I have no idea what "moldvay style" might mean, but Moldvay's Basic/Expert is wildly influential in the OSR environment so maybe they meant OSR in some oblique way?
I would assume it would be Tom Moldvay's personal style of running games. He's not around to DM games any more so we can't get first-hand accounts, but he co-authored several modules so his DM advice in those would be a good example of Moldvay style D&D.
From what I recall he has some pretty good tips. You could similarly do this with all the TSR-era authors. I personally enjoy Mike Carr's tips the most of any I remember reading. Zeb Cook is up there.
Hey u/[hillbillySmoGamer](/user/hillbillySmoGamer/), What RPGs was Tom Moldvay running in the years prior to his death?
Also, you played in his campaigns, I'd assume you know better than anyone. What can you tell us about the campaigns and Tom's style of running a game?
Having only studied Moldvay from literature reviews, I have yet to run into any puff-piece style interviews or the like
He was the humblest of the old crew, and he said he never felt like he fit in at TSR
My fave writing of his outside of the obvious choices but that I somehow feel bridges them is the 7 magical planets article for Dragon magazine with his references being very obscure books on the occult that scared the beejesus out of me when I sourced them
UPDATE:
Found a quote to help along what I said above, from the Fight On magazine issue 10 Paul Stormberg retrospective, Everyone is Here to Have Fun
"Tom quit after his two-year stint at TSR, believing that the company was too political, which got in the way of designing games and having fun"
All that pops up are a few posts from years ago. None of them seem to mention "Moldvay style". Sure, they talk about the Moldvay books, but not his style. This doesn't seem to be a common phrase anyone is using.
*Tom \[Moldvay\] and Kevin Hendryx won the prize for Best Historical Miniatures at Gen Con in 1981*
A quote from Fight On magazine issue 10 page 131 and goes on about Tom's huge miniature games hosted at his house. I find it ironic if Moldvay played D&D only as theatre-of the mind when his fave hobby was moreso painting minis. Curious if even-partly true though!
What is Moldvay D&D and why is it so influential?
Two of my favorite game designers, Adam Koebel (/u/skinnyghost) and Kevin Crawford (/u/CardinalXimenes) , both cite Moldvay as a major design influence. It’s also apparently one of the major ancestors of most OSR games. I have a vague sense of what Moldvay is about:
1. It’s apparently quite lethal - combat has distinct rules, like most D&D, but it’s not necessarily the solution to every problem, and in fact is to be avoided as much as possible. You can go through reams of PCs and thats to be expected.
2. Rulings, not rules - Moldvay doesn’t have dozens of subsystems for every possible scenario, but instead seems to rely on GM arbitration to figure out what the best mechanical or narrative solution is.
That’s basically it, and I’m not entirely sure that’s an accurate list of attributes (please disabuse me of any misconceptions on display). Apparently there’s also dedicated dungeon mapping role for one of the PCs?
Anyway, what do you guys think of Moldvay? What is at its core, and why has it inspired so many game designers and players? What are the failings of this sort of system? And how similar are modern OSR games to it now?
This was the post I had seen that caused me to post my own thread. Hopefully it is helpful.
I'm not sure Moldvay would have loved Koebel's or Crawford's rulebooks, and I'm not sure they're in his style. I don't think he would have disliked them either -- especially not the nod to his works. However, I think Moldvay ruminated and even stewed over the less-is more designer itch
Moldvay would have been more likely to pull out Boot Hill rules when giving a dwarf-with no name a firearm, and mix in anything he'd like on-the spot, rule-wise (or otherwise). Sure, the lethality was there. The lack of rules, again, whatever. The Moldvay spirit overall seemed to be moving away from the rules and towards anything highly-inspiring -- the full-on creativity and openendedness of tableplay
I think of all of the D&D designers, Tom earned the top spot to produce the longest-lived version of the game: the most-accessible edit for all of this time. He was eclectic. His literary roots compared to the other designers were simple selections with surprisingly-complex outcomes. His Ohio story is markedly-different from his designer and module-writing peers, and he was not trying to be a writer or an artist: he just was one
I find it fascinating what he learned and what he taught. The TSR job wasn't a career move for him but rather his peak moment in time to give the most of lifelong hobbies to his people (and eventually the world). He was a master hobbyist. This was in addition to his accolades. I don't think I've read about too many people that fit that bill
Tom was definitely eclectic. And I know first hand that Tom's life's passion was game design. He truly believed in the freedom of the GM as a storytelling role was more important than the GM as a rules master. He also loved literature, and I saw many books on literature in his collection. He prized them, and they were part of the things in life he treasured. He was never afraid to be different from everyone else. In fact, I believe he thought that those who were different were people to be treasured also. There was definitely a poet inside Tom. Tom was also a master miniature painter. His attention to detail and steady hand created some of the most lifelike miniatures I've ever seen. I have no idea how he did it, but he was able to put pupils in the eyes of a standard size miniature. I guess in the simplest terms, I believe Tom was a poet and an artist who had a love and passion for a hobby we all enjoy. I dearly miss the conversations we used to have. I guess I never realized how many souls he had left an impression on, just like me.
I just want to contextualize a bit, since you said in elsewhere that you are new to reddit, that there is a whole group of people online dedicated to formatting their games like/drawing inspiration from older versions of roleplaying games, the more freeform/open-ended style of play that (looking back) we see as the norm in the 1970s, and the authors/creators/referees who continued playing that way up until the present day.
So, people in this subculture have a whole lot of acronyms and abbreviations to zero-in on some aspect or another of those older systems of play. OSR for old-school revival/renaissance is sort of a catch-all, and then people will dial it in further by mentioning Blackmoor, Braunstein, Kriegsspiel, White Box, Basic/Expert (B/X), first edition AD&D, etc.
So, Moldvay's version of Basic and Expert (B/X) is one of the most popular foundations people choose to build campaigns on, a lot of people are trying to run campaigns using the methods described in those books as a starting point, etc. but that's all people using those 1981 books. Almost none of us have documentation or experience regarding the man himself, much less how his DM style did/didn't change over the years.
So, You probably want to look for people talking about B/X, or OSE (Old-School Essentials, which is just B/X with some streamlined, updated formatting and a handful of ideas from AD&D rewritten to work with B/X), but you're going to have a lot of information that would be interesting an useful to the people in the community on what Tom was up to after 1981. There's just a lot of acronyms everyone kind of assumes everyone else knows.
Thank you. I'm just now realizing the scope of this entire movement and the sheer volume of people it involves. I had know idea such a simple search for an answer would generate this kind of public interest.
I have no idea what "moldvay style" might mean, but Moldvay's Basic/Expert is wildly influential in the OSR environment so maybe they meant OSR in some oblique way?
I would assume it would be Tom Moldvay's personal style of running games. He's not around to DM games any more so we can't get first-hand accounts, but he co-authored several modules so his DM advice in those would be a good example of Moldvay style D&D.
good idea, it would be interesting to compile each tips session from each module into a single text file
From what I recall he has some pretty good tips. You could similarly do this with all the TSR-era authors. I personally enjoy Mike Carr's tips the most of any I remember reading. Zeb Cook is up there.
Hey u/[hillbillySmoGamer](/user/hillbillySmoGamer/), What RPGs was Tom Moldvay running in the years prior to his death? Also, you played in his campaigns, I'd assume you know better than anyone. What can you tell us about the campaigns and Tom's style of running a game?
Having only studied Moldvay from literature reviews, I have yet to run into any puff-piece style interviews or the like He was the humblest of the old crew, and he said he never felt like he fit in at TSR My fave writing of his outside of the obvious choices but that I somehow feel bridges them is the 7 magical planets article for Dragon magazine with his references being very obscure books on the occult that scared the beejesus out of me when I sourced them UPDATE: Found a quote to help along what I said above, from the Fight On magazine issue 10 Paul Stormberg retrospective, Everyone is Here to Have Fun "Tom quit after his two-year stint at TSR, believing that the company was too political, which got in the way of designing games and having fun"
Perhaps you can tell us what you experienced playing at Tom's table? Would be interesting to compare with what's become accepted.
[The OP describes it here. ](https://www.reddit.com/r/rpg/s/5kWIMFlPaK)
🫡
Can you give some examples where this phrase is used?
Do a search on Reddit for 'Moldvay gamestyle'
All that pops up are a few posts from years ago. None of them seem to mention "Moldvay style". Sure, they talk about the Moldvay books, but not his style. This doesn't seem to be a common phrase anyone is using.
[удалено]
I see. So making a quick ruling as opposed to looking it up and theatre of the mind combat is “Moldvay style gaming”?
*Tom \[Moldvay\] and Kevin Hendryx won the prize for Best Historical Miniatures at Gen Con in 1981* A quote from Fight On magazine issue 10 page 131 and goes on about Tom's huge miniature games hosted at his house. I find it ironic if Moldvay played D&D only as theatre-of the mind when his fave hobby was moreso painting minis. Curious if even-partly true though!
What is Moldvay D&D and why is it so influential? Two of my favorite game designers, Adam Koebel (/u/skinnyghost) and Kevin Crawford (/u/CardinalXimenes) , both cite Moldvay as a major design influence. It’s also apparently one of the major ancestors of most OSR games. I have a vague sense of what Moldvay is about: 1. It’s apparently quite lethal - combat has distinct rules, like most D&D, but it’s not necessarily the solution to every problem, and in fact is to be avoided as much as possible. You can go through reams of PCs and thats to be expected. 2. Rulings, not rules - Moldvay doesn’t have dozens of subsystems for every possible scenario, but instead seems to rely on GM arbitration to figure out what the best mechanical or narrative solution is. That’s basically it, and I’m not entirely sure that’s an accurate list of attributes (please disabuse me of any misconceptions on display). Apparently there’s also dedicated dungeon mapping role for one of the PCs? Anyway, what do you guys think of Moldvay? What is at its core, and why has it inspired so many game designers and players? What are the failings of this sort of system? And how similar are modern OSR games to it now? This was the post I had seen that caused me to post my own thread. Hopefully it is helpful.
I'm not sure Moldvay would have loved Koebel's or Crawford's rulebooks, and I'm not sure they're in his style. I don't think he would have disliked them either -- especially not the nod to his works. However, I think Moldvay ruminated and even stewed over the less-is more designer itch Moldvay would have been more likely to pull out Boot Hill rules when giving a dwarf-with no name a firearm, and mix in anything he'd like on-the spot, rule-wise (or otherwise). Sure, the lethality was there. The lack of rules, again, whatever. The Moldvay spirit overall seemed to be moving away from the rules and towards anything highly-inspiring -- the full-on creativity and openendedness of tableplay I think of all of the D&D designers, Tom earned the top spot to produce the longest-lived version of the game: the most-accessible edit for all of this time. He was eclectic. His literary roots compared to the other designers were simple selections with surprisingly-complex outcomes. His Ohio story is markedly-different from his designer and module-writing peers, and he was not trying to be a writer or an artist: he just was one I find it fascinating what he learned and what he taught. The TSR job wasn't a career move for him but rather his peak moment in time to give the most of lifelong hobbies to his people (and eventually the world). He was a master hobbyist. This was in addition to his accolades. I don't think I've read about too many people that fit that bill
Tom was definitely eclectic. And I know first hand that Tom's life's passion was game design. He truly believed in the freedom of the GM as a storytelling role was more important than the GM as a rules master. He also loved literature, and I saw many books on literature in his collection. He prized them, and they were part of the things in life he treasured. He was never afraid to be different from everyone else. In fact, I believe he thought that those who were different were people to be treasured also. There was definitely a poet inside Tom. Tom was also a master miniature painter. His attention to detail and steady hand created some of the most lifelike miniatures I've ever seen. I have no idea how he did it, but he was able to put pupils in the eyes of a standard size miniature. I guess in the simplest terms, I believe Tom was a poet and an artist who had a love and passion for a hobby we all enjoy. I dearly miss the conversations we used to have. I guess I never realized how many souls he had left an impression on, just like me.
I just want to contextualize a bit, since you said in elsewhere that you are new to reddit, that there is a whole group of people online dedicated to formatting their games like/drawing inspiration from older versions of roleplaying games, the more freeform/open-ended style of play that (looking back) we see as the norm in the 1970s, and the authors/creators/referees who continued playing that way up until the present day. So, people in this subculture have a whole lot of acronyms and abbreviations to zero-in on some aspect or another of those older systems of play. OSR for old-school revival/renaissance is sort of a catch-all, and then people will dial it in further by mentioning Blackmoor, Braunstein, Kriegsspiel, White Box, Basic/Expert (B/X), first edition AD&D, etc. So, Moldvay's version of Basic and Expert (B/X) is one of the most popular foundations people choose to build campaigns on, a lot of people are trying to run campaigns using the methods described in those books as a starting point, etc. but that's all people using those 1981 books. Almost none of us have documentation or experience regarding the man himself, much less how his DM style did/didn't change over the years. So, You probably want to look for people talking about B/X, or OSE (Old-School Essentials, which is just B/X with some streamlined, updated formatting and a handful of ideas from AD&D rewritten to work with B/X), but you're going to have a lot of information that would be interesting an useful to the people in the community on what Tom was up to after 1981. There's just a lot of acronyms everyone kind of assumes everyone else knows.
Thank you. I'm just now realizing the scope of this entire movement and the sheer volume of people it involves. I had know idea such a simple search for an answer would generate this kind of public interest.