Back to the Future: OD&D or BFRPG?

[Hairfoot]

Right. I've had enough of ruminating over the pros and cons of 4E. I'm going to run an old-school adventure for the group before we decide what system we want for our game.

It's come down to a choice between Basic OD&D or Basic Fantasy RPG, but I can't decide.

Here's the breakdown as I see it:

OD&D
Pro: genuine old-school cachet; get to use dog-eared books I bought with pocket money in primary school; really, really simple rules.

Con: perhaps too simple - demihumans as classes, no set system for resolving skills etc; notoriously deadly and therefore a bit unfun.

BFRPG
Pro: easy-to-use D20-ised rules; free to download; race/class flexibility; generic action resolution rules; thief skills not hopeless.

Con: requires some tweaking for balance; potentially overrun with optional rules and variants; elf illustration looks like Hugo Weaving gone Mardi Gras.


BFRPG still looks like the winner to me, but I'd like to hear from the OD&Ders how they resolve some of the hassles the system presents.

 

[jdrakeh]

I play both games. OD&D clearly wins out for me when I need the tactical element that Chainmail + Supplement 1 combat provides. If tactical elements are of less concern, I prefer BFRPG both because it's more recognizeable as being what people consider "RPGs" to be today (thus making it more accessible to new-ish players) and because it relies less on DM fiat to interpret the rules (which players seem to be more comfortable with, IME).

 

[Hairfoot]

OD&D clearly wins out for me is when I need the tactical element that Chainmail + Supplement 1 combat provides.

Can you expand on that? I like tactical play and figurines, but I haven't seen anything in OD&D which supports it better than BFRPG. Is Chainmail significantly different?

 

[Philotomy Jurament]

Can you expand on that? I like tactical play and figurines, but I haven't seen anything in OD&D which supports it better than BFRPG. Is Chainmail significantly different?

Chainmail's man-to-man combat system (using multiple d6s) is significantly different from the "alternate" system (using a d20) that became the familiar D&D combat system. It uses modifiers for individual weapons, as well. However, even using the "alternate" combat system with Chainmail as a guideline offers a lot of tactical options.

Here's an OD&D combat sequence derived from Chainmail (and Swords & Spells). Note that it allows for traditional D&D rules on ROF for missiles, spell interruption, et cetera. It's also strongly miniatures-oriented. If you want even more detail, you can add the Supplement I rules for space required, weapon vs. armor class, et cetera.

T. Foster distilled the above combat sequence down into a simpler form for those who don't want all the detail; it retains the essence of the system.

 

[jdrakeh]

Can you expand on that? I like tactical play and figurines, but I haven't seen anything in OD&D which supports it better than BFRPG. Is Chainmail significantly different?

PJ illuminated the issue better than I could have

 

[Philotomy Jurament]

Regarding skills in OD&D:

There's a thread on the OD&D forums that offers some ideas.

Also, from the initial post, it sounds like "Basic OD&D" means either the Moldvay/Cook/Marsh boxed sets or the Mentzer boxed sets, rather than OD&D[1974]. In that case, RFisher's Classic D&D site should prove useful. My own site might offer some useful tidbits, too, but it is aimed squarely at OD&D[1974], rather than Classic D&D (and I'm not a big fan of skill systems in OD&D).

 

[Hairfoot]

Also, from the initial post, it sounds like "Basic OD&D" means either the Moldvay/Cook/Marsh boxed sets or the Mentzer boxed sets, rather than OD&D[1974].

Yep. I'm a member of the credit-cardless underclass, so I can't get my hands on a copy, though I'd like to. Thanks for the tips.

 

[jmucchiello]

Sorry for the tangent but I couldn't resist....

When I saw the title I thought this would be a time travel speculation thread about "what would happen if you tried to introduce >insert modern RPG here< to the world in 1973?"

Or, with a Hitchhicker's Guide twist, "If you could travel to 1972-3 and hand EGG a copy of his LJ game, what would happen to RPGs today?"

Ironically, I think neither intrusion on the time stream does much of anything since gamers of 1972 have no frame of reference for RPGs as we know them. OD&D is an extension of wargaming and RPGs have moved away from those roots for the most part.

 

[Delta]

Con: perhaps too simple - demihumans as classes...

Actually, not so in OD&D. That popped up as a simplification in BXMI.

 

[Hairfoot]

Actually, not so in OD&D. That popped up as a simplification in BXMI.

How does it work? I thought you can't play something like a hobbit thief or dwarf cleric in OD&D.

Also, can anyone direct to a webpage which describes the differences between 1E editions (B/X, BECMI, Holmes, Moldvay, Mentzer etc.)?

 

[Henry]

How does it work? I thought you can't play something like a hobbit thief or dwarf cleric in OD&D.

Also, can anyone direct to a webpage which describes the differences between 1E editions (B/X, BECMI, Holmes, Moldvay, Mentzer etc.)?

I recommend any and every gamer with an interest in such things the following:

http://www.rpgnow.com/product_info.php?products_id=28306&it=1

It's all of 6 bucks, and is an immersion into the very roots of the hobby.

In a nutshell:

--four races (humans, dwarves, elves, and hobbits)
--three classes (cleric, fighting man, and magic-user)
--no spells over 6th level
--everybody got d6's for hit points
--NO MAGIC MISSILE!

There are lots of other differences, but that's a few of the highlights.

 

[Delta]

How does it work? I thought you can't play something like a hobbit thief or dwarf cleric in OD&D.

In the original white box set, elves are multiclass fighter/wizards, with XP split each adventure between the two classes. At that point dwarves & halflings are restricted to the fighter class. There are no thieves.

Supplement I introduces thieves and some more details. Dwarves & halflings can be fighters and/or thieves. Elves can be fighters, wizards, and/or thieves. Dwarves & elves can also be multiclassed clerics, but restricted to NPCs only.

 

[Philotomy Jurament]

Also, can anyone direct to a webpage which describes the differences between 1E editions (B/X, BECMI, Holmes, Moldvay, Mentzer etc.)?

Well, those aren't really 1E editions. Here's my breakdown:

OD&D (Original Dungeons & Dragons) (OD&D)
The three little/brown books original published in 1974. Woodgrain or White Box.
Also Supplements I through IV.

Holmes Basic
The "blue book" basic set.
This edition is unique; it's not exactly OD&D, but not exactly AD&D, and not exactly Classic D&D -- it has fingers in all those pies.

Moldvay/Cook/Marsh (Classic D&D)
Also called B/X. This is the edition that really defined "Classic D&D" as its own thing, separate from OD&D[1974] and AD&D. Basic and Expert boxed sets. Erol Otus covers.

Mentzer (Classic D&D)
Also called BECMI. This makes some very minor changes to the Basic and Expert rules published in B/X, and expands the system with the Companion, Masters, and Immortals sets. Elmore cover art. The Rules Cyclopedia compiles most of these rules into a single hardcover book. I think later editions of Classic D&D were also based on the Mentzer rules (e.g. "black box" D&D).

AD&D (1E)
The original hardback MM, PH, DMG, Deities & Demigods, et cetera. Some people put Unearthed Arcana and the later books (DSG, WGS, etc.) into a "1.5 edition" category.

For detailed lists of the differences, I'd suggest searching/reading some of the discussions on Dragonsfoot.

 

[S'mon]

What task resolution system does BFRPG have that Moldvay/Cook doesn't? I thought they both used d20 roll under stat.

 

[Philotomy Jurament]

BFRPG has an optional rule based on a roll-high ability check; there's a table with PC level and a target number based on PC level. The roll is modified by difficulty, the PC's ability bonus, and by circumstantial bonuses or penalties.

It's not significantly different from other ability-check systems; however, it does take PC level into account.

 

[Hairfoot]

BFRPG has an optional rule based on a roll-high ability check...

It's not significantly different from other ability-check systems; however, it does take PC level into account.

In fact, it's almost identical to the 4E skill system, minus the bonuses for trained skills. If it's good enough for 4E in 2008, it can't be too bad.

Well, those aren't really 1E editions. Here's my breakdown:

This is pure semantics, but surely AD&D is 2E, and the classic sets are 1E? Otherwise we go from 1E to 3E with no 2E.

 

[dragonlordofpoondari]

This is pure semantics, but surely AD&D is 2E, and the classic sets are 1E? Otherwise we go from 1E to 3E with no 2E.

Although it may indeed be a question of semantics, PJ correctly refers to established nomenclature that is agreed on and used by the vast majority of the roleplaying community, including its authors.

It's just the established code many use so we know what we're talking about, as counter-intuitive as it may seem.

 

[Jack Daniel]

This is pure semantics, but surely AD&D is 2E, and the classic sets are 1E? Otherwise we go from 1E to 3E with no 2E.

No. 3e is the 3rd edition of AD&D. It bears no relation to the Classic D&D line, which another branch of the family.

It goes

Original D&D (1974-76)
      |
      |
Basic D&D (1977-80)
   |    \
   |     \
   |     AD&D 1e (1977-87) 
   |        |     
B/X D&D     |
(1981-82)   |
   |        |
   |        |
BECMI D&D   |
(1983-90)   |
   |     AD&D 2e (1989-99)
   |          |
Classic D&D   |
(1991-94)     |
              |
        [A]D&D 3e (2000-2007)
              |
              |
        [A]D&D 4e (2008)

 

[dragonlordofpoondari]

Many would argue that the fork rejoins at 3rd Edition.

 

[Jack Daniel]

Many would argue that the fork rejoins at 3rd Edition.

I wouldn't.

Besides, WotC came right out in the open and said back in 2000 that AD&D 3e wouldn't be called AD&D because the "Advanced" scared away potential new players. The title changed for 3e as a marketing gimmick, not because 3e bears any direct relationship of descent to the Basic/Classic game. (Seriously, the games are just so different that it's laughable to think that 3e took anything from BECMI or the Rules Cyclopedia.) Classic D&D pretty much came to an end in 1994, after the Thunder Rift module series and the revision of the Black Box basic set (TSR 1106).