Why is Basic So Limited?

There is a psychology in sales that holds true, “If you let the customer choose everything, they choose nothing.”. This has been proven numerous times in both retail, design… and gaming. Why would anyone want to limit player options? Because when players can choose anything, they choose everything!

When giving clients design options, smart designers present 2 or 3 of the best options. When more are presented, clients waffle, they are unsure. The designer is asking the client to make design decisions and there comes a hundred revisions before the project ends in frustrated “I guess so” decisions.

In stores, retailers have presented shoppers with a taste test of 50 types of mustard, or 5. When shoppers were faced with 50 the sales were dismal but many samples were had. With 5, sales records were broken and customers returned to sample other flavors later.

Edition Preference

Let’s just start with saying that this is not an edition wars post. If you enjoy your edition and have no issues, wonderful. It is my hope that you might also consider coming back to the origins that new systems claim to emulate and trying them out when you want a change. It’s been my experience that new editions are not emulating Basic as much as they think.

Does it Fall Apart?

When the game options open to any race / class combination and any character spanning any profession at any level, things start to go awry, and here’s why I struggle with it.

Opening the class and race options to everything invites a min/max effort right away. The player feels as if there may be some sort of “edge” to playing a minotaur fighter over a human fighter, and they may be right. Even if the table warns of “Roleplaying social stigma in towns etc.” Most of the player’s life is in a dungeon, where doing 2D12 damage is more important than the barkeep not serving you ale inside. Players start seeking ways to manipulate the numbers of the game before even thinking of their character, and it’s not even on purpose.

If one of the players at the table opts for a dragonborn barbarian that breathes fire, sees in the dark, casts some spells, has some immunities, has extra hit points, can sneak, can go to negative hit-points during bonus rage…. Why would the next one then choose “Human Fighter”? The answer isn’t to give the human fighter more super powers to match the dragonborn. The answer is to balance the player power from the get-go and throughout the game.

Furthermore when one player can advance as a Fighter, Wizard, Thief, Cleric etc.. at any time at will, why do they even need a “party” or “unity”? Maybe only to get more attacks per round.

 Player Options

Why would anyone want to limit player options? Because when players can choose anything, they choose everything. B/X, BECMI, Labyrinth Lord, and the various Basic D&D clones have a commonality. A cap on player class and race power and how it affects gameplay for everyone at the table. Labyrinth Lord (And most B/X systems) offer:

  • Fighter
  • Magic-user
  • Cleric
  • Thief
  • Elf
  • Dwarf
  • Halfling

In the days when this was standard, we didn’t expect the GM or publisher to create a set of rules and mechanics because we wanted to play a pirate. We opted for one of the above classes and told the tale of the character’s sea-faring background. Want a wilderness type ranger? Neat! Your fighter has a bow and comes from the Misty Mountains and knows the outdoors. That was it.

A Fighter also doesn’t arbitrarily decide one day to toss his new XP into being a Magic-user to have the power of both. Switching professions was a serious life choice that would bring you back to level 1. Combining fighting and wizardry is the realm of elves, and has it’s price.

The Balance of Limit

With the BECMI / LL / B/X characters, no one class was “better” than the others. The game was carefully balanced, and each played very different roles in the game with their unique abilities. Humans, the most prolific and wide-spread race had the option of four different professions. The rarer sub-races were a class unto themselves by their nature and scarcity. Each advanced at a different rate that balanced their power in the game.

These power balances and abilities create a situation where players rely on one another and the unique abilities of each class. Every class filled a niche hole in game strategy that was important. Even a BECMI fighter with all 18’s in all stats can’t cure disease, or pick the next lock. She might excel at being a heroic warrior, but it doesn’t fill all challenges of the game, it also doesn’t even dominate a combat scenario.

Never Getting a Turn

I’ve sat at the table of various editions (2E and up) where one character might be a race/class combination that just decimates a battle encounter. They dole out copious amounts of damage and can end a combat in a single round. To keep the party challenged the GM has to crank up encounter power. That means other players, if they ever get a turn in combat, only get one hit before they die. Players are fiddling with their phones and soon the only one playing is the super-character who min/maxed correctly.

In B/X and clones, a thief might level up at 1,200 XP, while an elf, who has some neat abilities and spells, might not level up until they obtained 4,000 XP. Balance of power throughout the game is important. It keeps all players important and allows the GM to easily present a game that is engaging for everyone with minimal pressure.

I Want to be a Unique CharacterLloyd Metcalf

Every character is unique with limited class options. A player could opt to be a Witch, Noble archer, Singing rogue, Arctic Huntsman, or anything that you can imagine. They all fall into the role of one of the classes without adding game mechanics, rulings, and special tables that can up-end game balance. They add story and immersive content.

Distribution of Wonderment

These power-controlled situations in the game also make it easy for the Game Master to introduce wondrous magical items that are fun, exciting and add to the story and fantasy of the realm. When players hold all the wonderment in special abilities, and power by simply leveling up, only magic that totally skews a world stands out. In art I have a saying, “When everything is the focal point, nothing is the focal point.”

Try it

It is my sincere hope that gamers everywhere set aside their shiny new books for a few sessions and just try out the old or OSR rule sets on occasion to get a feel for what the games play like. It’s hard to keep the wizard alive to fourth level, where he starts saving the hides of everyone at fifth. When only one player in this dungeon, a mile underground, can heal that fungal disease, they are contributing to the story. Ragnar can’t smash the lock to get out of a trap and the thief is unconscious? STRATEGY. Dungeons and Dragons can become something like advanced chess when the balance and game works out.

The GM Advantage

Labyrinth Lord, B/X, BECMI, and clones also give ultimate power to the Game Master. It also makes it easy to present and manage the game. Being a GM in newer systems is an intimidating task. The most common thing I hear about becoming a GM is, “I’m afraid I’ll screw it up, I don’t know all the rules.”

When the rules are a short booklet that walks you through running the game, this changes things dramatically.

Becoming a BECMI GM is a future post.

~Lloyd M [FSG]

Shop Fail Squad Games

6 Comments on “Why is Basic So Limited?

  1. Sorry in advance, but this will be a long reply. I agree that D&D players should get in touch with older versions of the game and try them. I originally started with BECMI many years ago, and I’m a huge advocate of keeping the old materials alive and learning from them and using them. But I take issue with many of your criticisms of recent versions of the game.

    For example, most of the positives you claim about BECMI also exist in 5E, and many of the negatives are endemic to gamers and all versions of the game. For what it’s worth, I will go through some of these issues point-by-point and quote-by-quote and give you my thoughts. Like you, I’m not looking to get into edition wars. 5E is simply the edition I currently play and prefer, and it’s what I know best to use as an example.

    1. I don’t think you ever explained how players of newer versions actually choose “everything” and how this is a negative. Also, a recent statement by WotC indicates that D&D 5E has already outsold the entire run of 3E and 3.5 core publications combined, in just three years. I believe this would also mean that D&D 5E has outsold 1E AD&D and BECMI as well. Of course, there are many factors contributing to this, but it seems to contradict the notion that increased consumer choice leads to decreased sales.

    2. QUOTE: “Opening the class and race options to everything invites a min/max effort right away. The player feels as if there may be some sort of “edge” to playing a minotaur fighter over a human fighter, and they may be right.”

    Ultimately, min/maxing is an issue that plagues every version of D&D and always has, but it’s entirely dependent on the player and not the system. From the very first BECMI game I ever played, there were players looking to get an “edge” and choose a class they believed would give them an advantage and make their character more powerful. For example, many refused to play magic-users in BECMI because the class was so weak at lower levels.

    I have never played this way, and I have played with dozens of players who likewise do not feel any compulsion to choose particular class and race options for min/maxing purposes. I now see vastly more players who appreciate the roleplaying and character-building aspects of D&D than there were in the past.

    3. QUOTE: “Every class filled a niche hole in game strategy that was important. Even a BECMI fighter with all 18’s in all stats can’t cure disease, or pick the next lock. She might excel at being a heroic warrior, but it doesn’t fill all challenges of the game, it also doesn’t even dominate a combat scenario.”

    It’s exactly the same today. In 5E, each PC has abilities and fills an important role in the game. Only certain characters can actually cure a disease or use certain types of weapons or armor, or have an excellent chance of success in performing various feats, skills or functions.

    Yes, virtually anyone can attempt to perform certain skill-based tasks. This is far more realistic. But these attempts are generally with a notably lower chance of success (and higher chance of potentially disastrous failure). So the party still defers to characters with expertise and relies on them to perform vital functions.

    I play in a long-term campaign that has run for two years, and my fighter does the heavy lifting, athletic feats, and specializes in melee and ranged combat. The rogue does a lot of sneaking, stealing and reconnaissance. The paladin and cleric focus on combat, healing and religious matters. The wizard casts spells and investigates arcane clues and magic items. And the ranger handles a lot of survival tasks, tracking, hunting, and archery-based ranged combat.

    How is this any different from BECMI or 1E AD&D? It isn’t.

    I often see fans of older editions criticizing the fact that 5E, for example, allows a non-rogue to attempt to pick a lock. But the DM sets the difficulty class of the effort and can also impose advantage or disadvantage. If it’s a standard lock, the DC is 15. However, if it’s someone without proficiency who’s never tried it before, the DM could adjust that to 20, 25 or even 30. Or the DM could impose disadvantage. Or both.

    There might also be other checks required first, such as discovering and disarming a trap. Non-rogues would likely be faced with a notably greater chance of failure in these areas, and the DM still has the option to alter the DC or impose disadvantage.

    How would making it physically impossible for a character to attempt this be in any way believable or realistic? If you were forming an adventuring party to explore a dungeon rumored to have treasure locked away in it, but you didn’t have access to a thief or rogue, would you just stay home? No. Someone or perhaps multiple people in the party might try to acquire thieves’ tools and at least attempt it. Or you’d look to find another way to get past the door.

    4. QUOTE: “If one of the players at the table opts for a dragonborn barbarian that breathes fire, sees in the dark, casts some spells, has some immunities, has extra hit points, can sneak, can go to negative hit-points during bonus rage…. Why would the next one then choose ‘Human Fighter’? The answer isn’t to give the human fighter more super powers to match the dragonborn. The answer is to balance the player power from the get-go and throughout the game.”

    First off, you’re assuming everyone is going to be a min/maxer or powergamer. Only those types of players look at their choices that way. Regardless, this isn’t a valid criticism, at least for 5E.

    The game was carefully developed with balance in mind, just as you’re suggesting. Instead of BECMI’s approach, all classes require the same amount of XP to level up, they all have the same maximum level, and all classes receive potential ability score increases, feats and class capabilities at precisely the same levels. There was a comprehensive attempt to keep every race, class, option and resulting output as carefully balanced as possible, to ensure fairness. It was also play tested with thousands of hardcore D&D gamers to validate the system.

    As a result, the dragonborn barbarian is not overpowered and does not require granting another race/class combination superpowers to match it.

    We can explode this notion with some actual data from D&D 5E players. The FiveThirtyEight blog recently published a data set from a study of character creation. It was conducted over a period of 30 days among players using the D&D Beyond mobile app. You can find the results here: https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/is-your-dd-character-rare/

    Guess what the #1 race and class combination was? A human fighter. And it wasn’t even close. The human race dominated the data overall and was the #1 race for fully half of all classes.

    The human ability score variant rule was probably a big driver of this, which could be an argument that min/maxing is still part of the picture. However, giving a human a +1 increase to all six ability scores, compared to a +1 and +2 to two scores for most races and subraces, or giving the human the alternative option of taking one feat, hardly seems to be an instance of granting “superpowers.”

    The dragonborn barbarian was only the 39th most popular combination out of 156 possible. Dragonborn was only the #5 most popular race for a barbarian and #3 for a fighter. To give you some perspective, an aarakocra monk and halfling bard weren’t far behind the dragonborn barbarian in total numbers of characters created.

    5. QUOTE: “When players hold all the wonderment in special abilities and power by simply leveling up, only magic that totally skews a world stands out.”

    I’m not sure what would give you this impression. There is no edition of D&D in which the players hold all the wonderment in special abilities, and all power is contained in leveling up.

    For example, I’ve played in several 5E campaigns, including one that has been running for two years, and magic items are just as much a part of the game and PC power as ever. A +1 bow still adds +1 to your attack and damage bonuses. A discovered spell book still gives a wizard a chance to learn new spells. A magic sword that emits light still helps a player without darkvision see in the dark. And the players still covet these magic items just as much as always. I see no difference at all.

    • One comment regarding point 1) – 3E and Basic have probably vastly different sales numbers. The latter sold in a time when it was almost the only game in town. B2, “Keep on the Borderlands” was packaged with Basic and was probably the only module ever to see being printed more than a million times.

      There’s some number distributed by the game industry every year and they are up for interpretation, but if I understand them right, adjusted for inflation the RPG industry shrunk since TSR’s heyday. I wonder if WotC even adjusted for inflation when comparing sales made 15 years ago? Or was it solely the total of PHBs shifted?

      Anyway. I can totally believe 5e is outselling 3e at this point. The edition has been very focused and is comparatively easy to get into, not something I would personally say about 3e. But outselling Basic? That is probably the edition that you will never be able to outsell again, not when it is contending with computer and VR gaming for people’s spare time.

    • A very well reasoned post, all in all, kudos! I specifically like the parts substantiated by data, taking the discussion from hard-to-level-with felt realities and guesses and to a new level. That is indeed rare, and I am glad that you did the effort, Greg.

      Regarding your Point 5. While I agree that magic items still a big role, they certainly no longer expand the power of a PC as much as they did in Basic and 1e days. In our Basic campaign, most of our “supernatural” capabilities derived from having magic items, whereas spells were a minor second, and there were some minor race-based ones.

      I would say finding a magic item and leveling up both puts smiles on my players’ faces.

  2. From the article: “Most of the player’s life is in a dungeon, where doing 2D12 damage is more important than the barkeep not serving you ale inside.”

    Well, that may be true for your campaign, but not in mine. People in my campaigns better be prepared for some real consequences to their choices, but as Greg pointed out, in 5e most of these choices will not lead to an overpowered character but not break the game. And if you only play dungeon-focused games all the time it’s you inviting the min-maxing of flavorless PCs, not the game. No diplomatic missions, peace bargains, stealth-getting-the-hostage-out, court intrigue, murder inquiries? Yes, then your players spend most of your time in a dungeon.

    Now, that might be your preferred play style or not, mainly focussing on Basic and running dungeon explorations or wilderness hex crawls. It’s however, a choice. D&D of all editions makes it easy to do it, and if that floats everybody’s boat, fine. Then min-maxing might make sense.

    But see… What is old school to me is not the rules. The rules are just… OLD. And they haven’t necessarily aged well. I fully agree with Greg’s point 3 on skills and specialization. 5e doesn’t need a specialized rule for saying “Everybody can listen on doors (but most do it badly) but only a thief can climb sheer walls or pick a lock.” It doesn’t erect artificial barriers on what are the differences between skilled and unskilled in most cases, and all check resolutions follow the same method: Determine difficulty, determine advantageous and detrimental circumstances, determine attribute, determine if a proficiency applies, roll it. I don’t do much “You can’t.” People will erect barriers in their mind readily enough and not necessarily try things that they are not proficient in unless desperate enough, but that’s their choice.

  3. “The most common thing I hear about becoming a GM is, “I’m afraid I’ll screw it up, I don’t know all the rules.”

    When the rules are a short booklet that walks you through running the game, this changes things dramatically.”

    Most of the people I know wouldn’t GM because doing the prep work is not their thing, because playing is more fun, because coming up with adventures is something they don’t feel they have the creative ability for, etc. I have coached several people through running games, and on my game table we share the burden of knowing the rules as evenly as makes sense. As the most experienced GM I usually know them very well, but knowing the rules is on everyone.

    The rules core of 5e is very small and probably as lean as Basic’s if not leaner. A very simple resolution engine built around check/ability roll, attack roll, and saving throw. Nobody ever had problems understanding that part. It’s more streamlined and uniform than Basic’s ever was. There is no discussion when to roll high and when to roll low (attack vs saving throw). There are no attack matrices which you have to modify for having magical item boni. No “1 or 2 on d6” special cases for common activities like searching for secret doors. There’s no class that rolls d100 for its skills while everything else related to skill-like ability works with 1d6. There’s always a difficulty number (DC, called AC for attacks) to beat, and higher is always better. Armor is a bonus, too.

    We played both 5e and Basic (houseruled BECMI in one, Labyrith Lord in another group) and while in 5e you have more powers and abilities to manage, Basic generated a lot of the questions mentioned above – like “What is better on d6 when trying to find something? Rolling high or rolling low?” Because it’s inconsistent. This doesn’t even consider the house rules for uncovered territory that inevitably creep up. The Basic rules are surprisingly complex in terms of non-uniformity given their length. And when your game advances they are spread over several books. BECMI Basic, the actual books from the box, isn’t my personal idea of ideal rules distribution or explanation, either, no matter how lean the books. But in total terms, both games generate questions, just different ones. As experience with the respective game increases, less questions arise. And that’s probably where you find yourself after decades of playing BECMI.

    But my main argument against your point would be the following: Most of the rules are not the basic engine for resolution. The biggest section of any D&D rule book from past to present are… spells. Each spell can be essentially a separate-to-memorize mini rule that you simply need to know when the spell is in the game. And as the game evolves over level and level you need to know more and more of them. Same for every magic item. Some of them are woefully underdefined and have caused endless discussion over the years, including spells like Wish (now, not a problem with _Basic_ per se… just saying). Some are so strictly defined, they allow only one or two possible uses.

    But the cognitive load of the spell-casting classes is significant and at the core of D&D. And that has not changed.

    I also personally would welcome a streamlined game with less pages than BECMI at its core. The problem is: As long as it’s D&D, it’s spell list will eat more pages easily than the whole rules core. A real 5e Basic (not just one leaving out class options like now) could be leaner than BECMI and rival Holmes Basic. I would happily play that and GM that.

    It would remain to be seen if less questions at the table arise or more in the end. DCC is a 3e Basic. Each class is a lean set of class rules which are very generic. Leaving its endless tables aside, its core is also probably leaner than BECMI. They basically fluffed the lean core up with tables. It generated its share of puzzlement and discussion from its own underdefined areas and vague terms just as much as 3e, 4e, or 5e might generate discussions about their more tightly ruled systems with less overall vagueness.

    And that’s the thing: GMing is also about having the experience and confidence to make rulings, rule decisions, and calls that every edition requires. A 4e rules argument is in principle at some point no different from me house-ruling stuff in DCC or making calls at the table, but it might require a different set of knowledge and experience. And acquiring this confidence and experience is not easy, and learner books often require more experienced GMs. There’s a lot of GM advice out there and it doesn’t come down to “Know the rules.” And most of the junior GMs I know don’t lack rules knowledge but confidence. I think they would have more trouble running Basic these days than 5e. But that’s just my guts speaking. In the end, it’s an unanswered question.

  4. Here’s the thing for me personally. I’ve played and DM’d BECMI, 1E, 2E, 5E, made a feeble attempt at 3.5, bought the box for 4e and gave up. I probably prefer something that mashes BECMI feel into a 1E/2E mechanic. No system is perfect for all.
    Folks defend 5E like a religious text. I’ll dive into this briefly below, I did read the entirety of the responses and thank you for the in-depth thought.

    Yes 5e CAN become and be played like something similar to Basic, but it is not BECMI. I would like to stop pretending it is basic as it adds a lot of confusion when 5E players sit down to a BECMI table and the other way around. A NASA super computer can be used as a calculator if you want it to do that, but it doesn’t make it a calculator.
    I came to 5e because it was sold me as “Practically like Basic with some new stuff.” I was immediately lost because it was not Basic with some new stuff.

    If 5E is as stripped down as red box, then it wouldn’t need to be the books they are. It’s ok. It doesn’t need to be stripped down to these core elements. Neither does AD&D, 2E, 3, 4, DCC, MCC, MA, or any other game.

    After reading through the 5E PHB, even as an experienced DM, I found it intimidating and still do. The text assumes you have read and played 3.0 – 4.0 versions. The 5E introductory box was quite friendly, but was no more 5E than BECMI was AD&D 2.0. In some places it may have stretched further.

    The books do indeed rely heavily on DM rules knowledge for all things, and again, it’s ok if that’s what you like. Heck, I do like writing 5E adventures. it makes it easy to create adventures. Every background story has a mechanic attached.
    By way of example “URCHIN” takes up a page that adds skills, tools, equipment rules, and 4 random tables that add other bits. Monsters have mechanics attached – Kobolds “Pack Tactics”, Stone giant has “Stone camouflage”, every monster has a list of action, reaction, and game mechanics for each possible move. Again, I’m not begrudging it, but it isn’t BECMI. If anything, it’s closer to 2E with all errata, or a trimmed up 3E. In BECMI That looks like: #Attack 1 Damage 1d6 (sword). Those abilities may be noted in monster descriptions, but mechanics and rules aren’t.

    I also think we may be looking at balance in slightly different ways. I’ve had a monk and a thief at 6th level completely upset the game play balance at my tables with their abilities, that early in my 5E DMing, I didn’t know existed because I couldn’t remember them all. Getting side-swiped by an ability, feat, background, or other ability in 5E is a little par for the course for fresh 5E DMs. 5E does try to maintain balance in its’ complexity, but it does so by boosting power in other places. Most notably Hit Points are used to balance the power. I do like that bit too.

    5E has some genius pieces. Spell slots being the cream of the crop. It can be used to play a game that kind of feels like BECMI, but it simply isn’t BECMI. Not because it’s better or worse, but because it just isn’t that game.

    Fighter level 7 includes: Fighting style, second wind, action surge, martial archetype (Choose Champion, Battle Master, Eldritch Knight) , (ability score improvement), Martial archetype feature.
    Each of these have powers, mechanics and rules attached to them that affect gameplay. This is not like BECMI. These abilities take the place of magic items and replicate video game power ups in my mind.

    Yes you can strip all these rulings out, you can choke the game down to make it behave like BECMI in some basic form, but why? When you can just use a screwdriver for the screw instead of a toned down gentle jack hammer?

    I understand why people like 5E. I like it in some instances, love it in others. I like BECMI for other reasons, among them is I don’t have to know a wealth of knowledge and trim it back to get to a basic game.

Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this: