BECMI/RC - whats in it for newbies?

[cab]

Inspired by '4th ed - whats in it for grognoids?' I thought I'd start a thread here on classic.

Now, with an excellent clone product available (one we've been watching the development of with increasing enthusiasm), its fair to ask whether or not classic D&D that we know is the right kind of game for kids. Bluntly, if we want more gamers, if we want people to grow in to loving gaming, is classic D&D the right game to point them at? Now, I kind of think it is, but I've got some reservations.

So... Thoughts? Before I launch off on why I think its good but where I think it would be failing in the current market?

[Blacky the Blackball]

I think a big thing it has going for it in terms of new players is its super quick pick-up time.

A new player can be handed a set of dice and can have a character entering a dungeon in ten to twenty minutes. That compares extremely favourably to newer editions which use point-buy systems for stats (and therefore more explanation) and require the picking of feats (and powers in 4e) which require knowledge of the system in order to even work out what they do, never mind which are good ones and which are poor ones.

Related to that is the classical feel of the races and classes. The four basic classes - magic user, cleric, fighter and thief - are fairly self-explanatory and need little explanation. Similarly, the demi-human races - elf, dwarf and halfling - may be considered to be clichéd by some, but they're instantly recognisable to anyone with even a passing interest in fantasy. Thanks to Mr Jackson's films, even people who haven't read a fantasy book in their life will be familiar with them.

These two combined make it a very gentle learning curve for a new player when compared to either the more recent (and heavier) editions or even compared to the modern slew of "Fate based" games (which require a "collaborative storytelling" mindset that a lot of new players will struggle to attain).

In terms of "roleplaying vs rollplaying", I'm less confident. BECMI D&D doesn't have skills at all, and the RC only has limited skill rules. I don't want to dwell on this (because I'm aware it's being discussed with passion in another thread). While I prefer systems where if you want to search for something you tell the GM where you're looking rather than making a "search roll" or if you want to convince the king to pardon you for your crimes you make your plea to the GM rather than making a "diplomacy roll"; I am aware that such things can be off-putting to new players. While some will love them and jump at them, others will be put off and will prefer to roll the dice for such things like most more modern games do.

[Philosopher]

This isn't so much about the BECMI game system, but Mentzer's introductory adventure featuring Aleena and Bargle is a great introduction to roleplaying games in general. It focuses on the story, only giving you the relevant game stats as they come up. In fact, exposing you to bits and pieces at a time is how the whole BECMI game works. I guess this is what WotC is looking to emulate with their new Essentials line.

As for the system, I think the relatively few classes is good for newbies, including having dwarf, elf, and halfling as classes. Class in BECMI is more of an archetype rather than a chosen career. If nothing else, it allows one to create a character with one less decision-point, which I think is valuable while learning to play.

Also, the fact that it encourages players to make the game their own in a way that 4e does not, can also be helpful.

At the same time, it may not work in the current market, as you suggest. But I'm curious to hear your reasons.

[Philosopher]

In terms of "roleplaying vs rollplaying", I'm less confident. BECMI D&D doesn't have skills at all, and the RC only has limited skill rules. I don't want to dwell on this (because I'm aware it's being discussed with passion in another thread). While I prefer systems where if you want to search for something you tell the GM where you're looking rather than making a "search roll" or if you want to convince the king to pardon you for your crimes you make your plea to the GM rather than making a "diplomacy roll"; I am aware that such things can be off-putting to new players. While some will love them and jump at them, others will be put off and will prefer to roll the dice for such things like most more modern games do.

This is a good point. Just last night, I was playing Castles & Crusades with my wife. She's not into RPGs the way I am, this is just something we started to do together recently. So she's a newbie. Anyway, C&C doesn't have the skills and such either. By looking at her character sheet, she was able to come up with ideas of what to do based on her listed abilities. Beyond that, she asked me to give her more suggestions about what to do. While we can say that players should just try to get into the role and imagine what they would do, it's not just the rules that she's unfamiliar with, but also the basic genre. In the end, it all worked out, but only because I was able to give her concrete suggestions about what options her character had.

[Blacky the Blackball]

In terms of "roleplaying vs rollplaying", I'm less confident. BECMI D&D doesn't have skills at all, and the RC only has limited skill rules. I don't want to dwell on this (because I'm aware it's being discussed with passion in another thread). While I prefer systems where if you want to search for something you tell the GM where you're looking rather than making a "search roll" or if you want to convince the king to pardon you for your crimes you make your plea to the GM rather than making a "diplomacy roll"; I am aware that such things can be off-putting to new players. While some will love them and jump at them, others will be put off and will prefer to roll the dice for such things like most more modern games do.

This is a good point. Just last night, I was playing Castles & Crusades with my wife. She's not into RPGs the way I am, this is just something we started to do together recently. So she's a newbie. Anyway, C&C doesn't have the skills and such either. By looking at her character sheet, she was able to come up with ideas of what to do based on her listed abilities. Beyond that, she asked me to give her more suggestions about what to do. While we can say that players should just try to get into the role and imagine what they would do, it's not just the rules that she's unfamiliar with, but also the basic genre. In the end, it all worked out, but only because I was able to give her concrete suggestions about what options her character had.

Yeah, but that swings both ways.

While it might be good for new players to be able to see the list of skills and therefore what they can't do, there's an inherent implication there that if their character doesn't have a particular skill (or if there simply isn't a skill for a particular activity) then they can't try to do it. Feats and 4e style powers are the same. If there's a feat for 'X' then the implication (rightly or wrongly) is that if you don't have the feat you can't do 'X').

In a skill light or skill free game like BECMI, that conceptual limit is less strong.

That's why I made a deliberate effort in Dark Dungeons to emphasise that no skill was an all or nothing proposition. If you have a skill then you might be better at doing something, but you can always have a go at anything even without a skill in it (except for very specialised class features, of course - but they're the exception rather than the norm).

[Havard]

While it might be good for new players to be able to see the list of skills and therefore what they can't do, there's an inherent implication there that if their character doesn't have a particular skill (or if there simply isn't a skill for a particular activity) then they can't try to do it. Feats and 4e style powers are the same. If there's a feat for 'X' then the implication (rightly or wrongly) is that if you don't have the feat you can't do 'X').

In a skill light or skill free game like BECMI, that conceptual limit is less strong.

That's why I made a deliberate effort in Dark Dungeons to emphasise that no skill was an all or nothing proposition. If you have a skill then you might be better at doing something, but you can always have a go at anything even without a skill in it (except for very specialised class features, of course - but they're the exception rather than the norm).

I have never seen skills in this way. Quite the opposite. Games that have rules for combat, but no rules for anything else sends the message that this game is about combat. Anything else is less important.

I loved the idea of Feats when they were introduced because I was sick of the stereotypes created by the rigid class system. I wanted to play a mage wielding a longsword, or a fighter casting a spell or two without getting into the unwieldy Dual Class rules of AD&D. Sadly, many people did see the Feat rules as a limitation to what they could do and not do, perhaps due to the kind of feats that became available (maneuver type feats in particular).

Back to the main topic:

BECMI is:
* Quick and easy to learn for both players and the DM
* features fast paced combat
* Low prep-time
* Does not require miniatures
* Has enough rules to make sure that the players aren't slaves to the DM's whim (a problem with true rules-light systems)
* Is simple enough to keep rules-lawyers and min-maxers out of a job.
* All the rules, monsters, treasure and adventure ideas you will need in one single book (RC)
* A somewhat limited number of spells, meaning the DM can actually manage to learn them all (How they work, not to cast them in real life, lol!)
* layered complexity, with optional rules like weapon mastery and general skills so you can determine how many rules you need for your game.
* 36 levels of fun, plus another 36 of Immortal play!
* Guidelines for widening the scope from Dungeon Crawls to wilderness adventures, to Dominions, planar adventures and questing for Immortality.

For me it is the edition of D&D that is closest to perfection.

Havard

[agathokles]

I have never seen skills in this way. Quite the opposite. Games that have rules for combat, but no rules for anything else sends the message that this game is about combat. Anything else is less important.

I agree with Havard. Not having a skill just means you'll not be as competent as a skilled character, but whether you can attempt or not a given action is something I'd leave to DM decision on a case by case basis -- skills such as knowledge of a given area can certainly be used without specific training, though the PC will obtain less information or need more time to obtain it, while skills such as Conjure Companion or Spell Combination require specific training.

For me it is the edition of D&D that is closest to perfection.

I'd add the remarkable modularity of the system -- in the end, it is nice that I can use general skills and Blacky can skip them, without affecting the rest of the system. So, the learning curve is easier on the newbie, as they can start with a reduced set of rules and add more detail in time.

GP

[cab]

You've all really listed what I consider to be the strengths of the game.

But...

You want to tell a kid who has a great idea for, say, a thief character that he'll be starting out at first level and that, odds are, first time he gets stabbed with a sword he'll die? Or, say, his idea for a warrior is great, but if he gets knifed up twice by a kobold he'll almost certainly be dead?

It is, in my opinion, a fantastic game for learning RPGs with (the Mentzer edition boxed basic set did this better than any game before or since!). The 'iron man' first level PC churn thats likely though... Ain't what gaming is about now.

[agathokles]

You want to tell a kid who has a great idea for, say, a thief character that he'll be starting out at first level and that, odds are, first time he gets stabbed with a sword he'll die? Or, say, his idea for a warrior is great, but if he gets knifed up twice by a kobold he'll almost certainly be dead?

It is, in my opinion, a fantastic game for learning RPGs with (the Mentzer edition boxed basic set did this better than any game before or since!). The 'iron man' first level PC churn thats likely though... Ain't what gaming is about now.

Uhm, we all survived that, didn't we? And we likely used Basic Set only, where you didn't have "death's door" rules like in RC, or even Raise Dead... and worse of all, we only had level 1, 2 and 3!

That said, nothing prevents you from starting with level 2 characters, if you don't think first level gaming is appropriate for kids, or from using the RC death's door rule, or having PCs start with maximum hit points at first level, or any other strategy used in this case.

GP

[cab]

Uhm, we all survived that, didn't we? And we likely used Basic Set only, where you didn't have "death's door" rules like in RC, or even Raise Dead... and worse of all, we only had level 1, 2 and 3!

That said, nothing prevents you from starting with level 2 characters, if you don't think first level gaming is appropriate for kids, or from using the RC death's door rule, or having PCs start with maximum hit points at first level, or any other strategy used in this case.

All entirely true... But we got through dying in droves (my first PC headed to cave A in the Caves of Chaos, a Kobold jumped out from behind a bush and knifed him to death before he even got down his first hole!), its easy for us to look back and say 'yeah, its awesome!'. The style of gaming kids seem to favour now isn't that one, and you can't expect them to instantly pick up on the fact that you can start at 2nd or 3rd level.

I just wonder whether an intro to BECMI/RC should actually start at level 2 or 3.

[Philosopher]

All entirely true... But we got through dying in droves (my first PC headed to cave A in the Caves of Chaos, a Kobold jumped out from behind a bush and knifed him to death before he even got down his first hole!), its easy for us to look back and say 'yeah, its awesome!'. The style of gaming kids seem to favour now isn't that one, and you can't expect them to instantly pick up on the fact that you can start at 2nd or 3rd level.

I just wonder whether an intro to BECMI/RC should actually start at level 2 or 3.

As far as I'm concerned, that's a lesson the kids could use. You start out fragile, and when you gain experience you'll be better at what you do. Do they have to play the game this way? Of course not. The power of 1st level characters in 4e is a perfectly legitimate way to play the game. While the game need not be about teaching us anything, it's a play style worth exposing them to.

[AuldDragon]

You want to tell a kid who has a great idea for, say, a thief character that he'll be starting out at first level and that, odds are, first time he gets stabbed with a sword he'll die? Or, say, his idea for a warrior is great, but if he gets knifed up twice by a kobold he'll almost certainly be dead?

DMs I played with (and myself when I was DM) would usually slightly fudge the dice rolls at first level to prevent characters from outright dying, provided the character wasn't doing something stupid like checking the depth of a pit by jumping into it. Obviously, that's all a matter of how you and your group want to play.

Jeff

[Blacky the Blackball]

Don't forget that kids these days are very used to video games. So dying and having to "respawn" (with a new but essentially identical character) is something they're used to.

You just need to point out to them that they have the flexibility to create a different character to "respawn" with if they want to rather than using another character identical to the last. And RC/BECMI makes that very quick and easy to do.

[cab]

All true, except of course it isn't the design brief other games have been built to; look at whats been most successful over the years since BECMI, and you find a multitude of games like Vampire (and the whole WoD thing), 3rd ed AD&D, 4th ed AD&D etc. that put way more work up-front in character creation, but in which final character death is rare. While I love BECMI with a passion, it ain't the kind of thing kids are going for (or have for years for that matter).

It takes experience to know how and when to fudge a roll, which a beginner doesn't have; its easy to accidentally massacre three out of six PCs if they're first level no-hopers and as a DM you don't know much better.

The first level meat grinder should still be there... But perhaps not in an introductory version?

[rabindranath72]

I have had good experiences with the Dragon Age game. It retains most of Classic D&D fundamental elements: few choices, random and easy character creation (though not as easy as Basic D&D), very few rules, lots of GM freedom in adjudicating. At the same time, it offers quite dynamic combat rules without needing maps, and character death even in 1st level PCs is somewhat harder.
I think a re-design of Basic D&D along the above guidelines could provide a new entry-level game for the new generations. What 4e should have been, really.

[agathokles]

I have had good experiences with the Dragon Age game. It retains most of Classic D&D fundamental elements: few choices, random and easy character creation (though not as easy as Basic D&D), very few rules, lots of GM freedom in adjudicating. At the same time, it offers quite dynamic combat rules without needing maps, and character death even in 1st level PCs is somewhat harder.
I think a re-design of Basic D&D along the above guidelines could provide a new entry-level game for the new generations. What 4e should have been, really.

One of my friends bought Dragon Age, and I'm looking forward to try it out -- the rules look good on paper. However, it is not yet clear whether the game will have the flexibility and ease of customization of OD&D -- it's a bit too early to say, as only the Basic Set-equivalent is available. If it does, then it will certainly be a strong contender.

GP

[rabindranath72]

I have had good experiences with the Dragon Age game. It retains most of Classic D&D fundamental elements: few choices, random and easy character creation (though not as easy as Basic D&D), very few rules, lots of GM freedom in adjudicating. At the same time, it offers quite dynamic combat rules without needing maps, and character death even in 1st level PCs is somewhat harder.
I think a re-design of Basic D&D along the above guidelines could provide a new entry-level game for the new generations. What 4e should have been, really.

One of my friends bought Dragon Age, and I'm looking forward to try it out -- the rules look good on paper. However, it is not yet clear whether the game will have the flexibility and ease of customization of OD&D -- it's a bit too early to say, as only the Basic Set-equivalent is available. If it does, then it will certainly be a strong contender.

GP

Yes, it's quite flexible, you can easily add more skills, talents, stunts etc (in fact the other sets will expand the game in this sense, too). There are only 3 classes, there are no "races" per se, since these are considered background options.

[Havard]

All entirely true... But we got through dying in droves (my first PC headed to cave A in the Caves of Chaos, a Kobold jumped out from behind a bush and knifed him to death before he even got down his first hole!), its easy for us to look back and say 'yeah, its awesome!'. The style of gaming kids seem to favour now isn't that one, and you can't expect them to instantly pick up on the fact that you can start at 2nd or 3rd level.

I just wonder whether an intro to BECMI/RC should actually start at level 2 or 3.

To be honest, I have never cared for the frequent PC death type games. They seem like turning D&D into a kind of snakes and ladders type game, which I have no interest in. Starting at 3rd level is possible. Another option is the "20 hp kicker" used in Hackmaster, where 1st level characters get an extra 20 hp, which are not recovered when lost. They simply help for staying alive through the first dungeon.

Havard

[RobJN]

To be honest, I have never cared for the frequent PC death type games. They seem like turning D&D into a kind of snakes and ladders type game, which I have no interest in. Starting at 3rd level is possible. Another option is the "20 hp kicker" used in Hackmaster, where 1st level characters get an extra 20 hp, which are not recovered when lost. They simply help for staying alive through the first dungeon.

Havard

That is a really good quick-fix rule. Wish I'd thought of that 20 years ago....

Yeesh.... did I just say "20 years ago"?

[BlackBat242]

My solution for low-level survivability (for both AD&D editions) is this:

Constitution: This score affects Hit Points in more ways than just the “bonus HP per Level”.
All "O"-level PC/NPCs have HP based on their Con as follows: 19 = 6 hp, 18/17/16 = 5 hp, 15/14/13 = 4 hp, 12/11/10 = 3 hp, 9/8/7/6 = 2 hp, & 5/4/3 = 1 hp.
1st level PCs add their class HD rolls onto this, but do not add the bonus hit points for exceptional Con until 2nd level and above (fighters only get a +1 above this at 1st level for a 17 con and a +2 for an 18 con).


This gives a bit more durability at 1st & 2nd levels (without overpowering the PCs), but by 3rd/4th it is almost unnoticeable.

[rabindranath72]

For survivability I use the old Judges Guild Ref sheet "Shock Recovery". They are simple and work surprisingly well.

[Bonetti]

I may have written this elsewhere, but here's a re-run. I prefer heroic gaming, and starting characters felt a little squishy to me.

For 1st and 2nd edition, I did 4d6 (drop lowest) 7 times (drop lowest), arrange to suit. I also had PCs take max HP at first level, and any time their level-up HP roll was less than half of the hit die for their class, they got that number instead (2 for mages, 5 for fighters, etc.). A little tougher than average, but it also kept survivability in a good range and I didn't have to worry about one player whose dice seemed to hate him.

(The last 3.x game I played in was pretty strict on the level-up HP. I think my fighter's average roll was 3.5ish on the d10, which left him pretty squishy )

Rabindrath72: I'm not familiar with those rules. Would you be so kind as to summarize them? Thanks!

[Greywolf]

Back to the main topic:

BECMI is:
* Quick and easy to learn for both players and the DM
* features fast paced combat
* Low prep-time
* Does not require miniatures
* Has enough rules to make sure that the players aren't slaves to the DM's whim (a problem with true rules-light systems)
* Is simple enough to keep rules-lawyers and min-maxers out of a job.
* All the rules, monsters, treasure and adventure ideas you will need in one single book (RC)
* A somewhat limited number of spells, meaning the DM can actually manage to learn them all (How they work, not to cast them in real life, lol!)
* layered complexity, with optional rules like weapon mastery and general skills so you can determine how many rules you need for your game.
* 36 levels of fun, plus another 36 of Immortal play!
* Guidelines for widening the scope from Dungeon Crawls to wilderness adventures, to Dominions, planar adventures and questing for Immortality.

For me it is the edition of D&D that is closest to perfection.

Havard

+1

I would also include B/X D&D and Labyrinth Lord. These along with BECMI/RC are just right. Not too much, not too little, but just right.

[rabindranath72]

Rabindrath72: I'm not familiar with those rules. Would you be so kind as to summarize them? Thanks!

Yes, sure.
Essentially, immediately after each fight a character can recover 1d4 hit points if he does absolutely nothing. This includes healing other friends, looking for treasure etc.
I have slightly adapted it to my games by allowing 1 HD worth of hit points (hence each class recovers a different number of hps) provided that 1 turn is spent resting. Again, if you help a comrade recover those points (e.g. he is at 0 hp) then you cannot recover the points by yourself.
Think of it as a sort of "healing surge". Fun thing is, this rule was designed roughly 30 years ago.
It's quite simple, but it's very effective, and it frees clerics from being the usual combat medics.

[Bonetti]

Oh, I like that. Too bad I never ran into anyone who used those, it would've helped Thanks!