the core rules (PHB, DMG, MM) and leave out even most of the optional rules in those very core books
—If you want more classes in your game than just the basic fighter, mage, cleric, and thief (things like ranger, paladin, bard, druid), this is your best bet
—Stil pretty easy to find the old books for this one cheaply
—The main problem is the way that it handles XP. It awards XP for class-specific deeds and actions, not 1 XP = 1 GP of treasure found (which is relegated to an optional rule in the DMG); if you actually want to play D&D right, USE THE XP FOR TREASURE OPTION and ignore the story and class based XP rules
—In the mid-90s, a bunch of books called "Players Option" and "DMs Option" came out; these are often called "AD&D 2.5". They make things super complicated and unbalanced. Avoid.
—The verdict: 2nd edition (core only) is the 4th best choice for learning D&D, but only if you do XP right

Basic D&D 3rd version 1991
—At its core, this edition consists of one of two basic sets, either the black box "New Easy to Master D&D Game" or the dragon-covered "Classic D&D" Game; the D&D Rules Cyclopedia; and the Wrath of the Immortals boxed set
—Really just a compilation of the 1983 basic D&D stuff
—The black box basic set puts the rules on fucking flash cards; avoid
—The 2nd basic set at least puts them in a book and it's good at teaching the game, but pretty kiddie and hand-holding; and the organization is crap for actual use at the table
—The Rules Cyclopedia is widely and highly regarded as the single best D&D book ever: great organization, very complete, very useful; not good for learning though
—Wrath of the Immortals is a vast improvement over the gold box Immortals Set, but again, nobody ever plays at this level
—The verdict: 3rd best choice for learning to play D&D

"d20 System" D&D 3rd edition 2000
"d20 System" D&D 3rd edition revised 2005
"d20 System" D&D 4th edition 2008
"d20 System" D&D 5th edition 2014
—All of the editions published by Wizards of the Coast use the "d20 System" rules, which are quite different from the D&D published by TSR.
—It cleans things up and unifies the mechanics, but also makes many things either needlessly complicated or adds rules where they were never really needed
—The original 3rd edition ("3.0") and 5th edition are okay, if you stick to the core rules only; 3.5 less so; 4th edition is almost unrecognizable as D&D
—All d20 editions suffer from the fatal flaw that XP is awarded for winning combats, which isn't what D&D is about; drastic house-ruling would be needed to fix this
—At least 4th edition owns the fact that it's trying to be "D&D: Tatics"
—But still, not a one of these editions is particularly learner-friendly

In summary, for learning D&D:

D&D '83 > D&D '81 > D&D '91 > AD&D 2e > AD&D 1e = OD&D '74 > any d20 System version

Sicne the auld books are a bit hard to come by these days, though, you need to go for a retro-clone that captures the spirit and feel of the rules. The best retro clone of Basic and Expert D&D is "Labyrinth Lord", which is mostly based on the '81 version, with a few features cribbed from the '83 version. Still not a great learning tool, but it's the best –version– of the rules to actually play, especially for a new player. And it has great support, like the "Labyrinth Lord Advanced Edition Companion", which adds in all of the AD&D classes, races, monsters, and magical items if you want them (and in a simplified, basic-compatible form).

In other words, go here:

goblinoidgames.com/labyrinthlord.html

>I'd like to start with D&D, and if I get really into it then I might try out some other ones

Don't, unless you are certain you and your friends can avoid first time preference.

Start off with one shots, no matter what edition you do. Get comfortable with the system before you dive deep into a campaign.

This. The old ones are generally the best if you're not a min-maxing fool who needs books to tell them what to do.

I'd suggest taking a look of Lamentations of the Flame Princess, though - the basic rules are free, and the writing is far less arcane (to hit charts, descending AC and and all that shit are the downsides of Basic/AD&D 1st) and it has some of the best general modifications out there to streamline the game. (That whole encumbrance deal, mostly.)

page 10 bump

oops wrong thread, sorry.

so basically you recommend reading the mentzer book first, and after that actually using labyrinth lord for playing?
what about BFRPG?

D&D is a terrible game. It is unbalanced, uses an overly-swingy base mechanic where your tiny modifiers hardly even matter til higher levels, and uses outdated mechanics such as armor class and saving throws to punish your character.

OP what you want is Dungeon World

It's pretty much objectively one of the best currently out there. It has fast easy to use mechsnics and is perfect for beginners, it's a lot cheaper than most of these other rules bloated systems that cost fifty dollars. There is no reason for extra rules when it is he role playing that matters. Dungeon World is fast and innovative and still feels exactly like the spirit of ADND before DnD 3.5 destroyed the hobby and ruined a generation of role players.

You want fast, intuitive combat? Dungeon World does that.

You want real, deep roleplaying mechanics? Dungeon World does that.

You want great mechanics that reward diversity of play? Dungeon World does that as well.

My last session of Dungeon World my human fighter wrapped a vampire in a bear hug and wrestled him out a window. This is real roleplaying we are talking about here, not babby 3.5 shit. Do yourself a favor and pick up a copy of Dungeon World today, it is an evolution and perfection of the half-formed ideas in Apocalypse World (the game it is derived from)

Personally I say fuck that, cause I hate the lack of investment one-shots inspire. I say, dive right the FUCK into a campaign, yes you can do a one shot to start it off, no you do NOT need a direction to do a campaign. Hell, my 3.5 campaign had no real plot until the fifth adventure or so, then it started evolving naturally from the characters' actions and the enemy that had unearthed. Felt more organic and realistic that way. Oh, and if your campaign is going to shit? Scrap it and start over. That's totally fine.

>liking things i don't like

All the classic official supplements are kind of fragmented and difficult to work with. They also tend to contradict one another on their interpretation of the game's rules. This is where D&D clones come in handy. They'll give you a single, consistent interpretation and condense all of that into a single source book.

I'd personally recommend Labyrinth Lord, although it does take a few minor liberties. If you want a more restrictive White Box experience, there's also Swords & Sorcery.

BFRPG is autism, and the guy who wrote it is frankly a sperglord, and the very reason I don't lurk Dragonsfoot anymore.

>Swords & Sorcery

... or maybe that's Swords & Wizardry? I can't even remember.

Reading comprehension.To wit:
Also, some of the OSR stuff is literally legit free. And no one here is recommending 3.5, and no one of a sound mind would.

Not shitting on DW, but the failing forward-reactive storyweaving business is a bit heavy for a first-time ref, too. Maybe later when OP knows their roots.

I don't really care if OP wants to start with Dungeons and Dragons. He is wrong. D&D is "first and worst" as I like to call it. it is the model T of RPGs. Sure it was nice when it came out, but since then RPGs have taken on a new, better direction. D&D refuses to evolve and sits in a pro-min-maxing, pro-powergaming, pro-needless-lcomplexity, anti-roleplaying corner. Dungeon World is pro-story, pro-role playing, pro-interaction, and EVERYTHING about the mechanics reflects this.

Not playing Dungeon World is like cutting yourself -- it is needless, stupid, and honestly should be handled by mental health professionals.

Fuck Mentzer Basic's bullshit format. The "learn as you go" method is severely flawed, as it provides you with only snippets of what you need to know, and it's really difficult to look up the rest, because the book is impossible to reference. Moldvay Basic is far superior in this respect, and the sum totality of the game is 2 books, rather than 9 (which, admittedly, take the game to higher levels, but I'm still not clear on why anybody would want to go past 14 anyway). So '81 is definitely better than '83. (Also, you skipped over Holmes Basic, which was released in '79, the same year as 1st edition AD&D).

Also, I don't know that 5e is more difficult to learn than AD&D, which has all kinds of ad hoc, poorly organized bullshit. Now, maybe the stripped-down AD&D game that lots of people play is simpler, but they only get there by ignoring a lot of shit, and that isn't really a factor for new players who aren't joining an established group (at which point, the presentation of rules is less important anyway).

Swords & Wizardry White Box is one of the simplest retroclones. (And the White Box Heroes supplement offers additional classes for those who find the selection in S&W WB confining.)

This.

Your opinion is not an objective truth. DW is a different game - not saying that it's shit, I personally like it as well, but it has its own flaws. Like D&D has flaws. The system that you happen to like the most is not the best by default and so on and so forth.
Also, you seem to be basing your opinion entirely on the most terrible WotC-era products, and ignoring everything that has been said about the general badness of those editions by pretty much everyone in this thread.

>I have a couple books and whatnot published in 1979-ish (OP pic related). I have the Dungeon Masters Guide, the Monster Manual, and the Players handbook. They were published in 1977-79 and all say "advanced D&D (once again, OP pic related)
>Is this a good place to start with learning rules or do I need some more books?
If you want to do old school D&D, Basic D&D has the same core rules, but much less bullshit clutter on top. Yes, AD&D has a better selection of classes, spells, weapons, and so forth, but A) this is added complexity that makes the game harder to learn for a beginner, B) the added options tend to be of lower quality, in general, and C) a lot of the extra stuff is restrictions and extra fiddly stats that really add nothing to the enjoyment of the game. Also, AD&D feels the need to make things more complex "just because", so the identical spell will often have a significantly longer, more involved description, with more rules, and more moving parts (like more values that scale with level, or more special situations that can apply). This needlessly complicates the game and slows things down.

So I'd say that even if you ultimately want to play AD&D, you should start with Basic. I would also add that AD&D makes great source material for Basic, as it's very easy to selectively drop things from AD&D into Basic (along these lines, Labyrinth Lord, a relatively faithful retroclone of Moldvay Basic, has an Advanced Edition Companion, which aims to provide the greater options of AD&D--more spells and classes and so forth--with the more streamlined core of Basic, and while I'd say it's only partially successful in this, it is a step in the right direction coming from AD&D).

There are other games out there that are more accessible to noobs than D&D. That doesn't mean that starting with D&D is wrong though, just a bit more challenging, and it's something to consider. So here are some of your best options...

Barbarians of Lemuria -- If you're not tied to the D&D brand, Barbarians of Lemuria is significantly simpler than even the simplest edition of D&D (and it's a cool game to boot).

Moldvay Basic -- The simplest official D&D edition. It's a grand total of 128 pages for everything, including character creation, equipment, spells, monsters, treasure, etc. And you only need have of that to start playing. (The Basic Set takes you up to level 3, and is 64 pages. The Expert Set covers levels 4-14, and is an additional 64 pages.) The downside? Its rules are rather ad hoc, with different subsystems working according to different rules. It's streamlined enough that it's still simple despite this, but its wonkiness may bother you. Also, don't expect a lot of choice when it comes to character building. That sort of thing comes organically through improvisation, and not through rule mechanics.

A retroclone of some sort -- If you want to play D&D, but don't need it to be official. Swords & Wizardry White Box is probably the simplest one out there (that's still a full-length game and not some 3-page outline), but there are a huge number of clones that tweak the rules of an official D&D edition. These clones are going to tend to have the same general strengths and drawbacks as Moldvay Basic. You can think of them as house rules though, and select the one that appeals most to you. (I, for instance, find Swords & Wizardry's single stat saving throw to be an improvement over the ad hoc categories of old school D&D saves).

5e -- The current edition gives you more mechanical choices and you're going to be able to find more people playing it, if that's a concern. Compared to something like Moldvay Basic, though, it's a lot more involved...

>Compared to something like Moldvay Basic, though, it's a lot more involved...
...and many times the overall length. Effort has been put into it to make it a lot simpler to play than, say, 3rd edition, but it's still rules-medium at least. But it's the big game now, and a shitload more people are playing it than any old school edition.

As long as we're talking about it, I'll just throw this out there.

>Barbarians of Lemuria,Mythic Edition (current edition) -- mediafire.com/folder/7llc83r2xf8bg/Barbarians_of_Lemuria_-_Mythic_Edition

>Barbarians of Lemuria, Legendary Edition (earlier edition, fewer details & more minimalist presentation makes it even easier to learn, but the rules aren't as refined) --mediafire.com/download/p5w885sa9a869ma/Barbarians Of Lemuria - Legendary Edition.pdf

>Barbarians of Lemuria, House Rules / Patches for Legendary Edition (if you want the bare bones minimalism of Legendary, but with the rules tightened up a bit) -- mega.co.nz/#F!CtQR2bST!y_awB-GHCiL3CdK4iLCV7A

...

Idk man, i bought the 5e starter set like 2 weeks ago and i as Dm am having a blast, pretty easy to understand. also, i must say that english is not my first language so i had an additional layer of difficulty. but overall, i fully recommend it.

>Also, you skipped over Holmes Basic, which was released in '79, the same year as 1st edition AD&D
'77, rather.

AD&D 1E is a trip. You'll get fluent in Gygaxian. It's rough in spots, gets a bit weird here and there, and the organization is messy... but if you want the raw old-school experience you have what you need.

It's what I learned on... when it was new. (I spotted this topic looking for the FoW thread, if you want to know what my ancient ass is doing here)

Play some hair metal in the background for the immersive play experience.

Fuck, I think I'm missing everything before Advanced