D&D General Back to First Principles

[Reynard]

In my opinion, more options do make it better. I remember older editions and it was fine because that was all there was. Each edition has given players more options to make your PC better fit your concept, although 4e/5e need better multiclass rules.

It is kind of like when you wonder how cool it would be to live in colonial times or the middle ages and such. Then you start to get real and think about no electricity/heat/medical/travel/lifespan/etc. You realize how much better you have it now.

Alternatively (and obviously this is just my opinion) NOT codifying everything opens up more options.

The way I see it is this: 5E tells you what you can do, while BECMI tells you what you can't do. If the lists are the same length, then the BECMI character has far, far more things they potentially can do than the 5E character.

The benefit of the simple BECMI fighter is that they are super versatile: not because they have a huge menu of available options but because the game assumes you can do anything except stuff prescribed to another class.

 

[DND_Reborn]

Alternatively (and obviously this is just my opinion) NOT codifying everything opens up more options.

LOL it isn't just your opinion. I share it.

 

[ninjayeti]

One of the best campaigns I ever ran was a Rules Cyclopedia-era basic game. Started with Eye of Traldar then Night's Dark Terror and finished with some stuff I cobbled together from Dungeon Magazine and Against the Slavelords (as the Iron Ring slavers). At that point Basic was decidedly the stepchild to AD&D, but the Rules Cyclopedia really inspired me, in large part because of that first principles vibe the OP touches on (the whole game was in ONE book!).

TBH now I don't think I would want to go back. I love the idea of slow advancement, but man playing a first level magic-user with one spell sucks (especially when you memorize Sleep and the dungeon is full of undead). Playing a first level thief that has like a 15% chance to do any of his cool thief stuff sucks. Playing a first level fighter and whiffing on 85% of your attacks against something with an AC2 - also sucky. I'm not going to say you can't have tons of fun with the system, because I totally did. But I just think there are games out now that can do lots the stuff the OP mentions (slow advancement, simple rules, easy monsters, etc.) and don't have some of the clunkier elements of Basic D&D.

 

[overgeeked]

For me, the magic of older editions and simpler mechanics is it opens up the players to creative problem solving that’s almost non-existent when you have massive lists of skills, spells, and abilities. It makes the players engage with the world far more than just pressing a button on their character sheet.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

There’s truth to both sides of the question of creativity bounded by simple or complex environments…in any comtext,

With the right group,even the simple rules of the early game can yield a wide variety of different characters. OTOH, I know from experience that some character concepts require codified support in the game mechanics to exist and be playable.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Alternatively (and obviously this is just my opinion) NOT codifying everything opens up more options.

Counterpoints:

1. Most games that "define what you can do" or "codify" things do not have discrete lists of singular actions with no ability to exceed the "codified" list. Instead, at least for well-designed games, they define open-ended classes of actions, which can theoretically contain an infinite variety of possible use-cases. Thus, it can be a bit misleading to present "non-codified" games as open-ended as opposed to the alleged closed-ended "codified" games.

2. Most "non-codified" or "codify what cannot be done, not what can" games still have a serious limiter on what can be done: what the DM is willing to accept. No game has absolutely infinite potential for that reason alone. I, personally, have met a lot more people who seem dramatically more keen on placing limits than on embracing possibilities, particularly when it comes to "traditional" or "old-school" play/editions/etc., but I understand that anecdotes are not data.

3. Even when point 2 does not apply, a second limiter exists: the tone of the game and the pitch/premise/principles of the game. PbtA games tend to be hailed as extremely open-ended, frex, but they are only so by leaning especially hard on these limits. You wouldn't bring murderhobos to a game of Masks, nor plucky manic pixie dream girls to a gritty Fantasy Friggin' Vietnam OD&D game. If the players are already going to be effectively self-limiting to adhere to these things, why not provide rules to make that experience smoother, more natural?

4. Separately from the above: It should not be an axiom that "less is better" any more than it should be an axiom that "more is better." Every choice--including whether to provide many things, few things, or no things--should be evaluated for its purpose and its effectiveness. (I.e., it doesn't matter how good the cat food is if you don't own a cat, nor does it matter that a brand of dog food is designed specially for your dog's breed if that food makes her sick.) Chesterton's Fence is in full force here, and it swings both ways.

Note, I do not say this in an attempt to dissuade you from your chosen game plan (literally a plan about games!) You should play what interests you, and that goes doubly for running what interests you. I have zero interest in "converting" you to some other position on that front. I am merely responding, rhetorically, to the position(s) declared.

 

[Reynard]

One of the best campaigns I ever ran was a Rules Cyclopedia-era basic game. Started with Eye of Traldar then Night's Dark Terror and finished with some stuff I cobbled together from Dungeon Magazine and Against the Slavelords (as the Iron Ring slavers). At that point Basic was decidedly the stepchild to AD&D, but the Rules Cyclopedia really inspired me, in large part because of that first principles vibe the OP touches on (the whole game was in ONE book!).

TBH now I don't think I would want to go back. I love the idea of slow advancement, but man playing a first level magic-user with one spell sucks (especially when you memorize Sleep and the dungeon is full of undead). Playing a first level thief that has like a 15% chance to do any of his cool thief stuff sucks. Playing a first level fighter and whiffing on 85% of your attacks against something with an AC2 - also sucky. I'm not going to say you can't have tons of fun with the system, because I totally did. But I just think there are games out now that can do lots the stuff the OP mentions (slow advancement, simple rules, easy monsters, etc.) and don't have some of the clunkier elements of Basic D&D.

It feels from your description that your concerns are based primarily on player capability.

I honestly believe that PCs that feel fragile make for a better game, but insofar that for me I put i high priority on emotional realism and things like not wanting to die count.

Counterpoints:

1. Most games that "define what you can do" or "codify" things do not have discrete lists of singular actions with no ability to exceed the "codified" list. Instead, at least for well-designed games, they define open-ended classes of actions, which can theoretically contain an infinite variety of possible use-cases. Thus, it can be a bit misleading to present "non-codified" games as open-ended as opposed to the alleged closed-ended "codified" games.

2. Most "non-codified" or "codify what cannot be done, not what can" games still have a serious limiter on what can be done: what the DM is willing to accept. No game has absolutely infinite potential for that reason alone. I, personally, have met a lot more people who seem dramatically more keen on placing limits than on embracing possibilities, particularly when it comes to "traditional" or "old-school" play/editions/etc., but I understand that anecdotes are not data.

3. Even when point 2 does not apply, a second limiter exists: the tone of the game and the pitch/premise/principles of the game. PbtA games tend to be hailed as extremely open-ended, frex, but they are only so by leaning especially hard on these limits. You wouldn't bring murderhobos to a game of Masks, nor plucky manic pixie dream girls to a gritty Fantasy Friggin' Vietnam OD&D game. If the players are already going to be effectively self-limiting to adhere to these things, why not provide rules to make that experience smoother, more natural?

4. Separately from the above: It should not be an axiom that "less is better" any more than it should be an axiom that "more is better." Every choice--including whether to provide many things, few things, or no things--should be evaluated for its purpose and its effectiveness. (I.e., it doesn't matter how good the cat food is if you don't own a cat, nor does it matter that a brand of dog food is designed specially for your dog's breed if that food makes her sick.) Chesterton's Fence is in full force here, and it swings both ways.

Note, I do not say this in an attempt to dissuade you from your chosen game plan (literally a plan about games!) You should play what interests you, and that goes doubly for running what interests you. I have zero interest in "converting" you to some other position on that front. I am merely responding, rhetorically, to the position(s) declared.

So, we aren't talking about broad categories of games. We are talking about BECMI/RC relative to more codified follow up versions of D&D. If feel like you are talking about something else -- which is fine, but definitely tangential to the discussion at hand.

 

[Lyxen]

For me, the magic of older editions and simpler mechanics is it opens up the players to creative problem solving that’s almost non-existent when you have massive lists of skills, spells, and abilities. It makes the players engage with the world far more than just pressing a button on their character sheet.

I completely agree with this, which is why I love 5e way more than the two previous editions, in particular 3e where it was not about creativity in the game world but about finding the one piece of rule and/or combo that technically did what you wanted, and 4e where everything was codified to the last coma to avoid the problems of 3e. We loved AD&D because although it seemed like there were lots of rules, actually a lot of them were options and the table rules allowed us as much freedom as in BECMI with tons of options.

5e is not perfect, but we are playing again in the real spirit of BECMI and AD&D, in sweeping epic stories including at high level (in 3e, high level was unmanageable due to to complexity and computations, and in 4e high level felt almost like low level anyway).

And about slow advancement, we are not that fond of it. We like all levels where the game can be truly epic, although the levels we love best are probably around 8-15, where there is tons of magic and options.

Yet it's true that if 5e did not exist, BECMI would probably be our system of choice, 3e and 4e are completely out, and we would probably not have the energy to recreate all the table rules that made AD&D such a fantastic game.

 

[Reynard]

One of the things embedded in First Principles is the "zero to hero" development process that not only is slower in BECMI (5 adventures per level, according to the RC) but also "zero" really is not much better than the common man. "Hero" not only takes longer to achieve but it also implies a shift in purpose that we don't see in 5E.

I think one of the things that is attractive in the simple, minimalist design around character advancement is that the acquisition of class abilities is not the primary motivation. The things the characters can acquire in the world, from wealth and magic items to land and social status, is much more important. This in turn produces more realistic and worthwhile motivations for the PCs, IMO. And PCs with strong motivations tend to be more self propelled, making the job of the DM easier in that you don't have to create reasons to compel the PCs to engage with the adventure. It is built in and if sufficiently developed you don't have to prepare an adventure at sll, you just have to adjudicate the consequences of their actions.

 

[Morrus]

But let me be clear, since it seems to be a necessity these days: I am NOT decreeing some sort immutable definition of The One True Way.it is not my intent with this thread to tell you all you are doing it wrong.

What do you mean by "advanced"? I don't necessarily see more class abilities as an "advancement" if it doesn't make the game better.

These statements appear to be in opposition to each other. One rather belies the other.