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 PM

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.

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 AM

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.

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)