D&D General The Beating Heart of the OSR, Part 1

[Voadam]

I analyze the numbers both ways--if you just look at OSR systems based directly on B/X or 0D&D, then B/X has more. If you expand the scope to also include OSR systems based on other OSR systems derived from B/X or 0D&D, then 0D&D has a lot more--mostly thanks to The Black Hack and Swords & Wizardry.

Yes, I think first-mover advantage may be significant. I plan to talk about it when I lay out my qualitative analysis in Part 2.

Re-reading the blog post I see that now.

I actually meant products instead of systems, though.

So Drivethru currently lists 915 0e Swords & Wizardry PDFs in its catalogue

While it pegs 1144 for B/X Labyrinth Lord before you get to the new B/X hotness of the 236 B/X Old-School Essentials PDF products.

The drivethru system tags are not as comprehensive as they used to be, I think. I vaguely remember being able to search on black hack before.

 

[bpauls]

Re-reading the blog post I see that now.

I actually meant products instead of systems, though.

So Drivethru currently lists 915 0e Swords & Wizardry PDFs in its catalogue

While it pegs 1144 for B/X Labyrinth Lord before you get to the new B/X hotness of the 236 B/X Old-School Essentials PDF products.

The drivethru system tags are not as comprehensive as they used to be, I think. I vaguely remember being able to search on black hack before.

I was only looking at systems, since the claim I keep running into is that more OSR games are based on B/X than any other system.

You make a good point, however, in that when I do the qualitative analysis, I need to address product support for different OSR systems, as that obviously makes a big difference in the DM/player experience for a lot of games. Thanks!

 

[GreyLord]

Ironically, I believe Sword and Wizardry originally WAS NOT based on OD&D despite it claiming that initially. I downloaded it early on and found that it was, in fact, based upon either B/X or BECMI which led me to send a scathing note to them and several comments elsewhere about how it was based upon something OTHER than OD&D.

It then changed to what it is NOW....but early on I was rather upset with them due to the above circumstance. Of course, at the time (believe it or not) there were an INCREDIBLY HUGE number of individuals that thought that OD&D was actually like BX or BECMI, and that they were directly the continuation of that line and copied what it was like originally.

That has changed over time and over the years, but back then when they were first starting to arrive, PDFs of OD&D were not widely available and those who actually had access or had seen the booklets were rather limited to a smaller group of people.

PS: Is it possible instead of tossing up a link to the article, you could just post it here? It seems short enough. Also, posting part 2 here also would be nice. I followed the link, but always appreciate it when people post the text here as well.

 

[Stormonu]

Good reason for B/X to have such an influence on the OSR would be likely because of the starter set nature of the game. I imagine more folks dove into D&D with some sort of starter set Holmes, B/X, BECMI than jumping in both feet first with AD&D (Advanced is in the title, after all) or straight up 0D&D.

I don't remember AD&D getting a starter set until late, late 2E. And well, 3E is too "recent" to be consider Old Schoole.

 

[cfmcdonald]

Good reason for B/X to have such an influence on the OSR would be likely because of the starter set nature of the game. I imagine more folks dove into D&D with some sort of starter set Holmes, B/X, BECMI than jumping in both feet first with AD&D (Advanced is in the title, after all) or straight up 0D&D.

I don't remember AD&D getting a starter set until late, late 2E. And well, 3E is too "recent" to be consider Old Schoole.

The first AD&D starter set was First Quest in 1994. I'm not sure I'd call that "late, late 2E", but it was pretty far in for sure, after they'd turned down the "D&D" line.

 

[Stormonu]

The first AD&D starter set was First Quest in 1994. I'm not sure I'd call that "late, late 2E", but it was pretty far in for sure, after they'd turned down the "D&D" line.

Ah, the AD&D starter set that I was thinking of was "Introduction to Advanced Dungeons & Dragons", which was apparently 1995, after the revised rulebooks and the player options books had been released. I'd forgotten about First Quest, and somehow had misremembered it as being based on the BECMI rules.

 

[teitan]

I am one of those that I "get" how "Basic" or B/X and BECMI are derived from 0e, they aren't 0e because 0e was still race and class separate and while rules as written didn't allow for a dwarf wizard, for example, the baked in race as class concept didn't hamstring things so playing a dwarf wizard wasn't creating a new class. A Halfling in 0e as a fighter or Thief was different from a B/X and BECMI halfling. 0e has far more in common with AD&D than Basic to me as a result of this and as a simpler alternative to AD&D appeals to me more than B/X and derived systems.

WHat I "get" is that the race as class concept bakes the race and class ideas of 0e into one simple class system instead, re-enforcing the archetype of Elf as Fighter/Wizard multiclass without complicated dual classing rules by requiring large amounts of XP to level up and Halfling, who gets the short end of the stick in B/X, as a soft thief/fighter multiclass... extremely squishy while the poor dwarf is just a dwarf fighter. It's a less than elegant solution to an arguable problem that Swords & Wizardry shows isn't so much of a problem.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

I am one of those that I "get" how "Basic" or B/X and BECMI are derived from 0e, they aren't 0e because 0e was still race and class separate and while rules as written didn't allow for a dwarf wizard, for example, the baked in race as class concept didn't hamstring things so playing a dwarf wizard wasn't creating a new class. A Halfling in 0e as a fighter or Thief was different from a B/X and BECMI halfling. 0e has far more in common with AD&D than Basic to me as a result of this and as a simpler alternative to AD&D appeals to me more than B/X and derived systems.

WHat I "get" is that the race as class concept bakes the race and class ideas of 0e into one simple class system instead, re-enforcing the archetype of Elf as Fighter/Wizard multiclass without complicated dual classing rules by requiring large amounts of XP to level up and Halfling, who gets the short end of the stick in B/X, as a soft thief/fighter multiclass... extremely squishy while the poor dwarf is just a dwarf fighter. It's a less than elegant solution to an arguable problem that Swords & Wizardry shows isn't so much of a problem.

So, this is a very brief nutshell of how this all evolved and how I think of it.

You have OD&D, which is the following-

The original three books (LBB), plus the supplements. (Arguably, you have additional material from Dragon Magazine, Strategic Review, etc., but I'm trying to keep it simple).

Then, you had Dr. Holmes streamline and re-publish OD&D as a "Basic" set. That's the first Basic (Holmes Basic). Notably, it does not contain much information from the supplements. It's the LLBs plus enough information additional information to make it all workable. At the last minute, knowing that AD&D was going to be published, there were references in this Basic to AD&D, but it wasn't made specifically knowing about AD&D.

Then there was AD&D (1e). AD&D is, for all practical purposes, all of 0E (which includes the supplements), plus additional information from Strategic Review and Dragon, plus some additional edits and changes made my Gygax et al. It is the natural inheritor to all of OD&D. AD&D wasn't really that different than OD&D with all the options turned to 11 and some additional rules to make it cohesive. Well ... semi-cohesive.

Finally, there was Moldvay/Cook B/X (which later begat BECMI, which begat the RC etc.). This edition ignored AD&D and went back to Holmes and 0E again. However, it did introduce a few changes- notably, the race-as-class- to keep the rules streamlined and simple.


Whether race-as-class is stupid, or a reasonably elegant and simple solution for making archetypes, is in the mind of the beholder I guess. At the time I thought it was stupid and juvenile. But now, I appreciate the genius of Moldvay. YMMV.

 

[Cadence]

Whether race-as-class is stupid, or a reasonably elegant and simple solution for making archetypes, is in the mind of the beholder I guess. At the time I thought it was stupid and juvenile. But now, I appreciate the genius of Moldvay. YMMV.

I'm not sure it was a great idea to run with race as class past the X book. I might have put a 4 or 8 page transition guide to AD&D in the X box instead of doing CMI (but that's probably because that's what I did instead of BECMI, and given some of the art in 1e might not have been a wise move for TSR).

Anyway, I think I was 11 in late 1981 when I got my copy of Moldvay. The year before, my 5th grade class had seemingly all read LotR on our own and I didn't wonder at all why the elves, dwarves, and halflings were the way Moldvay presented them. Given the popularity of LotR at the time, the lower end of the target age group, and that it was aimed at those with no RPG experience, I have to vote for it being "Elegant and Simple" in B/X.

I think it was interesting in 1982 that a game run at the LGS/comic/record store a few blocks away had different players (ranging from their pre-teens to 40s) using OD&D, 1e, and B/X depending on what they owned, all at the same table. And it seemed to work fine. Once I saw different race/class mixes in action, that certainly made me want to grab 1e though.

I guess my biggest question (besides the shift in alignment between the character sheet and story later) is why LotR (or at least Hobbit) didn't make the young adult fantasy list.

 

[bpauls]

I'm not sure it was a great idea to run with race as class past the X book. I might have put a 4 or 8 page transition guide to AD&D in the X box instead of doing CMI (but that's probably because that's what I did instead of BECMI, and given some of the art in 1e might not have been a wise move for TSR).

Anyway, I think I was 11 in late 1981 when I got my copy of Moldvay. The year before, my 5th grade class had seemingly all read LotR on our own and I didn't wonder at all why the elves, dwarves, and halflings were the way Moldvay presented them. Given the popularity of LotR at the time, the lower end of the target age group, and that it was aimed at those with no RPG experience, I have to vote for it being "Elegant and Simple" in B/X.

I think it was interesting in 1982 that a game run at the LGS/comic/record store a few blocks away had different players (ranging from their pre-teens to 40s) using OD&D, 1e, and B/X depending on what they owned, all at the same table. And it seemed to work fine. Once I saw different race/class mixes in action, that certainly made me want to grab 1e though.

I guess my biggest question (besides the shift in alignment between the character sheet and story later) is why LotR (or at least Hobbit) didn't make the young adult fantasy list.

View attachment 151513
View attachment 151511
View attachment 151512

My guess is Moldvay didn't want to take up two different lines for Tolkien, and probably considered LotR an adult work, so he included The Hobbit along with it in the Adult Fantasy section.