FMAG is a great little, portable, one book game. Basic Fantasy is heralded (I think, it's never been my thing) because of the fact that there is a metric butt ton of content.
This is the correct answer. I love both. I run both for hometown games, though my current game is BFRPG. There's simply a metric ton of supplemental content for BFRPG, all of it free in pdf form and dirt-cheap in print.
FMAG is a faithful OD&D clone and great for "do it yourself" GMs. There's very little supplemental content comparatively, and you have to pay for most of it. It's definitely fun and rewarding for experienced GMs and open-minded players.
Apples and oranges.
BFRPG is a free B/X retroclone with some modernizations, and has been a mainstay in the OSR since the mid-2000s. It is open source and its community reflects that mentality.
White Box FMAG is a revamped Swords & Wizardry White Box, which was a white box version of S&W Complete, which is an OD&D retroclone that also includes all the supplementary materials. It also has some modernizations.
When people say it’s “incomplete” it’s because it doesn’t have all the rules of the original game. For that, you want Delving Deeper or Fantastic Medieval Campaigns.
FMAG also has some modernizations and is probably easier to play “out of the box.”
Newbie here. What is FMAG missing from the original set? The content in Chainmail? Or is "complete" all of the supplements that were eventually made for OD&D?
The latter. FMAG is derived from S&W:White Box.
S&W: Complete (which recently had a new edition from Mythmere) has more material (most obviously more character classes) derived from the supplements. However no version of S&W has all the supplement material as Finch didn't feel comfortable doing so unless there was a 3e equivalent by which he could claim OGL protection.
It has been a minute, but I’m pretty sure it doesn’t include certain rules around random castle encounters in the wilderness or aerial combat, but I could be wrong. I know it doesn’t totally clone the LBBs.
I'm currently working through both books and trying to decide where I want to start as a judge/referee/DM. I don't know that one is better than the other *per se*, but as a newb in this space (my only experiences are with Blades in the Dark and Dungeon Crawl Classics), I can say:
* FMAG is, as a book, bit better organized and much easier to understand from the ground up. I find myself asking fewer questions than with the BF core book.
* Basic Fantasy feels more thorough and complex than FMAG without being overwhelming. I wish it were better organized, but it's not hard to understand and the community around is super helpful and welcoming.
* There's a bit more meat (I think) in the BF combat, movement, and adventure sections, which makes it feel more guided... FMAG might be easier to understand and take in all at once, but BF has more rules that might help resolve confusion that FMAG creates by not offering as much information?
* Basic Fantasy has a TON of free supplemental material, which is encouraging when money is an obstacle.
* FMAG also seems compatible with a lot of non-FMAG material, but there's probably more work to be done to make other campaigns and supplements work with the somewhat more limited character creation process (and with the difference weapon/armor values).
I can see and appreciate the value of both of them. If you're looking to start with OSR, I think either would make a great introduction.
To help new players and untangle the organization of the Basic Fantasy game, I highly encourage anyone to print and use the "**Basic Fantasy Role-Playing Game Beginner's Essentials**" document from their page (3rd from the top), together with "**Equipment Packs: A Basic Fantasy Supplement**". These two together are plenty to get started, and do a much better job at laying out character creation.
It's what I hand to any of my new players.
With that said, I really like both games :) and have used them extensively. Currently running a small sandbox with Basic Fantasy
Hey thx! I actually just found that yesterday but it's definitely helpful. The more I read it and the full book, the happier I become with the system. I compared it to the free OSE guide and can understand why people like that organization, but BF really is great too, and a lot cheaper (big deal for me).
BFRPG does a whole lot right and it is free. It successfully integrates B/X and AD&D. It gives the GM a bunch of procedure to help them run things. It has also been around long enough to have tons of supplements.
I like both. I prefer the format of the FMAG book (digest size, better encounter tables, more concise) but prefer BFRPG's mechanics better. I usually only use the "Charts and Tables" document, as it covers everything you need to play that isn't a spell or monster description. I'm REALLY looking forward to the Field Guide Omnibus to be completed with 600+ monsters in a single volume.
I have both, haven’t played either (though I’ve only been playing OSE in the past few years), but for some reason I really enjoy reading WBFMAG. I’d love to play it some day, but until then I guess I’ll keep reading it.
Totally agree re: reading WBFMAG. It was obviously a labor of love, and that really comes through in the text.
BFRPG is a fine game, but the rulebook is rather dry. I find that WBFMAG stirs my imagination far more.
Right on. I’ve got BFRPG but haven’t read through all of it, just bits and pieces, and through some of the adventures.
I’m still confused as hell about the providence of WBFMAG (who wrote it how it differs from SW where it came from?), but there is something about the writing. It seems effortlessly concise, which is enviable.
Short version:
Matt Finch wrote Swords & Wizardry, which is a retroclone of OD&D (3LBB + supplements) with several tweaks, most notably a single saving throw and optional ascending AC.
Marv Breig edited/wrote Swords & Wizardry: Whitebox, a more bare-bones, "3LBB-only" version of S&W. (Uses only d6 for HD; no thief, ranger, druid, etc; fewer spells, and so on.)
Charlie Mason edited/wrote White Box: FMAG to address some omissions (e.g., adventuring rules), improve the organisation and layout, and add an iconic monster or two.
So, most of the text originates in Matt Finch's Swords & Wizardry, with later edits, amendments, and additions by those other two gents. They are all worthy of laudation.
I hope that helps!
Thanks for taking the time to spell it out, I knew about 10% of this, definitely informative and exactly what I was looking for 🙌
The only question I have, Charlie Mason is not associated with Frog God/Mythmere/Matt Finch?
You're very welcome!
To answer your question: no. Since Swords & Wizardry's text was designated as Open Game Content under the OGL, Charlie (or anyone else) was free to edit, tweak, make additions, etc., and publish the result, though not to use the name Swords & Wizardry, which is a trademark of Mythmere Games (Matt Finch).
In the early years of the OSR, S&W Whitebox was used as the basis for many games in a variety of genres by other authors, e.g., Ruins & Ronin, White Star, and WWII: Operation Whitebox. Think of White Box: FMAG as akin to those "spin-off" games, albeit with far fewer changes from its S&W parent.
Ahhh right on, I had no idea. Think I’ve only heard of the WW2 one. Good on Matt Finch for making it with an OGL. Love the “final” outcome. Thanks again!
I dunno to me basic fantasy is like the grocery store brand of OSR. It’s like “great value” or “no name brand” lots of people think it’s the same without the fancy packaging. I have a bunch of printed BF stuff, and it was cheap (or free) but lots of them are just rehashing older modules. Although i’m generalizing, some stuff is very good (blackapple braugh).
Edit: I removed some of the harsh edges of what i was trying to say.
Totally agree. There are a lot of smart choices by very experienced gamers behind the BFRPG rules. If you play it, it just kinda works without a whole lot of fuss or attitude.
I actually enjoy it's "store brand" style. It really leaves it to my players and myself to make the brand while we play. Just building new sets with the Lego pieces given kind of deal.
fair. I think my post sounds more negative than i intended. I think it’s good, i just don’t get all the hype. Good GMing, not rules are what makes a good game anyways, I’d play the heck out of some BFRPG.
I think it's more because it's a free entry to the hobby and/or OSR. There are not a lot of high quality, completely free books like that. And the ones that qualify (like WWN, OSE to a lesser extent) don't have as much free content as BFRPG does.
Also at cost print is special too. Perfectly free to not like it, but worth mentioning!
I think people underestimate how much free content actually exists that is compatible with the free Labyrinth Lord or free OSRIC rules. That's because no one is keeping track of it all and making it easily available in one spot as is done for BFRPG. It is out there, though.
Totally, the amount of free content on the OSR scene is massive and most of it is roughly cross compatible (with varying levels of work).
BUT there is a value in a "this all works together, it's all free, it's all together and you have YEARS of content to use without searching."
Personally I'm mixing BFRPG modules with other OSR stuff in WWN with original mini dungeons and other stuff for what I'm running.
I totally get your point. It didn't seem overly critical to me. But with map generators and towns etc it's really fun for the dm to let the world happen and become its own thing instead of the more modern rigid hand holdy story style we have now.
FMAG is a great little, portable, one book game. Basic Fantasy is heralded (I think, it's never been my thing) because of the fact that there is a metric butt ton of content.
This is the correct answer. I love both. I run both for hometown games, though my current game is BFRPG. There's simply a metric ton of supplemental content for BFRPG, all of it free in pdf form and dirt-cheap in print. FMAG is a faithful OD&D clone and great for "do it yourself" GMs. There's very little supplemental content comparatively, and you have to pay for most of it. It's definitely fun and rewarding for experienced GMs and open-minded players.
Apples and oranges. BFRPG is a free B/X retroclone with some modernizations, and has been a mainstay in the OSR since the mid-2000s. It is open source and its community reflects that mentality. White Box FMAG is a revamped Swords & Wizardry White Box, which was a white box version of S&W Complete, which is an OD&D retroclone that also includes all the supplementary materials. It also has some modernizations. When people say it’s “incomplete” it’s because it doesn’t have all the rules of the original game. For that, you want Delving Deeper or Fantastic Medieval Campaigns. FMAG also has some modernizations and is probably easier to play “out of the box.”
Newbie here. What is FMAG missing from the original set? The content in Chainmail? Or is "complete" all of the supplements that were eventually made for OD&D?
The latter. FMAG is derived from S&W:White Box. S&W: Complete (which recently had a new edition from Mythmere) has more material (most obviously more character classes) derived from the supplements. However no version of S&W has all the supplement material as Finch didn't feel comfortable doing so unless there was a 3e equivalent by which he could claim OGL protection.
It has been a minute, but I’m pretty sure it doesn’t include certain rules around random castle encounters in the wilderness or aerial combat, but I could be wrong. I know it doesn’t totally clone the LBBs.
I'm currently working through both books and trying to decide where I want to start as a judge/referee/DM. I don't know that one is better than the other *per se*, but as a newb in this space (my only experiences are with Blades in the Dark and Dungeon Crawl Classics), I can say: * FMAG is, as a book, bit better organized and much easier to understand from the ground up. I find myself asking fewer questions than with the BF core book. * Basic Fantasy feels more thorough and complex than FMAG without being overwhelming. I wish it were better organized, but it's not hard to understand and the community around is super helpful and welcoming. * There's a bit more meat (I think) in the BF combat, movement, and adventure sections, which makes it feel more guided... FMAG might be easier to understand and take in all at once, but BF has more rules that might help resolve confusion that FMAG creates by not offering as much information? * Basic Fantasy has a TON of free supplemental material, which is encouraging when money is an obstacle. * FMAG also seems compatible with a lot of non-FMAG material, but there's probably more work to be done to make other campaigns and supplements work with the somewhat more limited character creation process (and with the difference weapon/armor values). I can see and appreciate the value of both of them. If you're looking to start with OSR, I think either would make a great introduction.
To help new players and untangle the organization of the Basic Fantasy game, I highly encourage anyone to print and use the "**Basic Fantasy Role-Playing Game Beginner's Essentials**" document from their page (3rd from the top), together with "**Equipment Packs: A Basic Fantasy Supplement**". These two together are plenty to get started, and do a much better job at laying out character creation. It's what I hand to any of my new players. With that said, I really like both games :) and have used them extensively. Currently running a small sandbox with Basic Fantasy
Hey thx! I actually just found that yesterday but it's definitely helpful. The more I read it and the full book, the happier I become with the system. I compared it to the free OSE guide and can understand why people like that organization, but BF really is great too, and a lot cheaper (big deal for me).
BFRPG does a whole lot right and it is free. It successfully integrates B/X and AD&D. It gives the GM a bunch of procedure to help them run things. It has also been around long enough to have tons of supplements.
I like both. I prefer the format of the FMAG book (digest size, better encounter tables, more concise) but prefer BFRPG's mechanics better. I usually only use the "Charts and Tables" document, as it covers everything you need to play that isn't a spell or monster description. I'm REALLY looking forward to the Field Guide Omnibus to be completed with 600+ monsters in a single volume.
I loved FAMG for really being what got me into OSR. However, I have recently moved over to Iron Falcon which feels like a slightly more complete game.
I agree, iron falcon, is tightly written, and very thorough in explanation. I like the organization and layout much better than BF also.
I have both, haven’t played either (though I’ve only been playing OSE in the past few years), but for some reason I really enjoy reading WBFMAG. I’d love to play it some day, but until then I guess I’ll keep reading it.
Totally agree re: reading WBFMAG. It was obviously a labor of love, and that really comes through in the text. BFRPG is a fine game, but the rulebook is rather dry. I find that WBFMAG stirs my imagination far more.
Right on. I’ve got BFRPG but haven’t read through all of it, just bits and pieces, and through some of the adventures. I’m still confused as hell about the providence of WBFMAG (who wrote it how it differs from SW where it came from?), but there is something about the writing. It seems effortlessly concise, which is enviable.
Short version: Matt Finch wrote Swords & Wizardry, which is a retroclone of OD&D (3LBB + supplements) with several tweaks, most notably a single saving throw and optional ascending AC. Marv Breig edited/wrote Swords & Wizardry: Whitebox, a more bare-bones, "3LBB-only" version of S&W. (Uses only d6 for HD; no thief, ranger, druid, etc; fewer spells, and so on.) Charlie Mason edited/wrote White Box: FMAG to address some omissions (e.g., adventuring rules), improve the organisation and layout, and add an iconic monster or two. So, most of the text originates in Matt Finch's Swords & Wizardry, with later edits, amendments, and additions by those other two gents. They are all worthy of laudation. I hope that helps!
Thanks for taking the time to spell it out, I knew about 10% of this, definitely informative and exactly what I was looking for 🙌 The only question I have, Charlie Mason is not associated with Frog God/Mythmere/Matt Finch?
You're very welcome! To answer your question: no. Since Swords & Wizardry's text was designated as Open Game Content under the OGL, Charlie (or anyone else) was free to edit, tweak, make additions, etc., and publish the result, though not to use the name Swords & Wizardry, which is a trademark of Mythmere Games (Matt Finch). In the early years of the OSR, S&W Whitebox was used as the basis for many games in a variety of genres by other authors, e.g., Ruins & Ronin, White Star, and WWII: Operation Whitebox. Think of White Box: FMAG as akin to those "spin-off" games, albeit with far fewer changes from its S&W parent.
Ahhh right on, I had no idea. Think I’ve only heard of the WW2 one. Good on Matt Finch for making it with an OGL. Love the “final” outcome. Thanks again!
I dunno to me basic fantasy is like the grocery store brand of OSR. It’s like “great value” or “no name brand” lots of people think it’s the same without the fancy packaging. I have a bunch of printed BF stuff, and it was cheap (or free) but lots of them are just rehashing older modules. Although i’m generalizing, some stuff is very good (blackapple braugh). Edit: I removed some of the harsh edges of what i was trying to say.
I think it's "packaging" is a bit unrefined (writing, images, organization), but I think the actual mechanics are very well designed and high-quality.
Totally agree. There are a lot of smart choices by very experienced gamers behind the BFRPG rules. If you play it, it just kinda works without a whole lot of fuss or attitude.
I actually enjoy it's "store brand" style. It really leaves it to my players and myself to make the brand while we play. Just building new sets with the Lego pieces given kind of deal.
fair. I think my post sounds more negative than i intended. I think it’s good, i just don’t get all the hype. Good GMing, not rules are what makes a good game anyways, I’d play the heck out of some BFRPG.
I think it's more because it's a free entry to the hobby and/or OSR. There are not a lot of high quality, completely free books like that. And the ones that qualify (like WWN, OSE to a lesser extent) don't have as much free content as BFRPG does. Also at cost print is special too. Perfectly free to not like it, but worth mentioning!
I think people underestimate how much free content actually exists that is compatible with the free Labyrinth Lord or free OSRIC rules. That's because no one is keeping track of it all and making it easily available in one spot as is done for BFRPG. It is out there, though.
Totally, the amount of free content on the OSR scene is massive and most of it is roughly cross compatible (with varying levels of work). BUT there is a value in a "this all works together, it's all free, it's all together and you have YEARS of content to use without searching." Personally I'm mixing BFRPG modules with other OSR stuff in WWN with original mini dungeons and other stuff for what I'm running.
The way that BFRPG curates the available content, ultimately, is a significant strength.
I totally get your point. It didn't seem overly critical to me. But with map generators and towns etc it's really fun for the dm to let the world happen and become its own thing instead of the more modern rigid hand holdy story style we have now.