D&D General Back to First Principles

[DND_Reborn]

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.

This is a good point. I like to explain it in a similar way:

5E (as the most popular and recent edition) often seems to me about characters getting more features or things they can do (feats, etc.). This is represented by the fact that nearly every level gives the PCs sometime more than just hit points. Look at the class features in the class tables. Non-casters gain something every single level, half-casters most levels, and casters are the most sparse, but their feature-less levels correspond to gaining new spell levels as compensation. Now, this is of course, by design. It is meant to make the player feel rewarded for gaining each level. But IME it backfires--the focus becomes about gaining the level, not the adventure.

In B/X, BECMI, and even AD&D 1E/2E, you could often gain a level where the only thing you improved was your hit points. Gaining a level where your saves, combat table (or THAC0), etc. improved also was exciting! So, because the game was not as focused on gaining features, but instead on wealth, magic items, and other more "worldly" acquisitions, finding and completing the adventure was more the focus.

In short: 5E is about what you can do, earlier editions were more about what you actually did.

 

[Oofta]

I don't think I would ever want to go back to basic. The lack of flexibility for casters, having that low level wizard just hiding in the back maybe occasionally throwing the ineffectual dart while one bad roll means death no matter what level you are? Nope. Not for me.

On the other hand some of the things you mention are still possible. Slow advancement? I've played games where we were kids starting out as 0 level PCs, it was a few sessions before we even got to level 1. Just discuss speed of advancement with the group and ignore XP.

Simple rules? Get rid of feats and most multiclassing. Consider only using the basic rules. Heck, you can just tell everyone to ignore proficiencies if you want. I think a fair amount of this though comes down to creativity, not lack of rules. There's only so much you can do in this regard, either the DM can encourage creative solutions and the players run with it or not.

Changing game? Okay, gotta admit. I have no clue.

War and domain management. Yeah, you'd have to look for something 3rd party on this one. On the other hand it doesn't really matter at lower levels so if you have slower advancement you have plenty of time to find something.

Slim monster stat blocks. Again, not sure what the appeal is. You can always whip up an updated version of basic monsters if you want, the DMG has guidelines on monster building.

Intelligent swords. We still have sentient magic items, I'm assuming you want magic items to be special? Again, there are optional rules for that. A lot of it is fairly cosmetic, but I make up custom items on a pretty regular basis. You might want to ignore attunement, kind of depends on preference.

There's nothing wrong with nostalgia. There's nothing wrong with going back to an older version of the game, but there's not much there. From what I remember it was more of a guideline that lacked much substance, not that we knew any better. But just because I wouldn't interested doesn't mean much. Story and character have pretty much always meant more than mechanics to me, so I prefer the more integrated and coherent rules of 5E.

Good luck!

 

[Reynard]

I don't think I would ever want to go back to basic. The lack of flexibility for casters, having that low level wizard just hiding in the back maybe occasionally throwing the ineffectual dart while one bad roll means death no matter what level you are? Nope. Not for me.

On the other hand some of the things you mention are still possible. Slow advancement? I've played games where we were kids starting out as 0 level PCs, it was a few sessions before we even got to level 1. Just discuss speed of advancement with the group and ignore XP.

Simple rules? Get rid of feats and most multiclassing. Consider only using the basic rules. Heck, you can just tell everyone to ignore proficiencies if you want. I think a fair amount of this though comes down to creativity, not lack of rules. There's only so much you can do in this regard, either the DM can encourage creative solutions and the players run with it or not.

Changing game? Okay, gotta admit. I have no clue.

War and domain management. Yeah, you'd have to look for something 3rd party on this one. On the other hand it doesn't really matter at lower levels so if you have slower advancement you have plenty of time to find something.

Slim monster stat blocks. Again, not sure what the appeal is. You can always whip up an updated version of basic monsters if you want, the DMG has guidelines on monster building.

Intelligent swords. We still have sentient magic items, I'm assuming you want magic items to be special? Again, there are optional rules for that. A lot of it is fairly cosmetic, but I make up custom items on a pretty regular basis. You might want to ignore attunement, kind of depends on preference.

There's nothing wrong with nostalgia. There's nothing wrong with going back to an older version of the game, but there's not much there. From what I remember it was more of a guideline that lacked much substance, not that we knew any better. But just because I wouldn't interested doesn't mean much. Story and character have pretty much always meant more than mechanics to me, so I prefer the more integrated and coherent rules of 5E.

Good luck!

It is pretty common for people to suggest modifying and trimming down 5E to achieve a simulacrum of an older edition and I usually just end up scratching my head as to why you would go through all that work.

Unless there IS something fundamentally different in the bones of 5E, which means no amount of pruning would get you there anyway.

Most people who reject returning to B/X or whatever usually cite player facing reasons that amount to "characters are weak and/or boring." Which, fair enough, but I don't see the lower power scales and less complexity as a bug.

 

[Reynard]

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

I don't see what you see, especially since the second quote of mine was a direct response to another post on a specific point. Unless you think any expression of preference is one true wayism, in which case what are we even doing here?

 

[Oofta]

It is pretty common for people to suggest modifying and trimming down 5E to achieve a simulacrum of an older edition and I usually just end up scratching my head as to why you would go through all that work.

Unless there IS something fundamentally different in the bones of 5E, which means no amount of pruning would get you there anyway.

Most people who reject returning to B/X or whatever usually cite player facing reasons that amount to "characters are weak and/or boring." Which, fair enough, but I don't see the lower power scales and less complexity as a bug.

It's more the lack of flexibility and coherent options for me. But, again, just because I wouldn't be interested and $5.00 will get you a cup of coffee.

For me it would be kind of like going back and driving around a 1975 Ford Pinto* that I inherited as a kid. Yeah, I could do it. It would be kind of fun for nostalgia. But then I'd try to accelerate with it's blazing 0-60 times of "only if you're going downhill", press the breaks to stop to have it think about it and get back to me. Go to turn on the FM radio and AC that don't exist. When I realized there was no AC I'd remember the pain of crank windows. But hey, it had a sunroof and vinyl top!

I think you could easily address most of the stated issues with minimal effort. But the heart wants what it wants, so if you want to go old school go old school.

*Yes, the supposed death trap car. Because a compact car sitting at a dead stop getting hit by a full size car going 60 MPH caused the car to start on fire. In reality they were statistically one of the safer compact cars of the era, not that it's saying much.

 

[pming]

I really want to run a BECMI/Rules Cyclopedia campaign.

Sure, part of it is simple nostalgia (it's the edition I started with some 35 years ago) but it is also the desire to return to First Principles.

I was paging through my copy of the Rules Cyclopedia (Aaron Allston's second greatest rpg work after Strikeforce) and I was really grabbed by the core elements: slow advancement, simple rules, the changing game, war and domain management, and slim monster stat blocks. Plus intelligent swords.

Yup.

BECMI/RC is in my top 3 RPG's of all time. Still play it to this day, off and on, and use a fair number of the rules and systems in it for other game systems/versions (skills, war machine, elemental stuff, race "cultural focus"...Tree of Life, Blackflame and Forge, and sometimes the weapon masteries; Random Dungeon Generation, Morale system...just sooooo many good rules in that thing!).

Anyway, if you want to play it with others and they don't have copies of the RC (they can go for $100, easy, IF you can even find one for sale), go grab "Dark Dungeons". It's basically a retro-clone of the BECMI/RC stuff (minus some of the specific Immortals stuff). It also has a nice simple "thac0" style SLIGHT modification of To Hit vs AC. In a nutshell, each class/race gets a 3e'esque "Base Attack Bonus". That's used, plus the normal modifiers, then you roll your d20 and add the AC of your opponent; if it's 20+, you hit. You can still use the RC tables thought, if that's more your thing. They work out to be almost even except at the extreme ends (like AC 14 or AC -22, etc). It makes for an even FASTER combat round....which is already fast in BECMI.

You can get PDF version of Dark Dungeons for free, or you can pay for a Lulu PoD in various flavours (I loved the system so much I bought a deluxe hardback colour version for myself, plus 7 or 8 other softback b/w copies to give to my players as gifts; expensive, but worth it!).

Here:
PDF: Dark Dungeons - Gurbintroll Games | DriveThruRPG.com
Lulu: Lulu

^_^

Paul L. Ming

 

[Tales and Chronicles]

I'd think it would not be that hard to make a Basic 5e work.

Use skill-less ability check, roll under.
No ASI
Maximum stat is 18, +/- 2 for non-human, 4d6 drop lowest at chargen.
Casters: go back to spell power based on level instead of upcasting.
No HP beyond 11th level. Only 1+Con mod (max +2 for non fighter)
Ranged weapon (not thrown) do not add +stat to their damage.
Make good use of reaction rolls and morale rules.
Use the lowest HP possible for a given enemy.

4 classes:
Cleric: Take 2 domains spell list that can be prepared (but not automatically), Turn Undead as a mode that you can sustain as an action (Good/Neutral Cleric = frightened or destroyed, Evil = frightened or charmed). Done, no other features. (only blunt weapon if you wish)

Fighter: Keep fighting style and add the UA brute's improved save and weapon damage. Keep extra attack and that's that.

Rogue: 1d6 hp, Give advantage to attack enemies unaware and a damage multiplier up to x5. Take expertise to specialize in specific thievery skills: Stealth, Find/disarm Trap, Spot illusion/hidden door, pick pocket, open lock. Keep cunning action and the thief's second story work. No other feature.

Mage: 1d4 hp, no damage cantrip, opposite schools = can cast spell higher than 2nd level from opposite school, +2 spell DC/spell attack bonus, +2 saves from specialized school. No other feature.

At level 10, each class gain a social feature taken from the background features. (Fighter = Knight, Rogue = Criminal, Mage = sage, cleric = acolyte).

Races:
Human = nothing
Elves = +2 max Dex, -2 max Con, Ignore range penalty from long range, can see in Dim light as normal. Do not die of old age, immune to sleep.
Dwarf = +2 max Con, -2 max Dex, advantage to examine stonework and orient yourself underground. Can see in Dim light as normal. +2 to saves against poison and diseases, resist poison damage.

etc

 

[Reynard]

I'd think it would not be that hard to make a Basic 5e work.

Use skill-less ability check, roll under.
No ASI
Maximum stat is 18, +/- 2 for non-human, 4d6 drop lowest at chargen.
Casters: go back to spell power based on level instead of upcasting.
No HP beyond 11th level. Only 1+Con mod (max +2 for non fighter)
Ranged weapon (not thrown) do not add +stat to their damage.
Make good use of reaction rolls and morale rules.
Use the lowest HP possible for a given enemy.

4 classes:
Cleric: Take 2 domains spell list that can be prepared (but not automatically), Turn Undead as a mode that you can sustain as an action (Good/Neutral Cleric = frightened or destroyed, Evil = frightened or charmed). Done, no other features. (only blunt weapon if you wish)

Fighter: Keep fighting style and add the UA brute's improved save and weapon damage. Keep extra attack and that's that.

Rogue: 1d6 hp, Give advantage to attack enemies unaware and a damage multiplier up to x5. Take expertise to specialize in specific thievery skills: Stealth, Find/disarm Trap, Spot illusion/hidden door, pick pocket, open lock. Keep cunning action and the thief's second story work. No other feature.

Mage: 1d4 hp, no damage cantrip, opposite schools = can cast spell higher than 2nd level from opposite school, +2 spell DC/spell attack bonus, +2 saves from specialized school. No other feature.

At level 10, each class gain a social feature taken from the background features. (Fighter = Knight, Rogue = Criminal, Mage = sage, cleric = acolyte).

Races:
Human = nothing
Elves = +2 max Dex, -2 max Con, Ignore range penalty from long range, can see in Dim light as normal. Do not die of old age, immune to sleep.
Dwarf = +2 max Con, -2 max Dex, advantage to examine stonework and orient yourself underground. Can see in Dim light as normal. +2 to saves against poison and diseases, resist poison damage.

etc

I honestly don't understand the point of doing any of that when you could just play BECMI/RC.

Honest question: what do you gain by trying to mod 5E into BECMI?

 

[Tales and Chronicles]

I honestly don't understand the point of doing any of that when you could just play BECMI/RC.

Honest question: what do you gain by trying to mod 5E into BECMI?

Mixing the simplicity of B/X with the pool of potential players of 5e?
Using the mathematic simplicity of 5e (XP progression, ad/dis/vantages, few bonuses etc) without going to far into the ''buttons to press'' as a player.

I think that this could be a good compromise.

 

[Reynard]

Mixing the simplicity of B/X with the pool of potential players of 5e?
Using the mathematic simplicity of 5e (XP progression, ad/dis/vantages, few bonuses etc) without going to far into the ''buttons to press'' as a player.

I think that this could be a good compromise.

I honestly think the only one of those that is a bonus is the player pool. Differing xp is part of earlier edition class balance. I'm not sure how 5e has fewer bonuses that basic, though.

I would totally use advantage/disadvantage if I ran BECMI/RC or really any version of D&D. It is so simple a change but so inspired. Hands down best thing to come out of 5E for D&D at large.