OSR Why B/X?

[Voadam]

B/X is, well, older than BECMI and AD&D. What could be more Old School than that?

The White Box, I suppose. But there was a reason D&D moved past that version of the game rather quickly!

The Moldvay B/X Basic Set came out in 1981, 1e AD&D came out in the late 70s.

You might be thinking of the Holmes Basic set which was a transition point between OD&D and 1e AD&D and was sort of a hybrid of the two (five point alignment which showed up in the 1e Monster Manual).

 

[Parmandur]

Thank you! I missed (most of) this community but every once in a while I need to force myself to take a break.

I feel like B/X and OSE are being embraced by the people new to OSR as much as the old guard. Which I find interesting, considering that the game plays so viciously and procedurally. Sure, there are fewer rules, but it does have rules and many of them are essentially arbitrary. I am wondering what folks today -- whether new or old -- find attractive about that. For my part, if I were to run something OSR it would definitely be 2E (core only) with eventual inclusion of the War Machine and Domain rules from BECMI.

Thing is, most people who play D&D aren't playing to the point where war machine and domain rules come into effect:

I have no doubt that was the case in the 80's as it is now, based on sales comparisons of B/X and BECMI (Companion and beyond had really direct numbers):

Given those data points, of historical sales and higher Levels not really seeing play normally, the focus on B/X seems a logical move in the market.

https://www.enworld.org/threads/all-basic-b-x-and-becmi-and-rules-cyclopedia-set-sales-from-ben-riggs.690259/

D&D: Apparently There's No Country For High Level Characters

According to the latest data from D&D Beyond, almost nobody is playing a high-level character. Most characters fall into one of three levels.

www.belloflostsouls.net

 

[Mark Hope]

Also, BECMI nerfs the thief class in a huge way. Reduces the skills across the board, and introduces a skill system so everyone else can out-thief the thief.

We use your 2d6 version of the thief skills in our BX games. It's a great fix

 

[Alby87]

Then I ask: why B/X instead of BE? They are the same game, except something that can be defined as clarifications of the rules, some "satanic panic" revision and, for the revised expert set, the thief ability nerfed.

About the people not playing after higher levels: there aren't a lot of new things to do in 5e after you mastered the wilderness: is the DM ability to create engaing "stories seeds" until level 20, with no help from the rules to war, dominion and little about other planes (except the DMG chapters).

 

[Reynard]

Thing is, most people who play D&D aren't playing to the point where war machine and domain rules come into effect:

You can use those rules at any level.

 

[Mannahnin]

The basic line and B/X specifically has a couple advantageous things going for it.

It is more stripped down to core stuff than AD&D. Spells have level range and duration, no lines about components or spell schools. Monster stat blocks are cleaner in B/X. No resurrection survival aspect to Constitution, no bend/bars lift gates super niche part of strength. No weapon proficiencies to limit PC weapon options. If you find a magic trident you can pick it up and immediately use it as well as you could a longsword.

(snip)

All of this. Plus I think it's just generally easier to add onto a more stripped down game like B/X than to cut down from a more baroque one like AD&D. That's been my experience.

I'm close to wrapping up my current old school B/X & Five Torches Deep hybrid game, which I've been running since 2020, and it's been great. When I wanted a spell or a monster or a magic item from AD&D it was easy to port in. Adding options is simple.

The next time I want to run an old school game I might use James V. West's Black Pudding house rules for B/X, which include a bunch of fun little tweaks and a metric ton of new amusing character class options.

 

[Parmandur]

You can use those rules at any level.

In theory. But if if a given table doesn't plan to do so, they would be clutter to them. Hence, B/X as the rallying point rather than BECMI or RC.

 

[Cruentus]

Someone hates one of the greatest DnD books of all time? I seriously love the RC, I started playing with it and return to read it from time to time. I ended up using its mass battle rules as the basis for mass battles in a 5e game. I loved that it is a complete system in a single book (minus levelling as immortals, but I don't feel like that's a requirement for most games).

It must be something about the way my brain is wired (or my old age). I'm always on the lookout for mass battle games to add into my DnD (regardless of edition), and I have RC, and have read those rules, but they seemed (to me) to either be not intuitive, or overly complex. Maybe its me? None of the rules I've found in official DnD products (Birthright, others) did the trick simply either. Is there anywhere I can find someone who explains how it works? Maybe seeing or reading it in practice would dislodge the brain-jam.

 

[Dyson Logos]

We use your 2d6 version of the thief skills in our BX games. It's a great fix

Thanks!

I still use them in my campaigns too!

 

[Willie the Duck]

Then I ask: why B/X instead of BE? They are the same game, except something that can be defined as clarifications of the rules, some "satanic panic" revision and, for the revised expert set, the thief ability nerfed.

This one boils down to community nomenclature. To be clear, they aren't really doing either BX or BE, they are making their own thing which superficially resembles both of those. It's just easier and less convoluted to say 'B/X' than 'B/X, and/or the BE portion of the BECMI line.' You're correct, other than thief skills (and spells known limits for MUs/Elves, and the presence of some specific monsters like thouls), the two are mechanically the same.