Why did TSR release Basic D&D?

[Sebastian Francis]

I was reading a fairly detailed "history of D&D" on the net recently, and something struck me as odd. We know that OD&D was, of course, the first game, and that Gygax envisioned Advanced D&D as a development of OD&D. What, then, was the purpose of the Basic D&D game? As I think everyone knows, they did *not* segue into Advanced D&D, but were an entirely different (albeit simpler) game.

Why would TSR release two products under the same name?

Back in the day, we young 'uns thought that there were three "levels" of complexity: Basic, Expert (Moldvay/cook) and Advanced. You knew you were cool when you had "graduated" to Advanced.

Of course, the reality was that Basic/Expert (and eventually Masters, Companion, and Immortal) was a separate game entirely: DUNGEONS & DRAGONS. Not to be confused with ADVANCED Dungeons & Dragons. Which wasn't an advanced version of DUNGEONS & DRAGONS, but rather an advanced version of Original Dungeons & Dragons.

Sheeeeesh. [scratches head]

 

[Glyfair]

Actually, the first edition of Basic D&D was full of comments that you'd need to get AD&D to get past 3rd level. It also referred to more class & race options in AD&D. It definitely was intended as an introduction, with the assumption that players would "graduate" into AD&D.

Sometime later BD&D became a separate "path" of D&D. You could play BD&D and advance completely within the game. I'm not sure why the shift in design.

 

[Brund the Decrepit]

LOL must learn to read the WHOLE post before replying...
Sorry for the empty reply but giving a bump!


-Brund

 

[Remathilis]

The concept is based on two premises IIRC...
1.) There was debate as to how D&D should advance. Gygax's AD&D followed the idea of complex and detailed (but not all encompassing) method of gaming. It was developed for hardcore gamers who demanded rules/idea for X, where X is darn near anything that would come up. Basic continued the concept of letting the DM make more decisions on the spot and to keep the game simple. As the game expanded (Expert, Masters, etc) it developed its own flavor and concepts.

2.) Later, the rules (being simpler than 1e and later 2e) was retooled into countless "basic" verisons to hook players into the D&D game and "advance" them to the moneymaker, AD&D. For a long time, D&D and AD&D actually competed against each other. It was counter productive to have "two" D&Ds, simple and advanced. The Simple line was dropped for the same reason many settings were dropped: Product Line Unity.

This is why I doubt we'll ever see a real D&D basic game (that isn't an intro product). It would D&D competing against D&D for the same gaming niche.

Make Sense? If I'm wrong my more lanned posters, correct me!

 

[thalmin]

In addition to what has already been said here, the Basic set cost less to be able to play; $10 for the set vs $12 to $15 each of 3 books needed.

 

[2d6]

In addition to what has already been said here, the Basic set cost less to be able to play; $10 for the set vs $12 to $15 each of 3 books needed.

Yeah, but that $10 dollars only got you to 3rd level, you needed to plop down another 10-12 for the Expert rules to get you to 14th, then another 15-20 to get the Companion rules (15-25) and another 15-20 for the Master set (26-36).

Of course then the Cyclopedia came out and you could get it all for 30 busks.

 

[fanboy2000]

What, then, was the purpose of the Basic D&D game? As I think everyone knows, they did *not* segue into Advanced D&D, but were an entirely different (albeit simpler) game.

Short answer: because David Arneson got less money from a game called Advanced Dungeons and Dragons than from a product called just Dungeons and Dragons.

If they had stopped making Dungeons and Dragons, then Arneson might have sued to get his full royalties, arguing that calling it Advanced didn't amount to hill of beans. If TSR treated the lines as two diffrent games, then they could pay him less. If this sound stupid and conveluted, then you are starting to grasp the reason why TSR went brankrupt in the late 1990s. In many ways, TSR made money in-spite of its managment, not becuse of it.

You'll notice the game is simply called Dungeons and Dragons and every book says it's based on the original game created by Arneson and Gygax, that's because WotC just bought Dave off so they could use the name. It's what's best for both of them.

 

[thalmin]

Yeah, but that $10 dollars only got you to 3rd level, you needed to plop down another 10-12 for the Expert rules to get you to 14th, then another 15-20 to get the Companion rules (15-25) and another 15-20 for the Master set (26-36).

Of course then the Cyclopedia came out and you could get it all for 30 busks.

The point is, as an introductory game, it had an introductory price. You could get started for only $10.

 

[fanboy2000]

The "Advanced/Basic" D&D game lines were apparently executed in an attempt to work around some legal difficulties. When Arneson and Gygax had parted in 1975, Arneson, under the terms of the original partnership, still held some royalty rights to the D&D game. When Gygax went ahead with the new edition, Arneson took TSR to court. The matter was settled in 1981 when both parties signed a mutual agreement.

I based my answer on this little gem on Wizards own site. This predated 3e by about a year I think.

 

[Eremite]

(snip) Why would TSR release two products under the same name? (snip)

Why did TSR do a whole range of things that it did?

Simple: it was not run as a proper business.

Proof: it went broke.