The Return of "Basic" and "Advanced" D&D?

[Stormonu]

I have a bad feeling this will degenerate, but I thought it might be possible to generate a "friendly" discussion before that occurs...

Back through most of the '80s, TSR was running two similar, but very different lines of D&D.

On one end, there was the BECMI (Basic, Expert, Companion, Master, Immortal) set, with "simpler"/streamlined rules (such as the "classes" of Fighter, Magic-User, Cleric, Thief, Halfling, Elf, Dwarf), 36 levels and the Mystara campaign world. Yet, for its gaming simplicity, it had a lot of detailed information about the game world - at least as detailed as Forgotten Realms in the day - and plenty of monster and other sourcebooks to mark it as a fully developed game.

On the other end, there was the AD&D (1E/2E) line. It had more complex interactions (compared to BECMI) and some additions - 9 vs. 3 alignments, a non-weapon proficiency system, more detailed weapons and equipment lists, etc.

It was possible - with some converting - to transplant adventures from one game system to the other. Many of the other sourcebooks as well could be freely moved from one system to the other if one were willing to do a little conversion. I remember, for example, running BECMI characters through White Plume Mountain, and another group that used the Immortal rules in their AD&D game.

Most players tended to have a strong affinity for one system or the other; it was (in my experience) usually assumed you learned playing BECMI and moved on to AD&D, but that was not always the case as both systems were fully detailed for a lifetime of gaming in one system or the other.

With that out of the way, the thought has come to me are we, in a way, seeing the return of the AD&D and BECMI line in the emergence of Pathfinder and D&D 4E? Are those who favor the complex workings drawn to Pathfinder, while those who seek the lighter aspect of play drawn to D&D 4E? Could we consider Pathfinder the continuation of the "Advanced" line and 4E to be return of the "Basic" line? The Red Box 4E that is coming out later this year seems, in a way, to almost point to this situation.

The BECMI line was shut down near the end of TSR's life, and I can't help but wonder that the uproar created between the two groups devoted to their edition stems from the merger of the two lines towards "Advanced" for 3E. Perhaps it has been for good that the two distinct lines have seemed to re-emerge in the different styles of 4E vs. Pathfinder and we should respect that those followings can both pursue the game that best suits their playstyle (though it would be nice if they could both live and thrive under the same company, IMHO).

 

[pawsplay]

I've always thought 3e had BECMI thumbprints all over it.

 

[doctorhook]

Honestly, I don't think so, Stormonu. I think you're reading too much into it, when the truth is fairly simple: WotC gambled that catering to more casual gamers (many people spending a little each) would generate more revenue for them than catering to the hardcore crowd (a few people spending a lot each), and that one repercussion of this gamble was that Paizo, a WotC competitor, decided to fill in the gap.*

Whether or not WotC's gamble has been successful is an ongoing debate that often worms its way into edition wars. Personally, I believe it is successful thus far.

(*Obviously, there's more to it than this, including the fact that WotC would love to figure out how to convert every casual gamer into a hardcore one.)

 

[Lanefan]

Back through most of the '80s, TSR was running two similar, but very different lines of D&D.

On one end, there was the BECMI (Basic, Expert, Companion, Master, Immortal) set, with "simpler"/streamlined rules (such as the "classes" of Fighter, Magic-User, Cleric, Thief, Halfling, Elf, Dwarf), 36 levels and the Mystara campaign world. Yet, for its gaming simplicity, it had a lot of detailed information about the game world - at least as detailed as Forgotten Realms in the day - and plenty of monster and other sourcebooks to mark it as a fully developed game.

On the other end, there was the AD&D (1E/2E) line. It had more complex interactions (compared to BECMI) and some additions - 9 vs. 3 alignments, a non-weapon proficiency system, more detailed weapons and equipment lists, etc.

It was possible - with some converting - to transplant adventures from one game system to the other. Many of the other sourcebooks as well could be freely moved from one system to the other if one were willing to do a little conversion. I remember, for example, running BECMI characters through White Plume Mountain, and another group that used the Immortal rules in their AD&D game.

At risk of annoying some purists, I find them similar enough that I tend to see the two systems as essentially interchangeable. I've probably run various modules that were in fact "Basic" in my game, even though our system is based on "Advanced" (but in truth is probably somewhere between the two). The end result for me is that I get double the available material to use.

With that out of the way, the thought has come to me are we, in a way, seeing the return of the AD&D and BECMI line in the emergence of Pathfinder and D&D 4E? Are those who favor the complex workings drawn to Pathfinder, while those who seek the lighter aspect of play drawn to D&D 4E? Could we consider Pathfinder the continuation of the "Advanced" line and 4E to be return of the "Basic" line? The Red Box 4E that is coming out later this year seems, in a way, to almost point to this situation.

From what I've seen of 4e I would not call it "Basic" in any way shape or form. Perhaps a better analogy of complexity might be:

Red Box = Basic D+D = Hobbit
4e = Advanced D+D = Lord of the Rings
Pathfinder = Silmarillion

Lan-"ibtl"-efan

 

[Doug McCrae]

Are those who favor the complex workings drawn to Pathfinder, while those who seek the lighter aspect of play drawn to D&D 4E?

Yes. Some people like complex systems as an aid to simulating a world. Others, a much larger group imo, just like the system for itself. Gearheads.

This is something I think a lot of people don't realise. For a lot of rpgers the rules themselves are a significant draw. How else can you explain the sheer size of the rules of most rpgs, the presence of several forums devoted to rules on this site, Sage Advice in Dragon magazine, etc.

Could we consider Pathfinder the continuation of the "Advanced" line and 4E to be return of the "Basic" line?

Yes. 4e is rather more complex than B/X. But not much more complex than BECMI, mainly because of BECMI's weapon mastery rules.

 

[Blackbrrd]

I don't think you can call 4e or Pathfinder for "basic".

It would probably be a good idea to release a simplified version of 4e, and I believe that has been done with the starter kit. (Going up to level 3 I believe)

The thing is that there is a bazillion options in 4e, thousands of feats, powers, magic items, etc. To some people this is a turn-off, and understandably so. The basic system is quite simple though.

About 33% of my players would be happy with a simplified character generation system with, well, no options except for character selection.

 

[Riley]

It would probably be a good idea to release a simplified version of 4e, and I believe that has been done with the starter kit. (Going up to level 3 I believe)

I have high hopes that the Essentials will be the new Basic - that will also be fully compatible with 4e's Advanced D&D.

 

[JohnRTroy]

I don't think there should be two lines of D&D separating the "simple" from the "complex".

A lot of business analysis has shown that if you have two very similar products with slight differences and the same name, it causes a lot of consumer confusion. This has occurred in many industries. In the 1980s, an old Word Processor company, WordStar, bought a separate product that was similar but not exact, and called it WordStar 2000. Because the product was different, and was not going to be part of the main products upgrade, it caused a lot of confusion when you tried to explain the differences.

I think D&D suffered from this. I think they are smart to not have two different lines like this. (I would rather if they had a seperate line to have a Classic line for 1/2e, since there's enough demand for this). What WoTC needs is to reconsider how they introduce the game and consider levels of introduction.

 

[Blackbrrd]

I don't think there should be two lines of D&D separating the "simple" from the "complex".

....

What WoTC needs is to reconsider how they introduce the game and consider levels of introduction.

The starter kit is just that, a different way of introducing the game. It's the same mechanic but they take away the bazillion options that would probably confuse a new gamer.

It's much easier to sell something if you can say: "you only need this to start playing", instead of: "you need these 3 books, this module and you have these thirty accessories you can get if you want".

Going from the starter kit to regular 4e shouldn't be an issue at all, it's just a lot of new options that would be confusing to a new player.

 

[TerraDave]

A few things, in no particular order:

-When there was that split...D&D sold, and sold, and sold. Its hard to say it failed as a bussiness model at the time. Though I guess you could argue it was not sustainable.

-People would move between the two editions, own both editions, and mix material from the two editions.

-Both 3E and 4E are flavours of AD&D. There page count and range of options are just too high, but if you look you hard can see some B/X streamlining in either.

-Pathfinder joins a bunch of D&D offspring that have been released over the years. The OGL means that it doesn't face some copywright issues that others faced...but I remember back in the day people playing Palladium Fantasy who didn't like 2E (and of course playing 1E).

-And of course, basic IS coming back: