How to put together a BECMI mini-series...

[rogueattorney]

This is the main issue. There are lots of situations where a saving throw seems called for, but it's not clear which saving throw would be the most reasonable one to use. Say the floor falls out from under you; do you grab onto something or plunge into the pit? That's the sort of thing one instinctively wants to resolve with a saving throw, but which one?

Fort/Ref/Will are not perfect, but it's easy to understand the concepts behind them and pick one to apply.

I don't see the lack of rules with regard to avoiding a pit trap to be a problem with the saving throw rules. Like I said, if a DM wants to add something - whether using the saving throw chart, an ability check, or whatever - it's totally in his discretion to do so.

Pedantic aside: By the book, traps like pit traps only activate on a 1-2 in 6 when a character does something that could trigger that trap. So characters essentially have a 67% chance "saving throw" for traps to begin with. See B22 of the Moldvay version of the rules. I'm pretty sure it's in Mentzer and the RC, too. I just don't have access to them at the moment. So you could just give every character a saving throw of 7 against traps.

 

[Dausuul]

I don't see the lack of rules with regard to avoiding a pit trap to be a problem with the saving throw rules. Like I said, if a DM wants to add something - whether using the saving throw chart, an ability check, or whatever - it's totally in his discretion to do so.

Sure. But it's a lot easier to just call for a Reflex save. The point of a rules system--even one as loose as BECMI--is not having to do everything ad hoc.

 

[rogueattorney]

I never answered the OP:

I like the idea of base attack bonuses as opposed to hit matrices/THAC0.

The AC values in BECM really don't mean anything. They're simply column labels on a chart. Change 'em to whatever you want. If you like AC to equal target number, change 9 through 2 to 10 through 17 and you're golden. "To hit" bonuses with new levels are pretty easy to figure out from the charts.

And I'd sort of like to up the thieving skills a tad to make thieves a bit more viable (or maybe add some discretionary points, a la 2e?)

Make sure you're not penalizing the thief for using his skills. Failure at a skill does not mean something bad happens to the thief. For example, a failed Move Silently check does not mean he failed to move quietly. He still has his normal chance to surprise. He simply doesn't have an increased chance to surprise. Same goes for failed find/remove trap rolls, pick pocket rolls, and move silently rolls. The only thief skill where per se something bad happens to him when the roll is failed is Climb Walls.

Let him use his skills all the times. They should be more like fighter attack rolls and less like m-u spells. Also, don't let other classes do what the thieves' skills do. In other words, if you're simply going to allow a fighter to bash the lock in with his war hammer, why bother making the thief roll to open locks? Let the thief do his job.

And I know we'll be using my old BECMI favourite - death at -10, with those in the negatives losing 1d3 HP a round (and cures do NOT restore you to 1 instantly).

I actually had a group request that I stop using the -10 rule. True story. They wanted 0 = dead. Personally, I prefer the 1e rule that any character brought to -4 in a single blow is dead. If you're brought to 0 to -3 you're incapacitated and lose a hp per round, dying at -10. And of course, if you go to -6 or worse, you have some sort of scar or lose a limb or some such other coolness.

1e/2e's basic secondary skills system could be fun to play with.

I'm not fond of tacked on skill systems in D&D. Generally, if a player says his character has something in his background, I allow. If he was raised by fisherman, he knows how to fish and knows a bit about boats, etc. If I were to use a skill system, I'd go to the 1e DMG and use the secondary skills (which is a slightly more formal version of my previous sentence) instead of the Survival Guide/2e style NWPs or the RC style non-weapon skills.

My brother wants to use 3e's Saving Throw mechanic as opposed to the BECMI standard.

See my comments in previous posts. I'd suggest as a compromise using the BECM saves for things that fall explicitly within the BECM categories and then a Fort/Will/Reflex type thing for stuff that does not. Maybe it makes things overly complicated, but I think it might be fun. Or you could go the complete opposite direction and try a Swords & Wizardry/Tunnels & Trolls single value save system.

Some extra purchaseable commodoties might be a fun idea (read as: stuff to do with your money that's not related to your castle).

More stuff to buy is always cool. Aaron Oliver (aka Mr. Reaper from Dragonsfoot) has a Rules Cyclopedia Errata and Companion which has a much expanded equipment list. In general, it's an incredible document, much of which I disagree with, but is an incredible labor of love for the BECM rules with tons of ideas and things to think about.

Any other ideas? Suggestions?

Let the players come up with their own spells per the spell research rules from an early level. Make expert hirelings like sages, animal trainers, and alchemists available to players, too. Use the charisma, henchman, stronghold, and follower rules to encourage the players to cement close ties to some npcs, to become more attached to the campaign world.

Most of all, have fun.

 

[GreyLord]

Not to really put too fine a point on it, but why is it that when someone asks for help house-ruling and running a game, people jump in with recomendations for other games?

I get that BFRPG is basically the same game, with a few very minor changes (changes that I'm implementing myself, in fact). And I appreciate the recommendations.

But I'd like to use BECMI, if only because I have a whole bunch of red box stuff that's gathering dust, and part of the charm is seeing the old Elmore art in play again.

So let me rephrase my question a bit, because I guess I *was* a tad ambiguous in the first post:

If you were running a BECMI game, what sort of house rules would you implement? Especially if you were aiming for a simple, fair game?

Literally, I use C&C with BECMI. They mesh really well. Perhaps some of it was due to Gygax's direct influence, or who knows what else. That's why I suggested it. You can use the quickstart rules (which are completely free), and use your BECMI rulebooks at the same time. All the quickstart rules do is give you the tables to implement what you are wanting into BECMI.

It's easier to simply say C&C than to list all the houserules that can be incorporated into BECMI.

I'm actually a little different though, preferring the combat tables from BECMI, and using the classes from C&C.

To each their own though.

 

[rogueattorney]

To out-pedant my own pedantry: I looked up that trap rule I mentioned earlier in the thread in the Mentzer Basic books and the RC and found that it's actually not there. Or if it is, it's really well hidden in both cases.

So, that's one "house" rule I'd add if you're running the Mentzer/RC rules: When a pc does something that may trigger a trap, the trap goes off on a roll of 1-2 in 6.

 

[Ariosto]

In other words, if you're simply going to allow a fighter to bash the lock in with his war hammer, why bother making the thief roll to open locks?

Because the thief's approach
(A) is more conducive to stealth (e.g., surprise)
and
(B) may involve less likelihood of traps, and certainly involves less likelihood of stumbling haplessly into whatever lies beyond
and
(C) at some point becomes much more likely to get the door open within a given time

As to traps activating but 1/3 of the time (the rule in the Original and Holmes sets), I am pretty sure that Moldvay gives characters that chance to NOTICE traps. If you look for that, maybe you will find it in Mentzer as well (although I have a hard time looking up just about anything in those Basic books).

 

[Remathilis]

Short Answer: Basic Fantasy.

Longer Answer:
* Get the Rules Cyclopedia STAT!
* Remove the RC's weapon mastery for 2e's weapon specialization (1 weapon, chosen at first level. +1 hit, +2 damage, +1 attack every other round). Fighter's only. (Maybe dwarves as well).
* Give thieves a +5% per +1 modifier of dex to PP, RT, MS, HS, and CW. At 10th level, give them triple backstab, at 20th quadruple, at 30th quintuple.
* You might want to shift the cleric spells per day down one level so that a first level priest gets 1 spell.
* I'd do -10 hp OR allow a death save every round they are below 0 to not die.
* Use the RCs "unlimited advancement" rules for demi-humans.

That's about it. Note: BFRPG is 100% compatible with BECMI D&D modules; all you'll have to do is flip the AC, switch thac0 for a bonus to hit = HD, and use the BFRPG tables for saves. Everything else is compatible. I plan to use BFRPG to run all the Thunder Rift modules one day...

 

[Monkey Boy]

I think telecanter has picked some excellent house rules, a best of the blogs if you will, which you can find here: http://city-of-brass.org/RecedingRules.pdf

I'm running the retro-clone lotfp at the moment and use:

death and dismemberment to give the players a little bit more longevity - BECMI is brutal - Troll and Flame: Deadlier Death and Dismemberment

list based encumbrance because honestly who wants to track all that crap? Download the lotfp rules, free from the blog, and check out the item list and encumbrance rules - LotFP: RPG: I'm An Idiot!

d6 thief because I'm running lotfp the thief/specialist has skills based on d6 rolls and can customise their abilities. It's working great for the thief player. If you download the lotfp rules (free) from the site you can look over the specialist rules.
LotFP: RPG: d6 Based Thief.. er, Specialist Skills

first aid -After a combat the character can apply first aid healing 1d3 hp (no test or roll required). Clerics and fighters add half their level to the outcome.

I am thinking about including:

shields will be splintered because it is cool - Trollsmyth: Shields Shall be Splintered!

 

[rogueattorney]

Because the thief's approach
(A) is more conducive to stealth (e.g., surprise)
and
(B) may involve less likelihood of traps, and certainly involves less likelihood of stumbling haplessly into whatever lies beyond
and
(C) at some point becomes much more likely to get the door open within a given time

As to traps activating but 1/3 of the time (the rule in the Original and Holmes sets), I am pretty sure that Moldvay gives characters that chance to NOTICE traps. If you look for that, maybe you will find it in Mentzer as well (although I have a hard time looking up just about anything in those Basic books).

Nope. The rule is pretty well explained and unambiguous: "If any character does something which could trigger a trap... the trap will be triggered on a roll of 1-2 (on a d6). The DM must check for each character passing the spot until the trap is either sprung or safely passed by all."

The rule for everyone finding traps when searching is the next paragraph.

That section of the Moldvay rules, "Part 4: The Adventure," is completely absent from the Mentzer rules. Many of the rules in that section are broken up and scattered throughout the Mentzer (and later RC) books, often word for word. However upon reviewing last night, there are a number of portions of that section that didn't make it to the later rules. For example, Moldvay handles encumbrance entirely differently than Mentzer - he doesn't itemize individual pieces of equipment. It's a lot easier.

 

[Ariosto]

I think the non-springing chance for traps got left out of AD&D as well (along with the standard frequency for dungeon wandering monsters).

For example, Moldvay handles encumbrance entirely differently than Mentzer - he doesn't itemize individual pieces of equipment. It's a lot easier.

Actually, both Moldvay and Mentzer give "weight in coins" for individual pieces of equipment. Moldvay's encumbrance/movement rule is a little more complicated than the one in Holmes, Mentzer's a bit further removed.

Here's the Movement Table from Holmes:

Feet Per Turn: Exploring & Mapping / Moving Normally
unarmored, unencumbered: 240 / 480
fully armored, or heavily laden: 120 / 240
fully armored AND heavy load: 60 / 120
running, unarmored: 720
running, armored: 360

(Recall that there were two moves per turn in the original rules. Thus, 12" x 2 = 24" or 240' for unencumbered.)

Thirty pounds is not a heavy load, but 60 lbs. is -- with other equipment typically carried, it is assumed to add up to at least 75 lbs. (or more for fighters, but they are inured to the burden by training).