The actual difference between Basic and Advanced

 In short: Basic favors direct application of role-playing over tactical density, Advanced favors tactical density over direct role-playing.

A hot take: 2e is not an advanced game, simply because the tactical density was severely reduced as compared to 1e.

Perhaps neither of these are shocking discoveries, but I haven't seen this point made anywhere else.

A longer explanation:

I have often thought of why AD&D is called Advanced.  The first, and most obvious, answer is that it is more complex, and while, yes, AD&D is more complex, this doesn't fully fit what AD&D (1e) is exactly.  Because, one should think, needless complexity would tend to ruin a game.

For a long while, I was stuck, specifically I was stuck on one element of AD&D which seemed to be relatively needless: the weapon vs. armor table.  This table:

It just didn't click.  Why was this necessary?

Until I realized something: Despite the complexity involved, I want to add this to my game.  At first it didn't make any logical sense, as it seemed to go against my ideals in game design.  But it did offer something I lacked, and that was a way to make each and every weapon truly different.

Tactical Density

My theory, as it stands, is that this table does not stand for the problems which exist in AD&D1e, but rather it shows exactly what the game has to offer in comparison to Basic.

The Advanced game is not designed to be needlessly complex, but rather to be sufficiently tactically dense.

In this case, I would define tactical density as: The number of meaningful choices being made (by the players) relative to the game at large.

This is not to say that it abandons role-playing, either in part or in full, just that it tries to make every choice have meaningful impact on the game.  To make it so that the choices made by the players have consequences is, I feel, is an eminently good thing.

The fact that, as a character, your actions have consequences (just as in real life) needs to be ingrained into the head of every player, from the very start, until it becomes second nature.

The hope then, is that, being immersed in this way of thinking, and indeed the Advanced style of play providing no escape from it, the players will have no choice but to play the game as if their characters were real people.

It is a big hope, and AD&D isn't perfect, but, as far as I know, there is no ttrpg that has gone further with this idea.

 My Weapon vs Armor Table

My one objection to the original list is that it doesn't go far enough, so I compiled the above table.  Now the impact of what weapon the player chooses is so extreme that it cannot be ignored.  If this is a good thing or not remains to be seen.  Or just use a partisan.

Be seeing you.





Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

An unhinged review of Baptism of Fire

Image
 For quick reference: when it comes to setting material I would set Oriental adventures at a 5 and most modern shlock as 1. [1] BoF comes in at a 3 for setting material Is this an attack on the author? No.   A ridiculous idea to any sane man, I know, but this will be important later. In point of fact, I happen to like it.   The overall quality I would put at a 5, with the layout being a 4.   In Specific When I read through setting material, I like to find those pieces which scream flavor. The introduction could have been half the length and gotten across the same information, this is due in part to the introduction being repeated, it appears in the first page of the actual book, and again in the introduction section, a minor annoyance.  In Character Creation 3d6 standard is respectable, but a piece of real interest, in the form of social class presents itself immediately afterward.  Though I like the system provided, I still found it lacking, at l...
Read more

There are only three gaming cultures

 Those who joined the hobby from playing board games, those who joined the hobby from playing video games and those who joined the hobby having played no games. Some establishing information Wargaming, as it existed before D&D (excluding Braunstein-like material) could be considered a subset of the board game hobby.  That is, from at least one key viewpoint: the players involved read the rules, and followed those rules.  As well, the boardgame hobby tends towards trying out new games, often every week (this from observation), and the wargaming hobby, again of the late 60s/early 70s seems, also from observation, to have been similar in this aspect as well. The thesis 1. Those who played the game at its inception were those individuals drawn from the war-game hobby. 2. Due to the advancing popularity of video games, at or around the 1990s and culminating during the 3rd edition of the game, those who joined the hobby came from the background of playing video games. 3....
Read more

The W40k Rant

 I don't like the lore, I don't like the gameplay, I don't like the company who makes it.  My seething fury towards this terrible game was started by three separate incidents, relating directly to the three issues above, but which do not encompass the whole of my distaste for this game.  The three events would be: A frankly off-putting lore video, the first and last I can remember attempting to watch, before being quickly deterred.  The fact that the official rules require actual physical miniatures, all of which are purposely and prohibitively expensive.  And finally, an event which occurred long before I was aware of it: that the company had copyrighted the term "space marine" a horribly generic term which they had the gall to claim.   Now, I do not know the current situation regarding the copyright, but the rest still stands. Furthermore The lore. The video which I found, this was years ago by now, and I believe I have thoroughly forgotten which cha...
Read more