Basic Adventure Gaming

Some years back, I decided that I would stop referring to what I do as 'role-playing' and instead refer to these things (what I once called "RPGs") as "fantasy adventure games" (or "FAGs," for short). I know I was doing this as early as 2013, because I was very deliberate in my omission of any phrases of "role-playing" in my self-published Five Ancient Kingdoms game. You see, I wanted to end any confusion over how I (as a designer) intended my games to be played.

Of course, the term "fantasy adventure game" is not original to my noggin...I'm fairly sure I stole the term directly from my copy of Moldvay. "Fantasy Adventure Game Basic Booklet" it says, right there on the cover (the Cook/Marsh expert set says "Fantasy Adventure Game Expert Booklet"). The first paragraph of Moldvay's introduction begins:

DUNGEONS & DRAGONS Fantasy Adventure Game ("The D&D Game" for short) is a role-playing adventure game for persons 10 years and older...

It's a good term for what the game is about..."fantasy adventure," duh...and, I believe, helps put one in the mindset of what we're supposed to be doing when we sit down at the gaming table. Let there be no confusion! We are here to play a game of fantasy adventure; we are not here to play-act, explore alternate personalities, or craft delightful narratives...all things the "role-playing" term has come to represent.

For the most part, I've approached my entire role-playing hobby in this way...and why not, when my introduction to the hobby was the D&D game?...even with game systems that are clearly not conducive to this style of play. Or rather, I did...up until the early 2000s when I started reading RPG theory over at the Forge and recognizing how different systems facilitate different types of play.

So, yeah...I've been a fantasy adventure gamer (a "FAG") for a long time. 40+ years. And yet I understand that my view of how to use these games is different from the majority opinion these days. Which is why I decided to start distinguishing myself (and, yes, distancing myself) from the "role-playing" terminology. Not because I don't see what I do as "playing a role-playing games" (a genre of entertainment distinct from board games or computer games), but because my approach to how one plays an RPG is so foreign to the majority of the community...even that part of the community purporting to play Dungeons & Dragons, the FIRST fantasy adventure game.

I'm not the only one. I've previously mentioned the growing CAG community ("CAG" is an acronym for classic adventure gaming...I suppose the term "FAG" was found to be problematic...), a splinter group of the "old school" scene that exist mainly to 'keep the flame' of adventure gaming alive, in the same way that the early OSR tried to keep alive "old edition" gaming: by discussion, encouragement, and sharing of 'best practice' wisdom from old timers, not to mention just playing. In terms of the overall hobby, CAG style play can be seen as a niche of a niche: "old variety D&D" is enjoying the same proliferation and popularity one sees in the current (5th+) edition of D&D, but even among the folks who play old edition D&D (or its clones, like OSE) there is a lot of misunderstanding, misinformation, and inaccurate assumptions of what game-play is supposed to look like. The CAG folks aren't (especially) trying to rectify that, but they are trying to be a repository for knowledge, and a resource for folks looking for a way of playing these games in this particular style.

"This particular style." Yeah, I know how I sound. I'm trying to avoid writing "teaching people how to play D&D the correct way," because I know that ruffles feathers. Ruffling feathers isn't my objective today. Definitely not my objective.

*ahem* For more information on CAG, I'd suggest checking out the semi-regular CAG podcast, especially the first couple/three episodes. For shorter summaries, you can read Zherbus or EOTB's blog postings which are fair summations of CAG gaming philosophy. Both of these folks are strong proponents of 1E AD&D (and OSRIC, 1E's retroclone), for the simple reason that it is the system that best facilitates this type of play (a perspective I happen to agree with). 

But the question has come up: Can Basic systems (like B/X, BECMI, Holmes, Labyrinth Lord, Old School Essentials, etc.) be used for CAG play? And, if so, how?

The answer to the first question is decidedly "yes." The answer to the second is...longer.

The basic games (Holmes, Moldvay, and Mentzer) were all initially intended to act as introductions to the D&D game. It is only with the additional Mentzer volumes (the Companion, Master, and Immortal rule sets) that the "D&D" game (distinct from Advanced D&D, i.e. AD&D, the main product line of TSR for the majority of its existence) became something that could be considered a "complete" game system...a system of its own, standing in its own right.

This latter edition (called BECMI, later consolidated in Aaron Alston's Rules Cyclopedia, sometimes referred to as the "RC") is something I didn't play when it was first published (i.e 'in the days of my youth'). My friends and I played AD&D, although we did pick up some of the BECMI offerings (for 'reasons'). But there was a LOT of stuff for this line that hit the shelves...I've always assumed it was a popular game line at the time, which is why they created so much content for it (setting material in the form of Gazetteers, game accessories, adventure modules for all levels of play). Decades later (in the early 2000s) I acquired a lot of it and messed around with it a bit, thinking there might be something there. 

Meh.

Only recently, I've been hipped to the fact that it might not have been a very popular game line at all...at least in the USA. However, this Mentzer-penned version of "basic" was the version first translated (officially) into other languages and sold overseas. The 1E PHB and DMG were translated into both French and German, but Mentzer's Basic set (and the BECMI line) was translated to French, German, Danish, Finnish, Hebrew, Italian, Japanese, Norwegian, Portuguese, Korean, Spanish, and Swedish. For many countries outside the United States, Basic D&D was the seminal, defining version of the game.

I'm digressing. As said, the original Basic sets were meant to be a "gateway" to the AD&D game (as it was for me)...but that wasn't necessarily the case in other parts of the world.  Then TSR crashed and we didn't see, hear, or care about these "basic" games until the rise of the OSR circa 2007-9.

Mm.

This next part is tricky. The OSR didn't treat these Basic editions as "introductory" systems; quite the contrary, they looked at them as editions of D&D worth being played in and for themselves. There were a lot of reasons for this. Ease/accessibility was a major reason: they are short systems to read with less nuance. Their rules were so uncomplicated and simple that creating additional, compatible material (a thrilling pastime for creatives) was a cinch. And...probably...there was a lot of familiarity and nostalgia with these systems, especially in light of A) the OSR being an international community, plus B) Mentzer's Basic being the "standard" D&D most widely translated across countries/cultures.

They were also some of the earliest retroclones on the market. Labyrinth Lord wasn't written as an 'introduction' to anything, and its Advanced Edition Companion gave people additional (1st Edition) content, adapted to the Basic chassis. Lamentations of the Flame Princess used basic D&D as a vehicle for exploring all sorts of grimness. OSE simply re-organized the B/X books in a way to make them even more user friendly than they already were.  None of them were designed, nor seemed interested, in being a gateway or bridge to a more Advanced game. These clones were created by different, independent publishers (with different, independent motivations), NOT by a single, gigantic corporation hoping to funnel newbs to its flagship product. 

So...back to that second question.

When one understands the objectives of "adventure gaming," one can begin to see the limitations inherent in a game designed first and foremost as an introduction to the "real game" (the Advanced Dungeons & Dragons game written and published concurrently with the first 'Basic' set). Most of the stated attributes of adventure gaming (again, looking at the two cited blog posts above) are easily satisfied even with a basic system of procedures. However, the overall objective/goal of fantasy adventure gaming is long term campaign play...sustained play in an enduring fantasy environment, created by the DM and impacted by the players. Despite the ease and accessibility of the various basic rule sets, their systems have several insufficiencies that hinder long term play. These are:

1. Severe lack of distinction between character type. The basic character falls into one of seven categoric class, is defined by one of three alignments, and has an extremely limited selection of equipment and magic spells with which to choose. Variation between ability scores is compressed (seven possible options for each ability) contributing to a marked "sameness" between PCs. For an introduction to the game, this limited selection is more than adequate; it cuts down on the amount of "analysis paralysis" inherent in a new player approaching a complex game. For long-term engagement, however, more distinction and variety is desirable. AD&D offers 36 class variations (interlocking with race), another score of multi-class options, several times the number of armor and weapon selections, and four distinct spell lists, each of which contains more 1st level spells than any spell list in the basic systems. The variety in the advanced game is sufficient without being overwhelming, providing much "replay" value (in terms of exploring different character types for interacting with the D&D environment).

2. Lack of survivability. This has been discussed before: basic characters are fairly fragile at low levels, easily slain by misadventure. Lack of staying power is a barrier to long-term play, requiring more work on the part of both DM and players to ensure surviving to higher levels of play (a desirable outcome as it opens more content for players and DMs to experience). AD&D increases survivability by providing higher hit dice for most character classes, a negative hit point "buffer," and plentiful healing magic from clerical types even beginning at 1st level.

3. Less opportunity for advancement. Basic systems award x.p. for both combat and treasure found (just as in AD&D) but does so at a lesser rater: fewer x.p. are awarded for monsters and treasure x.p. is only awarded for monetary treasure (magical items being deemed as 'their own reward'). True, x.p. totals for advancement are slightly lower than in the Advanced game, but in practice, far more x.p. is awarded in the Advanced game, especially with the potential to sell magic items for exorbitant amounts of gold and x.p. This procedure in first edition AD&D allows characters to continue to rise at a regular pace, even as the x.p. totals needed for advancement rise to six- and seven-digit figures. Treasure pools for monsters also have a tendency to award more treasure than what is given for the hoards of basic monsters; type H treasure (the best available in B/X) awards an average haul valued at 50,000 g.p. Considering that H treasure only occurs in dragon lairs...and that 50K split seven or eight ways is quite a small amount for name level characters requiring 100K-150K each for advancement...that is a lot of risk for comparatively small reward. As basic game PCs rise in level, advancement has the potential to stifle which, coupled with low survivability, is a bad recipe for "long term" play.

4. Lack of options for mid- to high-level play. Even when a basic campaign awards sufficient treasure for regular advancement, there is precious little to spend all that money on. Basic games require no training costs, no upkeep costs, have a shorter list of "buy" options available, and prices of items are quite depreciated (consider that plate armor costs a measly 60 g.p. in basic play and is available to all but the poorest of 1st level characters). Basic rules provide no rules for item depreciation/destruction, and thus there is never a need to replace or repair equipment for hirelings and retainers. While the Expert sets of both B/X and BECMI provide some guidelines for the building of castes and strongholds, only Mentzer's Companion and Master books make any real attempt at providing "domain" (rulership) rules...and these are poorly done, providing heaps of unearned x.p. on the heads of domain rulers for doing little more than raising taxes on their populations. True, there is some impetus for conquest provided in the Companion book (if only to gain higher titles of nobility), but the "War Machine" system is extremely limited in scope (meanwhile, neither Holmes nor B/X offer any such systems, referring DMs to the out-of-print Sword & Spells for handling mass combat). 

I admit that Mentzer's BECMI system strives mightily to provide options for high level characters: proto-prestige classes, combat maneuvers, higher level spells, demihuman "crafts," powerful monster antagonists, and codified quests for immortality. But, for all practical purposes, these options remain far out of reach due to the lack of advancement opportunity (#3 above) which makes the achievement of Companion (15th-25th) level characters next to impossible to achieve. Such characters require well in excess of 1 million g.p. worth of treasure...the equivalent of 20 average sized dragon hoards...each, in order to reach such lofty heights. Personally, I've found 12th level to be just about the maximum effective in (standard) B/X play, and even that requires impractically large treasure hoards (a four ox wagon can only pull 25,000 coins weight; a bag of holding in basic can only hold 10,000 coins). Any character with half a million in gold coins has the cash to purchase multiple castle complexes given the procedures in the basic rules.

And I imagine that was deemed just fine by the original designers. Buy your castle, retire your character...and then graduate to the Advanced D&D game for your next go around. Buying a castle and settling down in your gold stuffed halls should be considered a "win."

But fantasy adventure gaming is not played with a particular endpoint in mind. Some characters will, of course, "retire"...especially demi-humans who've reached the level limits and are unable to progress further. For the majority of human characters, however, AD&D has no hard cap, no limitation to advancement; like the campaign itself, adventurers' careers have the potential to be perpetual, ongoing without end. In theory, basic characters (both B/X and BECMI) have a 36 level cap which should probably be all but unreachable, even after years of play...but the game does not scale nearly as well as it does in the AD&D game. Demons in BECMI are equivalent to (lesser) gods, not beasts to be fought in the deepest dungeon levels or (more usually) on the outer planes. And while Mentzer included his own version of artifacts in the Master set, they do not function nor serve the same purpose of reward as the artifacts and relics found in the 1E DMG (hint: there's a reason Gygax gives these items a sale value in gold).

So for those folks wishing to play a simpler, streamlined "basic" system with long-term CAG objectives, what can be done to remove these inherent impediments?

1. Increase character variability. The interlocking combination of race and class has generally been found to be sufficient for providing diversity in character choice. Labyrinth Lord's Advanced Edition Companion (and, presumably, OSE Advanced) takes pains to adapt 1E's system to the basic style and can be adopted wholesale...these games also tend to recreate the extended spell lists and equipment charts of 1E, but in a "basic" style. Solid world building with attention paid to markets and economy, and one's own setting-specific character options can also provide variety for players. The Complete B/X Adventurer provides a plethora of character options and new character classes, although the latter are meant to be used sparingly in better tailoring one's setting, not dropped in their entirety into a campaign.

2. Increase character survivability. Basic characters start to hit their stride around 3rd level, and one can simply start PCs at that level; likewise, DMs might add negative HP buffers, higher hit dice, and bonus spells (based on WIS or INT scores for clerics and magic-users, respectively). However, the main consideration for basic groups is to ensure they have enough bodies in their adventuring parties: 7+ is generally the fewest you want to see, and hired mercenaries (like the kind found in adventure module B2) should be readily available to low-level parties needing to 'fill out the ranks.' Special attention should be paid to both the Reaction and Morale procedures in the basic system, and both the DM and players should understand how these work, as 'breaking' foes (especially humanoids) is generally going to pay higher dividends than fighting them to the death. Fierce as a single ogre is, it is less likely to kill half a party than five to seven bandits/humanoids (all those attack rolls!)...especially ones armed with missile weapons. DMs need to take a look at what makes a "survivable" encounter for low level characters: the Tower of Zenopus example dungeon in Holmes basic, and adventure module B1 are both good resources in this regard. Also, it is incredibly important that DMs stock enough treasure that players are leveling up to more sturdy levels of experience as quickly as possible.

3. Provide sufficient treasure. Unless one adopts the AD&D system of awarding x.p. for magic items, and higher award totals for defeating monsters, DMs will need to find ways to stock immense amounts of coin and valuables for the players to advance. It should not be unusual for PCs to be 3rd level after 4-6 sessions of play (depending on character type and diligence in sniffing out loot), given a bit of luck and survival. Unfortunately it is difficult to sustain such progress even into the mid-levels, as I first noted waaay back in 2010...it is simply a flaw of design. However, one idea I had back then was to slash all x.p. requirements (i.e. the amount of x.p. needed to advance in level) by a factor of five or ten, while retaining the normal treasure hoard amounts and monster x.p. values. So, for example, a fighter's progression might look like this:

1st level: 0 x.p.

2nd level: 400 x.p.

3rd level: 800 x.p.

4th level: 1,600 x.p.

5th level: 3,200 x.p.

6th level: 6,400 x.p.

7th level: 12,800 x.p.

8th level: 24,000 x.p.

9th level: 48,000 x.p.

10th level: 72,000 x.p.

With an advancement table like this, a 50K dragon hoard split amongst eight survivors is a nice chunk of change: enough to raise a 6th level fighter to 7th or make a good size dent in a higher level character's x.p. needs.

4. Provide options for PCs of higher levels. Reducing the x.p. needed to advance alleviates some of the pressure to provide overflowing piles of gold and gemstones, but players must still have monetary needs to drain their coffers and perpetuate the cycle of treasure seeking. Here, solid world building will help, providing all manner of costs and expenses as well as delightful ostentations for purchase. DMs can, of course, adopt upkeep costs, item saving throws, and training fees from the 1E DMG...but then, why not just play AD&D?

More than that, game play needs to be scaled so that it remains interesting  even as play progresses...players should not be taking the same approach to monster fighting at 8th or 13th level as at 1st and 2nd. Here, a DM might well want to look at the later BECMI books (Companion and Master) for rules and procedures that are adaptable even down to 9th level (I would NOT however adopt the weapon specialization rules for low-level characters as it can disrupt game balance in the same way the UA's weapon specialization rules do). Likewise, DMs might wish to take a look at my own B/X Companion which provides a great deal of material specifically geared for high (15th+) level B/X play. Both "companion" books provide a number of new procedures (including unarmed and mass combat rules) in addition to a ton of new "content" (spells, monsters, magic items). For that matter, DMs looking for content might want to look at my last book Comes Chaos for a host of demonic entities and corrupted magic items, great for tarting up one's mid- to high level B/X campaign.  

The main thing, however, is to understand that there's going to be a lot of work involved in adapting a Basic rule system to the needs of long-term campaign play. While AD&D has requires a bit more work up front (learning to use its system) in comparison to the basic games, once learned it provides depth of game play from 1st up through the highest levels, needing only world building and adventure writing on the part of the DM to maintain solid, satisfying play. The basic system is incredibly easy to learn and run, but to make it an enduring form of play (i.e. the kind of play worth spending time out of our busy schedules) requires far more effort, not just in tweaking and experimenting with modifications to rules, but in designing adventures and developing content. Sure, there are sources for this content to be found: bestiaries, tomes of magic items, or various retroclones (and their supplements) with setting specific particulars...but searching out that content and curating it requires work. By contrast, I've yet to use every monster presented in original 1E Monster Manual, let alone the Fiend Folio and MM2, and there are spells and magic items from the original PHB and DMG that haven't yet been seen at my table...after decades of play.

Just saying.

That work, that effort that goes into making a basic game system a sustainable form of play can be fun at first...look at my blog as evidence of that! All the tinkering I did with B/X over the first 10-12 years of its life...but over time can lead to frustration and (in my case) ennui. The mature, adventure focused Dungeon Master wants to spend his or her time on world building and scenario creation, not hand holding and system modification, but the shallowness of basic game play requires BOTH those things in order to make it last and function ("hand holding" being a shorthand for customizing the game in a way that it doesn't kill the PCs nor bore the players out of engagement). YES, it CAN be done...but do you want to? Is that a price you're willing to pay just because you don't want to spend some time parsing the AD&D rule books?

There's a reason I'm not playing B/X these days...and it's not because I don't still think it's a great simple system that can be readily taught and is easily customizable in a multitude of ways. B/X IS a "fantasy adventure game;" it's just not a great one when it comes to sustained, long-term play. And at this point in my life, that's pretty much the only type of game play I'm interested in.