The algorithm is listening... This video popped up in my youtube recommended thread last night! 

Quote from: Steven Mitchell on May 07, 2025, 02:16:10 PM

Quote from: Jason Coplen on May 07, 2025, 01:20:49 PMA problem with Basic is that the demi-humans are too typecast. An elf is an elf with no variety. That's the creators setting version, and not mine. I want all sorts of types of elves, and dwarves, and hobbits.

We thought nothing of Basic when Adanced came out. A few years later half the D&D groups were playing RuneQuest and Rolemaster and Tunnels & Trolls. I'm not saying Basic sucks, but there's reasons everyone left it in the past. It does get a ton of attention in the OSR, though. Beats me as to why.

There's some magic in B/X that defies categorization. For me, I didn't care for race as class. Heck, it still isn't my preference. If anything, I'd go the other extreme, with race being even more split up. Likewise, there were a few additions to spells and monsters and what not that I like better in AD&D. 

But as far as rules go, I'd still play RC over AD&D now.  It's also funny to me that there have been several OSR products that are essentially going for B/X simplicity with AD&D options. Clearly, that kind of effort strikes a chord in people. However, they all draw the lines in slightly different places--and none of them draw the lines where I would exactly.

So I'd say that people are chasing that magic--the magic of the original experience with B/X as it was and the prospect of a similar magic without some of the things that annoyed at the time.

"Chasing the Magic of the Original Experience", describes this whole dang hobby for most of us.  I came in via a small groups' AD&D homebrew.  Numerous things were simplified.  It was like make believe, with a bunch of dice rolls mixed in.

Quote from: Jason Coplen on May 07, 2025, 01:20:49 PM

Quote from: SHARK on May 07, 2025, 08:01:11 AMAD&D was THE REAL RULES, FOR THE COOL PEOPLE! *Laughing*

People nowadays get all excited about BX D&D, but honestly, back in the day, noone gave a fuck about Basic D&D at all. It was laughed at and mocked, or just consigned to being the basic starter set D&D. It was not taken seriously or viewed as a serious game or a serious rule set like AD&D was seen. The basic game was fine, but the real rules were to be found in AD&D. I remember Dragon Magazine talking about the new upcoming AD&D rules, and noone paid any attention to Basic D&D. At the D&D clubs at school, everyone was excited and talking about AD&D, and certainly not Basic D&D.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

A problem with Basic is that the demi-humans are too typecast. An elf is an elf with no variety. That's the creators setting version, and not mine. I want all sorts of types of elves, and dwarves, and hobbits.

We thought nothing of Basic when Adanced came out. A few years later half the D&D groups were playing RuneQuest and Rolemaster and Tunnels & Trolls. I'm not saying Basic sucks, but there's reasons everyone left it in the past. It does get a ton of attention in the OSR, though. Beats me as to why.

Greetings!

Yeah, Jason! "Race as Class" just seems very dumb to me, and limiting. I know Basic D&D is all the rage with the OSR now, but I have mixed feelings about Basic D&D. It's an ok game set, though I think AD&D is superior. I like AD&D for many reasons, though one outstanding attribute is opening up to greater degree of complexity and options than Basic D&D, while not going to the same deep end for example as Rolemaster.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Quote from: blackstone on May 07, 2025, 03:24:37 PM

Quote from: RNGm on May 06, 2025, 10:44:24 AMThanks again for all the responses.  It does seem like folks graduated right out of basic into Expert or AD&D pretty quickly then instead of sticking with it for a while which admittedly was the point.

At the time, I think there were several reasons for this shift

I agree. Just to add support to this - I'd note the sales statistics from TSR that were shared a few years ago.

https://mystical-trash-heap.blogspot.com/2022/08/d-historical-sales-data.html

During all of TSR's history,

AD&D Players Handbook (1e + 2e) : 2.35 million
Basic Sets (all versions): 3.0 million
Expert Set: 0.62 million
Companion Set: 0.54 million

So the Basic Sets were really popular as a beginner's entrance to the game. I'd presume that a lot of people tried Basic and didn't keep playing. For those who did continue playing, the Expert and Companion sets were much less popular than AD&D.

Quote from: jhkim on May 08, 2025, 06:41:12 PM

Quote from: blackstone on May 07, 2025, 03:24:37 PM

Quote from: RNGm on May 06, 2025, 10:44:24 AMThanks again for all the responses.  It does seem like folks graduated right out of basic into Expert or AD&D pretty quickly then instead of sticking with it for a while which admittedly was the point.

At the time, I think there were several reasons for this shift

I agree. Just to add support to this - I'd note the sales statistics from TSR that were shared a few years ago.

https://mystical-trash-heap.blogspot.com/2022/08/d-historical-sales-data.html

During all of TSR's history,

AD&D Players Handbook (1e + 2e) : 2.35 million
Basic Sets (all versions): 3.0 million
Expert Set: 0.62 million
Companion Set: 0.54 million

So the Basic Sets were really popular as a beginner's entrance to the game. I'd presume that a lot of people tried Basic and didn't keep playing. For those who did continue playing, the Expert and Companion sets were much less popular than AD&D.

Interesting numbers.

Quote from: RNGm on May 08, 2025, 03:23:23 PMThe algorithm is listening... This video popped up in my youtube recommended thread last night! 

It's always listening LOL

Quote from: SHARK on May 08, 2025, 06:27:46 PMGreetings!

Yeah, Jason! "Race as Class" just seems very dumb to me, and limiting. I know Basic D&D is all the rage with the OSR now, but I have mixed feelings about Basic D&D. It's an ok game set, though I think AD&D is superior. I like AD&D for many reasons, though one outstanding attribute is opening up to greater degree of complexity and options than Basic D&D, while not going to the same deep end for example as Rolemaster.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

I don't have a problem with the idea of 'race as class' but I do prefer how ACKS does it with racial classes.
On one hand, we don't want players to treat demi-humans/whatever as just humans in funny suits, but then they essentially are as they have the same jobs, ideals, outlooks, etc. as humans. Race as class may be monolithic but it was one way of showing that humans were 'different'.

Racial classes as mentioned at least give some variety but can still add some kind of differentiation between the groups instead of oh look, elf cleric, elf thief, dwarf cleric. AD&D tried to keep some of that with multi-classing and those limits (Half-Orc cleric/assassin, etc.).

Modern D&D has thrown all of that out the window.

Quote from: jhkim on May 08, 2025, 06:41:12 PMDuring all of TSR's history,

AD&D Players Handbook (1e + 2e) : 2.35 million
Basic Sets (all versions): 3.0 million
Expert Set: 0.62 million
Companion Set: 0.54 million

So the Basic Sets were really popular as a beginner's entrance to the game. I'd presume that a lot of people tried Basic and didn't keep playing. For those who did continue playing, the Expert and Companion sets were much less popular than AD&D.

That is very interesting especially given the drop off from basic to expert.   I obviously expected some drop off both from folks who forked into AD&D or just stopped playing but, given how closely the two are linked both in the past and now in the OSR, I wasn't expecting an almost 80% drop.

Quote from: SHARK on May 08, 2025, 06:27:46 PMYeah, Jason! "Race as Class" just seems very dumb to me, and limiting.

That's because you're a jarhead. Get with the program, Shark. Race-as-class is superior for enforcing stereotypes and, in my opinion, allows non-humans to seem slightly more alien in the sense that they have a cohesive identity.

In all seriousness though, I think for certain kinds of games limiting some races to a simple archetype is good if you're trying to create a humanocentric game. AD&D sort of did this by basically forcing some races into some classes (Halfing Thief, MAYBE FT), but then OA threw that out the window to some degree. D&D 3 said fuck that, and then demihumans basically became nothing more than humans with funny faces. So while it can be limiting for sure, I think it cuts down on a lot of the dumb crap that came afterwards. If tieflings were ONLY allowed to be rogues, for instance, how many would you actually see in the average D&D 5 game?

Quote from: Tristan on May 09, 2025, 03:05:10 PMI don't have a problem with the idea of 'race as class' but I do prefer how ACKS does it with racial classes.

How does ACKS do it (differently)?

Quote from: RNGm on May 09, 2025, 04:35:53 PM

Quote from: Tristan on May 09, 2025, 03:05:10 PMI don't have a problem with the idea of 'race as class' but I do prefer how ACKS does it with racial classes.

How does ACKS do it (differently)?

ACKS has multiple racial classes.  A couple of choices in the initial rules, then more added with supplements.  I believe that ACKS 2 includes more, but I haven't picked it up yet.  So for example you can play the standard elf that is much like the B/X elf fighter/magic user.  Or you can pick the elf that is more of a thief/magic user. But you can't just do whatever you want with an elf.  Note that when I say "much like" it's not an exact fit.  So there are little edge cases that make them stand out. 

Thanks.  So basically just a choice of which racial class rather than just a one size fits all.

Yep.

For example, Human Explorer vs Elven Ranger or Human Assassin vs Elven Nightblade.

They have their own racial and cultural  twists that make them each unique.

ACKs II also does an excellent job of updating the ACKs I Player's Companion class construction rules so building your own is pretty straight forward.

Makes the Dwarven Vaultguard feel like an actual "Dwarf" Fighter and such...

Race as class came from a time when the designers envisioned class not as just a job within the party. Your class represented who you were, rather than just a profession. The modern development of D&D treats classes as just jobs with multiclassing sort of like picking up a college minor, sometimes with multiple carreer paths picking up a level or two of this, a level or two of that, resulting in no real identity that is meaningful for any character. The races are just appearances that are worn while practicing these mish mash carreers. It is the ultimate expression of ADHDAD&D.

Race as class also removes some of the downfalls of regular D&D. Too many classes to choose from.
Things were fine with AD&D. But 2e went class-happy and by the end of the run there were dozens of class variants for every class allmost.

With BX its all neat and simple boom-boom done and off you go!