D&D 5E A 5e BECMI?

[TheAuldGrump]

It has been mentioned on several topics lately, sometimes by me, that 5e might be well served by looking back to BECMI.

I will admit to a bias - more than half my adult players got started in the game with BECMI and the Cyclopedia. TSR had to have done something right - two of those players are still running a game using the Cyclopedia.

How much attention would folks give to a BECMI 5e, either as the main release or as an adjunct to the game?

And what constitutes the BECMI feel? I lean toward simple rules, vancian magic, and easy to understand classes. (Though I do not feel the need to make elf, dwarf, and halflings classes.)

The Auld Grump

 

[Dice4Hire]

A new BECMI would be, in my opinion, a base game with added rules of complexity.

To me the base game would be something like race and class, with no multi or dual classing allowed. Maybe even (by 4E standards) only at-wills and encounter powers. (But not Vanican magic, please do not go back to that) Perhaps even put more powers based off basic attacks.

Simplify weapons (you got one or don't) and implements (ditto)

This would work level 1-4.

Then from 5-10 we can add themes and daily powers at 5th and 9th (no 1st level dailies, too complicated)

Then from paragon 11th to 15th, we add in a lot of extra rules including APs, and the like that are more complicated.

And finally 15-20 (Where I would cap things) everything goes, with epic destinies or the like making the fifth building block of a character

Race with powers (mostly utilities but some attack encounters)and such easily substituted in.
Class much like 4E now but only at-wills and encounters.
Themes with dailies and more abilities from level 5 to 20
Paragon Path with some AP abilities and more complex powers
Epic Destiny with some stronger abilities to capstone the character.

Something like that, but of course it is very crude.

 

[Rechan]

I at least think having a Basic and then Everything Else would be nice. A sort of Apprentice/Zero to Hero levels, built to give people the "farmer who picked up a sword for the first time" feel. Put that in a separate box.

So that those who want that kind of play can have it, and it's accessible for newbies and everyone else. This also means it's detached enough that those who don't like Zero to Hero can easily skip ahead. Because while I do not prefer that kind of play, I think it should be there for those that do. And it doubles as an excellent entry-level tool for newbies.

 

[Mercurius]

By "BECMI 5E" do you mean a simple version of D&D? Or do you mean a 5E that harkens back to BECMI as its primary ancestor? If the latter, good luck but I doubt that happens. If the former, I think there's a good chance with the talk of the "complexity dial" that 5E will, at its core, be simpler than 3E and 4E, with further complexity being optional. But I really don't see 5E being a much simpler game without the Pandora's Box of options that 3E opened up and 4E continued; if anything, we may see a simplified core that better facilitates more options because they'll all be, well, optional.

 

[TheAuldGrump]

By "BECMI 5E" do you mean a simple version of D&D? Or do you mean a 5E that harkens back to BECMI as its primary ancestor? If the latter, good luck but I doubt that happens. If the former, I think there's a good chance with the talk of the "complexity dial" that 5E will, at its core, be simpler than 3E and 4E, with further complexity being optional. But I really don't see 5E being a much simpler game without the Pandora's Box of options that 3E opened up and 4E continued; if anything, we may see a simplified core that better facilitates more options because they'll all be, well, optional.

Both, either, neither.

I take it to mean a simple system (B), with additions that add complexity and options (EC), and others that stretch how far a given character can be taken (MI).

For others... it can mean something entirely different.

I know an awful lot of gamers who still love BEC, but never much bothered with MI.

And, yeah, stepping away from the 'Everything's Core!' of 4e might be a good idea. I think that hindered more than it helped, leading some to feel that the players were taking power from the DM - 'it's not optional! It's core!' Then again, I tend to use a line item veto on stuff for 3.X as well, so I am likely biased.

I forgot about the Pathfinder Beginner's Box when I first started this topic, but in some ways that is very much what I am talking about.

The Auld Grump

 

[jonesy]

I...and easy to understand classes. (Though I do not feel the need to make elf, dwarf, and halflings classes.)

To me the base game would be something like race and class, with no multi or dual classing allowed.

What game are you guys talking about? Only the rulebooks, no modules or anything? Last time I checked there were over a hundred and twenty classes for BECMI, several kits (from Hollow World), and specialist schools for wizards to boot (GAZ3).

 

[OpsKT]

I think you might be looking for Castles & Crusades.

 

[Mercurius]

I take it to mean a simple system (B), with additions that add complexity and options (EC), and others that stretch how far a given character can be taken (MI).

Is it your preference that complexities and options, both in terms of character development and perhaps tactics, shouldn't be introduced until a bit further on? And then they remain optional?

And, yeah, stepping away from the 'Everything's Core!' of 4e might be a good idea. I think that hindered more than it helped, leading some to feel that the players were taking power from the DM - 'it's not optional! It's core!' Then again, I tend to use a line item veto on stuff for 3.X as well, so I am likely biased.

I completely agree. I'd rather see a reversal, where you the motto is more akin to "A Simple Core, and Almost Everything is Optional." OK, that isn't catchy, but you know what i mean.

I forgot about the Pathfinder Beginner's Box when I first started this topic, but in some ways that is very much what I am talking about.

I'll check it out when it arrives in the mail tomorrow .

 

[Croesus]

I completely agree. I'd rather see a reversal, where you the motto is more akin to "A Simple Core, and Almost Everything is Optional." OK, that isn't catchy, but you know what i mean.

How about "D&D - Have it your way!"

 

[Croesus]

By "BECMI 5E" do you mean a simple version of D&D? Or do you mean a 5E that harkens back to BECMI as its primary ancestor?

My own answer is the former. BECMI wasn't perfect, but it did a number of things right.

1) Anyone who picked up the Basic set could be playing soon after the box was open. Playing hooks new players, not reading rules, trying out dozens of different builds, and so on. Time enough for that once they're hooked. (The PF Beginner Box seems to get this 100%.)

2) It was fun. This is a fuzzy area, but I think it ties directly into point 1 above. Core should include only those elements that would encourage a new player to keep playing. Time enough later to add all the extras that experienced players may (or may not) want.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

And what constitutes the BECMI feel? I lean toward simple rules, vancian magic, and easy to understand classes. (Though I do not feel the need to make elf, dwarf, and halflings classes.)

Gee, should I cut and paste my last reply to you from the other topic?

I think BECMI makes a great starting place because it is the most neutral of the editions. But it is only a starting place from which to modernize. Certainly, simple rules and easy classes would be part of that. I'm not sure BECMI Vancian magic would survive the modernization, though given how complex spell point and other alternatives rapidly get in the hands of designers, I wouldn't bet against it, either. (Vancian magic is one of those things like hit points and democracy--not perfect, but generally better than the alternatives. )

If it were up to me, before I started adding anything to BECMI, I'd take things away. Then I'd start looking to add stuff back to replace what had been removed, more or less. An easy one is taking away elf, dwarf, and halfling as classes, then adding them back as races, and any changes to classes to make that work out. But I would not hang onto class or race limits. If someone wants to play a dwarf wizard, let them. That's part of the modernization. If people want to use that core game to play something more limited, by all means, encourage them in the advice or even with some optional rules. That's also modernization.

 

[Viking Bastard]

Something like this sounds like the perfect D&D to me.

I love the idea of complexity dials, but I think the most realistic way of actually doing that is something more like this. Simple (but not *too* simple) core, with a lot of optional rules via supplements.

 

[ExploderWizard]

Its a nice thought but the Basic D&D level of simplicity will no longer please the modern gamer.

The main focus of modern day systems has been on the individual PC and all the stuff that they can do mechanically, and also the building process of getting the collection of abilities desired. The adventures themselves have faded into a mere backdrop for showing off all the badass things the PC can do.

Just the fact that the concept of "dead levels" exists and is addressed by designers to please the ravenous demands of players for wanting new multi-hued rainbows of special effects to come shooting out of every orifice with each level up (which had better happen at a decent pace) is a solid indication that basic simple classes are dead in the water.

In short, a system that does not cater to the gross ego boosting of short attention span players will not fly off the shelves.

Game companies are not really to blame for this state of affairs. Obsessive "me-ism" has overtaken the larger world. The effect on rpgs is simply nature running its course.

Whatever direction 5E goes with will leave part of the gaming poulation in the dust.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

Its a nice thought but the Basic D&D level of simplicity will no longer please the modern gamer.

...

Just the fact that the concept of "dead levels" exists and is addressed by designers to please the ravenous demands of players for wanting new multi-hued rainbows of special effects to come shooting out of every orifice with each level up (which had better happen at a decent pace) is a solid indication that basic simple classes are dead in the water...

I think you are conflating different things here, simplicity versus features, elegance versus flavor. Also confusing one implementation of "simple" and "flavorful" for the thing itself.

For example, the RC halfling is simple, but not elegant. To get a certain flavor, it knocks out whole swaths of options. Likewise, gaining a level and getting nothing but some hit points and maybe a +1 to hit, is simple but also not elegant. It is rather pointless in a well-designed game with class levels.

People always like simple. They just want their features, too. If pen and paper could do everything that a PDA and computer could do, no one would ever use anything else to write.

 

[ExploderWizard]

Likewise, gaining a level and getting nothing but some hit points and maybe a +1 to hit, is simple but also not elegant. It is rather pointless in a well-designed game with class levels.

This is my point exactly. When game focus itself becomes "whats in it for me right now" instead of going on adventures with friends, this mindset takes hold.

New abilities were a byproduct of successful adventures. Now they are the reason for playing. This is a dramatic shift in the game.

 

[nedjer]

Something like this sounds like the perfect D&D to me.

I love the idea of complexity dials, but I think the most realistic way of actually doing that is something more like this. Simple (but not *too* simple) core, with a lot of optional rules via supplements.

Except that this area is already being soaked-up at a rate of knots. Take Swords and Wizardry with increasingly crisp hard copies, a 'full' rules set, a massive monster book and now a book of lists. That's $30 for a lifetime of well-presented gaming material, which doesn't seem to leave a lot of profit/ add value options for a large-ish organisation.

My own recent, and recently hastily re-badged, option Corruption slices the costs/ profits factor even more. As a licence to print as many personal copies of the players' book as you have players doesn't require newbies to invest a penny at startup; and compatibility means you can add a S&W monster book and/ or S&W book of lists for a lifetime of v inexpensive gaming.

In other words, the early 'copy of the rules set' clones are turning into clones with support - and that support is rapidly adding better presentation and complexity dialing. This makes the original rules more accessible to new players, but doesn't appear to leave much room to pay for head offices, traditional distribution channels and executives. Corruption may be the first of the 'value-added' clones (I know of) to put (legal) costs for groups so low, but it's maybe unlikely to be the last.

 

[DEFCON 1]

I think there is certainly room in the product release to deliver the game in two different formats-- boxed game by Tier, and hardcover book by type (PH, DMG, MM). You get the best of both worlds. Boxed sets have the "starter set" built in as part of the format, and you get to include poster maps and tokens and character sheets which help the new players. The hardcover books include the rules for all the tiers and are meant for the players who already own all the acoutrement like maps, tokens, minis or dice... and just want all the rules for all the tiers together in one place.

The biggest issue is just having a good guesstimation of how many boxed sets vs books to print, as well as a very strong marketing notice to let people know that it's the same exact game but just presented in two formats for the two types of players (and who those players are.)

 

[nedjer]

Its a nice thought but the Basic D&D level of simplicity will no longer please the modern gamer.

The main focus of modern day systems has been on the individual PC and all the stuff that they can do mechanically, and also the building process of getting the collection of abilities desired. The adventures themselves have faded into a mere backdrop for showing off all the badass things the PC can do.

Just the fact that the concept of "dead levels" exists and is addressed by designers to please the ravenous demands of players for wanting new multi-hued rainbows of special effects to come shooting out of every orifice with each level up (which had better happen at a decent pace) is a solid indication that basic simple classes are dead in the water.

In short, a system that does not cater to the gross ego boosting of short attention span players will not fly off the shelves.

Game companies are not really to blame for this state of affairs. Obsessive "me-ism" has overtaken the larger world. The effect on rpgs is simply nature running its course.

Whatever direction 5E goes with will leave part of the gaming poulation in the dust.

This is roughly why I expect a rules-medium 5e. Buffers want to buff, tacticians want to demonstrate rules expertise and players who enjoy a two hour mega-battle will continue to look forward to BBGs.

It's perhaps not necessarily pure 'me-ism' so much as style and familiarity. I may prefer a quick, bloody battle and some exploring in a single session, but I can see the appeal of elaborate battles and handing-off player skills to skill systems to fend off meta-gaming. Players of 3.5, 3.75 and 4 would seem to have to accept not just a shift in style, but a full reversal to go over to BECMI territory.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

This is my point exactly. When game focus itself becomes "whats in it for me right now" instead of going on adventures with friends, this mindset takes hold.

New abilities were a byproduct of successful adventures. Now they are the reason for playing. This is a dramatic shift in the game.

I think you are reading your own biases into what other people do, and I know you are doing so with that reaction to what I said.

I know its your point. I think your point is way off, compounded by mixing up a whole lot of nonsense and clutter with some grains of truth. The mechanics of how you get abilities, at what level, how they are spaced out, etc. is separate from the reason for playing. Nothing whatsoever says that "getting something at each level" is inherently akin to "whats in it for me right now." If nothing else, because "getting something at each level" does not dictate how often you get those levels or what you have to do to get them.

It's true that some people want something every level because they want something for themselves right now. It is true in exactly the same way that some people don't like anyone else getting game breaking abilities, because they wanted them reserved for their wizard or cleric. You don't throw out elegant design completely merely because something that looks similar to that elegant design has been misused in the past.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

This is roughly why I expect a rules-medium 5e. Buffers want to buff, tacticians want to demonstrate rules expertise and players who enjoy a two hour mega-battle will continue to look forward to BBGs.

But what about those that want to buff, demonstrate rules expertise, but who don't necessarily want their mega-battle to take two hours?

That's like saying that Jane drives a Ford F150 because she likes being that high off the ground, has a thing for trucks, and enjoys paying a lot for gas. But maybe Jane simply has a need to haul stuff all the time, and the rest of it is sacrifice to get the hauling ability. Or maybe she does like part of that, but not the rest.

That people will put up with long fights is not evidence that they want long fights.