Played Basic D&D for the first time in over 20 years last night...

[Haltherrion]

Unfortunately for me, those very quirks you cite for BD&D (and also AD&D) would drive me insane in anything other than one-shot play. For me, the release of 3e truly was an eye-opening experience.

Yeah, I share that sentiment. There are many things I don't quite like about 4E but overall it's an improvement on some key issues.

I guess we've never found the combats over long except for the one time we had 4 players playing 2 PCs and another 3 neophytes at the table. That was slow

Somethings I'd certainly change but given how dramatic a departure it was from earlier systems, it's hard to get it perfect at the first go which I suppose dooms us a to a 4.5/5E. I didn't think 3E was as great a departure from AD&D2 and it needed a half rev to get right.

I have fond memories of OD&D and its succusors but there are more things I don't like about those systems than 3.5 and 4E. Although the earlier systems sure favored my favorite class (wizards) so I guess I have to tip my hat at that

 

[tvknight415]

Anyone else had this same experience? I read a comment on a forum recently (it could have been here, but I think it might have been on DF) to the effect that "3rd Edition D&D gave me what I thought I wanted" and it's resonating with me quite strongly right now. After years of complaining about D&D/AD&D with its arbitrary restrictions, lack of character customization, and non-unified mechanics (do I want to roll high or low on d6/d20/d100?), it is just so refreshing and downright liberating to come back to it and rediscover just how easy it is for novice players to pick up, how smoothly the game runs, and how much awesome fun it is to play.

3.x gave me what I thought I wanted. But, what it really gave me was agonizing over how best to optimize a character, while spending less time thinking about how my character interacts with the world. Our group devotes a whole session or two sometimes to character building, leveling up, re-training, and all the other details of 3.x. I'd rather spend those sessions playing.

In 3.x, if I want to make a character modeled after a Byzantine turcople, I've got to pick which class(es), feats, and skill point distributions would best model the concept. In Basic, I pick to play a fighter, make sure I have a good dex, buy a bow and a horse, and get down to visualizing my PC's place in the world, his background, his personality, and so on. Leveling just means changing five saving throws and a to-hit stat on my character sheet and rolling a die for hit points. Quick, easy, and can be done at the table during the game.

As I've gotten older and have more commitments that are more important than gaming (job, family, community activities), requiring less time obsessing over details is a welcome benefit.

 

[Aus_Snow]

I think I'm wanting a BECMI-like (and compatible) rules informed by some advances out of the D20 era. Or close enough . . .

Basic Fantasy (BFRPG) might be the thing. Or, as you say, close enough.

It has ascending AC, an attack bonus according to class, and some other streamlining here and there. Otherwise though, it's very much Basic D&D. The people I tried it with (and I) found it to be surprisingly fun and rewarding. Going back to it, and/or trynig it with different people, is absolutely on the cards.

No overwhelming lists of spells [/powers] or magic items. No prestige classes [/equivalent thingies]. A small number of core classes. No skills. No feats. Sleek statblocks. Fast combat. One book.

I can see that in many cases it could be a welcome change, be it from 3e or 4e. Or maybe even from AD&D... but much less so, and it's far less likely besides.

 

[amerigoV]

I've not gone back to Basic so to speak, but I discovered the same feeling with Savage Worlds. One page character sheets (at most), more free-wheeling mechanics, more focus on the adventure and less on the rules. So I feel like I'm playing/GMing back in the old days with a better system (as someone else posted, the quirks of the old systems would start to eat at me).

The good and the bad of these systems is more is in the hands of the GM. If you have a good GM, the game is a blast - more action and exploration and the rules are out of the way. You get a poor GM, then it really is horrible. 3e and 4e have some nice structure to help GMs (and players) that the old systems just did not have - it improved the overall GM craft. But nothing is without a price such as those the OP listed.

 

[Treebore]

The greater amount of laughing should be all the proof you need.


Your experience is largely why I went to C&C. A simpler, faster kind of play where we concentrate on having fun, not the rules. So I strongly support your finding the right game to give you the kind of play your looking for.

 

[Ulrick]

As I've gotten older and have more commitments that are more important than gaming (job, family, community activities), requiring less time obsessing over details is a welcome benefit.

Same here, I rather just sit down an just play. OD&D and, to lesser extent, AD&D feature shorter character creation time. Especially OD&D--

DM: "Sorry, but you falled your saving throw and die from the poisoned arrow."
Player: "Aww... I liked Falstaff the fighter. Hand me another index card.

(Roll...roll...roll... 10 mins later...)

Player: "Here's my new elf. Have I met the other characters yet?"

Basic Fantasy (BFRPG) might be the thing. Or, as you say, close enough.

It has ascending AC, an attack bonus according to class, and some other streamlining here and there. Otherwise though, it's very much Basic D&D. The people I tried it with (and I) found it to be surprisingly fun and rewarding. Going back to it, and/or trynig it with different people, is absolutely on the cards.

No overwhelming lists of spells [/powers] or magic items. No prestige classes [/equivalent thingies]. A small number of core classes. No skills. No feats. Sleek statblocks. Fast combat. One book.

I can see that in many cases it could be a welcome change, be it from 3e or 4e. Or maybe even from AD&D... but much less so, and it's far less likely besides.

Just prior to running my last 3.5e session, I spent about 2 hours creating five NPCs who were supposed to be reoccuring minor villains in the campaign. They were all around 7th level had levels in prestige classes.

The player's killed four out of the five during that session.

This made me long for simpler stat blocks that didn't go for a half-page or more...

 

[mattcolville]

Anyone else had this same experience? I read a comment on a forum recently (it could have been here, but I think it might have been on DF) to the effect that "3rd Edition D&D gave me what I thought I wanted" and it's resonating with me quite strongly right now. After years of complaining about D&D/AD&D with its arbitrary restrictions, lack of character customization, and non-unified mechanics (do I want to roll high or low on d6/d20/d100?), it is just so refreshing and downright liberating to come back to it and rediscover just how easy it is for novice players to pick up, how smoothly the game runs, and how much awesome fun it is to play.

I love 4th Ed, I love the battles and the fighting, and I think it's the most fun-to-play version of D&D yet, but I basically agree with you here.

Here's the core problem, as I see it, and the one all of us who love 4E would like to ignore.

If you give people a list of cool things to do, they will tend to want to do them.

In other words, in AD&D, your basic dude has...extremely few options listed on his character sheet.

In D&D4, your dude has a whole boatload of things he can do, Powers and Skills, all listed right there. And the Powers are *really cool*.

So I feel we're all being somewhat disingenuous when we say "Oh it's just as much about roleplaying as ever."

Well, maybe it's not. If you give people a stack of cards with cool powers on them, they're going to spend their time looking at them, figuring them out, imagining how cool they'll be to use, and eagerly waiting for a chance to use them.

If you don't give people anything, they'll pay attention to everything else. The world, the details, their character, his goals and personality. They'll be inventive, frightened, courageous.

So yeah, I've thought about switch back to AD&D, never really played basic, or using some other mechanism to get players to put down the powers and think.

But for the moment, my feeling is; it's just intertia that must be overcome. You just have to get your players into the habit of roleplaying and they'll do it.

Present them problems that can't be solved by fighting. That's probably the biggest thing. If you're not putting situations, preferably involving people (people are more interesting than things) that can't be solved by fighting, then your players will default to using their powers.

So give them situations involving people in conflict with each other, the party, and themselves. Situations that can't be solved with their powers. Revel in ambiguity. Rarely should there be obviously correct things to do. Faulkner said the only thing worth writing about is the human heart in conflict with itself. Put that in your game. Don't let the players off the hook with easy solutions, put conflicts in front of them where it seems like everyone's right and everyone's in conflict.

Even in the dungeon, the only difference between 4E and Basic is that 4E gives you a skill to remove ambiguity about jumping a chasm...for a given sized chasm. So put the ambiguity *back in*. Give them something to navigate that couldn't possibly be jumped, and now 4E will be like Basic. They'll be back to problem solving, rather than die rolling.

 

[nedjer]

I love 4th Ed, I love the battles and the fighting, and I think it's the most fun-to-play version of D&D yet, but I basically agree with you here.

Here's the core problem, as I see it, and the one all of us who love 4E would like to ignore.

If you give people a list of cool things to do, they will tend to want to do them.

In other words, in AD&D, your basic dude has...extremely few options listed on his character sheet.

In D&D4, your dude has a whole boatload of things he can do, Powers and Skills, all listed right there. And the Powers are *really cool*.

So I feel we're all being somewhat disingenuous when we say "Oh it's just as much about roleplaying as ever."

Well, maybe it's not. If you give people a stack of cards with cool powers on them, they're going to spend their time looking at them, figuring them out, imagining how cool they'll be to use, and eagerly waiting for a chance to use them.

If you don't give people anything, they'll pay attention to everything else. The world, the details, their character, his goals and personality. They'll be inventive, frightened, courageous.

So yeah, I've thought about switch back to AD&D, never really played basic, or using some other mechanism to get players to put down the powers and think.

But for the moment, my feeling is; it's just intertia that must be overcome. You just have to get your players into the habit of roleplaying and they'll do it.

Present them problems that can't be solved by fighting. That's probably the biggest thing. If you're not putting situations, preferably involving people (people are more interested than things) that can't be solved by fighting, then your players will default to using their powers.

So give them situations involving people in conflict with each other, the party, and themselves. Revel in ambiguity. Rarely should there be obviously correct things to do. Faulkner said the only thing worth writing about is the human heart in conflict with itself. Put that in your game. Don't let the players off the hook with easy solutions, put conflicts in front of them where it seems like everyone's right and everyone's in conflict.

Even in the dungeon, the only difference between 4E and Basic is that 4E gives you a skill to remove ambiguity about jumping a chasm...for a given sized chasm. So put the ambiguity *back in*. Give them something to navigate that couldn't possibly be jumped, and now 4E will be like Basic. They'll be back to problem solving, rather than die rolling.

You've pretty much summed up why AD&D lost it's popular appeal, how power/ war gaming 'hijacked' the RPG hobby and why it doesn't want to give it back.

This will remain so as long as it's considered desirable to place procedural expertise in front of skill and dismiss roleplaying as a whole by labelling it as narrative/ storytelling.

 

[Wednesday Boy]

But for the moment, my feeling is; it's just intertia that must be overcome. You just have to get your players into the habit of roleplaying and they'll do it.

That's the similar hunch that I have. So often I see 4E players look too much at their powers and they hamstring themselves into thinking that is all they are allowed to do. Or they look at their skill numbers and think they must roll whenever they interact. My group's struggling with roleplaying lately and I'm convinced we need to re-learn how to roleplay.

Keldryn,
Now that your players know they can approach an obstacle without considering their skills, feats, or powers, do you think you'll try to play 4E again with that mindset incorporated into it? I'd be interested to learn if a session or two of a rules light system would be a refreshing reminder to the players that they're really just limited by their imaginations or if they would devolve back into playing only from their character sheets.

 

[Filcher]

TKeldryn,
Now that your players know they can approach an obstacle without considering their skills, feats, or powers, do you think you'll try to play 4E again with that mindset incorporated into it? I'd be interested to learn if a session or two of a rules light system would be a refreshing reminder to the players that they're really just limited by their imaginations or if they would devolve back into playing only from their character sheets.

This is the money question. I'm interesting in finding out as well.