D&D General Back to First Principles

[Reynard]

This could be the basis of a horror/survival game. All of Lanefan's dead characters crawling out of their graves seeking revenge... or maybe beer.

Well, both ARE best served cold...

(I'll see myself out.)

 

[DND_Reborn]

In my perfect game, there wouldn't be any mechanical character advancement at all -- just set competence level and then get to exploring. And "advancement" would come from gear or simple PLAYER experience in the game world/adventure zone/megadungeon/whatever. But I recognize that is a very unpopular opinion.

I would be pretty interested in this, personally, and some variants like E6 or whatever sound appealing in theory.

 

[Reynard]

I would be pretty interested in this, personally, and some variants like E6 or whatever sound appealing in theory.

Lots of other types of games rely on player skill level as the primary or even only for of advancement and I always found it curious that the vast majority of RPGs rely on some kind of experience or level up mechanics -- so much so that "rpg elements" means xp, not story or character or exploration.

 

[DND_Reborn]

Lots of other types of games rely on player skill level as the primary or even only for of advancement and I always found it curious that the vast majority of RPGs rely on some kind of experience or level up mechanics -- so much so that "rpg elements" means xp, not story or character or exploration.

I haven't played a lot of other RPGs, personally (or at least not for long). Most of my non-D&D experience is with Shadowrun and Vampire, although I did play d6 Star Wars a long time ago as well. Since these games don't use levels, you improve other things by spending karma, etc. to improve them. IME with such games improvement is a slower process than the corresponding progress in D&D, and character development is really an important factor in both games.

 

[Jack Daniel]

I've made no bones about the fact that red box D&D ("BECMI") is my edition of choice. I keep the Rules Cyclopedia and Creature Catalog on the table as my primary rules references when I run a game. I'm refereeing a campaign currently that's still in the early stages (roughly a dozen sessions in; many characters are still 1st level, some are 2nd, two have made 3rd). Just ran a session today that went swimmingly. (Well, swimmingly for this group at any rate. Two 0-level men-at-arms died. Again.) AMA if you want deets, tips, etc.

 

[overgeeked]

In my perfect game, there wouldn't be any mechanical character advancement at all -- just set competence level and then get to exploring. And "advancement" would come from gear or simple PLAYER experience in the game world/adventure zone/megadungeon/whatever. But I recognize that is a very unpopular opinion.

Get thee to Index Card RPG, stat.

 

[reelo]

The Number One reason why Basic D&D (actually BX's excellent clone OSE) is my favourite version is the fact that it fromt-loads most classes. You get your class-abilities at 1st level and from then on, you "merely" get better as you progress.
It nips in the bud what I despise most in modern games: the CharOp game — juggling Ability Scores, racial features, feats, skills, multiclassing, etc in order to make "awesome[emoji769]" characters.
Differentiate your characters through actual roleplaying and (to a lesser extent) gear, NOT through your character sheet.
The inherent "frailty" of BX characters is a feature,not a bug. It forces players to think first, not rush headlong into (what they mistakenly think is) an easy fight.

 

[Aldarc]

Or just play an old version of the game.

I actually don't think most OSR games that aren't actual clones or simulacra give you old school play. They give you an interpretation of it invariably altering and trimming what parts the designer/editor didn't like.

OSE basically is an old version of the game, but with better layout and editing. (Plus the option for ascending AC. I know it's not necessarily your thing, but it is for others.) OSE is not trying to be the Lord of Edge or Gritty McGrittyGame. It's not really trying to pretend to be anything other than a layout and reference facelift to that game. Here is what Gavin Norman wrote about OSE in the forward:

My love for Basic/Expert-style fantasy adventuring was reignited with the publication of Labyrinth Lord and the rise of the old-school renaissance / whatever-you-like-to call-it. Over the years, I’ve run all sorts of campaigns with the Basic/Expert rules— everything from classic dungeon hacks, to dying Earth science fantasy, to Lovecraft-inspired, Victorian age horror. Of course, all these campaigns have added their own twists to the rules: alternate classes, new spells, monsters, equipment, treasures, and so on. Nonetheless, the core rules of the game remained constant. And I think that’s the real treasure of the Basic/Expert rules: their timeless elegance, concision, and very wide (I wouldn’t go quite so far as to say universal) applicability.

Through all these years of play, though, what I’ve always missed is a cleanly presented, easy-to-reference rendition of the core rules of the game separated from the associated “accoutrements”—the classes, spells, monsters, magic items, etc. Neither the original Basic/Expert books nor the various modern clones exactly satisfy this requirement.

That’s what this book is about.

We are very fortunate that the original Basic/Expert rules are now available to purchase again (albeit in PDF form only) and, while they are inspiring in their brevity and the
elegance of their layout, they are built around the assumed presence of the traditional set of classes, thus not exactly what I was looking for. Furthermore, one has to contend with the nature of the presentation: the Basic rules are separated from the Expert rules. No combined edition was ever created.

All of the various retro-clones and Basic/Expert-inspired games which exist today, on the other hand, present a combined rule set, but vary greatly in readability and usefulness as a reference during play. Some provide a very clean presentation of the rules, with a focus on usability, but deviate in too many ways from the traditional rule set to make them useful.

Eventually, not finding my holy grail Basic/Expert reference anywhere, I was inspired to create this book.

It's little wonder that OSE has essentially become the new standard barer for B/X.

Worse are games like Dungeon World, designed to provide a fabricated sense of a play experience that never really existed.

Worse yet are people who falsely think that this is what Dungeon World is trying to achieve with its design.

And I think Dungeon World loses everything that makes old school D&D old-school D&D in favor of making a game that plays like the stories we tell about playing old-school D&D. Which I get. I just don't think that is playing an old school style game (and I personally generallydislike PbtA games).

Dungeon World evokes its contemporaneous OSR Zeitgeist, namely the nostalgia of '80s D&D, but I think that the authors clearly knew that it wasn't OSR nor was it trying to be OSR.

In my perfect game, there wouldn't be any mechanical character advancement at all -- just set competence level and then get to exploring. And "advancement" would come from gear or simple PLAYER experience in the game world/adventure zone/megadungeon/whatever. But I recognize that is a very unpopular opinion.

Did you not read my recommendations before you decided to rant into the wind against clones and (for some unfathomable reason) Dungeon World?

If I wanted to return to first principles I would recommend a series of games:

• Worlds Without Number: if B/X and Traveller had a love child (with 3e elements) and oriented towards sandbox play
• Black Hack: a sleek roll-under-attribute OSR game with modern design elements
• Index Card RPG: a lite hack of 5e that became it’s own thing with no levels and item-based progression
• Old School Essentials: your best BECMI clone but with modern layout and editing

Get thee to Index Card RPG, stat.

 

[Reynard]

Did you not read my recommendations before you decided to rant into the wind against clones and (for some unfathomable reason) Dungeon World?

I really don't understand why when a person says they want to play/run an older version of the game, other folks can't help themselves from trying to convince that person to play some modern game instead. And often people suggest DW, bafflingly.

 

[Aldarc]

I really don't understand why when a person says they want to play/run an older version of the game, other folks can't help themselves from trying to convince that person to play some modern game instead.

So which older game would have met your criteria for your perfect game?

And often people suggest DW, bafflingly.

But did I? Or for that matter did anyone?

Spoiler

No, Reynard. No one did. Not a soul.