Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Keldryn" data-source="post: 5890114" data-attributes="member: 11999">This was the way that I learned the game, and I think that it's a fantastic way to structure the game system.  I'm probably biased.  I still feel that BECMI gradually expanded the scope of the game in a way that felt very organic.  A character's progression was not planned at character creation, and the acquisition of rewards and new character abilities was usually tied to what was happening in the game world.I agree completely.  The major stumbling blocks for my group when we started a 4e game were the number of options available to a 1st-level PC and the volume of rules that a player needed to know in order to complete even a single encounter.  (The group was me as the DM, two veteran players, and two new casual players).  A typical first-level PC has two at-will attack powers, one encounter attack power, and a daily attack power.  Generally an encounter utility power (racial) on top of those.  Most classes have features that are either powers (Turn Undead, Healing Word), require some sort of activation and/or tracking (marks, Hunger's Quarry), or give situational bonuses (Prime Shot).  There's also Second Wind, which is a power in all but name.  Essentials characters such as the Slayer are a little better here, but still have to deal with the next part.Once play starts, players not only have to track their hit points, but also healing surges.  Temporary hit points are so common as to be virtually guaranteed to come up, so that's something else to track.  I had two players ask me why do I have to keep track of three different numbers just to tell if I'm dead or not?  First-level characters are also very likely to have to deal with tracking +1/-1/+2/-2 to attack/damage/defense until end of next turn, auras, marks, quarries, action points, and triggered actions.Not only do 3e and 4e provide a huge number of rules and options right out of the gate, they assume a much more rapid pace of advancement than did earlier versions of the game.  By the time my 4e players hit second level (after 3 four hour sessions), only one of the players was really comfortable with all of his character's abilities, and the two casual players were unenthusiastic to discover that they got a new power and a new feat -- and that they would get another new power at 3rd level.When we took a break from 4e (requested by two of the players), I ran a couple sessions of Basic D&D ('83 set), and everybody enjoyed the game significantly more.  Except for the 3.5 veteran, who found the character building far too limiting and boring.  Ironically, he was the only player to have a character die.  In fact, he lost two characters.I like how BECMI allows characters to develop their specializations (such as there are) over the course of the campaign, rather than making many choices at 1st level that lock them into a particular path.  Other than class, there aren't any really big decisions that are made upon character creation.  It was also great how BECMI gradually increased the scope of the game, starting with a limited environment (the dungeon) which gives the players the freedom to choose among limited options, which is not only less overwhelming for new players but also a lot easier for new DMs, who may not be comfortable coming up with details and characters on the fly.  Once the players are all familiar with how the game worlds, the scope of the game widens -- but the game doesn't keep adding new discrete character abilities to manage (other than spells).  The Basic and Expert sets alone can make for a long and satisfying campaign without ever touching the dominion or quest for immortality aspects of the game.Here's hoping.  I'm one of those weird gamers who find that the game generally plays better with a manageable and more or less fixed set of character-building options.</blockquote>

Verification