https://medium.com/@blake_23352/d-ds-lightning-in-a-bottle-how-tom-moldvay-and-zeb-cook-got-it-right-92ed6a787d19
Quote from: D&D's Lightning In A Bottle: How Moldvay, Marsh, and Cook Got It RightD&D's Lightning In A Bottle: How Moldvay, Marsh, and Cook Got It Right
Blake DeRusha
Long before I found myself making a movie centered on the greatest game of all time, I grew up surrounded by video games, movies, and books, all of which promised vast, immersive worlds to explore (and many even delivered). But video games were limited by programming, movies were all scripted, and books were realms of polished perfection, delicately crafted by their authors. I wanted to be truly immersed in a world. Live there! Dungeons & Dragons surely scratched that itch for me, but 3rd Edition (which I started with in my pre-teen years) felt somewhat bloated, 1st Edition was an esoteric tome of eldritch sorcery to me at the time (a bit dense for my young vocabulary), and 2nd Edition presented an overflow of splatbooks I couldn't possibly keep up with (despite my heavy desire to).
I only truly discovered the Basic/Expert Set back in 2007 while sifting through early OSR (Old School Renaissance) forums — which is, sadly, the same year that Tom Moldvay (it's writer and developer) passed away. For years, I overlooked the ruleset, thinking it must surely be inferior to the 1st Edition AD&D game. After all, it was marketed as the "basic" game, for beginners, and AD&D was... well... Advanced! Why would anyone want to play a simpler version when a more complex, advanced option was available?
This set, however, offers what I believe to be the purest form of role-playing, a game that doesn't just invite players into a story but hands them the keys to shape that story in their own unique ways.
Roots of the Basic Game: A Journey Back to Simplicity
To truly appreciate the Moldvay/Cook version, it's important to understand its roots. The original Dungeons & Dragons game, published in 1974, was exponentially gaining traction as the decade wore on. By 1977, the game had split into two distinct paths: Advanced Dungeons & Dragons (AD&D) for more seasoned, rule-heavy play and Basic D&D, designed as an entry point for new players.
The 1981 version of Basic D&D, developed by Tom Moldvay and later expanded by David "Zeb" Cook and Steve Marsh, took the original game and refined it, presenting a streamlined version that was accessible to beginners yet deep enough to satisfy experienced players. Moldvay's rulebook was concise, direct, and, most importantly, playable. The focus was on the core elements of D&D: exploration, combat, and treasure. In a mere 64 pages, Moldvay laid down the foundation for endless adventures, drawing on the ethos that less can indeed be more.
As I studied the evolution of the game throughout the years, I came to find that simplicity of the "basic game" wasn't a limitation — it was a strength. The more I played, the more I dug into the real essence of the game, the more I appreciated how the lack of complexity allowed for a focus on what truly mattered: the adventure, the characters, and the story. I realized that what I had dismissed as basic was, in fact, a masterclass in game design.
Just Let Them Play
While many tabletop games lean towards complexity, offering hundreds of pages of rules, B/X D&D's elegance lies in its lean learning curve. The mechanics are concise and straightforward, providing an ease of implementation you simply won't find in most modern roleplaying games, which tend to focus on offering ever-growing lists of character options (and ever-increasing page counts). The real character customization in B/X occurs during play, as the players realize the specifics of their characters throughout the adventure.
B/X D&D's modular nature is another strength. The game offers a framework, a starting point, and then it steps back, allowing Dungeon Masters and players to fill in the gaps with their creativity. Instead of dictating every possible scenario with rigid rules, B/X D&D embraces the unknown, encouraging DMs to invent, adapt, and interpret. This flexibility is a powerful tool that makes each campaign unique and personal. In this way, the game doesn't restrict creativity but fosters it, encouraging players to craft stories as varied and imaginative as they can conceive.
The focus on exploration, rather than just combat, is another defining feature that sets B/X D&D apart. In many modern role-playing games, combat can sometimes overshadow the other aspects of adventure — with combat abilities and spells consuming majority of the Player's Handbook in essentially every edition. Moldvay/Cook D&D, however, emphasizes a balance. The game is about uncovering hidden secrets, exploring dark dungeons, and interacting with the world as much as it is about slaying monsters (and encourages this balance by reminding players that not all problems can be solved with sword and spell). This approach mirrors the allure of classic fantasy literature, where the journey and discovery are just as important as the battles fought along the way.
Has D&D Gotten Better Since 1981?
This brings us to the critical question: has Dungeons & Dragons actually improved since the release of the Moldvay/Cook Basic set? On the surface, it might seem so. Modern editions of D&D have introduced more refined rules, detailed settings, and polished presentations. Fifth Edition garnered praise for being user-friendly and inclusive, revitalizing the hobby with a surge of new players. The 2024 Players Handbook promises to streamline the game even further and consolidate the wide range of character options in previous supplements, condensing the game into a more cohesive system. But beneath the sleek, modern exterior, there's a case to be made that the essence of what made D&D so compelling has been diluted.
In many modern games, character creation can be an exercise in maximizing efficiency — choosing the right feats, spells, and abilities to create a perfectly optimized character. While there's nothing inherently wrong with this approach, it can lead to a focus on mechanics over narrative, on min-maxing rather than role-playing.
Moldvay and Cook placed the focus squarely on story. By contrast, their game encourages players to develop their characters organically. With fewer options and simpler rules, players are less likely to get caught up in the mechanics and more likely to focus on who their characters are, how they interact with the world, and what kind of stories they want to tell. The lack of complexity allows for a purity of play, a focus on the adventure itself rather than the endless pursuit of mechanical perfection.
Old-School Essentials: A Return to Form
Recognizing the intrinsic appeal of the Moldvay/Cook Basic Game, Gavin Norman's Old-School Essentials (OSE) takes the baton from B/X D&D, offering a polished, modern presentation of those classic rules. OSE is not so much a reinvention as it is a respectful homage — a tidy, accessible repackaging of the original B/X rules that makes them even easier to navigate. Norman's work shows that, at its core, the game didn't need to change; it simply needed a bit of tidying up for a modern audience.
OSE retains everything that made the original great: the simplicity, the modularity, and the focus on player-driven storytelling. It presents the rules with clarity and organization, proving that the core principles of Moldvay/Cook D&D are timeless. By focusing on the essence of what made D&D special, OSE has created a product that feels both nostalgic and fresh, showing that sometimes, the best way forward is looking back.
I think what makes the Moldvay/Cook Basic D&D set so special is the way it captures the magic of role-playing — the sense of wonder, discovery, and limitless possibility. It's a game that doesn't try to do everything but does what it does exceptionally well. By embracing simplicity and focusing on the core elements of what makes a great adventure, B/X D&D offers an experience that can't be touched by time.
As players, we are drawn to D&D not just for the rules or the mechanics but for the stories we create, the characters we embody, and the worlds we explore together. In this light, the Moldvay/Cook Basic Game, with its simplicity, flexibility, and focus on creativity, might just be the best version of D&D ever created — a game that reminds us that the heart of role-playing lies not in the rules but in the imagination.
Nice article. Of course the author isn't saying anything that a lot of us didn't already know, but if it helps refugees fleeing 6E for a better game then it was well worth writing.
TBH the issue with a lot of OSR stuff is most of it seems to be based on this "tall tales" exaggerated idea, probably from online discussion, of what D&D was like in the 80s. A lot of the OSR people don't seem to have been old enough to have actually played back then, so their ideas come off more like "I read this is how D&D used to be so I'm making a game based on the stuff I've convinced myself happened" or, if they did play then they probably were quite young so played in weird and wacky ways (as I did playing 2nd edition AD&D when I was like 10 years old) and, again, took that to be the norm.
This reads like an advertisement for OSE. It also kind of reads like the author has no knowledge of RPGs outside of D&D derivatives.
Quote from: Nobleshield on August 26, 2024, 08:58:13 AMTBH the issue with a lot of OSR stuff is most of it seems to be based on this "tall tales" exaggerated idea, probably from online discussion, of what D&D was like in the 80s. A lot of the OSR people don't seem to have been old enough to have actually played back then, so their ideas come off more like "I read this is how D&D used to be so I'm making a game based on the stuff I've convinced myself happened" or, if they did play then they probably were quite young so played in weird and wacky ways (as I did playing 2nd edition AD&D when I was like 10 years old) and, again, took that to be the norm.
There's generally too much premium placed on "how it was back in the day". Yeah, it's interesting as a historical curiosity, but figuring out how so-and-so played back in 1982 isn't going to be the secret key to making your game perfect today.
Quote from: Nobleshield on August 26, 2024, 08:58:13 AMTBH the issue with a lot of OSR stuff is most of it seems to be based on this "tall tales" exaggerated idea, probably from online discussion, of what D&D was like in the 80s. A lot of the OSR people don't seem to have been old enough to have actually played back then, so their ideas come off more like "I read this is how D&D used to be so I'm making a game based on the stuff I've convinced myself happened" or, if they did play then they probably were quite young so played in weird and wacky ways (as I did playing 2nd edition AD&D when I was like 10 years old) and, again, took that to be the norm.
If you're talking about producers of OSR material, it's a mixed bag. AFAIK, the creators of Shadowdark come from a 5e perspective. with some pre-3e experience. While Labyrinth Lord and Dragonslayer are created by people who definitely have their roots in old-school D&D.
Ad for using generalities in regards of who actually played: I would say a lot HAVE played D&D/AD&D back during those years. I know for me and my friends, most of us are veteran gamers from at least back in 1980 or 81 at the earliest ( I started in 1981, for example). Some of those games were indeed whacky. The age on which you started has no bearing. so what if I was 10, which I was back in '81. It doesn't matter. What matters is the experience I and others had at the time and doing our best to recreate that experience for a new generation.
Just saying...
Quote from: ForgottenF on August 26, 2024, 10:16:53 AMThis reads like an advertisement for OSE. It also kind of reads like the author has no knowledge of RPGs outside of D&D derivatives.
Quote from: Nobleshield on August 26, 2024, 08:58:13 AMTBH the issue with a lot of OSR stuff is most of it seems to be based on this "tall tales" exaggerated idea, probably from online discussion, of what D&D was like in the 80s. A lot of the OSR people don't seem to have been old enough to have actually played back then, so their ideas come off more like "I read this is how D&D used to be so I'm making a game based on the stuff I've convinced myself happened" or, if they did play then they probably were quite young so played in weird and wacky ways (as I did playing 2nd edition AD&D when I was like 10 years old) and, again, took that to be the norm.
There's generally too much premium placed on "how it was back in the day". Yeah, it's interesting as a historical curiosity, but figuring out how so-and-so played back in 1982 isn't going to be the secret key to making your game perfect today.
I disagree.
Reason? "modern" games lost their cultural connection to what the source material was: wargaming and classic fantasy, sci-fi and horror fiction.
"modern" games are more tied to PC/console gaming. D&D after 3e was purposefully designed to replicate that. More now, with the future release of D&D tied almost exclusively to VTT.
In other words, "modern" RPGs, especially D&D 5e, have no soul.
Quote from: blackstone on August 26, 2024, 11:39:54 AMIn other words, "modern" RPGs, especially D&D 5e, have no soul.
I couldn't agree more.
Quote from: ForgottenF on August 26, 2024, 10:16:53 AMThere's generally too much premium placed on "how it was back in the day". Yeah, it's interesting as a historical curiosity, but figuring out how so-and-so played back in 1982 isn't going to be the secret key to making your game perfect today.
There is a contingent out there that holds that
everyone has been playing wrong for 45 years, and that reverting to a wargaming-heavy, Braunstein-style, PvP approach is the
only way to save the hobby from collapse or absorption into WotC's digital offering.
Quote from: blackstone on August 26, 2024, 11:39:54 AMIn other words, "modern" RPGs, especially D&D 5e, have no soul.
Yes indeed. WOTC editions of D&D cater to the self absorbed type of player. Optimization focused character building, individual turns and zoning back out during others' turns all cater to the " Me Me Me!" type pf players.
The interesting thing is many OSR games attempt to emulate basic but everyone I knew in the day played AD&D and thought basic was for kids. Although house rules were the rule and that attitude is still very strong.
Quote from: Armchair Gamer on August 26, 2024, 01:27:17 PMQuote from: ForgottenF on August 26, 2024, 10:16:53 AMThere's generally too much premium placed on "how it was back in the day". Yeah, it's interesting as a historical curiosity, but figuring out how so-and-so played back in 1982 isn't going to be the secret key to making your game perfect today.
There is a contingent out there that holds that everyone has been playing wrong for 45 years, and that reverting to a wargaming-heavy, Braunstein-style, PvP approach is the only way to save the hobby from collapse or absorption into WotC's digital offering.
Nah, only since 3e has the game been a shit-show ;).
A 22 page conversion book to 3e? Kiss my ass WoTC.
Haven't played since.
If they want to make D&D the McDonald's or Disney Star Wars of RPGs, then let them crash and burn.
There's enough stuff out there, old and new, to keep me and my group happy.
WoTC trying desperately to gaslight gamers into thinking that D&D is the only game in town is disingenuous and pathetic.
I just saw another article by the same author, Blake DeRusha, talking about the contrast of AD&D and Basic D&D.
https://medium.com/@blake_23352/was-1st-edition-ad-d-was-designed-for-tournament-play-a-look-under-the-hood-babf68475b1a
Quote from: Blake DeRushaThe first two versions of the game to see widespread acclaim were Basic D&D and AD&D (the 1st Edition of the game). The latter is often seen as the more complex, grown-up version of Basic D&D. But what if 1st Edition AD&D wasn't just a more complex continuation of the simpler Basic set? What if it was actually designed for a different purpose — specifically, to handle the demands of tournament play? If we look closer at the rules and mechanics, it seems that AD&D was built for organized, competitive gaming.
It's clear that he's a fan of Basic D&D, but especially from the latter article, I think he's pretty ignorant. He implies that Advanced D&D follow after Basic D&D, when AD&D was published before the Basic Set.
Also, having played in 1980s AD&D tournaments, his points are simply wrong. Tournaments generally ignored most of the advanced rules like weapon-vs-armor adjustments, psionics, overbearing, etc.
I'd add that he particularly emphasizes storytelling as the core of his play:
- "This set, however, offers what I believe to be the purest form of role-playing, a game that doesn't just invite players into a story but hands them the keys to shape that story in their own unique ways."
- "The more I played, the more I dug into the real essence of the game, the more I appreciated how the lack of complexity allowed for a focus on what truly mattered: the adventure, the characters, and the story."
- "Moldvay and Cook placed the focus squarely on story."
- "While AD&D focused on structure and consistency, especially for tournament play, Basic D&D emphasized storytelling and imagination."
I wonder if something like Dungeon World would be even more to his liking.
Quote from: jhkim on August 26, 2024, 02:04:45 PMI just saw another article by the same author, Blake DeRusha, talking about the contrast of AD&D and Basic D&D.
https://medium.com/@blake_23352/was-1st-edition-ad-d-was-designed-for-tournament-play-a-look-under-the-hood-babf68475b1a
Quote from: Blake DeRushaThe first two versions of the game to see widespread acclaim were Basic D&D and AD&D (the 1st Edition of the game). The latter is often seen as the more complex, grown-up version of Basic D&D. But what if 1st Edition AD&D wasn't just a more complex continuation of the simpler Basic set? What if it was actually designed for a different purpose — specifically, to handle the demands of tournament play? If we look closer at the rules and mechanics, it seems that AD&D was built for organized, competitive gaming.
It's clear that he's a fan of Basic D&D, but especially from the latter article, I think he's pretty ignorant. He implies that Advanced D&D follow after Basic D&D, when AD&D was published before the Basic Set.
Also, having played in 1980s AD&D tournaments, his points are simply wrong. Tournaments generally ignored most of the advanced rules like weapon-vs-armor adjustments, psionics, overbearing, etc.
I'd add that he particularly emphasizes storytelling as the core of his play:
- "This set, however, offers what I believe to be the purest form of role-playing, a game that doesn't just invite players into a story but hands them the keys to shape that story in their own unique ways."
- "The more I played, the more I dug into the real essence of the game, the more I appreciated how the lack of complexity allowed for a focus on what truly mattered: the adventure, the characters, and the story."
- "Moldvay and Cook placed the focus squarely on story."
- "While AD&D focused on structure and consistency, especially for tournament play, Basic D&D emphasized storytelling and imagination."
I wonder if something like Dungeon World would be even more to his liking.
Conversely he conflates story with history.
As many are wont to do, those pushing storygames only one of the groups who do.
IMHO what he's describing is a living world that reacts to the PC's actions, NOT any type of storygaming, but YOU'LL keep trying to make the distinction blurry (and failing).
Quote from: blackstone on August 26, 2024, 11:39:54 AMQuote from: ForgottenF on August 26, 2024, 10:16:53 AMThis reads like an advertisement for OSE. It also kind of reads like the author has no knowledge of RPGs outside of D&D derivatives.
Quote from: Nobleshield on August 26, 2024, 08:58:13 AMTBH the issue with a lot of OSR stuff is most of it seems to be based on this "tall tales" exaggerated idea, probably from online discussion, of what D&D was like in the 80s. A lot of the OSR people don't seem to have been old enough to have actually played back then, so their ideas come off more like "I read this is how D&D used to be so I'm making a game based on the stuff I've convinced myself happened" or, if they did play then they probably were quite young so played in weird and wacky ways (as I did playing 2nd edition AD&D when I was like 10 years old) and, again, took that to be the norm.
There's generally too much premium placed on "how it was back in the day". Yeah, it's interesting as a historical curiosity, but figuring out how so-and-so played back in 1982 isn't going to be the secret key to making your game perfect today.
I disagree.
Reason? "modern" games lost their cultural connection to what the source material was: wargaming and classic fantasy, sci-fi and horror fiction.
"modern" games are more tied to PC/console gaming. D&D after 3e was purposefully designed to replicate that. More now, with the future release of D&D tied almost exclusively to VTT.
In other words, "modern" RPGs, especially D&D 5e, have no soul.
5e, like the failed 4e, has "digital soul" being less like TSR's tabletop D&D and more like a video game. Which is where Hasbro wants to go anyway. It hasn't been D&D since 3e though.
Quote from: jhkim on August 26, 2024, 02:04:45 PMI just saw another article by the same author, Blake DeRusha, talking about the contrast of AD&D and Basic D&D.
https://medium.com/@blake_23352/was-1st-edition-ad-d-was-designed-for-tournament-play-a-look-under-the-hood-babf68475b1a
Quote from: Blake DeRushaThe first two versions of the game to see widespread acclaim were Basic D&D and AD&D (the 1st Edition of the game). The latter is often seen as the more complex, grown-up version of Basic D&D. But what if 1st Edition AD&D wasn't just a more complex continuation of the simpler Basic set? What if it was actually designed for a different purpose — specifically, to handle the demands of tournament play? If we look closer at the rules and mechanics, it seems that AD&D was built for organized, competitive gaming.
It's clear that he's a fan of Basic D&D, but especially from the latter article, I think he's pretty ignorant. He implies that Advanced D&D follow after Basic D&D, when AD&D was published before the Basic Set.
Also, having played in 1980s AD&D tournaments, his points are simply wrong. Tournaments generally ignored most of the advanced rules like weapon-vs-armor adjustments, psionics, overbearing, etc.
I'd add that he particularly emphasizes storytelling as the core of his play:
- "This set, however, offers what I believe to be the purest form of role-playing, a game that doesn't just invite players into a story but hands them the keys to shape that story in their own unique ways."
- "The more I played, the more I dug into the real essence of the game, the more I appreciated how the lack of complexity allowed for a focus on what truly mattered: the adventure, the characters, and the story."
- "Moldvay and Cook placed the focus squarely on story."
- "While AD&D focused on structure and consistency, especially for tournament play, Basic D&D emphasized storytelling and imagination."
I wonder if something like Dungeon World would be even more to his liking.
Great points. Reading the article, once I saw the word "story" twice I changed the channel.
Plus, is it just me, or is there a push in the D&D "brand marketing" to call it "The Greatest Game of All-Time"? Over the last year or so I've seen a few articles use that catch-phrase.
Quote from: Ruprecht on August 26, 2024, 01:53:58 PMThe interesting thing is many OSR games attempt to emulate basic but everyone I knew in the day played AD&D and thought basic was for kids. Although house rules were the rule and that attitude is still very strong.
same. We were playing advanced already. Why would we play "basic" which was for "newbs". I once switched my group by telling them they weren't advanced enough to play ad&d so basic was more appropriate.
Of course when I played there was just ad&d 2nd edition and the 1991 black box d&d (and later rules cyclopedia)
Quote from: Ruprecht on August 26, 2024, 01:53:58 PMThe interesting thing is many OSR games attempt to emulate basic but everyone I knew in the day played AD&D and thought basic was for kids. Although house rules were the rule and that attitude is still very strong.
It's funny. Back in the day (early 80s), "basic" D&D was seen as that: Basic. TBH, it was the game that got me into the RPG hobby. Because I saw "Advanced" on the Advanced Dungeons & Dragons covers, most players saw it as the more "mature" game, myself included.
My friends and I didn't know at the time the reason WHY the distinction was made (now it's all well-documented). We just assumed that D&D was the less complicated version, and if you wanted to continue with that version, you could.
But if you wanted to play in ANY D&D at a game store, convention, or game club, AD&D was the game to play.
Quite frankly, it was a clever use of marketing by Gary and TSR. When most people think of D&D, they think of AD&D really. The iconic PHB cover always leaps to mind.
Quote from: Ruprecht on August 26, 2024, 01:53:58 PMThe interesting thing is many OSR games attempt to emulate basic but everyone I knew in the day played AD&D and thought basic was for kids. Although house rules were the rule and that attitude is still very strong.
That's because B/X is an objectively better mechanical framework to build off. AD&D just had the options.
As a few examples, B/X uses 10-second rounds. AD&D uses 1-minute rounds. The latter are just a mess to work with, trying to figure out how to merge theatre of the mind with the mechanics. Also attribute modifiers, 9-12 0, 13-15 +1, 16-17 +2 and 18 +3 across the board (except Charisma) is just way better than the mess that is the AD&D modifiers.
It's basically why for AD&D 1e you only have OSRIC, and nobody's interested in doing anything else with the AD&D 1e framework. By the point you've changed it to make it usable, you realize you were better off starting with B/X and changing that.
It's easier to add AD&D options (which is the strength of AD&D compared to B/X), such as race and class, more races, and more classes to a B/X framework than to clean up the rather messy AD&D foundations. This isn't to say B/X doesn't have its own problems, but it's a lot easier to clean up.
I think overall the underlying issue with OSR is it's like Linux/open source software: tons of options are good for publishers, but bad for consumers because they are overwhelmed with choice. Just ask "I'm interested in getting into OSR style games, but which" and you'll get a laundry list of options that make you walk away and pine for the "simplicity" of just picking up the D&D brand, whether you like WotC or hate them.
Quote from: Nobleshield on August 27, 2024, 08:41:49 AMI think overall the underlying issue with OSR is it's like Linux/open source software: tons of options are good for publishers, but bad for consumers because they are overwhelmed with choice. Just ask "I'm interested in getting into OSR style games, but which" and you'll get a laundry
It is a feature not a bug.
Quote from: Nobleshield on August 27, 2024, 08:41:49 AMlist of options that make you walk away and pine for the "simplicity" of just picking up the D&D brand, whether you like WotC or hate them.
The problem is that there are hundreds of new releases every week across systems and genres. Boardgames and wargames have it worse. In short, is not an OSR thing, it is an internet and digital technology thing that caused the capital threshold for publishing to fall dramatically.
Unless you are one of a dozen or so game companies that have enough volume to pursue mass-market channels with traditional distributors and stores everybody in the same boat as far as trying to market and differentiate themselves.
The OSR, being the kaleidoscope that it is, produces material for nearly everybody. Often, several alternatives are used to target the same niche. In contrast, systems and genres dominated by a single individual or company that controls the IP tend to only have one creative vision or, at best, a narrow range.
It messy but it better than the alternative.
In my opinion, it wasn't a "feature" in the "year of Linux" (which has yet to manifest 20 years later), nor is it with OSR.
Yet, Linux is the very thing that powers the technology that allows you to share your post. And the OSR is still chugging along 18 years later despite numerous comments about its flaws and predictions of its death.
And also incidentally outselling D&D 5e on DriveThruRPG.
Don't be dense. You know exactly what I mean. There's a reason Windows still dominates computers outside of servers.
Quote from: estar on August 27, 2024, 09:58:54 AMYet, Linux is the very thing that powers the technology that allows you to share your post. And the OSR is still chugging along 18 years later despite numerous comments about its flaws and predictions of its death.
And also incidentally outselling D&D 5e on DriveThruRPG.
With WOTC going more and more digital and trending toward subscription models and endless microtransactions, the OSR will only continue to grow and flourish. People will always want games and accessories that they can purchase and actually own.
Quote from: Nobleshield on August 27, 2024, 10:09:38 AMDon't be dense. You know exactly what I mean. There's a reason Windows still dominates computers outside of servers.
It about what you consider to be the "victory conditions" in the scenario. The OSR is not playing the same game to "win" as Wizards needs to play in order to "win" with D&D 5e. Because they are playing different games it possible for both to "win".
The same with Microsoft/Windows versus Linux. Which is why both are still thriving. Speaking as a software developer with over three decades of experience working with Windows based vertical market applications and programmable metal cutting machine controls.
Pet peeve or failure of perception on my part but a lot of so called osr stuff appears to somehow be, to me at least, incomplete or unfinished or sparse perhaps...dunno can't put my finger on it exactly. I know I'm not the target audience for shadowdark for example, but i can't help but feel that if i published a book in big font like that with such short descriptions of things as the few examples of the material that i've seen that most would call it an incomplete fantasy heartbreaker and accuse me of trying to hide behind "rulings not rules" as cover when the truth is i just didn't put more than two sentences of thought into describing how a mechanic interacts with the rest of the system.
To put it another way, its the can bilbo trip smaug with a polearm thing, where a simple mechanic for tripping is shat out in one or two sentences and no thought is given to how it will produce absurd in-universe results if you do not flesh that out into a couple paragraphs explaining how it differs if the opponents are of differing sizes, using differing weapons or armor, and or benefitting from spells or magic items like a ring of free action.
I can appreciate shadowdark for example for luring 5e gamers more toward emergent gameplay centered on delving, its valuable for that alone, i am not shitting on it in the least...and because it serves as a path to osr games in a sense i would not say it isnt osr or adjacent, i am saying that it seems many of these games, not just shadowdark, leave me hungry still as it were.
Like how rules cyclopedia or osric are fairly sufficient on their own, or feel that way, like anything else is an optional add-on for them...while many of these other titles feel to me like an early access eagle dynamics flight sim module..."when will the terrain mapping radar and jdams be added" or "next update we get the lima hellfires and fire control radar added guys!"...as if i NEED dlc somehow.
Quote from: Nobleshield on August 27, 2024, 08:41:49 AMI think overall the underlying issue with OSR is it's like Linux/open source software: tons of options are good for publishers, but bad for consumers because they are overwhelmed with choice. Just ask "I'm interested in getting into OSR style games, but which" and you'll get a laundry list of options that make you walk away and pine for the "simplicity" of just picking up the D&D brand, whether you like WotC or hate them.
So, a monopoly is the ultimate good for consumers right?
You can't be this dumb.
Quote from: Slipshot762 on August 27, 2024, 11:22:55 AMPet peeve or failure of perception on my part but a lot of so called osr stuff appears to somehow be, to me at least, incomplete or unfinished or sparse perhaps...dunno can't put my finger on it exactly. I know I'm not the target audience for shadowdark for example, but i can't help but feel that if i published a book in big font like that with such short descriptions of things as the few examples of the material that i've seen that most would call it an incomplete fantasy heartbreaker and accuse me of trying to hide behind "rulings not rules" as cover when the truth is i just didn't put more than two sentences of thought into describing how a mechanic interacts with the rest of the system.
To put it another way, its the can bilbo trip smaug with a polearm thing, where a simple mechanic for tripping is shat out in one or two sentences and no thought is given to how it will produce absurd in-universe results if you do not flesh that out into a couple paragraphs explaining how it differs if the opponents are of differing sizes, using differing weapons or armor, and or benefitting from spells or magic items like a ring of free action.
I can appreciate shadowdark for example for luring 5e gamers more toward emergent gameplay centered on delving, its valuable for that alone, i am not shitting on it in the least...and because it serves as a path to osr games in a sense i would not say it isnt osr or adjacent, i am saying that it seems many of these games, not just shadowdark, leave me hungry still as it were.
Like how rules cyclopedia or osric are fairly sufficient on their own, or feel that way, like anything else is an optional add-on for them...while many of these other titles feel to me like an early access eagle dynamics flight sim module..."when will the terrain mapping radar and jdams be added" or "next update we get the lima hellfires and fire control radar added guys!"...as if i NEED dlc somehow.
You don't need DLC, what you need is to make those rulings.
Sometimes I think the entire evolution of D&D is trying to create a decent middle ground between B/X and AD&D.
Streamlined like B/X but full of details and options like 1e. No other version of D&D managed to be a straightforward as B/X IMO; I often call it "minimum viable D&D".
Quote from: Eric Diaz on August 27, 2024, 01:12:14 PMSometimes I think the entire evolution of D&D is trying to create a decent middle ground between B/X and AD&D.
Streamlined like B/X but full of details and options like 1e. No other version of D&D managed to be a straightforward as B/X IMO; I often call it "minimum viable D&D".
If I were to write down MY perfect version of D&D it would be OSE but without race as class, a minimal skill list, only one ST and only to 10th level.
Quote from: GeekyBugle on August 27, 2024, 01:16:34 PMIf I were to write down MY perfect version of D&D it would be OSE but without race as class, a minimal skill list, only one ST and only to 10th level.
Well it only to 5th level but I do believe I check off everything else.
https://www.drivethrurpg.com/en/product/337515/the-majestic-fantasy-rpg-basic-rules
And late next year I will release the full version which focuses on the level 1 to 12 range although to be fair there is no upper limit. But I consider anything above 12 to be Olympic level or Nobel Prize level of skill and ability so it only rarely comes up.
Quote from: Eric Diaz on August 27, 2024, 01:12:14 PMStreamlined like B/X but full of details and options like 1e. No other version of D&D managed to be a straightforward as B/X IMO; I often call it "minimum viable D&D".
My counterpoint would be Swords & Wizardry, Core, 2nd Printing but we are only talking inches apart in terms of mechanical differences.
Quote from: Slipshot762 on August 27, 2024, 11:22:55 AMPet peeve or failure of perception on my part but a lot of so called osr stuff appears to somehow be, to me at least, incomplete or unfinished or sparse perhaps...dunno can't put my finger on it exactly. I know I'm not the target audience for shadowdark for example, but i can't help but feel that if i published a book in big font like that with such short descriptions of things as the few examples of the material that i've seen that most would call it an incomplete fantasy heartbreaker and accuse me of trying to hide behind "rulings not rules" as cover when the truth is i just didn't put more than two sentences of thought into describing how a mechanic interacts with the rest of the system.
Quote from: GeekyBugle on August 27, 2024, 12:04:08 PMYou don't need DLC, what you need is to make those rulings.
My opinion is that the issue is that folks publishing need to explain how to make rulings better. The explanation doesn't need to make additional mechanics but focus on how to use what there.
And it so happens I wrote such a chapter. And it has come up often enough that I turned it into a free download.
https://www.batintheattic.com/downloads/When%20to%20make%20a%20Ruling.pdf
Quote from: estar on August 27, 2024, 01:55:24 PMQuote from: GeekyBugle on August 27, 2024, 01:16:34 PMIf I were to write down MY perfect version of D&D it would be OSE but without race as class, a minimal skill list, only one ST and only to 10th level.
Well it only to 5th level but I do believe I check off everything else.
https://www.drivethrurpg.com/en/product/337515/the-majestic-fantasy-rpg-basic-rules
And late next year I will release the full version which focuses on the level 1 to 12 range although to be fair there is no upper limit. But I consider anything above 12 to be Olympic level or Nobel Prize level of skill and ability so it only rarely comes up.
And it's only $9.99 for the 204 pages PDF.
Quote from: estar on August 27, 2024, 02:00:45 PMQuote from: Slipshot762 on August 27, 2024, 11:22:55 AMPet peeve or failure of perception on my part but a lot of so called osr stuff appears to somehow be, to me at least, incomplete or unfinished or sparse perhaps...dunno can't put my finger on it exactly. I know I'm not the target audience for shadowdark for example, but i can't help but feel that if i published a book in big font like that with such short descriptions of things as the few examples of the material that i've seen that most would call it an incomplete fantasy heartbreaker and accuse me of trying to hide behind "rulings not rules" as cover when the truth is i just didn't put more than two sentences of thought into describing how a mechanic interacts with the rest of the system.
Quote from: GeekyBugle on August 27, 2024, 12:04:08 PMYou don't need DLC, what you need is to make those rulings.
My opinion is that the issue is that folks publishing need to explain how to make rulings better. The explanation doesn't need to make additional mechanics but focus on how to use what there.
And it so happens I wrote such a chapter. And it has come up often enough that I turned it into a free download.
https://www.batintheattic.com/downloads/When%20to%20make%20a%20Ruling.pdf
Especially important for total newcomers. Not so much for people that have been playing for a few years. Especially since NO game can have a rule to cover absolutely everything any player on every table can get up to.
To me, the appeal of OSR games is that they DON'T provide mechanics for everything. B/X was pretty bare bones mechanics wise but it was all we needed to run some great campaigns. I believe the issues surrounding accusations of OSR sparseness come from those who began gaming after the paradigm shift in rules presentation. Originally the rules presented were sparse with the understanding that anything not against the rules was theoretically possible. Once rules became more bloated and "complete" the paradigm was turned upside down and (mis) interpreted to mean that anything not in the RAW was forbidden. Although this was never truly the case, a great many seemed to have that attitude that came into the hobby later. There will never be a mechanical formula that can account for everything the fevered imaginations of players can come up with. Leaving such things up the GM is exactly how they should be handled.
Quote from: estar on August 27, 2024, 01:56:34 PMQuote from: Eric Diaz on August 27, 2024, 01:12:14 PMStreamlined like B/X but full of details and options like 1e. No other version of D&D managed to be a straightforward as B/X IMO; I often call it "minimum viable D&D".
My counterpoint would be Swords & Wizardry, Core, 2nd Printing but we are only talking inches apart in terms of mechanical differences.
Ah yes, noticed I mentioned "no other version of D&D", meaning "official" D&D.
Quote from: GeekyBugle on August 27, 2024, 01:16:34 PMQuote from: Eric Diaz on August 27, 2024, 01:12:14 PMSometimes I think the entire evolution of D&D is trying to create a decent middle ground between B/X and AD&D.
Streamlined like B/X but full of details and options like 1e. No other version of D&D managed to be a straightforward as B/X IMO; I often call it "minimum viable D&D".
If I were to write down MY perfect version of D&D it would be OSE but without race as class, a minimal skill list, only one ST and only to 10th level.
Same here. Curiously, I DID write such a game, but used six saves; after that, I reduced it to a single save.
Still using it in my current sandbox campaign. But I haven't managed to update it.
https://www.drivethrurpg.com/en/product/229046/dark-fantasy-basic-player-s-guide?coverSizeTestPhase2=true&word-variants=true
Quote from: Eric Diaz on August 27, 2024, 04:02:01 PMQuote from: estar on August 27, 2024, 01:56:34 PMQuote from: Eric Diaz on August 27, 2024, 01:12:14 PMStreamlined like B/X but full of details and options like 1e. No other version of D&D managed to be a straightforward as B/X IMO; I often call it "minimum viable D&D".
My counterpoint would be Swords & Wizardry, Core, 2nd Printing but we are only talking inches apart in terms of mechanical differences.
Ah yes, noticed I mentioned "no other version of D&D", meaning "official" D&D.
Quote from: GeekyBugle on August 27, 2024, 01:16:34 PMQuote from: Eric Diaz on August 27, 2024, 01:12:14 PMSometimes I think the entire evolution of D&D is trying to create a decent middle ground between B/X and AD&D.
Streamlined like B/X but full of details and options like 1e. No other version of D&D managed to be a straightforward as B/X IMO; I often call it "minimum viable D&D".
If I were to write down MY perfect version of D&D it would be OSE but without race as class, a minimal skill list, only one ST and only to 10th level.
Same here. Curiously, I DID write such a game, but used six saves; after that, I reduced it to a single save.
Still using it in my current sandbox campaign. But I haven't managed to update it.
https://www.drivethrurpg.com/en/product/229046/dark-fantasy-basic-player-s-guide?coverSizeTestPhase2=true&word-variants=true
To my shame, I own it but haven't gotten around to reading it.
Quote from: estar on August 27, 2024, 09:58:54 AMAnd also incidentally outselling D&D 5e on DriveThruRPG.
I don't think most of the people buying 5e do so on DT.
Even the becmi boxes by themselves had to me a feeling of being complete, whereas with a lot of this stuff you are sort of left to wonder if you should do it the b/x way or the 2e or 3e way...especially as many of these mix elements from across editions. Passive perception or a 1 in 6 chance as an example.
I've spoken with Blake. He hasn't actually read Moldvay Basic he said, only OSE, so I suggested he go read it. As currently his stuff reads a bit "journalistic" - not a compliment.
Quote from: S'mon on August 27, 2024, 06:06:38 PMI've spoken with Blake. He hasn't actually read Moldvay Basic he said, only OSE, so I suggested he go read it. As currently his stuff reads a bit "journalistic" - not a compliment.
"I'm a journalist, I don't use original sources!"
Anyway, to reiterate what a few there have said, I started with BECMI and graduated to AD&D as soon as I could. Everyone I know did. Whoever keeps writing articles like this is using navelgazing, retroactive bullshit anecdotes that bear no resemblance to reality. One I guy played with had all the D&D stuff outside of the boxed sets but he was a massive Mystara fan.
I won't pretend The BECMI and the RC and B/X aren't arguably better in some ways than AD&D, because they are, but can we please stop pretending the erudite and sophisticated were playing those games while us rubes moved on to AD&D?
Quote from: Brad on August 27, 2024, 08:37:12 PMQuote from: S'mon on August 27, 2024, 06:06:38 PMI've spoken with Blake. He hasn't actually read Moldvay Basic he said, only OSE, so I suggested he go read it. As currently his stuff reads a bit "journalistic" - not a compliment.
"I'm a journalist, I don't use original sources!"
Anyway, to reiterate what a few there have said, I started with BECMI and graduated to AD&D as soon as I could. Everyone I know did. Whoever keeps writing articles like this is using navelgazing, retroactive bullshit anecdotes that bear no resemblance to reality. One I guy played with had all the D&D stuff outside of the boxed sets but he was a massive Mystara fan.
I won't pretend The BECMI and the RC and B/X aren't arguably better in some ways than AD&D, because they are, but can we please stop pretending the erudite and sophisticated were playing those games while us rubes moved on to AD&D?
I think there must of been a great many groups that used the B/X or BECMI basic mechanics and options such as classes, spells, and magic items from AD&D. All that stuff is so compatible it was ideal to mix and match.
Quote from: estar on August 27, 2024, 01:55:24 PMQuote from: GeekyBugle on August 27, 2024, 01:16:34 PMIf I were to write down MY perfect version of D&D it would be OSE but without race as class, a minimal skill list, only one ST and only to 10th level.
Well it only to 5th level but I do believe I check off everything else.
https://www.drivethrurpg.com/en/product/337515/the-majestic-fantasy-rpg-basic-rules
And late next year I will release the full version which focuses on the level 1 to 12 range although to be fair there is no upper limit. But I consider anything above 12 to be Olympic level or Nobel Prize level of skill and ability so it only rarely comes up.
Quote from: estar on August 27, 2024, 01:55:24 PMQuote from: GeekyBugle on August 27, 2024, 01:16:34 PMIf I were to write down MY perfect version of D&D it would be OSE but without race as class, a minimal skill list, only one ST and only to 10th level.
Well it only to 5th level but I do believe I check off everything else.
For peeps who run such a "low" cap on levels, do you increase the amount of xp required to level up to spread out the advencements, or do you have standard rate and then just "You're done" keep playing?
Quote from: Exploderwizard on August 28, 2024, 07:13:43 AMQuote from: Brad on August 27, 2024, 08:37:12 PMQuote from: S'mon on August 27, 2024, 06:06:38 PMI've spoken with Blake. He hasn't actually read Moldvay Basic he said, only OSE, so I suggested he go read it. As currently his stuff reads a bit "journalistic" - not a compliment.
"I'm a journalist, I don't use original sources!"
Anyway, to reiterate what a few there have said, I started with BECMI and graduated to AD&D as soon as I could. Everyone I know did. Whoever keeps writing articles like this is using navelgazing, retroactive bullshit anecdotes that bear no resemblance to reality. One I guy played with had all the D&D stuff outside of the boxed sets but he was a massive Mystara fan.
I won't pretend The BECMI and the RC and B/X aren't arguably better in some ways than AD&D, because they are, but can we please stop pretending the erudite and sophisticated were playing those games while us rubes moved on to AD&D?
I think there must of been a great many groups that used the B/X or BECMI basic mechanics and options such as classes, spells, and magic items from AD&D. All that stuff is so compatible it was ideal to mix and match.
Not from my experience.
Just to give you an idea where I'm coming from: I grew up in Omaha, NE. So a pretty decent sized city. The time frame would have been from 1981-89. In that time, there were quite a few gaming clubs, two local game conventions, and 2-3 game stores (Star Realm, Dragon's Lair, and Hobby Town USA).
When it came to playing between the two versions (D&D or AD&D), everyone who played either at a store, a con, or at a game club played AD&D. I never saw anyone play regular D&D.
The reasons?
perception: Basic D&D appeared to be the less "mature" game. It was the "family friendly" version. Not for serious gamers. ADVANCED D&D, just by the name alone, implied more complex and "mature". Heck, pictures in the Monster Manual got that across (succubus anyone?). Thus AD&D was the one the vast majority of serious gamers played.
marketing: some of the points I made when it comes to perception apply here. Also, AD&D was purposely marketed as the superior game. In fact, IIRC the idea was you could either stay with Basic D&D if you started with that OR you could port over to AD&D. But let's be honest, TSR wanted you to buy AD&D because that's where the money was: the books were more expensive.
support: TSR at the time, especially after 1980-81, put more support in AD&D than Basic D&D. Yes, we had BECMI rules come out in '83 and the Gazetteers, but again to be honest, AD&D was the money maker. The number of modules and support material was quite a bit more. Especially 1983 onward where yo had the introduction of Dragonlance and Forgotten Realms, which were written for the AD&D rules. Also when it came to convention tournament support, it was AD&D. I never saw a Basic D&D convention tournament in that time frame.
So this is the fact of the matter. even later when 2nd ed came out, AD&D was the king of the castle. Sure, you had Mystara and Hollow World. You had fans for those niche products, but they the outliers, not the norm.
Quote from: Exploderwizard on August 28, 2024, 07:13:43 AMI think there must of been a great many groups that used the B/X or BECMI basic mechanics and options such as classes, spells, and magic items from AD&D. All that stuff is so compatible it was ideal to mix and match.
Well here's a secret: I don't think any of us (people I hung out with) really knew how to play AD&D by-the-book. We just extrapolated D&D for some stuff and ignored things that bogged the game down. So, yes, there was definitely a lot of BECMI influence on our AD&D game, but it wasn't intentional, just a product of not really understanding half the rules.
But you gotta remember I was in junior high at the time, so what older/college age people did I cannot say.
Quote from: Brad on August 27, 2024, 08:37:12 PMQuote from: S'mon on August 27, 2024, 06:06:38 PMI've spoken with Blake. He hasn't actually read Moldvay Basic he said, only OSE, so I suggested he go read it. As currently his stuff reads a bit "journalistic" - not a compliment.
"I'm a journalist, I don't use original sources!"
Anyway, to reiterate what a few there have said, I started with BECMI and graduated to AD&D as soon as I could. Everyone I know did. Whoever keeps writing articles like this is using navelgazing, retroactive bullshit anecdotes that bear no resemblance to reality. One I guy played with had all the D&D stuff outside of the boxed sets but he was a massive Mystara fan.
I won't pretend The BECMI and the RC and B/X aren't arguably better in some ways than AD&D, because they are, but can we please stop pretending the erudite and sophisticated were playing those games while us rubes moved on to AD&D?
Considering the wargaming roots, if you actually played original D&D you were probably in your 20s at the time and very likely adopted AD&D right away. Basic was made for newer/younger players, with the clear intent that they would "graduate" to Advanced.
I'm sure there were people who stuck with B/X or BECMI, but it was probably because that's what they already had and AD&D was more expensive.
The navelgazing is likely coming from people who are actually too young to have even played BECMI and likely didn't touch D&D until 3E.
Quote from: Corolinth on August 29, 2024, 12:48:58 AMConsidering the wargaming roots, if you actually played original D&D you were probably in your 20s at the time and very likely adopted AD&D right away. Basic was made for newer/younger players, with the clear intent that they would "graduate" to Advanced.
I'm sure there were people who stuck with B/X or BECMI, but it was probably because that's what they already had and AD&D was more expensive.
The navelgazing is likely coming from people who are actually too young to have even played BECMI and likely didn't touch D&D until 3E.
I'd say if you actually played
original D&D then you probably started playing
before any Basic edition existed, and chances are you moved to AD&D as soon as it was published (also before Basic), and you very likely never played Basic in any form.
Quote from: Corolinth on August 29, 2024, 12:48:58 AMQuote from: Brad on August 27, 2024, 08:37:12 PMQuote from: S'mon on August 27, 2024, 06:06:38 PMI've spoken with Blake. He hasn't actually read Moldvay Basic he said, only OSE, so I suggested he go read it. As currently his stuff reads a bit "journalistic" - not a compliment.
"I'm a journalist, I don't use original sources!"
Anyway, to reiterate what a few there have said, I started with BECMI and graduated to AD&D as soon as I could. Everyone I know did. Whoever keeps writing articles like this is using navelgazing, retroactive bullshit anecdotes that bear no resemblance to reality. One I guy played with had all the D&D stuff outside of the boxed sets but he was a massive Mystara fan.
I won't pretend The BECMI and the RC and B/X aren't arguably better in some ways than AD&D, because they are, but can we please stop pretending the erudite and sophisticated were playing those games while us rubes moved on to AD&D?
Considering the wargaming roots, if you actually played original D&D you were probably in your 20s at the time and very likely adopted AD&D right away. Basic was made for newer/younger players, with the clear intent that they would "graduate" to Advanced.
I'm sure there were people who stuck with B/X or BECMI, but it was probably because that's what they already had and AD&D was more expensive.
The navelgazing is likely coming from people who are actually too young to have even played BECMI and likely didn't touch D&D until 3E.
I'd say that sounds accurate.
Quote from: Zalman on August 29, 2024, 07:47:09 AMQuote from: Corolinth on August 29, 2024, 12:48:58 AMConsidering the wargaming roots, if you actually played original D&D you were probably in your 20s at the time and very likely adopted AD&D right away. Basic was made for newer/younger players, with the clear intent that they would "graduate" to Advanced.
I'm sure there were people who stuck with B/X or BECMI, but it was probably because that's what they already had and AD&D was more expensive.
The navelgazing is likely coming from people who are actually too young to have even played BECMI and likely didn't touch D&D until 3E.
I'd say if you actually played original D&D then you probably started playing before any Basic edition existed, and chances are you moved to AD&D as soon as it was published (also before Basic), and you very likely never played Basic in any form.
This is what I was trying to articulate, yes.
Quote from: Zalman on August 29, 2024, 07:47:09 AMQuote from: Corolinth on August 29, 2024, 12:48:58 AMConsidering the wargaming roots, if you actually played original D&D you were probably in your 20s at the time and very likely adopted AD&D right away. Basic was made for newer/younger players, with the clear intent that they would "graduate" to Advanced.
I'm sure there were people who stuck with B/X or BECMI, but it was probably because that's what they already had and AD&D was more expensive.
The navelgazing is likely coming from people who are actually too young to have even played BECMI and likely didn't touch D&D until 3E.
I'd say if you actually played original D&D then you probably started playing before any Basic edition existed, and chances are you moved to AD&D as soon as it was published (also before Basic), and you very likely never played Basic in any form.
That's more than likely the case. In fact, Holmes D&D only went to 3rd level and it even says in the preface:
QuotePlayers who desire to go beyond the basic game are directed to the ADVANCED DUNGEON & DRAGONS books
Fighting Men:
QuoteAfter they reach the fourth level of experience they also increase their ability to get hits on
an opponent, but experience levels that high are not discussed in this book and the reader is referred to the more complete rules in ADVANCED DUNGEONS & DRAGONS.
Thieves:
QuoteThere are special rules for halflings, dwarves and elves who wish to be thieves — these are given in ADVANCED DUNGEONS & DRAGONS
Additional Character Classes:
QuoteThere are a number of other character types which
are detailed in ADVANCED DUNGEONS & DRAGONS.
There are sub-classes of the four basic classes. They
are: paladins and rangers (fighting men), illusionists
and witches (magic-users), monks and druids (clerics),
and assassins (thieves). There are half elves. Special
characteristics for dwarven, elven, and halfling thieves
are given. In addition, rules for characters who possess
the rare talent of psionic ability are detailed. However,
for a beginning campaign these additions are not
necessary, and players should accustom themselves to
regular play before adding further complexities.
Character Alignment system is Law/Chaos, Neutral, good/evil. just like AD&D.
So, from 1977 to 1981, there was a "pipeline" from playing Basic D&D to playing AD&D.
That all changed when the Moldvay D&D (aka B/X) hit the market in '81. This is when the pipeline ends and Basic D&D became it's own game.
Now why is that?
I can only speculate. But from what I know now of the history of the game, I would think it was partly legal and partly market driven.
In the time period indicated above, this was also the time where you had the legal battle between Arneson and TSR/Gygax. One of the outcomes of the legal issues would appear to rewrite Basic D&D enough to be it's own game. Hence the creation of B/X and retiring the Holmes edition. I speculate Holmes D&D was in the eyes of the lawyers too close to Arneson's version.
The other question would be "why not just drop Basic D&D and go on with AD&D?"
I would speculate it all has to do with money. D&D was just becoming known to a wider audience. The name recognition was there. Plus, there was enough regular fans of Basic D&D to justify making it it's own game. Also by doing the rewrite, TSR was no longer obligated to give royalties to Arneson. B/X was just different enough to be it's own game.
Ultimately TSR was able to keep the D&D name, rewrite Basic to be it's own game system, and have AD&D as Gygax's version to promote.
Quote from: blackstone on August 29, 2024, 09:05:43 AMThe other question would be "why not just drop Basic D&D and go on with AD&D?"
Because the pipeline was a good idea. I was about to say
necessary but that isn't exactly true. That's me oversimplifying for brevity's sake.
I learned to read partly with my older brother's Mentzer red box Basic D&D. First edition AD&D has too many moving parts. It's not that the math is too difficult, but rather there are too many exceptions and caveats that have you using this rule versus that rule. It's not exactly that you use different subsystems depending on circumstances, but it's something like that. Second edition AD&D has less of this, but still retains some. Third edition is more complex, but also more consistent in its complexity, which makes it easier to follow.
As an example, consider exceptional strength. Only fighters get this. Why? Thieves don't get exceptional dexterity, wizards don't get exceptional strength, so why do fighters get exceptional strength? I don't recall whether 1E went up to 25, but 2E did, and that makes it even more nonsensical. Why are fighters the only class that have an ability score between 18 and 19? The point isn't to gripe about exceptional strength, it's to explain what I mean by consistency in complexity.
This rules complexity is not an insurmountable hurdle, but there's an age below which I didn't have the brain power to handle it. I'm also smarter than the average bear. AD&D is only salable to people above a certain age range who, by that point, have probably acquired other hobbies.
Now let's go back to me learning to read with Red Box Basic. I wanted to play D&D before I was actually able to read because there was an appeal to the bright red box with the warrior fighting a dragon. Don't forget, Gary played D&D with his kids. He had to have known that he needed/wanted a version of his game that was accessible to children.
Quote from: blackstone on August 29, 2024, 09:05:43 AMThat all changed when the Moldvay D&D (aka B/X) hit the market in '81. This is when the pipeline ends and Basic D&D became it's own game.
Now why is that?
I can only speculate. But from what I know now of the history of the game, I would think it was partly legal and partly market driven.
You don't have to speculate. It is all laid in detail in Jon Peterson's Game Wizards. In a nutshell Holmes Basic D&D was the best selling product TSR had in 1979. AD&D three books combined did outsell the Basic Set however the Basic Set was the best selling single product they had.
In addition, the first Arneson vs. TSR lawsuit was in full swing before the Moldvay/Cook Basic/Expert set entered development. A gross simplification of the issue is that Arneson received a 1/3 of the royalties TSR paid that Gygax did.
So when it came to D&D vs. AD&D TSR chose "Support all of the above" as their answer.
QuoteThe original *D&D* boxed set had, since its release more than five years before, sold just below 60,000 copies. Its first supplement, *Greyhawk*, could claim 50,000 sales by this point, and the other three supplements more than half that. The reigning unit sales champion was the boxed *Basic Set*, which had, since its mid-1977 release two years before, already moved over 70,000 units, and a further 12,000 copies of the standalone *Basic* rulebook. But combined, the *Advanced* game books had already eclipsed that: the *Players Handbook* had been out for roughly one year by the summer of 1979 and had already sold almost exactly 50,000 copies. Then add to that 47,000 for *Monster Manual* sales, and consider the imminent release of a third volume, the *Dungeon Masters Guide*, which boasted an initial run of 44,000 books that had been pre-ordered before the first of August. Accessories had also become popular: each of the six modules released during the 1978 summer convention season sold in the vicinity of 10,000 copies over the year that followed, at $4.50 to $6 apiece, which added a tidy sum to the *AD&D* total. And although the *Tomb of Horrors* and *In Search of the Unknown* modules entered the market a half year later than that first round of six, their sales only lagged a couple thousand copies behind by mid-1979. All told, very nearly a half million units of *D&D* product had traded to date.
QuoteAs impressive as the growth of D&D had been, it is important to tally these sums now because of the incredible transformation that D&D sales were about to undergo as the summer of 1979 drew to a close. Take just the flagship Basic Set as a representative example: in its two-year lifetime, up to the end of the second quarter of 1979, it had sold 73,358 copies. But in just the third quarter of 1979 it would add to that 33,715 more sales, nearly 12,000 a month, a 45 percent increase to its overall total. In the fourth quarter alone, it sold a further 93,796 copies, a sum that comes close to equaling all previous sales of the product. And then the next quarter, TSR would move a stunning 139,857 copies of Basic Set, which was now on a trajectory to reach nearly a half million sales in just one year. Without exaggeration, the summer of 1979 marked an inflection point that would change not just the role-playing games hobby, but the entire games industry. So, what happened?
As an OD&D player, let me assure you there's not such thing as ADVANCED D&D...AD&D was just a cleaned up, expanded and repackaged version of all the OD&D books.
Of course, calling it ADVANCED was marketing genius. Maybe one of the greatest branding moves ever.
Back in the day, I met very few people who ever played AD&D RAW and in actual play, most of what happened at our table (and almost every con game) was much closer to B/X.
So its no surprise OSE has a strong audience now.