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

[Desdichado]

I think there's some problems with your assumptions. I'm not sure that I'd agree with the notion that the BECMI line was "simple" to AD&D's "complex"; as the systems evolved, they had similar levels of complexity, although they didn't manifest in exactly the same way.

Similarly, the 3e/Pathfinder model is, in many ways, complex, but in others was remarkable for it's streamlining and consolidating of mechanics to an integrated "core" mechanic, at least relative to what D&D was doing prior to 3e.

And furthermore, I don't know that the divide between 3e/Pathfinder and 4e fans maps well to the divide between rules lite and rules heavy fans.

 

[Vyvyan Basterd]

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

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

I don't see the need to label either line as "Basic" or "Advanced" and any desire to do so could lead to feelings you were getting at the start of your post.

Removing the thoughts of levels of complexity the question becomes: Are we back to the days of two strongly supported lines of D&D? Yes, kind of.

I don't recall as strong of a split between players of B/X and 1E. The systems felt interchangable to me. I think of the B and X series of adventures as classic 1E AD&D modules.

The current environment seems to me more like the BECMI vs. AD&D split. The differences between the systems were greater and the fanbase seemed more divided at the time (especially after the release of 2E). C/M/I adventures required actual conversion to be playable with AD&D.

 

[Shemeska]

Well the underlying game assumptions and tropes from AD&D arguably retain a more cohesive continuity in Pathfinder versus 4e, given 4e's open attempt to redefine many of the game's core assumptions (core for AD&D at least). I don't know enough about BECMI to say if 4e has any trend for its flavor and those changed assumptions to make it fall more in line with that game.

 

[CleverNickName]

The Problem is Vocabulary

This is a sticky subject in these parts. I think it is mostly because of vocablulary.

I think a lot of people would hesitate to call 4E "basic," because while the rules are somewhat simplified from 3.x, they are still quite complex. 4E has more rules and mechanics than AD&D does. And the word "basic" implies that something is juvenile, condensed, or simplified from its original form. This isn't true at all, but that's what people think when they see the word "basic."

And a lot of people will hesitate to call 3.x/Pathfinder "advanced," also. The word "advanced" implies a higher order, as if it somehow requires a higher level of thinking or playing ability. It is certainly not true, but the implication is there.

It is also worth noting that BECM and AD&D have a great deal of nostalgia attached to them among us older gamers. It's hard for us to be objective about them.

 

[TheYeti1775]

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.

Made the same statement in another thread around here.
If you make it so ANYONE could come in spend $20-25 and be able to start off playing without any other purchase, you widen the base. If they see the handy dandy add for the DDI and join in, you created your continuing revenue stream. If they buy additional books you are in the bonus win column now.

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:

I was introduced to the game via 1st Edition Advanced D&D. My first purchase was the Red Box. Because it said basic and introductory on it. I taught other friends using the BECMI series. I was the only one that played both till a few years later. Heck even a few months ago I pulled it down to help teach my son the game.
But I interchanged the modules quite regularly. Heck even now, I have the B2 Caves of Chaos awaiting my turn at the DM slot for a 3.5E game.

I see a 'Basic' package as a good thing for WotC and it's future plans. It makes since, especially when it can market it to the younger generation that will honestly carry our hobby forward.

Far as comparing Pathfinder to AD&D and 4E to Basic, I don't see the comparission real well unless I go up and take a global view of it vice a bird's eye view.
But I can see how it's made.

 

[Obryn]

In short, nope.

I'll pretty much agree with Hobo and a few others. For one thing, BECMI/RC D&D was an evolving beast. The Companion set added extra classes, extra advancement for demihumans, and quite a bit of complexity. The Master set added a fairly complex Weapon Mastery system on top of this. And the Immortal set was intensely rules-heavy to the point the players basically needed to know the entire D&D spell list. It wasn't in any sense rules-light, except in its earliest books.

Also, many players in those days freely mixed and matched between the two product lines. I know my group did; we used AD&D modules, races, and classes alongside the BECMI stuff and didn't worry a bit about the rules differences. It was all D&D to us.

Finally, I don't think the PF/3e vs 4e split is anything like the BECMI/AD&D split. I honestly don't see any parallels between the two.

-O

 

[Stormonu]

I'll have to confess that my own experience with BECMI actually stopped with "Expert"; the Companion and higher levels added some complexity that I didn't care to add into my games.

With that said, when I look at 4E, if you set aside powers, in my eyes, I see a game that appears (at least to me) to be structured from a modern version of BECMI (with the addition of a "modern" skill system and many other upgrades). I don't think I can properly convey my feelings in this matter to what I see, but the core of the game strikes me as being very similar to the design outlay of BECMI D&D.

On the other hand, 3E and Pathfinder has very much, in my own mind, struck me as heavily inspired by and an evolution of the 1E/2E AD&D line. Again, to me, the groundwork seems very much to have started with 1E's mindset and then evolved from there. Pawsplay, I'd be very interested in your elaboration of where you're seeing BECMI's thumbprints all over the system; we seem to be looking at the same edition and seeing oppositely.

I think the main factor is that the two lines seem to appeal to a different motivation. I get the feeling 4E is more of a "jump in and play" mentality (what is presented is only there insofar as its use in the game) whereas 3E/Pathfinder was more of a tinkerer's toolbox (completest for virtually any situation that can be imagined, whether or not it comes up in play). Though you can certainly do either in both editions, I think the different versions have their strength in the respective areas I mentioned.

Again, the Essentials line strikes me as 4E posing itself to be a modern equivalent of BECMI (without some of the Wahoo! of the line that I sometimes miss) and aimed at the casual player whereas Pathfinder does seem to be catering toward the invested player (I hesitate to say "Hardcore", as both systems have their own hardcore fans).

 

[TheNovaLord]

4th ed is not comparable to BD&D and cant hold the tag basic c.f. many other rpgs (it is more simple than 3.x though, just)

it has too many 'bits' to it to be a simple rpg. the bits being things like:

-you can do a lot in one round

-which means 6 players are doing a lot in one round

-some of these 'lots of things' will be missed in a game with any kind of decent pace, so folks will forget little +1's etc all over the place

- you can thrown in all sorts of condition markers, but now you making the game even more complicated

I guess if you wanna make it comparable to BD&D you have to kick out things like:
minor actions
active feats
number of conditions
number of damage types

 

[pawsplay]

Pawsplay, I'd be very interested in your elaboration of where you're seeing BECMI's thumbprints all over the system; we seem to be looking at the same edition and seeing oppositely.

AD&D was full of special cases. BECMI was fundamentally streamlined. It introduced the ability score check, for instance. 3e's feat and skill system had a lot more in common the Rules Cyclopedia weapon masteries and skills than with AD&D's proficiencies and "non-weapon proficiencies." 3e deities seemed more like a mashup of the Immortals set with the Primal Order than like AD&D with its invincible gods and mortal avatars.

Don't get me wrong, 3e was clearly built on an AD&D-inspired chassis, but BECMI's influence was considerable. Right off the top of my head, BECMI had max hit points at first level (optional rule, red box DMG), unified ability score bonuses, prestige classes, adventuring and monsters defined for staggeringly high levels of play, a skill system, presumed gender equality, attacks of opportunity for unarmed attacks and retreats, and a high fantasy milieu in which high level clerics and magic-users would be available in larger communities to provide magical services.

 

[MerricB]

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 chief problem in your contention comes from here: the chief difference in the split between 4e and Pathfinder doesn't lie in the complexity of the mechanics.

They're both pretty complex rulesets when you come down to it.

Rather it comes down to some rather interesting differences between playstyles: encounter and adventure design and pacing, character play and the abilities of characters.

These differences were not apparent between AD&D and the Basic/Expert line of D&D products. Yes, you had additional options available in AD&D, but the basic play of both games was strikingly similar. Basic D&D was just better developed and edited.

Cheers!