Basic Fantasy Role Playing Game

[kesher]

Basic Fantasy Role Playing Game

Okay, I knew about this game, in fact I think I even downloaded a much earlier version of the rules at one point.

However, I was not aware of just how much stuff has been created for it! Pretty amazing, and of course easily portable into any ODDish system.

[kesher]

* It occurs to me this might have been better placed in the Simulacrum Games forum...

[tombowings]

Wow. I'll have to check some of this out. I didn't realize Basic Fantasy had so much of a following. It isn't talked about as much as, say, Labyrinth Lord.

[kesher]

I know, which seems weird--very robust support!

[Aplus]

I think most of what goes on with BFRPG happens on Dragonsfoot, which I personally don't frequent. Also, it is an entirely non-commercial effort, so there is no real reason for its creators to "promote" it.

Basic Fantasy RPG was the first "old school" game I tried with my home group. I love almost everything about it. The only thing it has going against it is that you can't get it at a game store and it doesn't say "Dungeons & Dragons" on the cover.

It's a very polished game, the source open office docs are excellent, man, I could go on and on. The supplements all have a nice, uniform look. Also, I think Chris Gonnerman created this in the 3E days because he wanted something simpler than 3E to play with his daughter. You gotta love that!

Anyways, I think it's a great game to get out there. I think it deserves more love in our circles. It's clearly a labor of love.

Here's a brief post I did about it last year:
peoplethemwithmonsters.blogspot.com/2011/05/thanks-for-basic-fantasy-rpg.html

[cadriel]

The BFRPG stuff is solid in quality. I'm not overly fond of all the module presentation bits - the checkboxes for monster HP are a nice thought but take up too much space, and I'm not a fan of boxed text - but there are some good dungeons for it. The variant classes are all a bit idiosyncratic for my taste. I also happen to think, with some slight tweaking, that BFRPG is a better clone of OD&D than Swords & Wizardry. If I liked the Moldvay style ability bonuses I'd probably want to use it, but since I don't....well, I still sometimes think about downloading the OpenOffice docs and modding the hell out of it.

[kesher]

I think you're both making a really good point there, too, about how open it really is. All on a well-organized website, too. And the rulebook has particularly decent art for free product...

[Mike]

It's was the first retro I played too. I didn't stick with it because the first session wasn't a success (nothing to do with the game) and never went back to it.

I suppose the only thing that doesn't grab is the D&D3.0 armour class.

[Arminath]

99% of the goings on for BFRPG are at the DF forums. Chris (Solomoriah) has a long history of listening to people's suggestions and incorporating them into BFRPG if they fit the Cook/Marsh B/X feel the game has. Most of the content available on his site for download has either been fan created or created by him from his own campaign (talk about old school DIY). He didn't make BFRPG as a profit item, but as a fun thing that took off and gained a following from its players and others that found it.

I've played it, and contributed to it and enjoy what comes out when I'm not playing my Onn retro-game.

Even if you don't play BFRPG, there's alot of content out there that's 99% compatible with 1981 D&D and back.

James

[Falconer]

It has been ages since I’ve looked at BFRPG. It looks like a decent set that I wouldn’t blanch from using. I would guess LL has gained an edge in the blogosphere due to embracing ’70s weirdness more (compare the cover art/design), Dan’s active building up of Goblinoid Games and LL as brands with proper cult followings, and finally the Original Edition Characters and Advanced Edition Companion have been great successes (now also Realms of Crawling Chaos).

[Mr. Darke]

I love BFRPG and I have been using it for my own personal OD&D for awhile now. It is a nice, solid games and handles using things not from BFRPG very well. I have used the S&W monster book and the RC with it and have not had a problem.

I downloaded the Labyrinth Lord pdf and was not as impressed with it as I was BFRPG.

[inkmeister]

BFRPG was my introduction to old-school games. It and Delving Deeper are my two favorite clones.

I think BFRPG is often misunderstood in the forums and blogosphere. People say it's a less faithful Moldvay clone than Labyrinth Lord, and that it is really like 3rd edition re-written to be old-school. All of that is based on little things like ascending armor class, mainly. It's a really solid little game.

I really like the rule's presentation, and find it easier to work with than Labyrinth Lord, and find it to be really quite close to B/X, pretty much as much so as Labyrinth Lord, just in different ways.

I prefer the ascending armor class. That's a touchy subject for a lot of people, and my preference isn't because I can't subtract, but rather because I prefer bonuses work in the same direction for the purpose of helping newbies "get it."

Compared to Moldvay B/X, here you have all your monsters in one convenient spot.

Some things to beware of: the attack progression slightly nerfs the fighter and slightly boosts the cleric and magic user; I feel that it is already too close in OD&D/Basic.

The random magic items tables don't favor magic swords anywhere near as much as D&D, thus weakening fighters relative to clerics if you randomly generate treasure.

Some spells are obviously quite tweaked, including haste (much nerfed, IIRC).

Not a complete list. Overall, it's so easy to turn BFRPG into what you want, that I think it is a fantastic game. And it's not produced for profit.

[blackbarn]

Easily my favorite of the unofficial D&D's out there. I have played it, and love the little tweaks he made to make it run smoother and smarter than the original (IMO). I still play "real" D&D more often, but am supportive of BFRPG. It's a great game.

[Mr. Darke]

As far as the fighter 'nerfing' goes I remember that there was a discussion on attack progressions that lead to this. The main idea was that the attack progressions in D&D lead to mainly fighters gaining 'auto-hits' based on their attack bonuses. The toning down of the progression was partially due to combat this and make higher level fighters still have a chance to miss in combat. The result may not have been the option but, it does tone down the fighter never missing at higher levels.

As far as ascending AC goes, I find it one of the better things to come out of post-2000 D&D. While it may look like there is an inflation of bonuses for combat, if you run the numbers you find that fighters were gaining huge bonuses to attack in pre-2000 D&D. It was just hidden better.

[Vile Traveller]

I've actually never had a problem with fighters gaining "auto-hits", although I have always treated natural rolls of 1 as a miss. I don't actually know if that was official or a house rule - it may have stemmed from the RuneQuest 2 rule that "rolls of 96-00 always miss". A 5% miss chance is actually pretty high for a heroic warrior, especially if he really has little else to offer.

EDIT: Having a stupid moment.

[famouswolf]

Do you mean 'rolls of 96-00 always miss'?

I do that sometimes in reverse, being a Stormbringer mindset. ;D

[Vile Traveller]

Duh, yeah. All the blood in my body is clearly still in my stomach, aiding Christmas digestion.