Is BECMI the Best D&D Mechanically?

[Minigiant]

Now that I think about, 3.X tops the charts on raw mechanics. The raw formulas were great and simple. Most of the critiques on the system is on the second layer of mechanics, the parts that used those mechanics. The classes, the spells, the skills, the monsters, the feats etc. The only grips I've really seen on the formula were on the size of the numbers at mid-high levels as some people hate big numbers.

 

[Agamon]

Mechanically? No.

It's attractive because of its simplicity, but it still has a number of irrational mechanical issues. AC that goes down, not up; THACO (from a table); arbitrary save categories which also use a table; class balancing based on XP, etc. That's even acknowledging that some other things that people take issue with can be seen as features that should be retained for simplicity (e.g. races as classes; all dwarves are fighters, etc.).

I think you could get a "best mechanical D&D" if you took a number of the d20 fixes to the above and applied them, without adding in other complicating mechanics.

So, ACKS then?

It has AC goes up from 0 and attack throw target numbers instead of THACO. Also, I used to think the old save categories were arbitrary, too. But, really, they just simulate a way of avoiding a certain kind of danger and are listed in the order you go through them to see which applies. XP as a balancing mechanic (and it's only one of the class balancing mechanics, which is key) really breaks down in games that go high into the levels, but it works otherwise and is key to ACKS' Companion class building rules (which are absolute genius).

I guess the point is, I used to grouse about how arbitrary and irrational the older rules were, but the OSR community has been enlightening, particularly the ACKS core book and Alex's designer blog, which really explains the reasoning behind such rules really well.

Don't misinterpret me -- I love B/X and BECMI, but I'm not going to ignore their flaws. I'm personally looking forward to finding out if Adventures in the East Mark applied any of those things.

I'm a backer of this, too. Incredibly beautiful. But I'm more interested in the setting, I think the rules are more or less a port of BECM.

 

[Olgar Shiverstone]

So, ACKS then?

I'm not up on that one, but if it hits those targets, sure!

I'm not a fan of XP balancing, though. XP is a metagame concept; I firmly believe that game elements should be balanced by game elements, not metagame elements.

 

[Zardnaar]

ACKs is great. One of the better retroclones. It also feels like D&D.

 

[cimbrog]

Agreed on ACKS. If I ever wanted to run a "low character complexity, high campaign complexity" campaign again it would be my first choice.