Is BECMI the Best D&D Mechanically?

[cimbrog]

Double post. Ignore.

 

[TwoSix]

I'm curious if you mean BECMI or BECMI/Cyclopedia + Gazetteers. Because I discovered something about these rules many years after I had quit using them.

When 4e came out I noticed that it encouraged a style of play that was incompatible with the style of D&D I had been playing before. This style was 3.x world simulation. Players want to focus on alchemy? I've got lists of ingredients and rules for their effects. Players want to be merchants? I've got rules for simulating economies. Players want to make their own spells? I've got rules for that. The joke for my player's was always, "He's got rules for that."

I began thinking about older editions and how this style of play had evolved. Before 3rd edition had come out we were using a modified version of 2e. Looking at my old house rules I see lots of Player's Option stuff but also stuff from BECMI and the Gazetteers all over the place. The weapon proficiency rules, the merchanting rules, the non-weapon proficiency rules.

Looking back at the fully fleshed out BECMI (including Gazetteers) I see the beginnings of 3e's obsession with simulation. There were rules for EVERYTHING. Hell, the Minothrad Gazetteer told you how to split the loot among a pirate crew.

So when I hear people talking about B/X and OD&D and often mentioning BECMI in the same breath I feel like it isn't quite right. BECMI started with a B/X heart but I think ended up being much more of a spiritual predecessor to 3rd edition than 2nd edition actually was. Whether that is a good thing or not is a matter of taste, but I STILL use the Darokin book for when the PCs want to do some merchanting and the domain rules for when then settle down.

That's some fascinating insight I hadn't heard before. Kudos.

 

[Weather Report]

It is elegant; funnily enough, soon after I became disillusioned with DMing 4th Ed, I started looking to Basic, and hacking it with very edition, and SWSE, to make the game I dig.

 

[Zardnaar]

It is elegant; funnily enough, soon after I became disillusioned with DMing 4th Ed, I started looking to Basic, and hacking it with very edition, and SWSE, to make the game I dig.

My players enjoyed some BECMI adventures such as B5 but the lack of options thing was bad for them (d20 era players). They liked ACKs a bit more due to some basic options.

To the earlier question I was sort of meaning the Rules Cyclopedia or BE part of the game. I did not mean all the supplemental material like the gazetteers

 

[Deuce Traveler]

BECMI is awesome. It's a quick system to get up and running as it takes little preparation to set-up, yet it has a lot of depth to it with its rules for combat between armies, weapon proficiencies, artifacts and so forth. It's my personal favorite.

 

[Celebrim]

I'm curious if you mean BECMI or BECMI/Cyclopedia + Gazetteers. Because I discovered something about these rules many years after I had quit using them.

When 4e came out I noticed that it encouraged a style of play that was incompatible with the style of D&D I had been playing before. This style was 3.x world simulation. Players want to focus on alchemy? I've got lists of ingredients and rules for their effects. Players want to be merchants? I've got rules for simulating economies. Players want to make their own spells? I've got rules for that. The joke for my player's was always, "He's got rules for that."

I began thinking about older editions and how this style of play had evolved. Before 3rd edition had come out we were using a modified version of 2e. Looking at my old house rules I see lots of Player's Option stuff but also stuff from BECMI and the Gazetteers all over the place. The weapon proficiency rules, the merchanting rules, the non-weapon proficiency rules.

Looking back at the fully fleshed out BECMI (including Gazetteers) I see the beginnings of 3e's obsession with simulation. There were rules for EVERYTHING. Hell, the Minothrad Gazetteer told you how to split the loot among a pirate crew.

So when I hear people talking about B/X and OD&D and often mentioning BECMI in the same breath I feel like it isn't quite right. BECMI started with a B/X heart but I think ended up being much more of a spiritual predecessor to 3rd edition than 2nd edition actually was. Whether that is a good thing or not is a matter of taste, but I STILL use the Darokin book for when the PCs want to do some merchanting and the domain rules for when then settle down.

I agree.

And this IMO hits on my assertion that there is no such things as a successful rules light system.

To be successful in an economic sense, a system needs to produce new supplements. But each supplement has a tendency to add to the rules until they cease to actually be light rules. This is because in fact, as supplements expand the definition of what it means to play the game - in this case beyond "You leave the Haven and entire the first level of the underground dungeon in search of the pie" - you find that there are gaps in the rules that need to be filled or which are at least tempting to fill. The rules expand until you can no longer claim they are rules light.

To be successful as a game, it means it has to be played often. But as a rules light system gets played often and for games of greater scope, it tends to acquire overtly or covertly a large body of table rules based on the rulings that have occurred in play to cover situations which are ambiguous or undefined under the rules. Gradually, these 'common law' rulings - even if they are never written down and just stay in the DMs head - increase in scope until if they were codified and organized the system would be revealed to no longer be rules light.

At the heart of every rules heavy system, is a successful rules light system. You can dig the original rules light system out from under the rules burden, but if you put it into play, it won't be long before the system has reacquired a thick coat of rules because rules just grow out of play organically. And if you are a publisher, rules light or not, you soon find out that crunch sells.

 

[Serendipity]

As it is my favorite 'all in one book' D&D I'd have to say yes, at least for what I want/use it for. Simple, tight mechanics, very little excess but still comprehensive.

 

[Stormonu]

When you get specific about the versions of OD&D, Holmes, B/X and BECMI, I have to admit I come down with liking B/X the most. If the game split out race and class, it would probably be my go-to D&D system. However, in my heart it's beaten by 2E for its mix of sheer customizability and general quick-running at the table.

 

[Zardnaar]

If BECMI had AD&D classes, MCing and a few more things I think I could like it a lot more.

 

[lutecius]

Not to me.
It probably works for a very specific play style but it's far too limiting in terms of character options and frankly I don't find it mechanically elegant.
Despite all its problems I still prefer 3.x by far.