# Is BECMI the Best D&D Mechanically?



## Zardnaar (Nov 12, 2013)

This year we played BECMI D&D again via the Rules Cyclopedia PDF and after all these years it has not aged to bad. It uses descending ACs which is a bit annoying but it is a very clean and  elegant version of D&D. Higher level play probably is not that great but its not like 1st-4th ed can claim to do much better there either. The main problem with BECMI seems to be a lack of options but that is kind of the point of the system and it is good at what it is designed to do- a simple and basic version of D&D.

 It is not perfect by any means as the thief for example kind of sucks and clerics at level 1 are kind of painful as well. I quite like the ability score mods and the combat section is less than 15 pages in length. Game is still fun and in some ways superior to modern versions of D&D especially in regards to things like number porn.


----------



## fjw70 (Nov 12, 2013)

I prefer BX to BECMI due to simpler presentation but BECMI is not bad.  I don't like that BECMI doesn't add fighter maneuvers until the teen levels and I don't like the way it does multiple attacks. But yes, it is a decent system.

i really like 4e's design for official D&D and I really like 13th Age design for D&D-like systems.


----------



## Zardnaar (Nov 12, 2013)

I prefer the BX part as well or more like BE I suppose. ACKs is great.


----------



## MJS (Nov 12, 2013)

I STILL have a score to settle with Bargle.

as for the question - talking about "best" editions is a great recipe for thread fail.

I would say all the original-based D&D's are far better, mechanically, than rumor has it.


----------



## Salamandyr (Nov 12, 2013)

I run B/X, and, aside from needing to fill in a few blanks in interpretation, it runs very, very well indeed.  

Among its many advantages, it does not run away with the Tyranny of Large Numbers.  While it does not have a "universal mechanic", that supposed lack also keeps you from falling into the trap that 3rd edition does--namely by making different mechanical processes look superficially similar.  Don't know what I mean?  Why are an easy strength check, an easy climb check, and an easy disable device check 3 different numbers?

B/X does have some problems.  It _appears _less flexible than it is.  And occasionally, it is entirely arbitrary.  And then there's that interpretation thing again.  It doesn't explain things very well.


----------



## Celebrim (Nov 12, 2013)

B/X (and variants) is a very clean system and can be run with surprising depth.

The biggest problem I have with B/X is character creation is far too limiting and character advancement far too uninteresting.  There are just too many characters I'd want to create but can't under the system.  

I know that in practice, whether they knew it or not, many AD&D 1e groups were using 1e character creation/advancement with a stripped down rules set that was for most purposes B/X (or even stripped down B/X without formal declaration and combat phases).


----------



## GreyLord (Nov 12, 2013)

Maybe, but I see character creation as just as open if not more so than later editions of D&D.  It has a different approach.  Want to be a fighter...good...you spent the last 20 years doing that...if you want to be a wizard...well...do you have 20 years to learn how to be one...type of approach.

OR even better, you were born an elf...you can't be a dwarf...because you were born an elf.

All other aspects are dependant on Roleplaying.  You can be an elf potter, an elf shoe maker, a dwarf among seven, a dwarf who spins gold...etc...it's all in how your roleplay your character as opposed to what you roll in regards to what they can or cannot be.


----------



## Greg K (Nov 13, 2013)

For myself? No. 
Despite its issues, 3e using the core rules and some of the variants in the both the DMG and Unearthed Arcana while ignoring most everything else WOTC is still the best for me. Throw in some specific 3rd party material on top and it gets even better.


----------



## Remathilis (Nov 13, 2013)

Basic (be it BX or BECMI) is great, but it has its limits. If you are willing to work within those limits (which creates in my mind a very Tolkien/mythic world) it is clean, elegant, and interesting. However, it can't be ignored that most long-time players eventually chafe under its rules (which is why later gazetteers added new demi-human classes, expanded magic schools, and even added races that could pick human classes). If you can find a group who is accepting of its quirks (and don't mind not having much mechanical fiddling to diversify with) it can be a lot of fun. However, it doesn't adapt well like AD&D or d20 does, so any DM who is doing more than Medieval European Fantasy has a lot of work ahead of them.


----------



## Olgar Shiverstone (Nov 13, 2013)

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.

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.


----------



## Minigiant (Nov 13, 2013)

Nope.

Still had Downward AC and nonsense tables.

Besides the being the best mechanical D&D is like being the fastest snail. We like mechanics for reasons other than their goodness.

Most RPG mechanics are *terrible* if a computer isn't doing it because few designers actually make them to model what the mechanic is supposed to simulate.


----------



## fjw70 (Nov 13, 2013)

Despite always having a place in my heart for BX I am using 13th Age as my modern basic D&D.  I just stripped out talents, some class features, and most feats (I keep a few to level up some class features) and it is a pretty simple game with mechanics that are more to my liking.


----------



## Jan van Leyden (Nov 13, 2013)

I like the limited options in BECMI and have no problems with the warts already mentioned in this thread. But no, it's not the mechanically best version.


----------



## howandwhy99 (Nov 13, 2013)

Best mechanically for what?  I think BECMI is a solid system with some flaws. Unlike others, I actually believe the bounded AC-To Hit mechanic is operationally superior to the self-destructing designs of later versions. It actually makes combat easier, especially for the players of the game as they never dealt with it openly. D&D Next was going back to bounded mechanics, but then quit. I'm guessing they were promoting legacy design again without comprehension regarding the purposes of those designs.  All in all BECMI is a good suggestion for use behind the screen, but it's obvious it still lacks whole portions necessary for a fully functional game code.


----------



## MortalPlague (Nov 13, 2013)

howandwhy99 said:


> D&D Next was going back to bounded mechanics, but then quit.



How did they quit?  As far as I can tell, bounded mechanics are still alive and well in D&D Next.  My 11th level fighter only has +9 to hit.

On topic, I wish I could convince my group to play a game or two of BECMI D&D, just for the sake of trying it.  I played it only with friends at school, long before the formation of our current group (which began with 2nd Edition).  I think the lack of character options would sink it, however.


----------



## howandwhy99 (Nov 13, 2013)

MortalPlague said:


> How did they quit?  As far as I can tell, bounded mechanics are still alive and well in D&D Next.  My 11th level fighter only has +9 to hit.



As far as I can tell they aren't tying target numbers to the die roll, but instead the natural number line.  Also, at higher levels, like in the teens (and 20s if they add those), the modifiers no longer fit on the span of the d20 result. The average challenge rating has to be lowered from 10 so 1's are not auto-successes. At least that's how I was reading it back in the Spring. It may have changed again.


----------



## MortalPlague (Nov 13, 2013)

howandwhy99 said:


> As far as I can tell they aren't tying target numbers to the die roll, but instead the natural number line.  Also, at higher levels, like in the teens (and 20s if they add those), the modifiers no longer fit on the span of the d20 result. The average challenge rating has to be lowered from 10 so 1's are not auto-successes. At least that's how I was reading it back in the Spring. It may have changed again.




Oh, I see.  You're talking about bounded accuracy where you're always trying to hit a certain range of numbers on the d20 roll, whereas I'm seeing it as smaller math where level matters less in the grand scheme of being able to hit a target.


----------



## howandwhy99 (Nov 13, 2013)

I'd actually prefer they went back to the design where class level mattered on die rolls, at least for rolls expressing whatever class in question's statistical relationships. At least the fighter should get better at hitting stuff, like the wizard does at learning spells and the cleric does at turning. But yeah, setting the boundary within the distribution of the die result keeps auto-successes and failures from effecting, at least directly effecting, outcomes within the scope of the game. 3.x had a real problem with this making a lot high level play a practice in not rolling 1's.

I think AD&D bounded the statistical relationships at something like 1 in 400 for least odds and 399 in 400 for greatest odds, but you could keep rolling 20's if you wanted something even finer.


----------



## ExploderWizard (Nov 13, 2013)

I prefer B/X to BECMI. The thief class was already weak in B/X. The BECMI set just grabbed him by the collar and kicked him in the junk spreading out the skill increases over 36 levels
. Its still a playable and fun version of the game that I would likely play but not the best mechanically speaking.


----------



## cimbrog (Nov 13, 2013)

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.


----------



## cimbrog (Nov 13, 2013)

Double post. Ignore.


----------



## TwoSix (Nov 13, 2013)

cimbrog said:


> 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."
> 
> ...



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


----------



## Weather Report (Nov 13, 2013)

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 (Nov 13, 2013)

Weather Report said:


> 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 (Nov 13, 2013)

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 (Nov 13, 2013)

cimbrog said:


> 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 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 (Nov 15, 2013)

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 (Nov 15, 2013)

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 (Nov 15, 2013)

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


----------



## lutecius (Nov 15, 2013)

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.


----------



## Minigiant (Nov 15, 2013)

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 (Nov 15, 2013)

Olgar Shiverstone said:


> 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.



Olgar Shiverstone said:


> 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 (Nov 15, 2013)

Agamon said:


> 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 (Nov 15, 2013)

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


----------



## cimbrog (Nov 18, 2013)

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


----------

