Digging into the OSE Classic Fantasy Rules Tome.  That is a lot of stuff, in one modest little book.  Quite interesting, thus far.  It's my first exposure to 1981 B/X style games.  I've read that the OSR fanbase, is quite fond of B/X?

It's hard to nail down. 

For some, it's the ease of gameplay. 

Others it's the lack of needing a multi-page book for your character sheet.

For me?  It's the first game I remember playing nearly 40 years ago, and now my group has come full circle, and we are going to dive back into simple and fast combat encounters (and it's straightforward to hack)

No idea, I prefer the OD&D clones or AD&D myself.  Race-as-class hybrids are a deal breaker.

Ok so I'm speaking as someone who doesn't actually care that much for B/X or OD&D-based games (I prefer the AD&D game feel), but as near as I can make it out here's the reason. The OSR movement is largely about stripping out what are perceived as unnecessary accretions to the D&D formula. Common examples being skill points, social mechanics, roleplaying mechanics (such as Traits/Bonds/Flaws), and similar. Of course another part of the movement is adding back in mechanics that have gotten lost (such as exploration turns, reaction rolls, morale etc.), but if you're inclined to strip D&D down, it doesn't get much more stripped down than B/X or OD&D.

The flip side of that is that because the B/X skeleton is so simple, it's easy to build on top of, and easy to maintain compatibility across products from different designers.

Even as someone who prefers AD&D based games, there are elements of B/X that I will say are better. The first one that comes to mind is the three-fold alignment system, which I think makes much more sense than the nine-fold one.

First rpg I ever got, read, and then played in the same day. 11 years old on a Christmas day. What Moldvay B/X had (which at the time I was unaware of) was a clear explanation of what the game was and how it was to be used. There has not been much improvement on Moldvay's presentation and explanation of playing a fantasy roleplaying game since. It is a thing of beauty. It is the last iteration of DnD which clings closely to the pulp-fantasy roots of the games creation. ADnD was created for business reasons while the 1981 Basic rulebook was a fine tuning of the concept Arneson and Gygax hammered out at the game table. What I remember most fondly about this set of rules is it never got in my way of daydreaming about fantasy settings, plots, and adventures. Most other games I got involved in (Hero Games I'm looking at you) demanded more time understanding how the game was to work than leveraging ideas into playable content.

Pretty much what the poster above said.

Only difference is I avoid most 'OSR' clones(theft) and just play good ol BX itself.

The main things are BX is really easy to get into. Has the fewest moving parts without being too few. And whats there gets the job done just fine. The classes work and theres none of the complications of later iterations. Its also like 50% OD&D so those familliar with one can ease into the other without much hassle. In many ways BX is O cleaned up.

BX also lacks the needless overcomplication of BECMI which plagued other games from TSR round that time as well.

It is great for introducing players to D&D without having to take too long. And it has a little control over the random chargen that AD&D and later lack.

It pretty much hits the balance between too simple and too complex. I think it could have benefitted a few more DMs tools. But you can pull that from AD&D as needed.

Quote from: ForgottenF on August 16, 2022, 08:14:52 PM
...
The flip side of that is that because the B/X skeleton is so simple, it's easy to build on top of, and easy to maintain compatibility across products from different designers.
...

This is a big part.

In my opinion: An very underrated part of B/X's popularity is the fact that by the time OD&D was ran thru the Holmes, Moldvay, Cook wringers; it was one of the most play-tested rules sets of all time.

Yes, it has different mechanics for different things, and it can seem a bit quirky looking back at its design from our 2022 lens...

But it just plain works.

It does what it says on the tin, right out of the gate.

There are not that many new RPG's (even OSR games) that can make that claim even today.

Quote from: ForgottenF on August 16, 2022, 08:14:52 PM
Even as someone who prefers AD&D based games, there are elements of B/X that I will say are better. The first one that comes to mind is the three-fold alignment system, which I think makes much more sense than the nine-fold one.

I really prefer the stat modifier spread of B/X over AD&D and 2nd edition. It's one of the first things I'll house rule.

Because it is the best, of course. 

But, really, it is the simplicity. Four classes is really all you need (I might even ditch the cleric but it is too late for that; race as class is restrictive IMO but can be easily ditched). Notice Shadow of the Demon Lord uses the same scheme. 5E free basic rules PDF does e the same. AD&D 2e used it in the perfect way IMO.

OD&D would be even better but it is a mess to read.

Even classes like the ranger or barbarian re easily re-skinned fighters with feats (I'm working on those, out within a week!!).

I feel that most of the complexity added in the TSR era didn't make the game any better than the original. In fact, there are lots of things in B/X that could be simplified (thieves' skills, for example).

I think you could add complexity to B/X and make it even better, but the stuff AD&D added  to OD&D (the strange bard, weapon speed, percentile Strength, etc.) didn't make the game much better than; so I think B/X is the best iteration of OD&D. Simple and almost complete. The RC is nice for more spells and powers without adding many fiddly bits to the original B/X, but again, the weapons and skills are a bit unnecessary complex, and the new classes aren't great IMO.

I'm playing 5e now, but I'm really quite fond of the ACKS extension of B/X's race-as-class, post Player's Companion: the way capabilities are bundled into classes differs between the races. Yes, there are fighty and sneaky and preachy and arcane aspects to elven culture, but they combine in ways that make a party of (Elven Courtier, Elven Enchanter, Elven Ranger) feel different from the equivalent human party of (Bard, Mage, Explorer), even though none of those elves are as multiclassed as Elven Spellswords or Elven Nightblades (F/MU or MU/T). They all draw on a shared elven heritage, without being as identical as core 5e elves or as incoherent as more recent 5e elves. It's also quite explicit that everything but the core four classes are campaign-specific. Some people are doing similar race-as-class work with OSE, I think.

I'm not keen on playing without feats, but ACKS proficiencies or OSE equivalents are just fine for me.

Yep, if you want to strip it down and build it back up, it's a great place to start.  Note that even though I cite BEMCI/RC as my ideal point for that, in reality, what I'm using is more like BEM out of the RC, ignoring some of the build up in it.  The convenience of the RC is hard to ignore when used as a reference, but I've played B/X too--actually, probably more than RC. So not that far from a B/X start.   

Of course, it's naturally great if you want to stay stripped down, and not build anything up, too.

There's nothing wrong with really any of the iterations, official, OSR, or otherwise--in a vacuum.  The problem is things layered on without doing the stripping first. Heck,

- AD&D 1E - Mostly built clean on bare wood, but keeps a few things that were slapdash painted over (admittedly, from an OD&D root rather than B/X, which is why it has the least issues in this regard).
- AD&D 2E - Sanded, caulked, and put on semi-gloss paint over varnish of 1E.  Looks nice in the kitchen, but the stained wood effect is muted.
- 3E - Tried to get down to the wood, but got a little crazy with the power sander.  Missed the point of the baking center.  Had to do some quick repairs with time and budget running out, then waited too long to repaint.  Didn't think the "kitchen triangle" mattered.
- 4E - Went into the mother-in-law suite and tried to build the equivalent in a galley, stainless steel kitchen. Got too cute based on a misunderstanding of the "kitchen triangle" theory. Ended up serving a limited number of cooks.
- 5E - Realized that part of the issues with previous versions was not stripping down properly.  Somehow got the mistaken idea that it was beholden to every version that had ever been done.  Which is how we ended up with a kitchen with a commercial gas range and a 10 cubic foot refrigerator left dumped on the side of the road by college student that had graduated.  Sort of works somehow, but you'd like to hang the interior decorator and the bright idea guy that hooked up all the smart appliances to an under strength wireless adapter on the other side of the house.

Many of the OSR titles are a little more realistic in their appraisals before the work starts.  The cabinets are just fine in the original.  Just needs a new dishwasher.  Maybe the wiring isn't to code, which means you have to take the cabinets, replace the wall plaster, etc, but the intent is to more or less keep the same kitchen updated.  Or at least if you wandered into that kitchen instead of the old one, you'd recognize it as similar.

The game you use as a starting point can really color the effect of the changes, sometime in ways not recognized.  It's better, of course, to absorb the merits and flaws of multiple systems (relative to the new design goals, at least), then strip/build from the best point based on that analysis.  The more that will be stripped, the better a relatively simple base will be.  Heck, even if you are starting new, it's still a good idea to look at how some other games turned out. 

For that reason, B/X is also an excellent game to play before making that decision, even if it isn't used as the base.  I really don't care much for "race as class", when all is said and done, but I'm also glad that I ran with it long enough to see it does have positives, and those do have repercussions throughout the design. 

I used to make fun of race-as-class but it was reading through ACKS (which is B/X-based) which has multiple classes per race but all of them specialized and themed to the race, that it hit me: race-as-class is a crude-but-effective way to make non-humans feel different.

Is it the only way? No. Is it the best way? Probably a matter of taste. But it works.

I grant you this wasn't B/X's intent with the concept (which seems like it was more about simplifying playing demihumans). But ACKS has shown that the concept can be done well. And actually it has roots in BECMI: some of the Mystara gazetteers introduce new racial classes.

Quote from: Cat the Bounty Smuggler on August 17, 2022, 09:26:16 AM
I used to make fun of race-as-class but it was reading through ACKS (which is B/X-based) which has multiple classes per race but all of them specialized and themed to the race, that it hit me: race-as-class is a crude-but-effective way to make non-humans feel different.

Is it the only way? No. Is it the best way? Probably a matter of taste. But it works.

I grant you this wasn't B/X's intent with the concept (which seems like it was more about simplifying playing demihumans). But ACKS has shown that the concept can be done well. And actually it has roots in BECMI: some of the Mystara gazetteers introduce new racial classes.

It also limited the number of players who play demi-humans. I personally prefer the AD&D idea of having racial limits on class as a balancing factor. It seems new D&D has no humans because they a inferior to any non human race in large part because there are only advantages, not limits on playing something other than human.

Quote from: Godsmonkey on August 17, 2022, 09:53:29 AM

Quote from: Cat the Bounty Smuggler on August 17, 2022, 09:26:16 AM
I used to make fun of race-as-class but it was reading through ACKS (which is B/X-based) which has multiple classes per race but all of them specialized and themed to the race, that it hit me: race-as-class is a crude-but-effective way to make non-humans feel different.

Is it the only way? No. Is it the best way? Probably a matter of taste. But it works.

I grant you this wasn't B/X's intent with the concept (which seems like it was more about simplifying playing demihumans). But ACKS has shown that the concept can be done well. And actually it has roots in BECMI: some of the Mystara gazetteers introduce new racial classes.

It also limited the number of players who play demi-humans. I personally prefer the AD&D idea of having racial limits on class as a balancing factor. It seems new D&D has no humans because they a inferior to any non human race in large part because there are only advantages, not limits on playing something other than human.

Yeah, this is a good point as well, and one I don't think most fantasy RPGs I've seen address well at all. On the one hand, I want demihumans to be viable options -- that is, not obviously bad choices -- especially since there's a time and place for demihuman-only campaigns (a party of dwarves retaking an ancestral hold, or a halfling militia protecting their shire, or...). On the other, I also want humans to be the go-to choice for race, as well as some clear reason they have come to dominate the world.

Restricting class selection and restricting levels, which the classic editions all do, seems like the overall best way to do this.  I could see removing the level limits only if you increase the experience requirements dramatically after a certain point. Swords & Wizardry suggests a 50% XP penalty to continue after the level limits, which at first only sets demihumans back one level but slows progression dramatically after name level when the XP curve goes linear.

3e/3.5 wasn't too bad, since it gave humans an extra feat and 4 skill points at first level, which still meant something at the time, and still having negative racial ability score modifiers helped as well. Afterward, though, it's like it's been all non-humans all the time.

Quote from: Cat the Bounty Smuggler on August 17, 2022, 11:43:15 AM

3e/3.5 wasn't too bad, since it gave humans an extra feat and 4 skill points at first level, which still meant something at the time, and still having negative racial ability score modifiers helped as well. Afterward, though, it's like it's been all non-humans all the time.

Humans are inferior in late editions of the game to the point that realistically, the species would either be extinct, or in a zoo in most worlds.

Which is OK if you're playing a game based on Planet of the Apes, but not a typical fantasy game.