OSR Why B/X?

[CleverNickName]

And thank goodness for that.

It really is the best way to keep high-level stuff separate from lower levels. In BECM, not having to even think about weapon mastery or running a kingdom until like 15th level or so really went a long way to keeping the lower levels fun and lightweight.

 

[Reynard]

It really is the best way to keep high-level stuff separate from lower levels. In BECM, not having to even think about weapon mastery or running a kingdom until like 15th level or so really went a long way to keeping the lower levels fun and lightweight.

I like the search for immortality. Weapon mastery is... less impressive.

 

[Sepulchrave II]

I remember playing D&D in junior high in the early 80s and seeing the Companion and Master level boxed sets and just boggling. We couldn't keep a consistent campaign going for 2+ sessions. I couldn't imagine playing to 15th-to-30th level!

I have very minimal experience of Companion-level D&D as a player, and nothing beyond, but while the article brings up some interesting points, I'm not sure that its concluding remarks about a bifurcated game (in terms of tone) between BECM and AD&D are warranted. Or that -CM was necessarily "gonzo."

There simply was no provision - in terms of official support - for Advanced D&D beyond a certain point, and only minimal support for high levels (up to 14-ish). Much of the official high-level support was absurdist/gonzo/wacky: Dungeonland, Magic Mirror, Barrier Peaks, Tomb of Horrors, Queen of the Demonweb Pits etc. I mean, we had Bards and spell tables up to level 29 for Magic Users, but that's all there was - a strangely incongruous thing to include at all.

That said, I think that B/X is, in a sense, "complete" - it gives you all of the tools necessary to run a fulfilling game. And unlike C/M it includes no mention of "The Planes:" AD&D's systematization of the multiverse was, IMHO, a mistake which has led to D&D being stuck in a straightjacket and mired in petty squabbles over canonicity ever since.

 

[Guennrr]

That’s how Swords & Wizardry does it. The division into phases also make much more sense this way.

Here’s another Swords & Wizardry fan. It’s the best of both worlds to me. The rules are pretty bare-bones, but there is pc race <> pc class, Matt Finch does a wonderful job of describing what the game feels like without turning the rules into mere check-lists, and the game offers almost all 1e classes in an OD&D style ”light“ version for those who prefer some choice.

Returning to the question at hand: the different ”feel“ of the game: Both OD&D and B/X stayed rudimentary enough to allow a lot of freedom to players and GMs alike.

It’s 1e apparently offering an explanation for everything and thereby making things more complicated. Some people prefer that style. After 10 years of 2e and almost 20 years of 3e / Pathfinder I am really loving the rules-light approach of the early D&D editions and their retro-clones, though.

So I am not that much of a B/X fan. I use intermittently adventures for B/X, OSE, LL, 1e/OSRIC. But currently I prefer the S&W rules - or sometimes a game of Hyperborea RPG, almost perfectly at the sweet spot between 0e and 1e.

Edit: I am not perfectly neutral on that topic [emoji6] being one of the editors of the German S&W edition.

 

[Nightfly]

Fonkin Hoddypeak, Beek Gwenders and Darg Blonke

I hope this is a reference I don't get. Because if not, you're having a stroke.

 

[Mannahnin]

From the article: "this was eventually able to spin off into the gonzo power of Companion- and Master-level D&D vs. the more serious and grounded tone of high-level AD&D."

Ehh. Fonkin Hoddypeak, Beek Gwenders and Darg Blonke take issue with that assertion.

I hope this is a reference I don't get. Because if not, you're having a stroke.

These are, as I recall, names of sample pregenerated characters from early D&D or AD&D modules. I think they might be from B1, In Search of the Unknown, or B2, The Keep on the Borderlands. Gary enjoyed silly and punnish PC names for pregens and characters in rules examples. My further recollection is that several of the words used there are archaic English slang. "Fonkin" and "hoddypeak" I believe both equate to "fool".

I think Supulchrave was suggesting that Gary's fondness for funny character names belies the premise that AD&D is more serious and grounded in tone.

 

[Parmandur]

These are, as I recall, names of sample pregenerated characters from early D&D or AD&D modules. I think they might be from B1, In Search of the Unknown, or B2, The Keep on the Borderlands. Gary enjoyed silly and punnish PC names for pregens and characters in rules examples. My further recollection is that several of the words used there are archaic English slang. "Fonkin" and "hoddypeak" I believe both equate to "fool".

I think Supulchrave was suggesting that Gary's fondness for funny character names belies the premise that AD&D is more serious and grounded in tone.

B1 and B2 were, however, Basic.

 

[Micah Sweet]

These are, as I recall, names of sample pregenerated characters from early D&D or AD&D modules. I think they might be from B1, In Search of the Unknown, or B2, The Keep on the Borderlands. Gary enjoyed silly and punnish PC names for pregens and characters in rules examples. My further recollection is that several of the words used there are archaic English slang. "Fonkin" and "hoddypeak" I believe both equate to "fool".

I think Supulchrave was suggesting that Gary's fondness for funny character names belies the premise that AD&D is more serious and grounded in tone.

Stan Lee used alliterative names for many of his characters simply because they were easier to remember. Had nothing to do with how seriously he took the stories he told.

 

[Mannahnin]

Stan Lee used alliterative names for many of his characters simply because they were easier to remember. Had nothing to do with how seriously he took the stories he told.

Sure. And I'm not advancing the argument that Gary didn't take AD&D seriously (or D&D, as Parmandur rightly observes that B1 and B2 were published for the D&D line, though countless people used them with AD&D as well). I'm just taking a guess at what Sepulchrave was implying.

I do always get a chuckle from the alliterative names Gary used in the example of combat between two adventuring parties (the "A" team of heroes with names starting with A, and the "B" team of villains whose names started with B) in the 1E AD&D DMG. And several of them ARE funny names, but mostly the alliteration is there just to keep the sides clear.

[Aggro the Axe, Abner, Arkayn, and Arlanni vs Gutboy Barrelhouse, Balto, Blastum, and Barjin]

 

[Iosue]

B1 and B2 were, however, Basic.

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.