Who still plays Basic D&D?

[rounser]

Bah, by all that is holy Regdar would never soil Regdars hands with that material.

No, Regdar does not play basic. Regdar does not care for the basic aspect, Race=Class and various other issues. You may like it, Regdar does not.

All other things being equal, you are right, Regdar. However...

Although this can go unstated, the opinions on this thread seem to be overemphasising the impact of rules differences between editions on how fun a campaign is to play.

IMO, a well-run and content rich Basic D&D campaign is more enjoyable than a poorly run and bare bones 3E campaign (and vice versa). In other words, the rules differences between editions seem much less significant to me than the style and content of the campaign and DM.

There will be some folks out there who think that level limits, race/class marriage and decreasing armour class outweigh any merit an oD&D campaign could offer, but they're probably mentally in orbit around a different plane of common sense and taste to my own.

 

[hong]

Coincidentally enough, I was just recently given a whole bunch of Basic D&D books by a friend who was cleaning out his room. Let's see what I've got here:

Dungeons and Dragons Fantasy Adventure Game Basic Rulebook (the red book)
D&D Player's Manual
D&D DM's Rulebook
D&D Master Player's Book
D&D Master DM's Book
D&D Gazetteer: The Minrothiad Guilds
D&D Gazetteer: Elves of Alfheim
D&D Gazetteer: Dwarves of Rockhome
D&D Gazetteer: Duchy of Karameikos

I'm not really sure what I'll do with them. It's just so old and outdated, and I mean, no-one plays Basic anymore. Oh well, into the bin, I suppose....

 

[Eternalknight]

Umm, hong? Send 'em my way....

 

[Thorvald Kviksverd]

I play the 1974-1976 D&D rules. I started with AD&D in 1980, but a few years back I switched to original D&D. I like the flexibility and the simplicity of the rules. I also employ a lot of house rules, which is easier in D&D than in AD&D.

Hey Geoffrey, I'd love to take a gander at those house rules if you've got them in a format you could forward to me

I've got a copy of the original rules (from ebay recently), but I've never played them.

I started with a Basic Boxed Set back in '77 or '78--it was my friend's though, so I don't have a copy.

Like you, I moved on to AD&D(1e) when it came out, and played happily for many years.

I picked up a great deal of material for 2e, but never really used any of it beyond variable skill points for Thieves and a few combat options from the Complete Fighter's Handbook.

Started playing the new Basic rules in '84 when I joined the Marines--the Rules Cyclopedia was very convenient when space was at a premium, particularly on board ship.

Tried 3e for about a year, but it just didn't have the right "feel" for me--I spent so much time tweaking it to achieve the old feeling I was looking for, that I finally realized I should just go ahead and play one of the older versions.

So, I've gone back to the basics as it were--albeit, not as far back as you

 

[Kriegspiel]

Re: Bah, hell no

Bah, by all that is holy Regdar would never soil Regdars hands with that material.

No, Regdar does not play basic. Regdar does not care for the basic aspect, Race=Class and various other issues. You may like it, Regdar does not.

Regdar is just mad that he's too young to remember that far back, and that the chicks were much hotter before Regdar's day!

 

[mmadsen]

Tried 3e for about a year, but it just didn't have the right "feel" for me--I spent so much time tweaking it to achieve the old feeling I was looking for, that I finally realized I should just go ahead and play one of the older versions.

Could you explain what Basic D&D offers that a stripped-down 3E wouldn't offer? From what I can see, the main "negative" of 3E is that it overwhelms you with choices. You can always take 'em away.

 

[WSmith]

I started with a Basic Boxed Set back in '77 or '78--it was my friend's though, so I don't have a copy.

Like you, I moved on to AD&D(1e) when it came out, and played happily for many years.

I picked up a great deal of material for 2e, but never really used any of it beyond variable skill points for Thieves and a few combat options from the Complete Fighter's Handbook.

Sounds almost exactly like me experience.

So, I've gone back to the basics as it were--albeit, not as far back as you

I too, am thinking of giving the old Basic a shot for fun.

mmadsen said:
Could you explain what Basic D&D offers that a stripped-down 3E wouldn't offer? From what I can see, the main "negative" of 3E is that it overwhelms you with choices. You can always take 'em away.

If I had to choose between a stripped down version of the 3e rules, or the older basic rules, it would be a tough decision to make. I feel that 3e has corrected a lot of the problems I had with 2nd edition. I like the "lack" of rules that BD&D is known for. I much prefer many aspects of d20, like the three saves, cyclic init, increasing AC, 6 sec combat round, just to name a few. So, my BD&D game might just resemble 3e more than it does BD&D.

One more plug for the AG. I like the fact that you can run a game with only the few pages provided on the rules summary sheet. Even though I would add certain things, I have to say i wished WOTC did more with the AG. I know they don't want to splinter the customer base to thin, but the Ag has so much potential to be a basic version of 3e.

 

[Dougal DeKree]

1st Ed.

Well, back in my hometown we still have an old campaign going in 1st Ed. D&D...i think we started 82 or 83...sadly we do it on a twice-a-year-basis at the mom. But still - it rocks

Dougal DeKree, retired Gnomish Illusionist

 

[Thorvald Kviksverd]

Could you explain what Basic D&D offers that a stripped-down 3E wouldn't offer? From what I can see, the main "negative" of 3E is that it overwhelms you with choices. You can always take 'em away.

I don't know about the "overwhelms" part

It does, however, lack the simplicity of play that I desire from D&D.

As to why exactly I don't like 3e--I don't know.

I certainly wanted to like it--if for no other reason, so I could participate fully in the vibrant community that has sprung up in support of it (something that's becoming ever more difficult to find wrt the older versions).

I know simply saying that it doesn't capture the "feel" of D&D for me isn't particularly helpful--but that's really what it boils down to.

I'll try to list a couple of specifics that I don't like, most could probably easily be "fixed" for my campaign (and I've probably already tried the fixes)--but, again, a game is something more than the sum of its parts, and the "feel" I am looking for is lost in the translation...

FEATS: I don't like these, though I could probably live with them if evryone didn't have them--I mean, even Kobolds do! I like the ideas you've put forth about having a common FEAT list (or, at least, more flexible FEAT selection) that all classes would select from, I've tried something similar myself--mainly as a way to discourage rampant multi-classing. I too would like to see just 4 basic classes (Fighter, Priest, Wizard, Rogue), with FEAT and skill selection used to re-create such specialists as Rangers, Paladins, Clerics, etc.

Multi-Classing: I prefer a character to have a set of aptitudes, certain pre-dispositions, and focus at 1st level. I really don't like the rampant multi-classing so common in 3e. If the changes mentioned above were made, this could probably be greatly reduced, or even eliminated.

Prestige Classes: Make me see red, at least as currently handled. From what I've seen, a character who takes a prestige class isn't just different from a comparable one who doesn't (a flavor/roleplay issue), he's actually better (a balance/powergame issue). I don't think this is what was intended, but I certainly think this is what they've become. (I'll admit they're a great marketing tool as well.)

Stat Blocks: Way too big! Again, I could accept this for the Heroes, but I really don't want that level of detail for the rank and file cannon fodder--or even the more powerful monsters for that matter. AC, HD, HPs, # Attacks, Dmg, MV, Special Attacks/Defences...that's all I really need or want, beyond that, I'll play it by ear--the opposition is capable of whatever it needs to be in order to advance the plot and make for an exciting adventure.

"Feel": Leaving aside mechanics--though they certainly play a role--what is it about the feel of 3e that I don't like? I guess I'm just getting old, and I'm not quite "with it" anymore. The art is far too "mad-max" for me--the same thing drives me to distraction wrt movies that are purportedly set in medieval/dark age times. I know it is fantasy, but I prefer mine to be a bit more grounded in the historical--at least in terms of looks (in some of the aforementioned movies, it's as if D-Day was being filmed using flintlocks). Similarly, I'm not comfortable with the video-game/anime/wu-shu genre, and that seems to be what's popular with this generation--again, I prefer a more "western" feel to my pseudo-medievalism.

I know most of the above can be addressed by a simple, "So don't use them in your campaign. Tailor it to your own vision...", but it ends up being something no longer mainstream 3e. Which, for me, removes what is the main attraction of 3e to begin with, the opportunity to participate in a meaningful way in the 3e gaming community. Absent that, I've found that I'm simply happier remaining with one of the systems that, for better or worse, formed my perceptions of what D&D is.

Anyway, to answer your original question

If a 3e basic game were done "right"--it might be something that I could enjoy. If you ever get around to writing up your system I'd love to see it. And who knows, maybe one of these days I'll have the time to come up with my own version as well. Maybe we'll be on the cutting edge for 4e

BTW, TWIMC, none of the above is meant: As a troll; As an invitation to flame, or; To be disparaging of 3e in any way. I'm just trying to explain why it isn't right for me to an interested party. As I mentioned, I really wish I could enjoy it.

Maybe it would be good to list some of the things that I do like

--3 Save Categories

--AC that goes up

--Unified Exp Table

--DC System

--Unified Ability Bonuses (though, to be fair, Basic D&D has these as well)

 

[BiggusGeekus]

The original Galantri rocks. That boxed "update" was a crime.

If all Basic D&D products had been of that caliber, there would be no 3rd edition.