D&D 5E What can BECMI offer D&D Next?

[Dungeonosophy]

Mearls and other designers have mentioned that Classic D&D (B/X D&D, BECMI D&D, and RC/WotI D&D) is one of the sources for distilling D&D Next. Besides its streamlined play, there are several CD&D ingredients that might be tossed in the 5e pot and boiled down:

• The well-thought-out Rules Cyclopedia skill system by Aaron Allston might serve as another source for distilling the 5e skill system. Also the many eccentric but flavorful skills found in the Gazetteer series.
• The "lost" details about the core demihuman races, which weren't carried into the AD&D line, such as high-level racial features: dodging dragon-breath--and the Dwarven Forgekeeper, Elven Treekeeper, and weird Hin Master from the GAZ line--might be considered.
• CD&D and its default setting (Mystara) provide a precedent for including an optional triparte Law-Neutrality-Chaos alignment module.
• Likewise, CD&D provides a precedent for Law, Neutrality (or Balance), and Chaos as Domain Themes.
• The Companion Rules Set provides a source (along with Birthright) for distilling D&DNext's dominion rules module.
• The War Machine rules from the Companion Set is a source for distilling a 5e skirmish and mass-combat rules module. (Along with OD&D Chainmail, 1e and 2e Battlesystem, 3e Chainmail, and Dungeon Command.)

Any others things that CD&D might offer D&DN?

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

What happened just calling it BD&D? This hobby suffers from extreme jargon duplication.

And the Hin Master was cool as hell.

 

[mkill]

I first read the thread title as "What can BESM offer D&D Next?" and got a little excited, but then I realized it's just another same-as-the-usual D&D thread. Ah well.

Rules Cyclopedia skill system: Never read it.

"lost" details about the core demihuman races: Sounds like an early predecessor of racial Prestige Classes / Paragon Paths.

Law-Neutrality-Chaos alignment module: You can play in any edition without the Good/Evil axis. No biggie. Really only relevant if they decide to make a Mystara setting book.

Dominion rules: Very campaign specific. Some groups love domain management, some completely ignore it. DMG II / splatbook material.

Mass-combat: Again, very campaign specific.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

"lost" details about the core demihuman races: Sounds like an early predecessor of racial Prestige Classes / Paragon Paths.

No. BD&D was the races-as-classes era, and there were both high level race-as-class class abilities that have mostly not been carried on into later editions' crunch (or even fluff).

And the early predecessor of prestige classes was arguably the 1E bard (or, if you don't like that version, UA's thief-acrobat).

Dominion rules: Very campaign specific. Some groups love domain management, some completely ignore it. DMG II / splatbook material.

Has everyone forgotten that WotC is going to do modular rules? Domain management seems like an obvious one, given how important it was in earlier incarnations of the game -- and that it was the subject of one of WotC's own polls.

Mass-combat: Again, very campaign specific.

Rules module.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

Having just reread the RC in the last few weeks, I'd say that the biggest thing it offers is a fairly comprehensive look at major portions of D&D, in a tight package. Those RC skills don't all translate to something like 3E/4E skills, but they do show up in one form or another in those later systems--skills, class abilities, feats, etc.

More interesting, is the rather limited spell list and magic item list, that still manages to cover a lot of ground in the game. Weapon mastery is interesting as an overly fiddly system for what it does, but nonetheless a potential source of inspiration for different weapon properties. For example, once you put labels on +1, +2, etc. as "basic", "skilled", etc., it opens up the design space to readily put other properties on the different mastery levels--such as different damage expressions and abilities.

 

[Ramen]

I always liked the Rules Cyclopedia version of alignments especial their application to spells. Evil meant a person was out to harm you and good meant they where going to help you. So detect evil detected if a person meant you ill will. I always thought it was more elegant that the 9 alignment axis.

Lawful meant you lived by a code of conduct and generally wanted the best for other chaotic essentially meant you where out for yourself and whatever other could give you.

 

[TarionzCousin]

• The "lost" details about the core demihuman races, which weren't carried into the AD&D line, such as high-level racial features: dodging dragon-breath--and the Dwarven Forgekeeper, Elven Treekeeper, and weird Hin Master from the GAZ line--might be considered.

• Where can I learn more about these "lost details"? Which book(s) are they in?

 

[trancejeremy]

What happened just calling it BD&D? This hobby suffers from extreme jargon duplication.

Because there are different versions of Basic D&D, so if you don't say which, people won't know which you mean.

 

[Dungeonosophy]

Bd&d?

What happened just calling it BD&D? This hobby suffers from extreme jargon duplication.

The AD&D folk tend to call it BD&D, based on the dichotomy of "Advanced" and "Basic". That's logical. BD&D is a legitimate name.

However, the name "BD&D" runs into the fact that only levels 1 to 3 of "BD&D" were called "Basic". (Whizbang, you probably know all this, but I'm taking this opportunity to share some history.)

Then there was Expert D&D released during the Moldvay/Cook era.

And then the Mentzer-era Companion D&D, Master D&D, and Immortal D&D. So, BECMI D&D.

Others call it OD&D ("Old D&D" or "Original D&D") or even "Zero Edition" (0e). But the name OD&D is scoffed at by the pre-AD&D/pre-BD&D grognards, since the manila-era booklets are even Older, and more Original. However, they ought not scoff too hard since the Mentzer box sets explictly state in the introduction that they are a continuation of the "Original D&D" game. But I admit that, to avoid confusion, "OD&D" is the most distinct name for the manila-era edition.

Anyway, officially the game was simply called "D&D", as distinguished from "AD&D".*

Then the BECM boxed sets were replaced by a slick hardcover Rules Cyclopedia, and the Immortals set was replaced by the Wrath of the Immortals boxed set, which drastically revised the deity-level rules. During this era, the game started to be called "Classic Dungeons & Dragons"; for example, on the cover of the 1994 intro boxed set. This name (CD&D) is useful as an overarching word for all iterations of that lineage. There were revisions in each iteration of CD&D, like AD&D 2e vs. AD&D 2.5e (Players/DMs Options) or D&D 3.0e vs. 3.5e.

*[So when 3e dropped the "Advanced", this raised the eyebrows of both D&D and AD&D players. Resistance from the D&D players because 3e was really, rules-wise, and setting-wise, a continuation of the AD&D lineage. And resistance from the AD&D players because "D&D" seemed to imply "less advanced".]


So there are four iterations of CD&D:

• Holmes BD&D
• Moldvay/Cook B/X D&D
• Mentzer BECMI D&D
• Allston RC/WotI D&D

That's what happened to just calling it BD&D.

 

[Bluenose]

And the early predecessor of prestige classes was arguably the 1E bard (or, if you don't like that version, UA's thief-acrobat).

Would that have predated the Companion rules, and the Paladin/Knight/Avenger options for Fighter past level 12?

Where can I learn more about these "lost details"? Which book(s) are they in?

They're in various Gazeteer products. Hin Master in Five Shires, Elven Treekeeper in Elves of Alfheim, and Dwarf Forgekeeper in the Rockhome book.