Played Basic D&D for the first time in over 20 years last night...

[rogueattorney]

I'm trying to type carefully because I don't want to accidentally offend anyone or have anyone take anything personally. Actually I've just erased the entire comment box several times so I'll maybe just give up.

I have a hard time believing these stories because they are so far outside my personal experiences.

I've introduced many people to 4E, and several to their first role-playing and D&D experiences.

I've never had a problem with combat taking too long in 4E.

Taking too long between turns with only 4 players just boggles my mind.

I'll stop here.

I need to find and play in a group like this for personal edification.

I'm not sure what's there to believe or not believe in these play stories. Largely people are just saying they played BD&D and had a good time. Doesn't mean you will. More to the point, BD&D simply isn't for everyone...

If you want codified rules for customizing your characters, BD&D isn't for you. Basically, a fighter is a fighter and an elf if an elf.

If you want detailed, tactical combat, BD&D isn't for you. Roll to hit, roll damage. Wash, rinse, repeat. (I'm exaggerating a little, but not much)

If you want a single unified mechanic that is applicable to most (or even all) game situations, BD&D isn't for you. Surprise roll is different from saving throws is different from find traps for thieves is different from find traps for everyone else is different from...

If you want a distinctive, built-in campaign world, BD&D isn't for you. It's very generic. (In my view that makes it incredibly easy to drop into any campaign world you like, but opinions on that may vary.)

If you want story- or plot-driven resolution and reward systems, BD&D isn't for you. If you want a combat simulator or a genre emulator, BD&D isn't for you. It's designed as the epitome of "take things' stuff" D&D. (Not so big in the "killing things" portion, though. That path is suicidal.)

If any of those things are a deal breaker for you, you're just probably not gong to like the game.

 

[Dausuul]

I'm trying to type carefully because I don't want to accidentally offend anyone or have anyone take anything personally. Actually I've just erased the entire comment box several times so I'll maybe just give up.

I have a hard time believing these stories because they are so far outside my personal experiences.

I've introduced many people to 4E, and several to their first role-playing and D&D experiences.

I've never had a problem with combat taking too long in 4E.

Well, how are you defining "too long?" What's your expectation for the length of a combat?

BECMI combat seems to run about 10-15 minutes for a typical fight. And that was with people new to the system, including a magic-user who didn't normally play casters. If you can finish a non-Essentials 4E combat in that amount of time... sir, I salute you; you are a better gamer than I.

 

[Jack Daniel]

I'm not sure what's there to believe or not believe in these play stories. Largely people are just saying they played BD&D and had a good time. Doesn't mean you will. More to the point, BD&D simply isn't for everyone...

If you want codified rules for customizing your characters, BD&D isn't for you. Basically, a fighter is a fighter and an elf if an elf.

If you want detailed, tactical combat, BD&D isn't for you. Roll to hit, roll damage. Wash, rinse, repeat. (I'm exaggerating a little, but not much)

If you want a single unified mechanic that is applicable to most (or even all) game situations, BD&D isn't for you. Surprise roll is different from saving throws is different from find traps for thieves is different from find traps for everyone else is different from...

If you want a distinctive, built-in campaign world, BD&D isn't for you. It's very generic. (In my view that makes it incredibly easy to drop into any campaign world you like, but opinions on that may vary.)

If you want story- or plot-driven resolution and reward systems, BD&D isn't for you. If you want a combat simulator or a genre emulator, BD&D isn't for you. It's designed as the epitome of "take things' stuff" D&D. (Not so big in the "killing things" portion, though. That path is suicidal.)

If any of those things are a deal breaker for you, you're just probably not gong to like the game.

Except... the system is so easy to hack, that with a few tweaks, most everything you've said becomes sort of, well, "not true." For by the book classic D&D, okay, sure, maybe; but we're not really talking about a version of the game with many RAW-roaring flag-wavers here.

I play classic* D&D exclusively these days. And my campaigns include:
- Fairly customizable characters (albeit much simpler than 3e or even 2e)
- Highly tactical combat. I would *never* play classic D&D without minis and a grid.
- A unified skill system that subsumes all the little 1d6 rolls (open doors, find secret doors, find traps) and thief skills; and some less radical streamlining of the various 2d6 and 1d20 task-res mechanics.
- Genre emulation, especially of high fantasy novels (very easy to do if you combine the B/X rules with Epic Six).
- Plot-driven gameplay. Instead of XP for treasure, I use a system which is very similar to 2e's XP for plot points and quests completed.

I want all of these things, and hey presto, classic D&D is for me. It doesn't take as much work as you might imagine, not by a longshot.


* I really don't like the acronym "BD&D," because Basic D&D is just classic D&D up to 3rd level. But "CD&D" is not in common currency, "D&D" is too vague, and if I try to use "OD&D" or "0D&D" in the broad sense of "the 1974 booklets through the Challenger Series, and everything in between," some pedantic purist is sure to jump down my throat à la "OD&D is only the little books plus the supplements whine grumble blah yak moan!" Might we perhaps come up with a better abbreviation to agree on? "CD&D" at least has this going for it.

 

[rogueattorney]

Except... the system is so easy to hack, that with a few tweaks, most everything you've said becomes sort of, well, "not true." For by the book classic D&D, okay, sure, maybe; but we're not really talking about a version of the game with many RAW-roaring flag-wavers here.

I don't disagree with you. But I also don't want people getting a different idea of what the game is than what it really is. It's a relatively narrowly focused game that leaves vast open rules spaces for the DM to do his own thing. And I love it for that.

Generally, I when I'm selling a person on a game, I don't try to sell them on something that's in direct opposition to one of their "deal breakers." For example, if the lack of a universal task resolution is a "deal breaker" for someone who otherwise might like BD&D, I'd probably suggest Tunnels & Trolls or Dragon Age. If lack of a universal task resolution is a minor inconvenience to someone who otherwise might like BD&D, I'd tell them that BD&D can easily be adapted to have one.

As much as I love the older versions of (A)D&D, I think some of the dissatisfaction some gamers have had with it in the past has been people trying to jam a square peg into the relatively narrowly focused hole of the game. I think, just as some people (like me) are going to be happier with BD&D than anything else, with all the other rpg options out there, something better suited to their preferences might serve them better.

 

[Jack Daniel]

I don't disagree with you. But I also don't want people getting a different idea of what the game is than what it really is. It's a relatively narrowly focused game that leaves vast open rules spaces for the DM to do his own thing. And I love it for that.

Generally, I when I'm selling a person on a game, I don't try to sell them on something that's in direct opposition to one of their "deal breakers." For example, if the lack of a universal task resolution is a "deal breaker" for someone who otherwise might like BD&D, I'd probably suggest Tunnels & Trolls or Dragon Age. If lack of a universal task resolution is a minor inconvenience to someone who otherwise might like BD&D, I'd tell them that BD&D can easily be adapted to have one.

As much as I love the older versions of (A)D&D, I think some of the dissatisfaction some gamers have had with it in the past has been people trying to jam a square peg into the relatively narrowly focused hole of the game. I think, just as some people (like me) are going to be happier with BD&D than anything else, with all the other rpg options out there, something better suited to their preferences might serve them better.

While I might still argue with the idea that old D&D is "narrowly focused," I otherwise get what you're saying here. If somebody wants a game where characters are defined by a skill list rather than a class, all right then, we'd probably both point them to a game more like RuneQuest or some such.

And I can see how some people might just have a strong preference for a game that evinces deliberate design, versus older D&D's organic evolution. I'm partial to Dragon Age myself in that regard, and I'll be the first to admit that the reason I don't play it is nostalgia. A gamer with no such sentimental attachment to monsters and fighters rolling eight-sided hit dice, read magic in every magic-user's spell book, and wands of enemy detection found with 1d10 charges left... well, nobody said classic D&D was for everybody.

I guess I just take issue with the stereotyped assertion that the game is necessarily a story-free, simplistic affair where generic "Fighter #1", "Elf #2," and "Magic-User #3" go into the dungeon to kill things (no miniatures required; only imagination!) or otherwise avoid them and take their treasure for XP. It can be like that... but it certainly doesn't have to be, and in my experience the game has hardly ever been like that.

(Snarky Aside: It only just occurs to me that any gamer for whom the lack or inclusion of a "universal mechanic" constitutes a "deal-breaker" is probably someone I wouldn't want to play with anyway, because they've clearly thought about game design in general and editions of D&D in particular as much as or more than I have, and that just isn't healthy.)