Is BECMI the Best D&D Mechanically?

[Minigiant]

Nope.

Still had Downward AC and nonsense tables.

Besides the being the best mechanical D&D is like being the fastest snail. We like mechanics for reasons other than their goodness.

Most RPG mechanics are terrible if a computer isn't doing it because few designers actually make them to model what the mechanic is supposed to simulate.

 

[fjw70]

Despite always having a place in my heart for BX I am using 13th Age as my modern basic D&D. I just stripped out talents, some class features, and most feats (I keep a few to level up some class features) and it is a pretty simple game with mechanics that are more to my liking.

 

[Jan van Leyden]

I like the limited options in BECMI and have no problems with the warts already mentioned in this thread. But no, it's not the mechanically best version.

 

[howandwhy99]

Best mechanically for what? I think BECMI is a solid system with some flaws. Unlike others, I actually believe the bounded AC-To Hit mechanic is operationally superior to the self-destructing designs of later versions. It actually makes combat easier, especially for the players of the game as they never dealt with it openly. D&D Next was going back to bounded mechanics, but then quit. I'm guessing they were promoting legacy design again without comprehension regarding the purposes of those designs. All in all BECMI is a good suggestion for use behind the screen, but it's obvious it still lacks whole portions necessary for a fully functional game code.

 

[MortalPlague]

D&D Next was going back to bounded mechanics, but then quit.

How did they quit? As far as I can tell, bounded mechanics are still alive and well in D&D Next. My 11th level fighter only has +9 to hit.

On topic, I wish I could convince my group to play a game or two of BECMI D&D, just for the sake of trying it. I played it only with friends at school, long before the formation of our current group (which began with 2nd Edition). I think the lack of character options would sink it, however.

 

[howandwhy99]

How did they quit? As far as I can tell, bounded mechanics are still alive and well in D&D Next. My 11th level fighter only has +9 to hit.

As far as I can tell they aren't tying target numbers to the die roll, but instead the natural number line. Also, at higher levels, like in the teens (and 20s if they add those), the modifiers no longer fit on the span of the d20 result. The average challenge rating has to be lowered from 10 so 1's are not auto-successes. At least that's how I was reading it back in the Spring. It may have changed again.

 

[MortalPlague]

As far as I can tell they aren't tying target numbers to the die roll, but instead the natural number line. Also, at higher levels, like in the teens (and 20s if they add those), the modifiers no longer fit on the span of the d20 result. The average challenge rating has to be lowered from 10 so 1's are not auto-successes. At least that's how I was reading it back in the Spring. It may have changed again.

Oh, I see. You're talking about bounded accuracy where you're always trying to hit a certain range of numbers on the d20 roll, whereas I'm seeing it as smaller math where level matters less in the grand scheme of being able to hit a target.

 

[howandwhy99]

I'd actually prefer they went back to the design where class level mattered on die rolls, at least for rolls expressing whatever class in question's statistical relationships. At least the fighter should get better at hitting stuff, like the wizard does at learning spells and the cleric does at turning. But yeah, setting the boundary within the distribution of the die result keeps auto-successes and failures from effecting, at least directly effecting, outcomes within the scope of the game. 3.x had a real problem with this making a lot high level play a practice in not rolling 1's.

I think AD&D bounded the statistical relationships at something like 1 in 400 for least odds and 399 in 400 for greatest odds, but you could keep rolling 20's if you wanted something even finer.

 

[ExploderWizard]

I prefer B/X to BECMI. The thief class was already weak in B/X. The BECMI set just grabbed him by the collar and kicked him in the junk spreading out the skill increases over 36 levels
. Its still a playable and fun version of the game that I would likely play but not the best mechanically speaking.

 

[cimbrog]

I'm curious if you mean BECMI or BECMI/Cyclopedia + Gazetteers. Because I discovered something about these rules many years after I had quit using them.

When 4e came out I noticed that it encouraged a style of play that was incompatible with the style of D&D I had been playing before. This style was 3.x world simulation. Players want to focus on alchemy? I've got lists of ingredients and rules for their effects. Players want to be merchants? I've got rules for simulating economies. Players want to make their own spells? I've got rules for that. The joke for my player's was always, "He's got rules for that."

I began thinking about older editions and how this style of play had evolved. Before 3rd edition had come out we were using a modified version of 2e. Looking at my old house rules I see lots of Player's Option stuff but also stuff from BECMI and the Gazetteers all over the place. The weapon proficiency rules, the merchanting rules, the non-weapon proficiency rules.

Looking back at the fully fleshed out BECMI (including Gazetteers) I see the beginnings of 3e's obsession with simulation. There were rules for EVERYTHING. Hell, the Minothrad Gazetteer told you how to split the loot among a pirate crew.

So when I hear people talking about B/X and OD&D and often mentioning BECMI in the same breath I feel like it isn't quite right. BECMI started with a B/X heart but I think ended up being much more of a spiritual predecessor to 3rd edition than 2nd edition actually was. Whether that is a good thing or not is a matter of taste, but I STILL use the Darokin book for when the PCs want to do some merchanting and the domain rules for when then settle down.