There’s been some more talk lately about the supposed ‘rivalry’ between some of the retro-clone games, namely Labyrinth Lord and the Basic Fantasy Role-Playing Game. This thread over at the Goblinoid Games forums has inspired me to talk about this subject for just a moment.
I don’t think it’s a real rivalry or anything. I certainly don’t see the developers of the two games at each others throats, or running the other game down on message boards. What I believe has happened is that each game has attracted a number of already loyal fans into its camp, and those loyalists are prepared to slag off the other game despite the fact that they’ve probably never played it. In fact, I should throw this disclaimer out there right now: while I’m not trying to come across as one of the aforementioned hardcore loyalists for LL, I’ve never actually participated in a play session of BF. However, I have thoroughly read the rules a number of times over (including the most recent release) to make sure I’m familiar with them before attempting to compare and contrast them with LL.
Both games have a number of pros and cons, although some of those can be attributed to the edition of classic Dungeons & Dragons that they’re emulating. Even if you believe this version of the D&D rules to be the greatest of all-time, one still has to admit it had its share of flaws. Those flaws however, only add to the charm of the game, at least in my opinion. Some would say it’s a flaw that the rules simply don’t have rules covering every plausible or possible or even impossible situation like a 2nd edition AD&D rulebook, but I have to disagree. Leaving the crazy stuff to GM judgment is far better than having 100 ludicrous tables or charts you’re never likely to even come close to using.
Anyway, I’ll start with the positives over the competition for each respective game — with Labyrinth Lord up first. The first thing LL has going for it over BF is its continuity. Apart from a few errata releases, there has only been one ‘proper’ version of LL released (although there have been alternate covers and the hardback/paperback versions, I don’t count them as separate editions of the game). In comparison, Basic Fantasy has had an untold number of releases and rereleases since 2006, which has to be frustrating, especially to a fan who shelled out for one of the printed books. To be fair to BF though, this is a completely moot point if you’re just now getting into the retro-clone movement.
In terms of the clone rules, I feel Labyrinth Lord does a far superior job of emulating the D&D B/X set than Basic Fantasy does. In fact, it’s hard to figure out which set of rules BF is trying to ape because they’ve attempted to ‘fix’ a number of supposed problems with the original rules. It comes across as more of an amalgamation of many different versions of D&D, and their inclusion of separate races and classes instead of race as a class (as was the norm in BD&D) seems a bit… I don’t know… safe? It seems to me to be an attempt to cater to younger newcomers weened on later editions of D&D. There’s no doubt about it, race as a class is an acquired taste, and is quite unpopular among a great number of D&D players. BF also includes multi-classes, which is quite clearly swiped from AD&D. Other things I don’t care for about BF is the inclusion of the ‘hopeless character’ category, and the rather unnecessary advice for GM’s to be easy on players when it comes to character death, whereas Labyrinth Lord’s ‘character inheritance’ section starts with the most awesome two word sentence ever written in an RPG book: “Characters die.“
I think Basic Fantasy is almost trying to be its own game, which I can respect, but this means it fails somewhat as a clone. I don’t believe for one second the claim that BF is a ‘rules light’ version of D20 3.5 edition. Dan Proctor, in the foreward to Labyrinth Lord, openly admits his game is fully meant to be a simulacrum of the B/X rules, which I feel is the more admirable route to take here.
As for pure aesthetics, well, wouldn’t you rather say you’re playing a game with a cool name like Labyrinth Lord instead of saying, ‘yeah, I play Basic Fantasy‘. I just don’t like the name… it’s not like it’s meant to be a generic set of rules like GURPS, yet that’s what the name BF comes across as — generic (this is the same reason I really dislike the name of the 1st edition clone, OSRIC). In addition, while I believe there’s more artwork in the BF book (something I’ll get to later), the art in LL’s book is for the most part quite lovely, and very entrenched in the early 80’s era. And yes, before anyone tries to take me to task for this point, I do realize both games shared some artists. Also, the way Labyrinth Lord’s book is laid out is, again, for the most part a shade better than BF’s layout.
However, let’s reverse positions now and discuss the positives Basic Fantasy has over Labyrinth Lord. The first thing off the top of my head is the spell listings in BF. This is a really simple thing to get right, but they’ve put the chart of spells by level ahead of all the spell descriptions, instead of after all the descriptions, as is the case in LL’s book. Both games still list all the spells in alphabetical order, which I don’t really care for, but having that chart in front of all the spells is a serious time-saver. They’ve also just gone ahead and given magic-users the read magic spell, which, ya know, most everyone already house ruled into their games anyway.
I mentioned that BF has more art in it than LL does, and this is where it becomes an advantage: the monsters section of the book. While not every creature is represented with an illustration, there are a helluva lot more than there are in the LL book. Now, if you’re old-school enough, I guess it doesn’t matter; you will already know what a troll or a ghoul looks like, but if you do happen to be a newbie, goddamn those pictures will help. BF also seems to have a bigger selection of monsters, or maybe they just have more in-depth information on the various types of dragons and it has somehow fooled me. Either way, their portfolio of creatures has the upper hand over Labyrinth Lord’s.
Let’s also not forget that Chris Gonnerman, guru behind BF, has a great deal more downloadable content to go along with his game than LL has at this time. Perhaps this goes beyond the actual rulebooks, and it may have something to do with the fact that BF has been out for a lot longer than LL, but I think it’s an important point, and another advantage BF has over LL. There’s a lot of stuff to browse through and try-out on the BF website, although I guess if you wanted the flip-side of this coin, it could be said that the LL community over at Goblinoid Games is better developed than the BF community, which seems a little scattershot at this time.
Finally, I believe BF has a greater and more articulate amount of information on certain subjects: namely strongholds and the advice for GM’s on designing adventures. I suppose the stronghold info only comes in handy for PC’s if they reach a high enough level, but it can certainly be useful for GM’s designing castles or keeps for their NPC’s. As for adventure advice, well, I know some of you old-schoolers will be offended by the mere thought of receiving even the tiniest bit of help with your designs, but I still welcome these nuggets of wisdom even after about 16 years of playing. For a complete newcomer trying his or her hand at GM’ing, these sections could be considered a godsend.
Overall, I still lean towards Labyrinth Lord, but that doesn’t mean I wouldn’t give Basic Fantasy a chance someday. I believe there’s more than enough room for both games, so any jackasses playing up some kind of a rivalry need to drop it. Old schoolers, especially retro-clone fans, should at least attempt to stick together as much as possible, because keeping these old school flavored games alive in today’s market will always be an uphill struggle. Here’s one pro that both games proudly feature: you can download the rules for free. So get on over to either the Labyrinth Lord website or the Basic Fantasy Role-Playing Game website and give one or both of them a try today.
15 comments
Comments feed for this article
August 5, 2008 at 12:58
Restless
When my friends and I started gaming way back when, we started with B/X and then as we shifted to AD&D we ended up blending the two into a game that had things like the AD&D spell lists, monsters and race/class separations, but kept the simpler B/X combat sequences and organization using the AD&D numbers instead. It worked great, and we loved it.
I guess that’s why I love Basic Fantasy. It just feels like that same sort of game, but with a streamlined attack roll based on a couple numbers and a computation rather than a table.
Also, I like that they offer the source documents and not just a PDF. That’s a big win to someone who wants to roll the house rules into their copy for their players, although I am starting to think that it’s better to let everyone get their own copies and give them the changes separately like we did in the old days, but the option is always nice.
August 8, 2008 at 03:34
Knightvision
Great write-up. I’m a recent LL convert from BF. I like the style of LL vs. BF.
August 8, 2008 at 04:22
Hywaywolf
I am a fan of BFRPG. I sometimes see some very hostile comments toward BFRPG or comments on some imagined rivalry between the two games. I just don’t understand where its coming from. Maybe I have had my head in the sand, but I have never seen a fan of BFRPG talking bad about LL. LL is an almost identical mimic of the game that most of us love and which led us to BFRPG. I don’t see any sort of rivalry talk coming from BFRPG fans, either. All of that has been coming from LL fans as far as I have seen, and mostly by a small minority at that. Perhaps its because LL is looked at by some like a commercial entity whose aim is to bring BD&D back into the mainstream and see BFRPG as a competitor for the market share. Where the whole purpose of BFRPG was for its creator to use the OGL to create a game that used the D20 system but with a “spirit transplant” from OOP editions, especially B/X.
Concerning Chris Gonnerman not mentioning BFRPG as a simulacrum of the B/X rules. The reason he doesn’t is because he takes the OGL very seriously and makes no references to previous versions of D&D as required by the license. But if you were to read any of the threads on DF you would quickly see that everyone knows its based on B/X.
Also, I wish Chris would build a dedicated forum for BFRPG but he is very dedicated to the DF forums and believes that BFRPG belongs on Dragonsfoot. So for now I must peruse all those scattershot BFRPG threads to get my daily fix. :)
August 8, 2008 at 04:53
Matthew Conway
I don’t read the DF forums at all, but I picked up on it’s B/X roots about two pages into the book.
Can I assume you’ve seen some of those anti-BF comments over there? Because there certainly isn’t any BF bashing going on over at the Goblinoid Games forums. Most people there either play both, or if they don’t, are at least willing to admit that the market is big enough for the two games to co-exist.
August 8, 2008 at 19:00
Hywaywolf
I don’t believe that I said anyone on Goblinoid Games forums bashes BF. I said that when negative comparisons of one game over the other are made it is usually coming from a LL fan. Concerning the ‘rivalry’ (of which I don’t believe there is on the part of BFRPG fans), the thread that inspired this blog was on the goblinoid games forum. And you can’t honestly say that this statement from the OP in that thread “I think LL does a superior job in content, and the layout looks professional compared to the amateurish approach of BF. “ shouldn’t be considered as a negative comment not only to the creator of BFRPG but the people who are fans of it. Then there is this comment later on, I think I’m kinda put off by the title. Calling your game Basic Fantasy just doesn’t have the same mythical ring to it that Labyrinth Lord does.” That just seems pretty petty reason for not liking a game. There is also another post by someone else who says that they don’t like BFRPG because it tries to pass itself off as a “new game”, but then complains that its not really a clone of B/X because its too different from it.
Again, I am not saying that those statements are bashing BFRPG, but they are negative statements coming from one side of a non-existent ‘rivalry’. Anything written for LL I can use with BFRPG just as easily as I can with TSR B series modules. It makes me happy that people are writing modules for LL that I can use when I finish Morgansfort and the B modules. No rivalry here.
Concerning available player pool. No rivalry there either. If someone plays BFRPG, LL or B/X the differences are so minor that it won’t even cause a ripple (once you switch between THACO and AB scores and rising AC). The player pool is exactly the same. I have never played 1e ad&D so I won’t comment on that, but I hear people say that the differences aren’t that vast.
August 8, 2008 at 21:32
Matthew Conway
O… kay.
As I said, there’s no BF bashing going on over at the GG forums. Those comments you quoted are merely opinions. Fine, you can say they’re negative in tone, but they’re not personally insulting Chris Gonnerman or the BF players like you have implied. The people are merely forming their own ideas about the products, they never said the fans of either game were scumbags. Just because they’re in the same market doesn’t mean a person has to like both of them. And if you really wanted to play this game, I could pull up just as many snippets from the same thread which are positive towards BF.
The comment about the Basic Fantasy name comes from me, which I also pointed out on this very blog entry. The disclaimer is that it’s nothing more than pure aesthetics, but my opinion still stands. That doesn’t mean I hate BF and would never play it, it just means I don’t much care for games with banal titles. If this apparently petty reasoning offends anybody, well, they can take their venom and write a nasty blog entry of their own about me. I care not!
August 9, 2008 at 02:07
Hywaywolf
Why are you so hostile. I am just conversing with you. I never said you hated BF, I said not liking it because you didn’t like the title is pretty petty (what you actually said was you were put off by it, but it seems close enough to be the same.)
Your post is exactly what I am talking about. I am not writing with venom nor was I nasty, I was just answering your question on if I saw negative posts on GG forum about BFRPG. I pointed out a few on the thread you mentioned (especially the OP that call it amateurish). And you see this as an attack. I spit no venom, nor do I need a nasty blog. I’m sorry if I misunderstood your blog as an invitation for mature discussion.
August 9, 2008 at 03:02
Matthew Conway
There has been no hostility in any of my comments here. You’re overreacting. Don’t mistake my sometimes droll, sometimes irreverent personality for anything other than what it is.
August 10, 2008 at 13:24
Michael Ford (AKA MikeTn)
I am a LONG time player of D+D and have given Basic Fantasy a try with my group. Basic Fantasy is a very good rules system that is not BLOATED like D+D has become. It is worth playing for that reason alone. “Leaving the crazy stuff to the GM’s judgment is far better than having 100 ludicrous tables or charts you’re never likely to even come close to using.” is exactly what I am looking for in a game.Currently my “house rules” have evolved into a combat system that is very simple. There are basically 2 types of action (Ignoring minor stuff like simply talking): Move Actions (anything to do with movement) and Standard Actions (which is just about everything else). I let the players tell me what they are doing and I decide if they are able to do it. Simple.
Ultimately, what I think it comes down to is this: ARE YOU HAVING FUN? If not, find a new GM or even a new game.
Don’t whine about other people’s gaming systems.
Offer suggestions if you have a different way to do something that might work better and don’t be annoyed if no one uses it.
I just browsed through LL and it is pretty good. I will be looking at it and see what it has to offer me and my group.( I am a real “Rules Hog”… I will read anything at least once and see if there is anything I can use in my game)
Oh well, maybe I did not quite stay on topic, but this is my 2 cents worth.
August 14, 2008 at 14:32
sniderman
Coke vs Pepsi!
Atari vs Intellivision!
Sony vs Nintendo!
Ford vs Chevy!
McDonald’s vs Burger King!
Yep, I find the “BFRPG vs LL!” arguments just as tedious and pointless.
August 16, 2008 at 14:39
Capt'n Cornholio
Here’s a reading of the rules. . .
Rule #1: Have fun.
Rule #2: Tweaking is allowed.
Rule #3: Don’t be so sensitive when others disagree, even if they do a poor job at supporting their side.
Rule #4: No trolling, especially not with sitnkbait (“Group XX never slams group YY; but group YY certainly does.”)
Rule #5: Get off your duff; get outside; get some exercise; and make sure you have additional hobbies. . .
Rule #6: THERE IS NO RULE SIX!!
Rule #7: No seriously get off your duff and go outside right now!
December 22, 2008 at 02:15
Chris Gonnerman
Well, as usual I’ve come a bit late to this discussion. Let me say that, so far as I’m aware, there is no rivalry or animosity between Daniel and myself.
Understand that, with BFRPG, I was just about the first penguin to jump from the ice floe into potentially sea-lion-infested waters. Prior to BFRPG, the closest retro-clone (which I may not name due to stupid OGL rules, but it’s published by some trolls) was aimed at a more “advanced” game and wasn’t really all that close to the “target” game edition. I got closer to my target, a more “basic” game, but I’ll admit some elements of the rules might read a bit differently if someone else had jumped in first. Note that the “trollish” game is really closer to the common d20 games in how they present it (namely, as a commercial product).
OSRIC came next. Like that trollish game, OSRIC was aimed at a more “advanced” game, and came much, much closer to reproducing it. Stuart Marshall, author of OSRIC, has the advantage of living in the UK where the rules of copyright are a bit different (mainly, it seems, in terms of ease of interpretation).
Note that I use the name OSRIC freely. Stuart, Daniel, and I have granted each other the right to discuss our games by name, as allowed under the OGL.
LL came close on the heels of OSRIC. I’m stunned that one man was able to produce so much quality material so rapidly… I had a lot of help, and it still took me a year to go from my original release to the first print edition.
I don’t feel any rivalry toward Daniel’s game, or Stuart’s. We each had our goals, and I believe we all attained them. Take a look at the adventures on Basicfantasy.org… they are triple-stated, for use with all three games.
And I’d really like to see less… irritation… from so many, who seem to feel that there must be one anointed winner. There is no need to place artificial limits on the imagination of others.
I even have heard from others who have mixed and matched rules from several games, including BFRPG. Like I said, no need to set limits.
April 5, 2009 at 12:54
Robert Alderman
Hi! I just wanted to throw my two cents and say that I really like both Labyrinth Lord AND Basic Fantasy.
I really like how Labyrinth Lord was put together. The layout of the book is exceptional, except for placing the spell lists after the spell descriptions (but that’s so minor in my opinion it doesn’t really matter). I LOVE the classes, especially the add-on ones you can purchase over at DriveThru RPG (like the monk and paladin).
But I have to say that I also really prefer the ascending attack rolls and AC from 3rd and 4th edition D&D, the way Basic Fantasy uses them. It just seems easier on the brain. Especially for new players.
Also, I think the spells in Basic Fantasy are a bit clearer in their execution compared to Labyrinth Lord (which can be a little vague at times). Some old schoolers seem to prefer this style, giving the DM more power over his game, but I personally do not…my players are crafty little sneaks and will chicken-hawk a Balor if I’m not careful! I also really like how you can import 3rd edition monsters into the game very easily (gives that big 3.5 collection I’ve got a bit more value, eh?).
The best part about both systems, though, is that they’re almost entirely compatible (with just a little tweaking here and there). Currently, I’m planning on running a Basic Fantasy game, but I’m removing the distinction between race and class, adding the Elf, Dwarf, and Halfling from Labyrinth Lord, along with the Paladin, Monk, and Bard classes from the Delving Deeper series (LL supplement series). I’m also using Labyrinth Lord’s “old-school” energy drain rules over Basic Fantasy’s.
And so far…I haven’t had any problems!
Kudos to both authors. They did a great job! I don’t think either system is “superior” to the other. I just think that they offer something different, and depending on what you want, you might prefer one over the other, ya know?
I will say now that I’m getting tired of the newer editions of D&D (from AD&D to 4th edition). They all seem really bloated to the point of madness. I’m not saying they don’t have their strengths. And I am aware that there are math nerds out there that just seem to LOVE hundreds of rules (some of my best friends, for example). But the older I get, the simpler I want things to be. Maybe my brain is in need of a lube job….
July 14, 2009 at 09:17
Ango
I know this is an old post, but I just resist pointing out a few things:
1) Is anybody really concerned with market share when you’re talking about a FREE game? Even if you did choose to pay for it, it’s a one time investment.
2) Variety is no bad thing, nor is tolerance.
3) Anyone who is so bent on making everybody else choose his/her game over the other is probably a rules-lawyering wanker who is no fun to play with in the first place.
July 14, 2009 at 09:23
Ango
P.S. I don’t mean to point the finger at anyone in particular with No. 3, least of all the author of this post. Good, objective writing is hard to come by, and this review comes neared the mark than most.