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

[Ramen]

No assumption that you should be playing RAW. I remember old D&D and AD&D games i have played being very open to GM house rules and flavoring. I think a lot of that mindset started to change in 2nd ed but im sure some played it straight with the others too.

 

[Steely_Dan]

Funnily enough, soon after DMing 4th Ed I got an itch to start up a Basic Ed campaign, and add bits from 1st/2nd/3rd/4th Ed as we go along.

 

[Greg K]

For myself, I cannot think of anything mechanically. However, Mystara and the gazetteers are, definitely, something I would like to see- Shadow Elves, Atrughan clans, Golden Khan, etc. (just no tortles!).

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

The thief-acrobat first appeared in Dragon #69 in 1983. It wasn't an offical class until UA though.

But the timing definitely makes it possible that the two ideas developed alongside one another. I wonder if there's any way to learn which definitively came first.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

For myself, I cannot think of anything mechanically. However, Mystara and the gazetteers are, definitely, something I would like to see- Shadow Elves, Atrughan clans, Golden Khan, etc. (just no tortles!).

Don't be knockin' tortles!

I'd love to see a Known World sourcebook with monsters, magic, new options for players, etc. Or, if the margins aren't there for WotC to even do a one-off campaign setting, license it out to someone who wants to make a go of it.

 

[Salamandyr]

1
5. Artwork. Unlike some of my fellow grognards, I happen to like the Elmore art. It sure beats the grunge of 3.x, and the surrealism of 4e.

I think what bothers a lot of people about Elmore is the stuff he did for Dragon magazine or as commissions...ie, cheesecake. His BECMI material was some of the best art of his career, at least in my opinion. Easley was still early in his game though.

For my money, I'll still always take Otus, Dee, Roslof, and Willingham (Go Fables!) from the Moldvay/Cook era.

 

[Mercule]

Weapon mastery is interesting as an overly fiddly system for what it does, but nonetheless a potential source of inspiration for different weapon properties.

This was my first thought. I always preferred the BECMI mastery system over the vanilla specialization of AD&D.

 

[Olgar Shiverstone]

1. Morgan Ironwolf (hubba hubba!)

2. Bargle (Boo! Hiss!)

3. Sandboxy adventures and exploration

4. (Mostly) simple, easily adaptable rule guidelines

 

[TrippyHippy]

It offers a complete game, running from levels 1-36 in one core book, including monsters and a setting.

It also had rudimentary skills system and prestige classes, of a sort - Paladin, Knights and Avengers for Fighters, Druids, Mystics (Monks) and so on. The Classes themselves were clear fantasy archetypes too.

If I had my perfect D&D (which seems a really long shot at happening these days), there would just be a handful of core Classes, and then a bunch of other Classes that you could qualify for as you gained levels exactly in the way presented in the Compendium.

So Fighters would be a core Class, with 'Advanced Classes' of Paladin, Knight, Warlord, Ranger, Barbarian, Monk being chosen from that as a base.

Clerics would start out as Mace wielding, vaguely Christian-themed warrior-priests, and then be able to choose another class (Druid, Specific Religion Priest, Witchfinder, etc).

Magic-Users could specialize in terms of Schools (Elementalist, Illusionist, etc) or broader power types (Wizards, Sorcerers, Witches, Warlocks).

Rogues could opt to be Assassins, Bards, Investigators etc.

I probably wouldn't have Races as Classes, and there are a number of other things I wouldn't be wanting from it too - but the key structure and utility would be close to it.

 

[Keldryn]

What I'd like D&D Next to take away from BECMI / BD&D:

The idea that you can start a campaign with minimal rules and options and increase your options slowly to the give the players and DM time to master the game as they go along.

BECMI defined itself by creating tiers of rules complexity, not just tiers of character levels. Basic, Expert, Companion, Master, and Immortal slowly added in more detail.

This was the way that I learned the game, and I think that it's a fantastic way to structure the game system. I'm probably biased. I still feel that BECMI gradually expanded the scope of the game in a way that felt very organic. A character's progression was not planned at character creation, and the acquisition of rewards and new character abilities was usually tied to what was happening in the game world.

My thinking is that combat isn't slow in 3rd and 4th editions just because of the thousands of pages of rules or because of the grid, it's because of a lack of player and DM mastery of the rules. We have too many options too quickly, particularly in the DDI character builder.

I am willing to bet that no matter how streamlined the new rules set is, people trying it out for the first time will complain that it "runs slow" because they will try to incorporate too many rules at once. Even experienced players and DM's (and perhaps especially those folks) will do this.

I agree completely. The major stumbling blocks for my group when we started a 4e game were the number of options available to a 1st-level PC and the volume of rules that a player needed to know in order to complete even a single encounter. (The group was me as the DM, two veteran players, and two new casual players). A typical first-level PC has two at-will attack powers, one encounter attack power, and a daily attack power. Generally an encounter utility power (racial) on top of those. Most classes have features that are either powers (Turn Undead, Healing Word), require some sort of activation and/or tracking (marks, Hunger's Quarry), or give situational bonuses (Prime Shot). There's also Second Wind, which is a power in all but name. Essentials characters such as the Slayer are a little better here, but still have to deal with the next part.

Once play starts, players not only have to track their hit points, but also healing surges. Temporary hit points are so common as to be virtually guaranteed to come up, so that's something else to track. I had two players ask me why do I have to keep track of three different numbers just to tell if I'm dead or not? First-level characters are also very likely to have to deal with tracking +1/-1/+2/-2 to attack/damage/defense until end of next turn, auras, marks, quarries, action points, and triggered actions.

Not only do 3e and 4e provide a huge number of rules and options right out of the gate, they assume a much more rapid pace of advancement than did earlier versions of the game. By the time my 4e players hit second level (after 3 four hour sessions), only one of the players was really comfortable with all of his character's abilities, and the two casual players were unenthusiastic to discover that they got a new power and a new feat -- and that they would get another new power at 3rd level.

When we took a break from 4e (requested by two of the players), I ran a couple sessions of Basic D&D ('83 set), and everybody enjoyed the game significantly more. Except for the 3.5 veteran, who found the character building far too limiting and boring. Ironically, he was the only player to have a character die. In fact, he lost two characters.

I like how BECMI allows characters to develop their specializations (such as there are) over the course of the campaign, rather than making many choices at 1st level that lock them into a particular path. Other than class, there aren't any really big decisions that are made upon character creation.

It was also great how BECMI gradually increased the scope of the game, starting with a limited environment (the dungeon) which gives the players the freedom to choose among limited options, which is not only less overwhelming for new players but also a lot easier for new DMs, who may not be comfortable coming up with details and characters on the fly. Once the players are all familiar with how the game worlds, the scope of the game widens -- but the game doesn't keep adding new discrete character abilities to manage (other than spells). The Basic and Expert sets alone can make for a long and satisfying campaign without ever touching the dominion or quest for immortality aspects of the game.

Modules will not only hopefully allow this gradual learning curve, but will encourage it. The same goes for the raw number of classes, races, feats, etc. The volume of new material needs to be controlled so that we're not drinking from a fire hose.

Here's hoping. I'm one of those weird gamers who find that the game generally plays better with a manageable and more or less fixed set of character-building options.