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

[Pig Champion]

I don't think it's a good comparison. I absolutely love BECMI and hope that wizards releases something similar in a 4E vein but as it stands 4E is too rules heavy.

Comparatively, battle in 4E can sometimes get fiddly while PF's CMB/D system makes everything a breeze. For this fact alone PF seems less complex to me at times.

So yeah, not a good comparison.

 

[Herschel]

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

To open with the first paragraph, only to write the second, utterly inflamatory one is, at best, misguided if not a purely passive/agressive troll. It's like in the newest episode of "Doctor Who" where he makes a scathing comment and says "No offense" and the Bishop/recipient naturally says "Quite a lot taken".

It's about the same as me saying 'Do you think we're at a point now where Pathfiner is like BECMI where people don't have to have a life and can endlessly sift through rule books while 4E is the "advanced" version where people have to have a broader base of experience, be quicker on their feet and have knowledge that can't be gleaned from living in your mother's basement?"

They're two systems, both with strengths and weaknesses. They both come from BECMI and AD&D and, as Pawsplay alludes, both naturally borrow things from it.

 

[Orius]

I don't think 4e vs. Pathfinder is like the previous split between Basic and Advanced. The the Basic/Advanced split was something that happened within the same company rather than two products produced by two companies. Also, I don't think early on the Basic/Advanced split was all that noticable; Basic was meant as an introduction to the game, while AD&D was for more skilled and experienced players. The differences grew as Basic morphed into BECMI and AD&D went into 2e. I think it was 2e in particular that spelled the end of Basic, since the rule changes in 2e made the systems even more incompatible and 2e had the edge on popularity with the various settings, particularly Dragonlance and the Realms, being firmly in AD&D.

If WotC does things right with this new set they're releasing, it'll be a streamlined set of simple easy to understand rules that make it easier for new players while not having compatibility problems with the more complex stuff. I doubt WotC will go down the same path TSR did with Basic and AD&D, since the conventional wisdom is that too many different product lines is what hurt TSR in the first place.

 

[Thornir Alekeg]

To open with the first paragraph, only to write the second, utterly inflamatory one is, at best, misguided if not a purely passive/agressive troll. It's like in the newest episode of "Doctor Who" where he makes a scathing comment and says "No offense" and the Bishop/recipient naturally says "Quite a lot taken".

All I have to say is that I don't see the OP as inflammatory in any way, I just see a question about preference of playing-style and no judgement about the superiority of one over another.

 

[Elton Robb]

knowing my girl, she'd pick me up a copy of Basic 4th Ed for my birthday. Knowing Wizards of the Coast's GSL, however, I don't think I'll be writing for 4e.

Ah, but one of the best things about the Creative Commons license I'm using, you can adapt what I write to 4e.

 

[Desdichado]

Basic was meant as an introduction to the game, while AD&D was for more skilled and experienced players.

I know a lot of people believe that, but I'm not sure that I do. Or, if it was ever true, how well TSR actually held on to that goal. Plus, TSR people have routinely discounted and dismissed that point of view; Advanced didn't mean more skilled or experienced, it meant that the game itself was more derived from its earlier state.

Rather, it seemed like BD&D and AD&D were meant to cater to two different playstyles using very similar rulesets.

As I said earlier, and Obryn detailed more fully; the BD&D line ended up not being very basic, and at a relatively early date. It was just as complicated as AD&D; it was merely complicated in different ways and different areas.

There's also some murkiness around the idea that AD&D was specifically called a "different" game because of weird legal issues around Dave Arneson and his rights as co-creator of the OD&D game.

 

[billd91]

All I have to say is that I don't see the OP as inflammatory in any way, I just see a question about preference of playing-style and no judgement about the superiority of one over another.

I don't see it as particularly inflammatory either, but I could see how one might perceive an implicit hierarchy between the two games with the "Basic" and "Advanced" labels. After all, back in the day, that was our perception as well. Basic, and the rest of its line, was definitely seen as the junior partner of the Advanced line and to be graduated out of as soon as possible if that's where you started. Frankly, the addition of further expansions not only didn't change that impression, the addition of the Immortals one reinforced it.

With that in mind, I can definitely see how one's own history with the difference between the two games could color perceptions of using the same rhetorical construct now.

 

[francisca]

Rather, it seemed like BD&D and AD&D were meant to cater to two different playstyles using very similar rulesets.

Well, that's not how it started. The original basic manual (Holmes Basic) is *clearly* a lead-in to AD&D, as it references AD&D several times.

From the Preface:

This work is far more detailed and more easily understood than
were the original booklets nonetheless, for with it, and the other basic components of the game, any intelligent and imaginative person can speedily understand and play DUNGEONS & DRAGONS as it was meant to be played. Players who desire to go beyond the basic game are directed to the ADVANCED DUNGEON & DRAGON books.

Now later, the Moldvay/Cook B/X line, BECMI, RC, etc.. and associated accessory products are stand-alone.

 

[Umbran]

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.

I have to agree with MerricB, here. The differences wind up to be more in style than in complexity.

It is also I think it inappropriate to link the "hardcore/casual" dichotomy to the "complex/simple" dichotomy. They are only loosely related, at best.

 

[Desdichado]

Well, that's not how it started. The original basic manual (Holmes Basic) is *clearly* a lead-in to AD&D, as it references AD&D several times.

From the Preface:

Now later, the Moldvay/Cook B/X line, BECMI, RC, etc.. and associated accessory products are stand-alone.

And in Dragon (#26, I think) Gygax stated something else entirely; that the basic and associated lines were meant to be a continuation of the tone of OD&D, while AD&D was meant to be an evolution of the rules. As well as stating quite clearly that AD&D was not meant to imply anything at all about skill level of the players.