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

[Sword of Spirit]

This whole discussion did get me curious, as I thought I remember ability checks being core in 2E.

Sure enough, it’s right there in the glossary at the very beginning of the PHB. The only reference to it, other than the one I initially mentioned about “Ability Checks as Saving Throws” is the proficiency section.

Specifically in the section prior to the introduction of the skills systems, called “Using What You Know” as an alternative to using any skill system in the game. It says that in an instance where the DM cannot assume the PC can simply accomplish something, an ability check can be used to adjudicate success, which is effectively B/X.

That said, I don’t think I can remember playing a 2E without proficiencies, as that was one of the reasons we switched from RC BECMI along with “race and class” character building.

Interesting. Even though it's a tiny entry with little elaboration, I'm surprised I wasnt familiar with it, because the lack of such rules stood out to me in 1e, 2e, and BECMI.

Do you happen to know if this was in the original 1989 2e PHB, or was it something added in the revised version? (I only had the original back in the day.)

 

[overgeeked]

B/X and 4e D&D are probably my favorite iterations of D&D. Despite their differences, I think that both had clear visions and (relatively) tight design for their gameplay as roleplaying games.

Absolutely the same. My top two by far. As you say, they knew what they wanted to do and just got on with it. Great games.

 

[CleverNickName]

B/X and 4e D&D are probably my favorite iterations of D&D. Despite their differences, I think that both had clear visions and (relatively) tight design for their gameplay as roleplaying games.

A while back, someone on ENWorld wrote that 4th Edition felt very "retro" to them, and they compared it to some of their favorite retro-clone RPGs. I heard their network card actually caught fire from all the outrage it generated.

 

[PHATsakk43]

Interesting. Even though it's a tiny entry with little elaboration, I'm surprised I wasnt familiar with it, because the lack of such rules stood out to me in 1e, 2e, and BECMI.

Do you happen to know if this was in the original 1989 2e PHB, or was it something added in the revised version? (I only had the original back in the day.)

I did check, and it’s in both the OG and black reprint.

 

[Mannahnin]

I had a longer and more passionate talk about roll under on another reply on the topic of 2E in general.

Needless to say, I’m not a fan of single mechanic games and do like me some roll under mechanics.

Oh yes, I do remember reading that. One quick bit from that post I want to respond to:

Initiative isn’t the only thing that this applies to either, as the “roll under” mechanic for ability score checks and NWPs is also better (IMHO) than the DC system, period. “Roll under” and “lower is better” are slightly different as the former also allows for “Price is Right rules” for skill or ability score challenges. Additionally, it made 2E psionics the best implementation of a mostly bad system of any other variety of D&D.

Pendragon's also what I believe you're referring to as "Price is Right" aka a "Blackjack" system, where rolling your number exactly is a crit and "roll under but higher" can be a tiebreaker in opposed rolls.

 

[Mannahnin]

B/X and 4e D&D are probably my favorite iterations of D&D. Despite their differences, I think that both had clear visions and (relatively) tight design for their gameplay as roleplaying games.

Absolutely the same. My top two by far. As you say, they knew what they wanted to do and just got on with it. Great games.

Same. I've been saying this since I got to finally play a bunch of B/X / OSE online during the pandemic.

5E and OD&D after them, but both want more house rules.

 

[Mannahnin]

Interesting. Even though it's a tiny entry with little elaboration, I'm surprised I wasnt familiar with it, because the lack of such rules stood out to me in 1e, 2e, and BECMI.

Do you happen to know if this was in the original 1989 2e PHB, or was it something added in the revised version? (I only had the original back in the day.)

It's in the original, which is the printing I first REALLY played a lot of, and still have my copies of. The DMG is so worn from use and travel that the spine completely came off.

In contrast to your experience, either because I read differently than you or had different DMs, ability checks were subsumed for me as a core, commonplace concept, and it's weird to me for other people to be unfamiliar. And yeah, it was a bit surprising to realize that they weren't detailed in the original 1974 rules (only vaguely hinted at, as Snarf wrote), didn't make it into the AD&D 1E rule books except in a couple of odd special edge cases (and in the NWP rules once those got introduced in the mid 80s), and didn't get described as a generalized mechanic until Moldvay's appendix.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

A while back, someone on ENWorld wrote that 4th Edition felt very "retro" to them, and they compared it to some of their favorite retro-clone RPGs. I heard their network card actually caught fire from all the outrage it generated.

 

[rabindranath72]

Seventh, Moldvay explicitly allows characters to do anything. If there isn't a rule, the book has a provision that a d20 "check" against an appropriate ability score should be allowed (this was removed in Mentzer).

Excellent post!
And a nitpick: the rule wasn't removed in Mentzer's. It's in the Basic DM Rulebook, p.20, column one "New rules and items". Not only that, but Mentzer expands the rule with alternative resolution mechanics involving dice different than d20, e.g. roll under with 3d6, 4d6 etc.

 

[Sword of Spirit]

Excellent post!
And a nitpick: the rule wasn't removed in Mentzer's. It's in the Basic DM Rulebook, p.20, column one "New rules and items". Not only that, but Mentzer expands the rule with alternative resolution mechanics involving dice different than d20, e.g. roll under with 3d6, 4d6 etc.

So apparently it's just OD&D and 1e AD&D that didn't have the rule in their core books? I believe it, but I don't know how I missed it. I never had those editions that didn't have the rule back then.

I'm guessing it must be that I switched from the Mentzer box to the 2e books fairly soon, and I probably read the glossary once and forgot about it (in my head, a glossary is just something to tell you what terms mean, not a source of rules) unlike the rest of the books that had things to refer to repeatedly.