Basic D&D & granularity?

[Voadam]

I recently reacquired the 1981 Moldvay Basic D&D set, and I'm feeling nostalgic. I'm contemplating running The Keep on the Borderlands for my weekly group. But, I'm bothered by the elves. Even if they can't wear armor, which the rules seem to state, the combination of weapons, spells, infravision & detection seems too powerful. Why would a player play a magic-user? If elves can wear armor, too, as the rules also seem to imply, then why play a fighter? Or anything else, for that matter?

One solution I've pondered is removing the elves from the game altogether. I think dwarves & halflings are fun but not overpowered. I've also pondered that the players may really want to play elves--they're all old school and cut their teeth on Basic D&D or 1e AD&D. I want the game to be fun, but I don't think I'll enjoy running the default all-elf game. I would be tempted to make elves the primary targets of all attacks or impose some other kind of equalizers.

I've also considered making it an all-human game, too. Perhaps introducing halflings, then dwarves, then elves lastly (if at all), as PC options. I think it would be fun way to play, but again I don't know how the players would react.

Anyway, any ideas or thoughts would be appreciated.

Just eliminate elves as a PC option in your game and go.

"I won't enjoy DMing elven PCs" is a fine reason not to include them in your campaign.

 

[WayneLigon]

Yeah, Basic D&D as everyone but Dialgo knows it ( ) has elves as fighter/mage hybrids that can cast in any armor.

Diaglo is perfectly correct. He's referring to Original DnD, which is not Basic DnD. Basic DnD bears a resemblance to Original DnD after Greyhawk and some of the other supplements were added, but they are not the same thing.

 

[harmyn]

....Eventually that elf that pwned everyone at level one will be relegated to "ranks", unless of course you use the optional 36 level demihuman classes in the back of the rules cyclopedia....

The experience advancement given in the back of the Rules Cyclopedia for advancing to 36th level is a definite option, but the cost is VERY steep, the Magic-User and fighters will still definitely come into their own in comparison.

 

[scourger]

Good advice here, thanks. I hadn't looked that closely at the experience tables. It looks like a big deal at low levels, but less so at the higher levels in the Expert book (I need to get a Moldvay Expert book to go with my Basic book). Anyway, I'm still pondering what to do.

 

[scourger]

So, I ran the idea of playing Basic D&D past my group this past week. They said they didn't like the idea because the game doesn't have enough "granularity" as compared to subsequent editions. I take that to mean it doesn't have enough options for the players (more cynically, it's not munchkin enough). Can anyone clear up the definition for me?

 

[diaglo]

So, I ran the idea of playing Basic D&D past my group this past week. They said they didn't like the idea because the game doesn't have enough "granularity" as compared to subsequent editions. I take that to mean it doesn't have enough options for the players (more cynically, it's not munchkin enough). Can anyone clear up the definition for me?

Basic D&D Fighting Man with a sword.

Basic D&D Fighting Man with a bow.

Basic D&D Fighting Man with a spear
axe
mace... and so on.

they are mechanically Basically the same. but as a player you build him so he is unique with flavor description and actions. mechanically he is still just a Basic D&D fighting man.

your players sound like they want:

Basic D&D fighting man with a sword = Swashbuckler.
Basic D&D fighting man with a bow = Archer.

and to build those concepts they want mechanics in place that makes their rolls different from each other.

which you can build with Basic D&D... it is just that it will take you and the player time to work it out for each PC.

 

[Glyfair]

Good advice here, thanks. I hadn't looked that closely at the experience tables. It looks like a big deal at low levels, but less so at the higher levels in the Expert book (I need to get a Moldvay Expert book to go with my Basic book).

I say go with the Rules Cyclopedia. You can get it on eBay for between $10-$15, usually. Given the Expert Set tends to go for $5-$10, that's a great value.

So, I ran the idea of playing Basic D&D past my group this past week. They said they didn't like the idea because the game doesn't have enough "granularity" as compared to subsequent editions. I take that to mean it doesn't have enough options for the players (more cynically, it's not munchkin enough). Can anyone clear up the definition for me?

Yeah, that's pretty cynical.

Granularity

The extent to which a system contains separate components (like granules). The more components in a system -- or the greater the granularity -- the more flexible it is.

In practice, when discussing characters in RPGs and granularity, you are discussing how different characters look within the system.

An easy example is the original DC Superheroes RPG. Because the Stats were designed for a large amount of scale (from Aunt May to Galactus), a "human level" campaign tended to not have a lot of granularity of stats. A standard human stat was 2, and each +/- doubled or halved the ability. So, human strength was a very narrow range. If you were a normal human character your strength would be from 1-5. Stats for characters tended to look almost the same, and had even less difference within the system.

Within D&D, it deals with what the character can do. The earlier you go back into D&D editions, the less granularity you got. You want a fighter that's really good at swords? That didn't really happen until the middle of AD&D. You want a character with multiple secondary skills, at various levels (really good carpenter, but some basic skill at blacksmithing)? You have to wait until much later.

 

[MerricB]

Yeah, Basic D&D as everyone but Dialgo knows it ( ) has elves as fighter/mage hybrids that can cast in any armor. That makes them very powerful at low levels, but if the party mage makes it through low levels he's going to be tossing around high-level spells while the elf hit his cap (around 5th level, IIRC).

The Elf maxes out at 10th level under Moldvay.

XP:
5,000 - Fighter 3, MU 3, Elf 2
10,000 - Fighter 4, MU 4, Elf 3
20,000 - Fighter 5, MU 5, Elf 4
40,000 - Fighter 6, MU 6, Elf 5
100,000 - Fighter 7, MU 7. Elf 6
200,000 - Fighter 8, MU 8, Elf 7
300,000 - Fighter 9, MU 9, Elf 8
450,000 - Fighter 10, MU 10, Elf 9
600,000 - Fighter 12, MU 11, Elf 10

The Elf basically stays one level behind a equivalent Ftr or MU.

Cheers!

 

[ChristianW]

I loves me some Basic D&D. I can write NPCs very quickly, the rules work well enough (and what isn't covered I can wing), there are some fun modules, and metagaming takes a seat waaaaay in the back to role-playing and character development.

More to your question: Elves can only advance to 10th level and because they combine fighter and magic user abilties, they progress slower than either class. Furthermore, elves will not have access to as many powerful spells as a magic user, nor fight as well as a fighter. They still kick a lot of butt - there's no doubting that - but there are some limits to their growth.

Me, I like halflings. d6 for hit dice, a bonus to hit with missile weapons, and a bonus to AC when fighting ogres and the like.

I have been writing some basic d&d articles for my fanzine and I was thinking I was all alone in my like for the game. I'm glad you are giving it a go!

 

[Philotomy Jurament]

I loves me some Basic D&D. I have beenw riting some basic d&d articles for my fanzine and I was thinking I was all alone in my like for the game. I'm glad you are giving it a go!

Alone? Are you kidding? Haven't you been to Dragonsfoot? They have a whole section on "Classic D&D," as well as sections on AD&D, Castles & Crusades, Lejendary Adventure, and Savage Worlds.