D&D General Why ya gotta be so Basic? Understanding the Resurgence of Moldvay's Basic

[Zardnaar]

So. If I'm understanding this correctly:

1. Straightforward, clearly-explained rules with good organization.
2. The text clearly defines terms, rather than relying on "natural language."
3. There is an extensible rules framework for how to resolve actions not otherwise defined.
4. Much of the text is focused on tools, useful advice, and concise examples.
5. The text simplifies/eliminates some player choices, e.g. in character creation.

Would that be a good summary of the things Moldvay Basic did, seen as an early draft of design choices that much more "modern" games would flesh out more fully later?

Alot of it. I'm not so much B/X but more clones of B/X.

From the DM PoV a clone with ascending AC is the easiest version of D&D to run.

Open to buffs to rogues, AD&D classes/races, basic skill system and snall tweaks (eg feats or other moving parts).

 

[Bacon Bits]

So. If I'm understanding this correctly:

1. Straightforward, clearly-explained rules with good organization.
2. The text clearly defines terms, rather than relying on "natural language."
3. There is an extensible rules framework for how to resolve actions not otherwise defined.
4. Much of the text is focused on tools, useful advice, and concise examples.
5. The text simplifies/eliminates some player choices, e.g. in character creation.

Would that be a good summary of the things Moldvay Basic did, seen as an early draft of design choices that much more "modern" games would flesh out more fully later?

1. Straightforward, clearly-explained rules with good organization... and essentially no oddball rules that you're not really interested in. With the exception of initiative rules being a bit arcane, infravision being stupid about realism, and AC being upside down, it's as straightforward and minimal a set of rules for fantasy adventuring that you can imagine. The fact that it gives direct, step-by-step instructions to the DM for how to make an adventure... something which the books seldom seem to do... is part of why it was well liked.
2. No, not really. The "systems" in the game are largely ad hoc but simple enough to feel consistent. However, if anything the game strongly favors natural language.
   
   Like, here's Wall of Fire:
   
   Wall of Fire
   Range: 60'
   Duration: special
   This spell creates a thin wall of fire of up to 1200 square feet. The
   wall can be in any shape the caster desires (a straight wall 60' long
   and 20' high, a circle 20' diameter and 20' high, etc.). The wall is
   opaque and will block sight. Creatures of less than 4 hit dice cannot
   break through the wall. Creatures of 4 or more hit dice can break
   through but will take 1-6 (d6) points of damage — twice this
   amount (2d6) if they are undead or cold-using creatures (white
   dragons, frost giants). The wall cannot be cast in a space occupied
   by another object. The wall lasts as long as the caster remains stationary
   and concentrates on it.
   
   Now, any modern D&D player can find a dozen questions in that paragraph, and I can tell you now that essentially none of them are answered in the book. Can I cast the wall in the air? Can the wall be horizontal? The monster entries don't tell you if it's a cold-using creature, so how do I decide? The wall can't be cast in a space occupied by another object. Are creatures objects? The game doesn't really say, thought Locate Object and other spells suggest a consistent line of thinking. Neither creature nor object appear in the glossary, though.
   
   If you look up spellcasting, you'll find several paragraphs trying to explain Vancian casting, or a few paragraphs explaining spellbooks, or a paragraph explaining that you can't move or take other actions when casting. But that's really it.
3. "Roll d20. Apply a modifier of up to -4 to +4. If you're under your relevant attribute, you succeed." is the entire mechanic. It's not extensible so much as fragments of a skeleton.
4. It's more like the Pareto principle. It doesn't care about having good rules as much as it cares about having simple ones. Basic gives you 80% of the rules you need. Those rules cover 80% of the situations where they come up. The game is otherwise so stripped down and so... generally consistent feeling that it feels easy to make a ruling and move on. You don't feel like you do making house rules in AD&D where it seems like kicking a precariously balanced house of cards.
   
   Expert gives you 80% of the 20% left out. you get rules for making castles, running ships, spell research. handling getting lost, wilderness encounters, campaign world building, etc. It doesn't have mass combat rules? I think that's about the only major thing missing. Again, they're not the best rules. They're often just 1 paragraph. But they're not awful, either, and they're good enough for the game's purposes overall.
   
   There are extensive examples in the DM chapters. "Here's the steps to make a dungeon." (4 pages). Then, "Here's what a dungeon made doing that might look like." (2 pages describing 9 rooms + 2 map pages) Then, "Here's what the play session might sound like in this dialogue between the DM and their players." (1.5 pages) It's nice and makes it easy to visualize how to play.
5. There are no character choices except those made in game. You choose your class and equipment. You can arrange your stats and modify them slightly. That's about it. There aren't really any mechanics. Like the default rules say all weapons deal d6 damage. It's an optional rule to use variable weapon damage. Character creation is about as simple as Nethack's is.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Alot of it. I'm not so much B/X but more clones of B/X.

From the DM PoV a clone with ascending AC is the easiest version of D&D to run.

Open to buffs to rogues, AD&D classes/races, basic skill system and snall tweaks (eg feats or other moving parts).

My preferred OSR does all these things.

 

[rabindranath72]

1. There are no character choices except those made in game. You choose your class and equipment. You can arrange your stats and modify them slightly. That's about it. There aren't really any mechanics. Like the default rules say all weapons deal d6 damage. It's an optional rule to use variable weapon damage. Character creation is about as simple as Nethack's is.

And at least in Moldvay's Basic, the DM rolls for the damage! See p.B25 and the combat example; I suppose that's to keep the players guessing as to how much damage they have inflicted.

 

[Iosue]

It's not explicitly spelled out in the rules, but one thing that stood out to me in my Let's Read was how much the Basic rules, at least, lean on the d6 as a multi-purpose catch all mechanic. Initiative is a d6, surprise is a d6, wandering monsters is a d6, elf and dwarf abilities use a d6, listening at a door is a d6, default damage is a d6, the reaction table is 2d6, morale is 2d6. It's a handy little tool: need to determine a chance to do something? Use a d6. Need a range of results? Use 2d6.

 

[Zardnaar]

It's not explicitly spelled out in the rules, but one thing that stood out to me in my Let's Read was how much the Basic rules, at least, lean on the d6 as a multi-purpose catch all mechanic. Initiative is a d6, surprise is a d6, wandering monsters is a d6, elf and dwarf abilities use a d6, listening at a door is a d6, default damage is a d6, the reaction table is 2d6, morale is 2d6. It's a handy little tool: need to determine a chance to do something? Use a d6. Need a range of results? Use 2d6.

I've been thinking about a basic 2d6 skill system. Your modifier tops out at +3 though.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I've been thinking about a basic 2d6 skill system. Your modifier tops out at +3 though.

The Without Number games do this with skill checks.

 

[Mannahnin]

the reaction table is 2d6, morale is 2d6. It's a handy little tool: need to determine a chance to do something? Use a d6. Need a range of results? Use 2d6.

I've seen a number of folks on OSR blogs discuss modeling skill/other adventuring activity checks on the Cleric's Turning table. In that it sets a precedent for achieving success or partial success against a range of difficulties, which you get better at based on character level.

The Without Number games do this with skill checks.

Yeah, I think WWN is the most prominent published example.

 

[Aldarc]

It's not explicitly spelled out in the rules, but one thing that stood out to me in my Let's Read was how much the Basic rules, at least, lean on the d6 as a multi-purpose catch all mechanic. Initiative is a d6, surprise is a d6, wandering monsters is a d6, elf and dwarf abilities use a d6, listening at a door is a d6, default damage is a d6, the reaction table is 2d6, morale is 2d6. It's a handy little tool: need to determine a chance to do something? Use a d6. Need a range of results? Use 2d6.

When you put it like that, B/X sounds like a game that would have benefited from being 3d6-based instead of d20-based.

 

[ThrorII]

It doesn't have mass combat rules? I think that's about the only major thing missing. Again, they're not the best rules. They're often just 1 paragraph. But they're not awful, either, and they're good enough for the game's purposes overall.

The Cook/Marsh Expert book explicitly tells you to use OD&D's "Swords & Spells" miniature rules for mass combat.