Why is the shortest lived edition, still one of the most popular?

MerricB

Eternal Optimist
Supporter
So ... there are a few different factors here.

First, I have to reject your premise. Sorry, buddy, but- "B/X lasted only two years" isn't (IMO) correct. Let's start with the basic history as I know it-

OD&D (from brown box through supplements) was 1974 - 1976.

AD&D was from 1977 (PHB) but wasn't playable as AD&D until 1979.

B/X or BECMI was from 1977 until ...

Still not quite right.

The timeline goes:
1974: Original D&D is released
1977: Basic D&D (edited by Eric J Holmes) is released. This is an introduction to how to play Original D&D, including a couple of concepts from the Greyhawk supplement, and a very few from the in-progress AD&D books.

Now, the Holmes version of Basic D&D is very much a cut-down version of OD&D, with a few house rules (for initiative) thrown in. You can see this most clearly from the ability score adjustments - Strength, Intelligence and Wisdom *only* affect XP gained (giving a bonus) and have no other effects. Constitution uses the Greyhawk progress (15-16: +1 hp/die, 17: +2 hp/die, 18: +3). And Dexterity gives only a +1 or -1 to missile attacks.

Although it sort of treats races as classes (with all halflings and dwarves being fighters, and elves being fighter/magic-users), the elf splits XP between two classes. Incidentally, you have to roll to hit with magic missile! (2-7 damage if it hits!)

1981: Basic D&D (edited by Tom Moldvay) is released, along with the first Expert Set (edited by David Cook). This is the edition referred to as B/X.
This edition is a major rewrite of the rules to make them clearer. (Holmes is, like OD&D, often arcane). The rules are written brilliantly, and it introduces the ability bonus progression of 13-15: +1 ,16-17: +2, 18: +3 that would become so familiar to people playing Basic D&D.

This is still based on the OD&D system, but some elements would be unfamiliar to people who had been playing the older system. Each monster is explicitly given a 2-12 Morale score. Elves, Dwarves and Halflings are explictly classes, with each (and especially the elf) having its own progression table. Magic Missile automatically hits! Mostly, it feels like a far better organised system.

1983: Basic D&D (edited by Frank Mentzer) - the Red Box is released. This is the famous one. This is the one that would be the primary boxed set for the next eight years (until it's replaced in 1981 with the Black Box), and sold huge numbers of copies.

This edition splits the rules into a Player & GM book. The Player book is primarily notable for the Choose Your Own Adventure style of introducing the player to the game. However, the underlying rules are unchanged from Moldvay. The Expert set would make some changes to character progression, so as to make room for the later Companion and Master sets. However, otherwise the rules are very much just a reformatting of the Moldvay/Cook rules.

Unfortunately, the reformatting made the books rather inelegant. Same rules, right? So, it takes Moldvay 64 pages to explain what takes Mentzer 112 (64 Player book, 48 DM book). The Companion rules were pretty interesting, as they added Kingdom Building to the mix, which was awesome. The Master rules were... less good.

This edition, in full, is known as the BECMI rules. It would be reformatted later (in 1991) with the Black Box, the Rules Cyclopedia and Wrath of the Immortals. And then that stuck around until the Basic line was shot and killed in the late 1990s.

===

The B/X rules (Moldvay/Cook) were around for two years, then survived as the foundation of the BECMI line. But, due to their elegance, people still admire them over what came later. Holmes might have written a version of Basic D&D, but the 1981 set was a revolution in how the rules were written.

Cheers!
 
Last edited:

log in or register to remove this ad

Voadam

Legend
I started with B/X and it was a great way to learn D&D. It was one of the best written D&D rules systems ever for understanding the rules and using them at the table. It was very evocative with great art and writing. Even though I quickly moved on to playing advanced D&D through the 80s and 90s, looking back that was basically B/X with AD&D additions.

I also came to really admire the +1-+3 B/X stat adjustments over the swingy AD&D bonuses that ignored average and moderate scores and rewarded super high stats, particularly percentile strength.
 


Sacrosanct

Legend
As others have said, I don't find any real difference in the rules between Moldvay and Mentzer. Just minor things. Personally, I prefer Moldvay, but that's largely because of how it's written and the artists used (HUGE fan of Bill Willingham)

So ironically to the OP, what you think is the shortest version is actually the longest. And it's still popular because many gamers want their D&D to be lite for numerous reasons
 

Azzy

ᚳᚣᚾᛖᚹᚢᛚᚠ
OD&D led to two separate branches-
the Holmes/Moldvay/Metzer branch (Basic, B/X, BECMI, Cyclopedia) AND
the AD&D (1e) - 5e branch.

Eh... I still say that the Holmes version is much closer to the oD&D and that Moldvay is the real first on the "basic" split.
 

ParanoydStyle

Peace Among Worlds
Luke Crane? The Google+ link to his actual play report seems to have died, but he is as critical of AD&D and Expert as he is praising of Moldvay Basic.

Nope, it wasn't Luke Crane. I only met him once ever, at GenCon, and technically speaking, it was after GenCon when we were both shipping stuff home. The conversation didn't reach beyond polite chit-chat. Now Ron Edwards on the other hand I talked to on the phone for several hours as well as met in person at DexCon during the development and promotion of the (troubled) Systems Malfunction Kickstarter. So I think it must have been Ron Edwards. Although I don't doubt that Luke Crane might agree. Something something great minds something. And yes, I unironically consider both Luke Crane and Ron Edwards to be great minds: fight me.

What is a waghalter? Also, why is the graduation point from level 6 to level 7 99 XP and not the MUCH rounder number of 100 XP? But mainly what is a waghalter?
 
Last edited:

pemerton

Legend
What is a waghalter?
Well, Google gives me "waghalter in British. (ˈwæɡˌhɔːltə) obsolete. a person likely to be hanged." In the current context it's an Assassin level title from AD&D. (I can't remember which level - I want to say 2nd or 3rd.)

I unironically consider both Luke Crane and Ron Edwards to be great minds: fight me.
Why would I want to fight this? Burning Wheel is one of my favourite RPGs, and The Adventure Burner was the book that, more than any other, helped me run a very successful 4e D&D campaign. I've never played a Ron Edwards game, but his essays and posts on The Forge are brimming with insight and useful advice. Just one example: As someone who ran Rolemaster for nearly 20 years, I learned more about that system and why it has the break points that it does from Edwards' "Right to Dream" essay than one would get in a lifetime of reading through the official ICE forums.

EDIT: So I Google "waghalter assassin level" and got this, which says 3rd level.
 

Hriston

Dungeon Master of Middle-earth
Although my trajectory into D&D was Holmes Basic ==> AD&D (1e) ==> (A)D&D (5e), I'd like to echo the sentiments expressed in this thread that Moldvay Basic is the cleanest, most elegant edition of D&D to have ever been published. I believe that's what accounts for its enduring popularity. Tom Moldvay took the rather <ahem> chaotic genius of Arneson, Gygax, and (to a lesser extent) Holmes's work, and made it into something better and more playable. That he did this by making decisive changes to D&D, such as race as class, monster morale scores, and uniform and symmetrical ability score bonuses, attests to his excellent sense as a game designer. There's a reason why Moldvay Basic was cited as one of the primary inspirations for the current edition's design aesthetic. It's superior to pretty much anything else that's ever been published under the title "D&D". One of these days, I'll get around to playing it.

The Mentzer Basic edition, on the other hand, while nearly identical to Moldvay's in terms of mechanics (in fact much of it seems to be "cut and pasted" from Moldvay), suffers from its attempt to pander to a less experienced audience. Its tone, art-style, and bloated page-count are no match for Moldvay's elegance.
 

Ancalagon

Dusty Dragon
I haven't played either, but a fair number of people have insisted that BX is better than BECMI. One point that was raised in particular is how the thief is kinda shafted by the level extension of the latter.
 


Remove ads

Top