OSR Why B/X?

[Parmandur]

Well, as a matter of fact, the names Sepuchrave II mentioned come from the Against the Giants G-series modules.

And B1 and B2 were written for the Basic Rules by Holmes, not the Basic D&D line, as it were, which would not exist for another 2 years after B2’s publication. Holmes’s rules were at the time intended to be an introductory on-ramp to AD&D, not a distinct line with its own aesthetic.

I didn't see that post, just the one mentioning B1 and B2 before talking about AD&D. However, it is quite true thst Gygax * & Co. were not taking things too seriously at any poont: lots of levity.

 

[deganawida]

I have had a thought tumbling over in my brain for the last week, and I think that I might be able to articulate why I ultimately prefer B/X over any other version of D&D or older games which I’ve played (Palladium, which likely doesn’t count), even if I will happily play any version of D&D, as well as many other RPGs.

Bear with me, please . Some of this has been articulated by others, but I’m trying to give it my own twist. Also, please forgive me for going on a tangent, as the OP wondered why B/X was preferred over other olde school games.

The more abilities, skills, and so forth that a character has as a default characteristic, the less the character has to interact with the world around them.

If one has skills, they can just roll the skills. One is not required to describe how they would go about using the skill. It is often encouraged, but newer D&D editions don’t require it. Success is determined by the roll.

If they have a combat ability that trips, they can just use that, and maybe face a DC, maybe get auto success. There’s no need to check terrain, or footing, or feinting so your opponent is off-balance. Heck, there’s no reason that the DM has to describe these, as, again, the roll determine success.

The net result of these items is that the player is increasingly removed from the immediacy and impact of what an RPG can provide, which is essentially, “What if I were X in Y world with Z to do?”. That is an experience that you can’t really get anywhere else.

I am an introvert, and I’ve moved so much in my life that I do not feel that I am a part of any community. Combined, these make life a bit lonely. While I enjoy my alone time (my wife often says that there are days where I am too much company for myself), I also long to be a part of something greater than myself, and a place to be a part of.

Too much emphasis on character ability in a vacuum means that I will play just that, a character in a vacuum, and will just take the game as a theme park, floating lazily through Small World, briefly engaging with people in costumes, then going back home.

Without a great deal of character abilities and power concentrated in the character? Suddenly, I have to be concerned about my teammates, i have to pay attention to villagers, I need to make allies, I need to learn the laws, I need to learn geography. I become part of the world, even if the world is just a mega dungeon. Otherwise, I will quickly be slaughtered, have no friends, be thrown in jail, walk into quicksand, etc.

B/X is perfect for this, for me, as it has just enough to stuff covered by rules, just enough player power, and oodles of open imaginative space for me to “live in” with my group.

Anyway, you’ve heard people say, “Play the world”, right? I’m saying go beyond that, and be part of the world. For that, I think B/X is the perfect OSR system.

 

[Neonchameleon]

Honestly? Any other choice would have gotten it wrong. In descending order of wrongness:

• 2e emphatically wasn't old school. It deprecated XP for GP and emphasised the encounter.
• 3.0 is only included in this list for comparison, but with the "back to the dungeon" ethos would probably be better than 2e
• AD&D is far more complex than it needed to be - and was the shameless cash grab edition to screw Arneson out of royalties (which Arneson probably didn't deserve). Unnecessary complexity is bad.
• oD&D (brown/white box) is barely a game and Gygax was not good at explanations.
• BECMI/RC is almost there. But the CMI are higher level than the OSR intends to play at (indeed M and I are intended for NPCs). And why go for the later version that adds stuff that gets in the way?

 

[Retreater]

• 2e emphatically wasn't old school. It deprecated XP for GP and emphasised the encounter.

I must respectfully disagree with that, based on my experience with 2nd edition.
Since it was my first edition of D&D, I'm of course biased - and it definitely feels old (because I feel old).
Elements of 2e were more literary and folklore-based than 1e, so it felt even older than 1e, oD&D, etc.
Let's break it down.
The "green" books (Historical Reference Sourcebooks): Vikings, Charlemagne's Paladins, Celts, A Mighty Fortress, The Glory of Rome, Age of Heroes, and The Crusades. These brought real-world (albeit Eurocentric) myths, legends, and history that predate Appendix N writings by centuries. Other campaign settings are based on equally old sources, such as Al-Qadim's connection to Arabian Nights.
Look at the Ravenloft campaign setting and its literary (and film) inspirations. Here's a list of just a few off the top of my head. Dracula, Frankenstein, the Mummy, the Wolf-Man, Island of Dr. Moreau, Jack the Ripper, Hound of the Baskervilles, and Night of the Living Dead.
If anything, 2e's focusing on world building and drawing from real world history and mythology, makes it feel old (even older than D&D). It certainly has a place in the OSR.

 

[Reynard]

Elements of 2e were more literary and folklore-based than 1e, so it felt even older than 1e, oD&D, etc.

I don't think that is how the term "old school" is used in this context.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I don't think that is how the term "old school" is used in this context.

Well, 2e did account for gold as xp, it just wasn't the default. If you were using that rules, does the game suddenly become Old School (TM) by the definition you're referencing? And if so, is gold for xp the defining metric for that style of play?

 

[Reynard]

Well, 2e did account for gold as xp, it just wasn't the default. If you were using that rules, does the game suddenly become Old School (TM) by the definition you're referencing? And if so, is gold for xp the defining metric for that style of play?

I was talking about @Retreater conflating "old" and "old school."

I don't consider actual 2E old school even if you did give XP for gold, because its design intent was not old school. But you could run an old school style game using the 2E rules. But it is clear by the 2e publications that it was not intended to replicate the early game. But then neither was much of latter 1E or BECMI.

 

[Mannahnin]

I was talking about @Retreater conflating "old" and "old school."

I don't consider actual 2E old school even if you did give XP for gold, because its design intent was not old school. But you could run an old school style game using the 2E rules. But it is clear by the 2e publications that it was not intended to replicate the early game. But then neither was much of latter 1E or BECMI.

I tend to agree. On Dragonsfoot, for example, which bills itself as "the home of 1st edition AD&D" and predated the OSR, 2nd edition was widely derided and regarded as the start of the new school, although it has gradually won some respect and greater acceptance there and among the hardcore grognards over the last twenty years.

2nd ed is a curious beast, kind of caught between two worlds, trying to appeal to multiple different styles of play and kinds of players. The XP rules changes clearly were attempting to accomodate what is now known as Trad play, inspired by Dragonlance and the post-70s epics which had taken over the fantasy publishing market. But the mandate to maintain reverse compatibility with 1E and the large amount of player survey feedback pushing for old school elements resulted in (for example) the ability score and HP/death rules staying or even getting LESS heroic from 1E.

I think you're right that this was a continuation of a trend from late 1E products (particularly Dragonlance, as you note) and from BECMI.

Because of the mechanical compatibility of 2E with 1E stuff, it's certainly possible to play 2E very old school. But it's usually right at the dividing line for old schoolers. The community tends to consider it either just OUTSIDE the old school, or the last version INSIDE it. With the trend over the last couple of decades being it gradually being included more.

 

[Retreater]

If we're limiting "old school" D&D to be B/X, I must assume that is the 1981 Moldvay/Cook edition. Even that was supplanted in the publication history by BECMI, which started in 1983.
So we're looking at a tiny window of the history of the game (1981-83) as the basis of the entire OSR movement. How limiting that is!
If we look at the D&D boxed sets through a more modern lens, we draw comparison to more recent starter sets.
Holmes could be the Phandelver Starter Set.
Moldvay/Cook could be Essentials.
Mentzer could be Stormwreck Isle.
New Easy-to-Master could be D&D The Adventure Begins.
To me, picking apart the edition differences in Basic (B/X, BECMI, etc.) is like fighting over the presentation of the Phandelver Starter Set vs. the Essentials Kit.
The experience of traditional D&D is bigger than any of those single boxes.

 

[Neonchameleon]

If we're limiting "old school" D&D to be B/X, I must assume that is the 1981 Moldvay/Cook edition. Even that was supplanted in the publication history by BECMI, which started in 1983.

I don't think anyone's limiting Old School to B/X - just saying that that's where the focus is and probably the purest version of old school.