Is BECMI the Best D&D Mechanically?

[Zardnaar]

This year we played BECMI D&D again via the Rules Cyclopedia PDF and after all these years it has not aged to bad. It uses descending ACs which is a bit annoying but it is a very clean and elegant version of D&D. Higher level play probably is not that great but its not like 1st-4th ed can claim to do much better there either. The main problem with BECMI seems to be a lack of options but that is kind of the point of the system and it is good at what it is designed to do- a simple and basic version of D&D.

It is not perfect by any means as the thief for example kind of sucks and clerics at level 1 are kind of painful as well. I quite like the ability score mods and the combat section is less than 15 pages in length. Game is still fun and in some ways superior to modern versions of D&D especially in regards to things like number porn.

 

[fjw70]

I prefer BX to BECMI due to simpler presentation but BECMI is not bad. I don't like that BECMI doesn't add fighter maneuvers until the teen levels and I don't like the way it does multiple attacks. But yes, it is a decent system.

i really like 4e's design for official D&D and I really like 13th Age design for D&D-like systems.

 

[Zardnaar]

I prefer the BX part as well or more like BE I suppose. ACKs is great.

 

[MJS]

I STILL have a score to settle with Bargle.

as for the question - talking about "best" editions is a great recipe for thread fail.

I would say all the original-based D&D's are far better, mechanically, than rumor has it.

 

[Salamandyr]

I run B/X, and, aside from needing to fill in a few blanks in interpretation, it runs very, very well indeed.

Among its many advantages, it does not run away with the Tyranny of Large Numbers. While it does not have a "universal mechanic", that supposed lack also keeps you from falling into the trap that 3rd edition does--namely by making different mechanical processes look superficially similar. Don't know what I mean? Why are an easy strength check, an easy climb check, and an easy disable device check 3 different numbers?

B/X does have some problems. It appears less flexible than it is. And occasionally, it is entirely arbitrary. And then there's that interpretation thing again. It doesn't explain things very well.

 

[Celebrim]

B/X (and variants) is a very clean system and can be run with surprising depth.

The biggest problem I have with B/X is character creation is far too limiting and character advancement far too uninteresting. There are just too many characters I'd want to create but can't under the system.

I know that in practice, whether they knew it or not, many AD&D 1e groups were using 1e character creation/advancement with a stripped down rules set that was for most purposes B/X (or even stripped down B/X without formal declaration and combat phases).

 

[GreyLord]

Maybe, but I see character creation as just as open if not more so than later editions of D&D. It has a different approach. Want to be a fighter...good...you spent the last 20 years doing that...if you want to be a wizard...well...do you have 20 years to learn how to be one...type of approach.

OR even better, you were born an elf...you can't be a dwarf...because you were born an elf.

All other aspects are dependant on Roleplaying. You can be an elf potter, an elf shoe maker, a dwarf among seven, a dwarf who spins gold...etc...it's all in how your roleplay your character as opposed to what you roll in regards to what they can or cannot be.

 

[Greg K]

For myself? No.
Despite its issues, 3e using the core rules and some of the variants in the both the DMG and Unearthed Arcana while ignoring most everything else WOTC is still the best for me. Throw in some specific 3rd party material on top and it gets even better.

 

[Remathilis]

Basic (be it BX or BECMI) is great, but it has its limits. If you are willing to work within those limits (which creates in my mind a very Tolkien/mythic world) it is clean, elegant, and interesting. However, it can't be ignored that most long-time players eventually chafe under its rules (which is why later gazetteers added new demi-human classes, expanded magic schools, and even added races that could pick human classes). If you can find a group who is accepting of its quirks (and don't mind not having much mechanical fiddling to diversify with) it can be a lot of fun. However, it doesn't adapt well like AD&D or d20 does, so any DM who is doing more than Medieval European Fantasy has a lot of work ahead of them.

 

[Olgar Shiverstone]

Mechanically? No.

It's attractive because of its simplicity, but it still has a number of irrational mechanical issues. AC that goes down, not up; THACO (from a table); arbitrary save categories which also use a table; class balancing based on XP, etc. That's even acknowledging that some other things that people take issue with can be seen as features that should be retained for simplicity (e.g. races as classes; all dwarves are fighters, etc.).

I think you could get a "best mechanical D&D" if you took a number of the d20 fixes to the above and applied them, without adding in other complicating mechanics.

Don't misinterpret me -- I love B/X and BECMI, but I'm not going to ignore their flaws. I'm personally looking forward to finding out if Adventures in the East Mark applied any of those things.