OD&D Edition Experience: Did/Do you Play BECM/RC D&D? How Was/Is It?

[jmartkdr2]

I do recall not really caring about editions other than basic/advanced back in the day; we just mashed up all the not-AD&D stuff and used whichever rule we remembered/saw first.

The differences weren’t big enough for this to become a problem.

 

[John Quixote]

It's self-evident that the first two volumes of a multi-volume game system are going to be more "compact and limited" than the whole system. I would think the same of an AD&D arbitrarily cut off at the end of 1978 on the grounds that the MM and PHB are all one really needs to play.

 

[CleverNickName]

It's self-evident that the first two volumes of a multi-volume game system are going to be more "compact and limited" than the whole system. I would think the same of an AD&D arbitrarily cut off at the end of 1978 on the grounds that the MM and PHB are all one really needs to play.

I think it was also the reason why they released the Rules Cyclopedia. Having everything you will ever need, in one hardcover book, was awesome.

I just wish they had kept the artwork from Elmore and Easley.

 

[Mannahnin]

It's self-evident that the first two volumes of a multi-volume game system are going to be more "compact and limited" than the whole system. I would think the same of an AD&D arbitrarily cut off at the end of 1978 on the grounds that the MM and PHB are all one really needs to play.

The 1978 PHB had no attack matrices or saving throw tables. Or treasure.

The 1981 Expert set also talked about expanding the game somewhat differently in the promised Companion volume than Mentzer eventually actually did. But fair point.

 

[Voadam]

The '86 and '92 Immortals rules are much more different from each other than any little differences between BX and BE.

And yet, BX gets to be its own edition in the eyes of OSR gamers, while BECMI and 1070/RC/WotI get lumped.

BXceptionalism makes no sense to me. As far as I'm concerned, everything from 1981 to 1996 is the Classic (or "BXcetera") edition of OD&D.

When you say you are cloning B/X instead of BECMI, as Labyrinth Lord and OSE did, it tells you it has stuff from the Basic and Expert Sets which are mostly replicated (98%) in the BE from BECMI, but nothing from CMI. No weapon mastery, no domain rules system, no immortality path, no advanced classes. If you are making an alternative new rules set but basing if off of B/X instead of BECMI it might have stuff analogous to what is in BECMI, but using wholly different rules, an alternative set of domain and army warfare rules for instance.

As someone looking back from a BECMI or RC perspective it tells you more what to expect from a product now than lumping all the basics together.

 

[John Quixote]

I think it was also the reason why they released the Rules Cyclopedia. Having everything you will ever need, in one hardcover book, was awesome.

I just wish they had kept the artwork from Elmore

I'll agree with you in the broad strokes, but... man, as much as I like Elmore's art, I really like Dykstra's too. I can't even apologize for that.

The 1978 PHB had no attack matrices or saving throw tables. Or treasure.

Fair enough, and I think my point would've landed better if I'd said 1979 and included the DMG, since lots of gamers do arbitrarily cut off "core" 1e there—even though Deities & Demigods includes converted LBB (SupIV) material and some necessary core rules (like ability scores up to 25) and therefore ought to be regarded as the fourth core rulebook. But with no Gygax on the byline, and containing material that was mostly perceived as meant for "high-level" play, hey-presto, it gets arbitrarily excluded from the "core."

This is actually a better analogy than I'd initially considered...