As of this writing, we have 7 questions explicitly asking for solutions within the Moldvay edition of D&D.

In chronological order, newest first:

In light of the fact we have no tag for Moldvay's D&D, a few of these questions are just leaving the system in their title.

Generally we have a tag to distinguish between systems, and seven questions is probably enough to have a tag for Moldvay D&D. However I am concerned it may be counter-productive to have one. Is it worth distinguishing between Moldvay D&D and other AD&D systems tag-wise? Should we have a tag?


1 Answer 1


Well, we do, though it's a bit confusing. Our tag hierarchy for D&D is:

  • [dungeons-and-dragons]
    • [odnd] - Holmes LBB
    • [bx-dnd] - Moldvay Basic and Cook Expert
    • [dnd-becmi] - Mentzer Red Box + (expert, companion, master, immortal)
    • [adnd] - aka 1e
    • [adnd-2e]
    • [dnd-3e]
    • [dnd-3.5e]
    • [dnd-4e] - includes Essentials
    • [dnd-next]
    • [pathfinder]

Plus some cruft that needs merging (dnd-5e, dnd-next-playtest, et al). Not sure why it's bx-dnd and not dnd-bx, it'd probably be easier to find the other way, and a tag synonym for dnd-mentzer to dnd-becmi would be fine. Also I'm not sure what dnd-basic is supposed to be - encompass the first 3 on that list?

  • \$\begingroup\$ Tag synonymized bx-dnd and dnd-moldvay to dnd-bx. Added a tag wiki for dnd-bx. \$\endgroup\$
    – mxyzplk
    Jan 5, 2013 at 15:13
  • \$\begingroup\$ Seems like OD&D is D&D Basic, or The Basic Set. See this answer and this wiki article - there is no other "D&D basic" other than the first blue-box D&D. \$\endgroup\$ Jan 5, 2013 at 15:13
  • \$\begingroup\$ Look harder. All three of those games are referred to as "Basic" D&D. The dnd-basic tag has been applied to all of those variations so far on the site. \$\endgroup\$
    – mxyzplk
    Jan 5, 2013 at 15:15
  • \$\begingroup\$ Ah, so D&D Basic is just as opposed to AD&D I guess. Whoops :( \$\endgroup\$ Jan 5, 2013 at 15:15
  • \$\begingroup\$ I'm just not sure if there's value in a dnd-basic tag that encompasses all three. We have dungeons-and-dragons for everything, and there's no similar "all the advanced variants" tag because they're different enough that's not helpful. \$\endgroup\$
    – mxyzplk
    Jan 5, 2013 at 15:20
  • \$\begingroup\$ We also have [osr] which is being used to tag "all pre-3.0 editions" but that seems painful. Also a bunch tagged both bx and basic though just about bx; I'm removing basic from those. \$\endgroup\$
    – mxyzplk
    Jan 5, 2013 at 15:24
  • \$\begingroup\$ Merged all dnd-basic to dnd-bx. Merged all dnd-next-playtest and dnd-5e to dnd-next. Synonyms set up. \$\endgroup\$
    – mxyzplk
    Jan 5, 2013 at 15:29
  • \$\begingroup\$ I'm not too fussed either way, but the reason it was [bx-dnd] instead of [dnd-bx] is due to the network guidance to use the abbreviations that existing communities already use. It's generally called "B/X D&D" or just "B/X" sometimes leaving out the slash. "D&D BX" isn't attested anywhere. It also wasn't considered necessary to make it fit the general pattern of [dnd-whatever] because the tag search algorithm finds what you typed anywhere in the tag, not just at the beginning, so [bx-dnd] is equally discoverable to [dnd-bx]. It's not caught by favouriting/ignoring the [dnd-*] tag, though. \$\endgroup\$ Jan 6, 2013 at 5:00
  • \$\begingroup\$ Sure, but as a result no one was using it (including you) on appropriate questions. Something needed changing. \$\endgroup\$
    – mxyzplk
    Jan 6, 2013 at 5:04

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .