Basic Fantasy Role-playing game?

Summer-Knight925 · Sep 16, 2011

THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH ACTUAL OD&D BUT RATHER WITH RETRO CLONES

So it sure seems like retro-clone is in, while it may not be popular with you, a lot of them are coming out, or are already out.

So why not mix advertising with a few questions and hopefully a review?

Basic Fantasy Role-Playing Game

above is a link to the basic fantasy role-playing game homepage, the rules (and supplements) are free to download on said page. So has anyone tried this? Is the game any fun?

It seems like it mixes 1e feel with 3e system (although with the loose 1e style of course) and doesn't add the zocchi dice of Dungeon Crawl Classics RPG, as a plus, it is totally free (assuming pdf is okay with you, you can order printed copies off a linked site from their own page, which is also cheap) and focuses more on actual play.

No I am not being payed nor have any connection with the authors other than I enjoy what they've done. Now could someone talk about it?

WheresMyD20 · Sep 16, 2011

Basic Fantasy RPG is a clone of the 1981 B/X rules with a few tweaks. The to-hits have been converted to 3e style attack bonuses and ascending AC. Race and class have been separated. Classes go to 20th level. Thieves no longer have the ability to read scrolls. Aside from those changes, it's very close to B/X.

S'mon · Sep 16, 2011

BFRPG is a very nice game if you have a few issues with Moldvay B/X (THAC0, descending AC, race as class etc) and/or have a limited budget; otherwise Labyrinth Lord is slicker and has a better tone, IMO.

Personally I have not used it extensively but it's a good candidate for system of choice next time I run a PBEM.

PapersAndPaychecks · Sep 16, 2011

BFRPG was, arguably, the first retro-clone. It was certainly the first to be released, although OSRIC was being developed before we knew about BFRPG. It's probably the least retro of the "true" retro-clones, representing a sort of compromise between 3e and B/X.

Chris Gonnerman who runs the project has a collaborative sort of mindset, and a lot of people have written for it. I admit that I'm one of them--my name and signature are on the document--so I can't exactly give you a neutral review.

Do check out the supplements and stuff. My personal favourite is the Chaotic Caves, which is basically a very extensive homage to B2: Keep on the Borderlands, with a very similar feel but totally different in detail.

MoxieFu · Sep 16, 2011

It's a great solution if you have players that can't or won't spring for the cost of books. You can download it for free and print only the pages that pertain to your character.

While I prefer a clone that hews closer to 1E, I do like the changes to the B/X D&D like ascending AC, BAB, and separate race and classes. I only wish there was a single document version that included the optional material so that the options are included right with the base material.

Summer-Knight925 · Sep 16, 2011

MoxieFu said:
It's a great solution if you have players that can't or won't spring for the cost of books. You can download it for free and print only the pages that pertain to your character.

While I prefer a clone that hews closer to 1E, I do like the changes to the B/X D&D like ascending AC, BAB, and separate race and classes. I only wish there was a single document version that included the optional material so that the options are included right with the base material.

I agree, they should put together a "2.5" core book with all of the new classes and material...perhaps I could do this? I would also rearrange some of the things so when you look up your class it's all there (Saves, im looking at you) but it does seem like something that is worth a try, minimal rules means less arguments anyways

Treebore · Sep 16, 2011

Back when I was needing something to keep me in the hobby, after 3E burned me almost completely out, this was the "next game" I was going to use if Castles and Crusades didn't work out. Its very simple, straightforward, and feels very complete. Much like C&C it won't take much work to use a lot of other D&D products with it. I have a print copy on my shelves, despite the fact that I never ended up using it.

Plus the downloads are very good. I've used 2 of them over the years.

Solomoriah · Sep 18, 2011

Summer-Knight925 said:
I agree, they should put together a "2.5" core book with all of the new classes and material...perhaps I could do this? I would also rearrange some of the things so when you look up your class it's all there (Saves, im looking at you) but it does seem like something that is worth a try, minimal rules means less arguments anyways

The core rules are as they are because they cover what needs to be covered.

Geez, that's incomprehensible. Let's try again:

When I started the project, I intended to "cover" the Moldvay/Cook/Marsh rules. That doesn't mean "duplicate" them... it means that I intended to have a rule for everything they had a rule for, and not much past that. The only additions were those things that, back in the day, I really missed having in the rules. This explains the presence of magic-item creation rules, among other things.

Many people told me "the game is great, but it would be perfect if it had X." I knew I had it right when I realized that these comments fit a particular pattern... specifically, X rarely repeated. If everyone said the same X was needed, then I'd have put that X in the rules. But knowing that there was no dominant X that everyone thought I needed told me I was done, and the game was complete.

The supplements fill those X's. Sometimes, we can't decide how to fill an X... look at how many Rangers we have. Sometimes the supplements have balance issues (hint: stay away from the current Pyromancer).

But it's more complicated than that. If you go beyond the core rules and add in options, you have to decide where to stop. What's in, and what's out. That's a LOT harder than you might think... I've tried.

We do have one set of house rules on the site; if you want to create your own, that's entirely up to you.

Oh, and the saving throw tables? That's approximately where they appear in Moldvay... in the Encounter section.

I always recommend using J.D. Jarvis' character sheet with new players, since it has all the page numbers printed right on it.

Summer-Knight925 · Sep 18, 2011

Solomoriah said:
The core rules are as they are because they cover what needs to be covered.

Geez, that's incomprehensible. Let's try again:

When I started the project, I intended to "cover" the Moldvay/Cook/Marsh rules. That doesn't mean "duplicate" them... it means that I intended to have a rule for everything they had a rule for, and not much past that. The only additions were those things that, back in the day, I really missed having in the rules. This explains the presence of magic-item creation rules, among other things.

Many people told me "the game is great, but it would be perfect if it had X." I knew I had it right when I realized that these comments fit a particular pattern... specifically, X rarely repeated. If everyone said the same X was needed, then I'd have put that X in the rules. But knowing that there was no dominant X that everyone thought I needed told me I was done, and the game was complete.

The supplements fill those X's. Sometimes, we can't decide how to fill an X... look at how many Rangers we have. Sometimes the supplements have balance issues (hint: stay away from the current Pyromancer).

But it's more complicated than that. If you go beyond the core rules and add in options, you have to decide where to stop. What's in, and what's out. That's a LOT harder than you might think... I've tried.

We do have one set of house rules on the site; if you want to create your own, that's entirely up to you.

Oh, and the saving throw tables? That's approximately where they appear in Moldvay... in the Encounter section.

I always recommend using J.D. Jarvis' character sheet with new players, since it has all the page numbers printed right on it.

I get what you're saying, and I agree, it is a pretty damn fantastic system, the little problems I have are easily fixed (I.E. scaling scenarios)

but what I thought at first was a downfall is exactly why it is great, not trying to start an edition war, but with 4th edition they made "DMing easier" by giving you more rules, its unimaginitive [ignore bad spelling] while BFRPG is all imagination, and looking at it, I can't help but smile...

I am in a gaming club at my school, and to start people who have never played any table-top rpg before, I am going to be running BFRPG for them.

By the way, the dragons in BFRPG are perfect, couldn't have done them better

Solomoriah · Sep 19, 2011

Thanks for the kind words! I hope it goes well for you.

Basic Fantasy Role-playing game?

Summer-Knight925

First Post

WheresMyD20

First Post

S'mon

Legend

PapersAndPaychecks

First Post

MoxieFu

First Post

Summer-Knight925

First Post

Treebore

First Post

Solomoriah

Explorer

Summer-Knight925

First Post

Solomoriah

Explorer

Similar Threads