I remember my first campaign. B/X 1982ish. Still wrapping my head around the character sheet. DM helped me build a fighter, guess he figured the less mechanics the better. I remember char. creation was real fast. I stared at the completed sheet for a long time then asked the DM what else I could do besides hit things. He smirked at me. "Anything you want."
I'm a player in a BECMI campaign, comprising of 50-somethings who each have a few decades of adventuring under their belts. At the commencement of the campaign, the topic of the "relatively bare-bones" BECMI character sheets came up in conversation, and I commented on never having felt constrained by the old-school character classes, unadorned by powers and feats. By contrast, I've always felt that as more classes, subclasses, prestige classes etc. came into play, the more a character seemed to enter an "uncanny valley" of being very nearly, but never EXACTLY the character I wanted. As you've so eloquently expressed in your video, sometimes those gaps in the rules can be the windows through which boundless vistas of possibilities can be explored.
The fundamental realization is that your huge manifest of feats and skills isn't a list of what you can do, it's a implicit list of what you *can't* do. The kewl powerz that either aren't on your sheet or are present at an effectively "unusable" level are the ones that really matter, as they amount to an invisible straitjacket.
Which might be why I, who actually likes the "modern DnD style", like that those tricks you **can't** do are essentially superpowers, and you still **can** do anything normal-ish for your character (those still CAN be very off-the-wall ideas, just not the ones that are superpower-powered).
@@Alche_mist True, but good luck if you aren't proficient in the skills you need for whatever skill roll the DM calls for, or the DM on prompting of the rules lawyer won't let you impersonate voices because the RL has [Actor] as a feat and you don't so he'd feel like you're stepping on his toes.
Similar to the “Character Sheet as trap” problem is the concept that the more voluminous the character sheet is, the more likely it becomes a record of what you CANT do. Whereas the simpler a character sheet is, the less likely it is to be a hindrance to fully exploring your character and the qualities you think they should possess.
One of my players wanted to "sub class" into bard in my basic D&D campaign. So I told him to start writing songs and stories about the parties adventures and he did. The only mechanical benefits it's given them is +1/+2 reactions when hiring mercenaries and retainers in the tavern or keeping moral up during downtime in the wilderness. It's a lot more satisfying than modern bard classes IMO.
Modern game is more similar to tactical boardgames. Despite old school was born out of wargame, it was more genuine to a play pretend children philosophy. And that is its power and beauty
In BX that might be true but in BECMI you do have ways to make your character stand out. You can use weapon feats like weapon mastery levels and also proficiencies for skills.
Nice summary of "old school" character concept verses modern concept. I find them to be very different approaches and most people prefer one over the other. Personally I always sigh a bit inside my head when my players stare at their character sheet looking for an answer that isn't there. "I guess it's time to use your imagination." I say. Cheers!
I played a battle master fighter once in 5e but my most memorable combat move had nothing to do with the fancy class features, it was me responding to someone attacking me running up a set of stairs and I said "I kick him back down the stairs"
Oh man, that reference to David Eddings and the Belgariad really got me. Of all the fantasy series I hear people mention, that is one I never seem to hear and the first 5 books, at least, are second favorite behind Dragonlance
Another great video. I am going to recommend it to my group as they seem to be stuck with looking for answers on their character sheets rather than using their imaginations.
So the 2 Fighters with similar stats you mentioned at the start. Does the first player possess imagination and creativity? Same question for the second player. It's very unlikely they will interpret being a Fighter in the same way. Which is more or less what you said. Character sheet is part of the whole. Thank you for your continued sterling work!
Thank you. I think that was the point I was trying to make with my friend. He had lost that perspective due to playing 5e so long. He had forgotten that his imagination was the difference.
Agreed, but there is a middle ground between 5e and BECMI, it doesn't have to be an all-or-nothing situation, at least that's how I feel. Great video again sir!
Absolutely. I think I’m arguing that for older editions that approach came more naturally. Happy to be proved wrong! Thanks for coming back to the channel!
@@becmiberserker I'm here for every video sir, you do good work. As for arguing, not my style. Would just say somewhere between all the Feats and Class Abilities, or the more bare bones nature of BECMI/B-X, there can be a D&D that finds a middle ground. Sadly I've not seen it yet.
I'm new to Old School Play, but I've found it to be amazing and really fun and freeing. When I introduce others I find that it's way easier for new players and the game actually plays the way they expect and they love it. 3e and 5e players often struggle to get a handle on old school play (I did too at first). 3e and 5e teach you that you can't do anything that you haven't "built" your character to do or you'll fail horribly. That can be really hard for people to unlearn.
It's about how you think about Skills. In my games, you can attempt anything that makes sense at the moment, the skill bonus is just a bonus to the roll, not something that tells you "you can't try this". Even in old school, DMs make players do ability checks, which can have the same effect as DnD Skills, "oh no, I have low Charisma, I will try something else instead"...
"The things that you own, own you." Same idea with the sheet in front of you. Even with the later mastery rules and general skills, you didn't have to use them or you can pick them up later after the character has lived a little. From even 2e on you basically tried to plot out your character's career when you were rolling stats. Getting a list of things you will have to collect or build up (feats&skill ranks) just to pull off something that in BECMI was just a plan and a die roll and who doesn't love it when a plan comes together? Everything you said is 100% on point. Less is more and those sheets become a cage. BECMI really is the only system you need and though you didn't want to say it, it was just better in the old days!
Running a game of Dungeon Crawl Classics, which is really a love-letter to BX, and a player with a warrior asked how he could play a ranger. I said "so play a ranger. You have a concept for your warrior, which is great. Lean into being a ranger, and I'll accommodate that." Having fewer rules isn't limiting, its liberating. The same pile of stats could be Aragorn, Lancelot, Charlemagne, Ivanhoe; whatever you want to play. And a light goes on, when players realize this.
Both a minimalist edition like 1e and a crunchy edition like 3e have their merits. I've seen some crazy stuff done in 3e that is straight out of the free-for-all spirit of 1e, but has a mechanical backing that allow you to gauge how to implement it. I like the fact that everyone can attempt most stuff (aside from a few class-specific checks), but you can also train and specialize by taking feats and skills. In 1e you mechanically are as good at climbing at lvl 1 as you are at lvl 5. You talk about how each character is different by the way they fight and solve problems. 3e supported that as well, but gave your choices a mechanical advantage. For me, a character started with an idea, then I used the various options to have that idea manifest within game rules. It's much more so 5e that narrows down my thinking to what is on my character sheet.
Couldn't agree more! I never even heard the term "character build" until the 3rd edition rules. Suddenly I found that min / maxing had become the accepted norm, with people "dipping into" a class for a few levels to gain specific benefits and openly abuse the system. Any attempt to ask them to justify in character why their paladin had 3 levels as a rogue, just led to blank looks and not a moments thought for the fictional character they were creating. Sadly this tendancy has just got worse, with dozens of supplements published with the sole purpose of adding new character powers. I actually feel sorry for new players who think this competitive character bulding is the purpose of the game. Its great to see sites like this one which I hope some people will take note of and give OSR rules a try.
Thanks for a fun little trip down memory lane. You said something that really resonated with me in your comment regarding how the focus on builds in the more recent versions has made characters prisoner to character sheets. A few years ago, having been away from playing D&D for many years, I spoke with a friend from my high school (15-18 year old) D&D days. He mentioned that now there were so many other things we could do with characters due to new classes and sub-classes. I thought a bit and then just asked him what kept him from doing that in the past? All he had to do was discuss it with the DM and voila, a tailored/specialized character class or subclass or just a twist on an existing class. I guess I just never realized we needed permission to do that (LOL).
My favorite system is 3.5e, and that's not likely to change. But I love your POV and I love your channel. Really, any system is fun with the right crew. But BECMI stands strong, and it's a great system.
I started with BECMI in middle school and moved to 1E AD&D by the end of middle school. I used BECMI to fill in the gaps of my 1E game. Then half way through high school made the switch to 2E AD&D and before the splat books started coming out, had been using my BECMI and 1E books to beef up my 2E game. By the end of high school my collection of 2E books was large enough to where the BECMI stuff and most of the 1E stuff I was using faded out and it was 90-95% just 2E rules that I based my homebrew rules on. Looking back I think part of the impetus as to why I moved away from BECMI into 1E and then into 2E was that the more organized and detailed the rules got, the easier it was to homebrew new stuff just by basing it on an existing rule and tweaking things rather than having to come with it all from scratch. The other impetus was the more organized and detailed the rules got progressing from BECMI to 1E and then 2E was that it was easier to say "No, you can't do that" and then point to a rule when someone tried to do something game breaking or story breaking. I believe these days there are official names applied to the behavior known as "Power Gaming" and "Main Character Syndrome" ...which I absolutely fucking hate and that is what makes getting into 5E real difficult to like since the 5E design, rules, and culture make the game a blackhole-level attraction for narcissistic power-gamers and attention-seeking theater kids. AD&D 2E was my favorite edition of for its better organized rules and massive (yet not overwhelming) variety of optional stuff to add into your game. Unearthed Arcana and Oriental Adventures from AD&D 1E were inspirations for so many things in my game, but I sometimes miss the simplicity and almost innocent-like feel of playing BECMI D&D.
You had better DMs than I had in the 1980s. Everything i tried to do that wasn't included in the class abilities was slapped down. (If you want an example, a 1st level AD&D ranger that was slapped down for trying to use sticks and branches to build a lean-to.)The main improvements for me in second edition, third, 3.5 was that more was spelled out on paper, so that the DM couldn't say "You can't do that". 10:23
@becmiberserker Hey, the point where I gave up was when I told the DM I was working on making a Dwarf an eccentric inventor, and I was starting with a holy water squirter. His verbatim reply was "No problem, I'll just make everything immune to holy water". Heh. It's not just player imaginations that run short.
The Mystara GAZ series and the Rules Cyclopedia introduced the best skill system D&D has ever had. When paired with weapon mastery, the two systems fills a significant amount of the "void" of character options.
Yep; and we're about to dive back into those, hopefully running a long-term Mystara campaign that will allow me to bring a lot of that stuff in. I also highly recommend the fan-made gazetteers available on Vaults of Pandius.
Lovely video Berserker, albeit finding it 'late', as I would have loved to catch it when it was new. This is a topic I often discuss with my Father that introduced me to DnD as a whole, he introduced me into BECMI, and I moved forward to Pathfinder(1E). I still play Oldschool games weekly with my father and other friends in various systems, which is why I wanted to comment here. I dispute the statement made at 1:25 because it is one that often comes up. The reality is this is true in every single game. Even in Old school, or new school games, learning that your character is you and not your sheet is entirely separate from the question being levied at you and I have always found it a meaningless evasion of the point. The point being asked was, what is the meaningful difference between the two fighters, and the answer is, their stats and their weapons and equipment. Beyond that, there is no variability between the actual characters, but any person could play either character any way they wanted. Those two players could swap their sheets and play the characters the exact same way they were before because there is no meaningful difference between them. The narrative difference is something you can do in any edition. The only difference is the mechanical benefits that can come from those narrative differences. In 3e, or pathfinder the superior version of such, you can use feats and skill to create narrative differences in your character, to represent them, rather than simply making up a paintjob on the exact same thing as the next guy. I'm fine with this /being/ the case, but it has always annoyed me that anyone pretends it is not the case. Those two fighters wielding a sword, shield and plate, are by all means and function, the same fighter. When you put them against the ogre, assuming they have the same strength, dex, and Con, and rolled the same HP, they will both do as well as the other. It doesn't matter if one narratively says he dances around and fiddles his sword like a duelists rapier, and the other says he walks up and hits the guy. And that's okay. In Pathfinder, the one guy might just be a generic fighter who walks up and hits things, while the other could actually be a feinting duelist denying his opponent dexterity for himself or that fighter. An actual benefit for the flavor he was going for. I also despise the argument that "because there aren't rules for it, you can do anything". This is partially a preference thing, but both as a player and as a DM, I love to comb the rules. That is genuinely the best way to tell that I am interested, or trying to be interested, in the game we are playing, is if I am spending my time before, after, and sometimes during the game, glancing through the games rulebook. The idea that you can simply invent rules and have it be a good thing all the time, or even most of the time, drives me crazy. I have had this discussion as well many times with my father about our Becmi games, about doing things 'outside the rules', and how whether I am DMing Becmi, or another edition, or another Old school game, I am far more likely to either find a rule in the game to base it off of, or to simply have it be wasted. To give a specific narrative example, the party was fighting a bone golem, and the halfling didn't believe he had a weapon he could hurt it, so he instead shot an arrow with a rope through the bones, and then proceeded to "run around it's legs to trip it". The DM said it worked, and that's fine, but I know had I been DMing, I would have pointed out that this was a massive bone golem, and some rope being tugged by a halfling would be like a child trying to trip a full grown adult with a shoelace and his time would have been wasted. The lack of consistency annoys me. Especially if, future down the line, something similar would be tried, and the DM would just say it couldn't work. Rules Exist to provide a baseline for everyone to mutually work off of, and give everyone an idea of what is, and isn't possible. If I wanted to play a game without rules, then why have the sheets in the first place? Why have dice? Why have stats? Why have classes? Why have minis, a board, why not just everyone sit around a table and say what happens? We all agree rules are important. The only difference is some like making up half of the game themselves with only their own personal preferences as a guideline, and others like having a baseline in the rules, that they can then edit at their group to their groups preferences. I can respect both styles of play, and often play both versions. I simply do not agree that there is not the same benefits and problems in both games. You can play BECMI badly. Poor tactics, poor weapon choice. Poor decisions making. This is not a 3e onward difference. Both games can have massive creativity, freedom, and design. The only difference is whether or not there is any basis of this design in the rules, or if the rules are half-finished and not bothered to explain the logic and leave it for the DM to decide whether what you are doing is effective, or a total waste of your time. Old School design did have limited character options. It's why even they ended up expanding them in their own game, creating extra options in other books, expanded class designs that are very fun (Glantrian schools of magic), even if some of them are a bit half-baked in implementation (Halfling Masters). That said, if you want a straightforward game to learn without many complicated or dynamic decisions to make, it is fantastic for that. Easy to pick up and learn quickly, and with the RC, has a decently interesting rule book to look through.
This was my main blocker to migrate my players from 5e to OSE Advanced. They eventually got it. Character uniqueness is based on what happens in the game the gear you get and what emergent play generates. And ultimately the characters “motivation”. I still prefer some chrome with characters, nothing crazy, no more than 1e provides. But even that isn’t required.
Since 2e, I've always found myself explaining this concept. I've got it down to one sentence, two if further explanation is necessary. First, the more options you are given, the more you are confined by them. And second, offering you a choice to pick either this or that, excludes you from choosing everything else that might be possible. In BECMI, good communication with your DM about what you wanted your character to be was imperative, because using the books as GUIDE books was emphasized, and we would house rule a lot based on the direction we wanted to go with our characters, with the understanding that these rules, or any rule for that matter, could be adjusted, re-balanced, or just outright removed if it was found not to work in our game. We could spend hours immediately after and between sessions discussing these very points, talking about future character goals, figuring out if any game adjustments might be appropriate, and if so, what those might look like. That's what the freedom of a more basic unembellished system means, the ability to shape the game to your player's play style, concepts, and desires as needed, rather than attempting to fit those aspects within the constraints of lists of game mechanics from which you must pick and choose, confining your character to the ideas of what the game designers felt they ought to be in the game. These limitations are especially apparent if you're dealing with a digital interface on a VTT which integrates with a particular ruleset. With every iteration of D&D, I think it is getting progressively more difficult to shape the game to your particular group. In any case, I enjoyed the video, and value the idea it presents. Take care, be well, and enjoy your day.
Thanks for the considered comment. I couldn’t agree more. You also indirectly touch on something here that I raise in my “Don’t be a Hero” video. In that video, I describe my skepticism around how inspirational D&D is today compared to older rulesets. Your description of making the rules work with your group is a great example of how D&D developed players, through understanding, communication, collaboration, negotiation, and compromise. I just don’t see that in groups today.
Great video topic! This is something I've discussed with friends as well. All the character options, backgrounds, etc, are just further systems and mechanics. It takes away from creative thinking. You become locked into parameters, like a computer game; you can only do what the game allows you to do, or rather, it's designers. Good job, Berserker 🤘
I'd argue the point a bit, since I think the systems are better at encouraging different types of people to think beyond the system. I started with 3.5, picked up 4, dabbled with 5 and just got a yearning to try Rules Cyclopedia (just waiting on that and the modules to arrive) but I've really only ever felt constrained by the DM, not the ruleset. I've noticed certain people do kind-of need the more fleshed out rulesets to have a foundation for adjudicating cases, especially when they're inexperienced. I would not have done well trying to run early editions when I first started and certainly benefited from both 3.5 and 4. However, I do admit that people often get stuck in a rut. Then again, I am the person who spends half their character creation in the adventuring gear section even when playing squishy casters because I will not be meeting with the king before a trip to the river with a bar of soap.
I am not even a DM or DnD player. But the same thinks could be said about the dark eye, the dominating TTRPG in Germany. I love your videos. They are like a history lesson and like a therapy session at the same time. It’s true. Less is more 👍
i did enjoy the BECMI system. I preferred 2nd. An gladly run my friends though many adventures as a forever GM. your channel gives me hope that others will return to an old school why of thinking and having fun.
BECMI and all the supplements is huge. then there is home brewing something for a character. I had a player who wanted to make a fighter like Conan. I.e. loin cloth and all. So i just said ok when wearing no armour add your dex and con bonuses to you AC. then at 4th level you start to get +1 ac per level. He was really happy with that. nice and simple and he played that fighter so well. The ac bonus was just a lever to get the character he wanted to play out into the game. He even refused magical armour that would have improved his ac because he had so much fun in a loin cloth. I am always happy to work with a player to bring a character to life for them. I love seeing where the character and their imagination takes them.
It's the whole idea of "Role-play" vs "Roll-play." I feel very fortunate to have never fallen into the "What-see" trap and all of the nonsense associated with it.
I quite like skills ad an add on to BECMI (as first appeared in the GAZ series and then in the RC), but I do think that having them in game runs the risk of defining a character by what they -can't- do rather than what they're -good at doing-. A character without the tracking skill can still try to track someone, they're just not as good at it, but the temptation is always for a DM to just say 'no' or for a player not to even if their character can try. The paucity of information on the classic character sheet is fine, but you can add more to it to make the character more akin to what modern players like by using skills, weapon mastery etc. WITHOUT restricting the character in that way. You just have to be up-front that those skills are more about colour and character and less about power.
In the campaign i was part of that lasted 5 years + we had 2 mages in the group and never once did i wonder what made us different. My half elf was all about in your face big brash spell casting, my friends elf mage was all about subtlety understatement, we had access to the same spells but used them very differently. We didn't coordinate this, it just happened.
You can still use skills and weapon mastery that comes as options of the characters and leave a great deal for your imagination to find out what you have at hand. All of a suden I recalled some of my characters, like a peasant fighter or another one who was a bit more like an american native both looks and fighting style (for most) and all of that wasn't in the character sheet.
As an RPG player, not a regular D&D player, I cannot agree in that there are games that both give plentiful character options and encourage creative roleplay far better than either D&D 5 ed. or old editions/OSR ones. That being said, I am on a BECMI side in this particular discussion. I found your video very thought-provoking - thank you!
New to the channel here. I think the problem is caused, as it so often is, by the Thief. And I used to mostly play Thieves (capitalizing to distinguish the class, by the way). The Thief class offers something no other class does in BECMI (at least until the introduction of Skills...in Hollow World first I think? Someone correct me), and what they offer is a mechanical way to engage with the game world in explicit terms. And in doing so they, by implication, prevent any other class from doing the same. Because the Thief can Hide in Shadows, Move Silently, Climb Walls and Hear Noise, we know that Fighters, Clerics and Magic-Users glow in the dark, stomp everywhere they go, can't hop a fence and are stone deaf. Thieves really shouldn't exist. They were the first nail in the coffin of creativity where the ability to interact with the world in improvised format was removed from the hands of the DM and players and instead codified into mechanics. From there it's easy to see where things like Feats came from. All this being said, I'd never run a BECMI game without the Thief. Still love them, but they're just as problematic in the rules as they are when they're deciding to pick the local magistrate's pocket in play.
Welcome! I really appreciate the comment. The Thief class always caused that issue of “why can’t I just try and pick the lock?” in other classes. In my opinion, this caused the slide into shared skilled systems that we have today, which are still imperfect, as they cause things like Fighters to pass insane Arcane checks. My own imperfect method is to not rely on skills so much and let things serve the narrative as best as possible, but when a some intricate stealth-ing is required, then that’s when you need a Thief. Just my opinion. Thanks for the comment. 🙂
Well said. It can be hard for people, if they are used to looking to the sheet for what they can do. But every time a sheet says one character CAN do something but does not say it for another, it now means that other character CANNOT do the thing.
I admit I love 5e but often feel frustrated by my characters dependency on their character sheets. BECMI is my first love and I’m preparing to run a campaign as soon as we wrap up our current 5e adventure.
I agree, and thanks for shouting out some OSRs. As in an old school game the DM doesn't have any rules to hide behind to obfuscate the fact that he's either good or bad at DMing, in the same way an old school player doesn't have the character ability menu to choose what they're gonna do in lieu of actually considering a situation and coming up with a plan or at least an idea on their own.
Recently got the Red Box, and looking forward to playing at our table in the near future. I think you hit the nail on the head with your answer to your friend’s question regarding the differences in the fighter. Too many players dumb their characters down to just numbers
I love all of your videos, but this one is my favorite so far. Here's to many more excellent episodes! I would love to see you take a deep dive into your favorite (and even least favorite) modules - B4 being my #1 pick!
One can validly play different characters with as few as F1 Ac7 HP8 etc ... High dex no armor, low Dex and whatever combo of armor you like, just make the person up in your mind...
In the old days, if you wanted to have your character be an Acrobat of sorts you just made a little backstory of them being in a circus and played them accordingly. When 2nd edition came out with the Thief/Acrobat, none of our DM's wanted to use it. If you wanted that type of character you could just make a backstory of being a "cat burglar" of something similar. We didn't need a gazillion rules. What we wanted was creative play of your character. In fact, more than skill checks you needed to have appropriate equipment to perform the tasks you were trying to perform or figure out a way to do it without that equipment.
BB - I have played and enjoyed the newer versions of DnD but feel that the old school versions are best. Although there is enormous charm in the character creation process with progression and feat selections, I feel that the organic nature and creative storytelling and play that reveals the characters has been largely lost. The character should develop in time and their experiences in game should be the driving factor behind their progression. I appreciate the “art” of character creation and development more than the “science”.
When my group were playing 5E, I had a swashbuckler rogue hellbent on killing an emperor for personal reasons (yada yada, revenge, yada yada first character.) Said emperor was the head of a religious empire who was leading the charge against the powers of darkness. My party had earned the man's trust and were embarking on a quest to aid in the fight against a lord of chaos with one or two of his trusted clerics/paladins to accompany us. One night, our camp was attacked by a blue dragon in league with the dark lord, and after several failed attempts to escape a grapple and several failed wisdom saves to stop being terrified, it was looking like the end for my poor rogue, so I did the only thing I could think of: "Why kill me when I seek the head of your greatest enemy?" When the dragon learned I was a potential man on the inside for his lord, he struck a bargain with my party to aid in the downfall of the emperor and probably the destabilization of the empire. Absolutely changed the course of the campaign. I still remember my heart beating out of my chest that night. I'm not writing this as a 5E apologist (though I look upon the flawed system fondly,) but in agreement that most of the time, the biggest game changers are not the ones on your sheet. My uncle gave me his old BECMI sets, and I've been toying with the notion of running them for some time now, though it's been members of the OSR who've convinced me of the viability of basic and advanced D&D. I've become fascinated with this channel in particular, partly because you favourably cover the material I own, and partly because of the general quality of your output. I'm only a few videos deep into your Known World playlist, but tell me, are you planning to go over the hollow world at some point? I haven't noticed any videos on your channel on the subject, so forgive me if I have overlooked it. Cheers!
Love this comment! The experience you relayed is exactly how Dungeons and Dragons should work. The feeling you had when it was all playing out is very familiar to me. It’s strange because, in our heads, the imagination makes it so vivid and feel like an achievement that transcends into the real world. I hope that makes sense - I am, of course, not suggesting we can’t distinguish things from the real world…most of the time anyway ;). This type of play should be system agnostic but, as I hope I conveyed in the video, the falling back on what’s on the character sheet can, for some, limit imagination at times. It’s great you want to try OSR/BECMI. My only advice is that if playing with hardened 5e players, be prepared for some negativity at the perceived lack of abilities. Only saying, as that can be a barrier to keeping things going. As for Hollow World, I hope to get there someday. I try to mix up my content, which is why the Known World isn’t finished as yet. I’d like to have that done first before continuing into the Hollow World, and as I have a job and busy family life (and a CoC campaign I’m running), it might be some time before I do a first video on it. Just being transparent. Anyway, thanks again for the comment and watch out for the vengeful sons of fallen emperors!
I feel this does not answer the question you posed of "what makes two fighters different?" If the answer is you, then what makes the difference of two of your own fighters with similar stats? I get that you're trying to imply players need to consider personality and story details instead of mechanics, but why can't you do both? Maybe I'm lucky, but my players understand that a 5e character is made of both mechanical choices and role play history. Having two characters of the same class in 5e has never (at my tables) led to the characters overlapping in style or personality and my players understand that the character sheet does not define all their options. All that being said, I do appreciate your content. This is the first video that I actually disagree with, so please keep it up. You've still inspired me to look into becmi.
Playing 5e at the moment but trying some house rules to bring the feel a bit closer to the old days. Sent this video to my players. We'll see how they respond.
This is so true .. character sheet has become a prison.. indeed! The system is left to define the character. D&D has indeed changed from roleplay to rollplay. "What techniques does he utilizes... ? this might not have effect on game play." Exactly.. and I am still guilty of walking into this trap... adding this and that mechanical data on the character sheet which somehow solidifies to a bloated system. Less is more. While I implement small benefits and draw backs for dualwielding this does not circumvent any normal mechanic.. like no more than one attack per round. Two characters may have the same stats.. both with a shortsword and a bow.. but they feel differently when one is more melee combatant and the other the ranged one.. even two melee may differ.. one is more static.. hold his ground.. the other utilizing enviorment... still the same dice are rolled and the same modifiers added. Going back to BECMI is for me not just a switch in system, .. I sometimes feel on addiction therapy.. slipping back in old habbits. But I enjoy the journey.. just like I enjoyed it through AD&D 1st and 2nd.. 3rd.. pause.. and realizing that 5e is just another iteration of the same marketing they did with 2nd... cutting everything away.. making it look need and then reintroducing all the same bloat back in..
Bravo, young man. I became a businessman and artist from a life of becoming better at learning my hobby, I've taken fencing, forging, archery, SCA training, history etc... 5E is a guided prison to newer players. It is a fanciful trap, andvstifles creativity. I've been kicked out of 5E games, for trying to explain what my Character was trying to accomplish that wasn't covered in the RAW. Yes, back When the idea was to become a better Players. Interacting with the described world as it developed over game-play. Come up with a plan, and watch the OSR Ref smile. OR 5E "DM's" kick you from their game
Could not agree more; I must say, however, that any 5e skill finds its root in a basic characteristic (strength, wisdom, etc.). So anyone willing to roll skill checks with BECMI could do so very easily. It’s just a matter of balancing role playing and rolls…
I saw some of your shorts showing classic adventure modules. In case you haven't already added it to your list of video ideas. How about covering some of those classic adventures in your videos?
Great video. Also, would you mind either linking to where your art comes from, or doing a video on where you get those awesome old-school illustrations? I know, mostly D&D books, but there's hundreds of those at this point.
@@becmiberserker Wow, thanks for the reply. The ones that caught my eye were the black and white fighter illustrations you were showing when talking about what makes old-school characters different from one another.
@@jasencaram8893 They’re from the Rules Cyclopedia, which was the amalgamation of the BECM parts of the BECMI edition. Probably the most complete D&D rulebook ever, but then I’m biased. 😉
Where they came from helps though. I don't need or want a complete backstory, but a few thoughts regarding why this person is willing to risk their lives, what does their equipment look like, etc. helps us both bring them into focus.
I think this is true of feats, but not really skills. I've played a lot of skill based games like CoC and it doesn't really come up. The players come up with their cockamamie plan and then get told which skill to roll. Feats on the other hands really feel like a list of things you can't do, as much as a list of things you can.
Hi, Berserker! I love the idea of BECMI and the more minimalistic OSR-style systems, but I keep getting stuck on one issue and I'd love your input on it: how would you handle a one-on-one duel? I ask because a duel can result in a very dramatic scene with plenty of potential for character development, but for the life of me I could never find a good, elegant way to handle them. Not in OSR, not in 3e, and *definitely* not in 5e with its bloated HP pools. It's definitely a bit of an issue with trying to fit a square peg in a round hole since d20 systems with 6-10 second long rounds and abstracted combat intended for speeding up group-on-group encounters aren't going to have a lot of granularity by default, but I've always felt it's a blind spot, and one I'd love to see discussed. For example, one of the ideas I've seen suggested is to make it less about the combatants' draining each other's HP pools (since that can be a slog at higher levels), and more whoever manages to reach a certain number of hits first, or finish a round with X more total attacks hitting than the opponent, wins. Or even rolling the attacks as contested attack rolls, whoever wins gets a "hit", with time between the clashes for descriptions and/or dialogue. Either way, have you ever had a duel happen in your games? How would you handle such a scene? Thank you for your time!
Hello. I’ve not had to run a duel in that way before. There are many variables here but I’m going to assume two fighters of similar ability. If the objective is to speed up the combat to give it much more of a one-hit-can-kill thing, I would suggest dividing the total hit points of each opponent by 5 or 10, whichever is most appropriate to get them under or around 10 total. Then I’d run it as normal. Obviously, the players would have to be in agreement, but if they have a heads up that this was how duelling works, it would feel a lot more of a risky process and perhaps something to be avoided. I hope this helps. Thanks for commenting.
I may be six hours late but that's fine by me, I am really digging all the work your putting into this, however while I believe I have a fairly good imagination and can come up with some good ideas, I for one prefer having "the character" supported by "the character sheet" if that makes sense. It just makes it more fun in my opinion.
@@becmiberserker yeah I know it'll be used for ability scores and items... and spells if your a caster of some variety... I dunno how to say this other than look at fighting games everyone uses the same commands to do different stuff and the system backs it... the system allows it... the system is built to have mechanical benefits and pitfalls to certain actions being performed by the player based on the character being played. For example a combo that Ryu can do might not work for ken even though they are in the same game using the same fighting style as backed by the system. I dunno if they are that different now I haven't played street fighter in so long... not the point. The point is having it backed that a character as created or used by a player is mechanically different from another character who shares one trait (both being the same class in dnd or both using shotokan in street fighter) is clearly what your buddy was getting at
@@becmiberserker also please don't get me wrong while I appreciate the sentiment of "you make your character special" it is still a sentiment also I am a fan of fighting games and love the idea of even slight mechanical differences just to make a character feel more or less unique (mechanical differences not stat differences)
The way I see it, you form your character (at least on the sheet) over time, with magic items. Your fighter won't be the same as someone else's fighter based on the adventures they have and the acclaim they achieve. In contrast to 5e, which is designed with 'character first' design and you already start somewhat heroic. IN BECMI, you aren't the WWI Flying ace at level 1. You're a '20 minuter'. There's a million like you, hoping for glory and likely going to die. Are you going to prove your worth and stand out?
It is not my place to tell anyone what to play, yet.... It does seem as though you are trying to talk yourself into (or possibly out of) going back to the BECMI rules. Let's face it, The DM (forever DM as you say) has the final say in the world you play in. I would be very interested in following the progress of your new BECMI campaign, and hearing how players who come from more "Modern" editions think about BECMI.
Well, the last campaign I ran, from 2010 to 2018, utilised as many of the BECMI modules as possible. There were many we couldn’t afford as youngsters, so we tried them now. We had great fun and we were surprised at how diverse the adventure content was. The episodic format was also an improvement due to allowing for downtime and exploration of options outside of the modules. I am currently running oneshots and am getting positive feedback and, wouldn’t you know it, ideas from the players about developing characters. A new campaign could be incoming. Thanks for your comment.
I love CoC. I think a lot of weight is given to profession of the character over the actual skills that, in my opinion, a player would be hard put to ignore this in developing the character.
I kind of agree, kind of disagree. I agree that the laundry list of powers, abilities, racial features, subraces, subclasses, alternate class features, feats, and all manner of stupid ways in which you can tinker with your character build is more limiting that it seems, even if psychologically. But mechanically it has two effects, one is that a character with the right build can be STUPID overpowered. Even if you're just sticking to core possibly. Two is that it seems Wizards didn't have any "Goal" it seems when it came to building their classes. It just sort of looks like they said "Well, if it makes the tiniest bit of sense for the class to have, it should go in the class." for example, Unarmored Defense with the barbarian, because, hey, Conan never puts on a shirt! Where I disagree is that classes don't need have their own unique features. (I know you didn't really say this). Especially for fighters, on the surface their class is 'they can use every weapon and armor' but honestly I find that kind of boring. As the game unfolds it turns out that fighters specifically can use magic swords. But I'm not really sure I count that as a true class feature. My solution was that fighters can pick a type of weapon, like axes, swords, etc. And do the next highest damage die with that weapon. (Also all weapons can be made into magic items)
While I don't think that you are entirely wrong here, you also aren't entirely right, either. Is it possible to fall into the trap of not thinking beyond the mechanical options on one's character sheet? Certainly. But just as I've seen old school players who only roll-played, and never actually played a character as a person, I've seen many players who cut their teeth on modern systems roleplay their characters very deeply and intensely. It's all a matter of how one approaches playing a character, and how well their GM encourages and fosters an environment that promotes character development beyond the page.
I've heard the "the difference between bob and joe fighter in old D&D comes down to roleplaying" argument before, and its not a good argument to be honest. In order for this view to be true, you're presupposing that players playing modern editions are not engaging in roleplaying as well to make their characters unique. I'm perfectly willing to grant that at some tables this is true. I'm also going to need to call bs on the idea that seems to underpin your argument that every old school player was roleplaying well enough to differentiate their characters, or that they had any interest in roleplaying whatsoever. D&D can be and often is boiled down to just a combat game, regardless of the edition you're playing, and there were quite alot of the beer and pretzel style games present back in 2e where you couldn't see a single bit of roleplaying. What modern systems give you is a way to differentiate your characters mechanically as well as through roleplaying. Feats and skills are aids to roleplaying, not replacements. For example, in old D&D I've decided that my fighter is going to strive to be the best ranged attacker in the land, able to shoot apples off peoples head at 100 paces and so on. In old D&D there is no mechanic to accomplish this. I'm just as good as any other fighter of my level, assuming stats and weapons are similar. I think that's a significant issue. There's too much left in abstraction land. After all, if it requires a DM handwave of "umm well of course your fighter is the best in the land" then have I really earned it? That's not good roleplaying to me, its simply a DM giving in to his players headcannon. In 3E I will design my character to not just give lip service, but I will in fact be the best archer in my area. I have objectively more skill, the feats I've taken support my head fantasy, and it combines with my roleplaying to enforce it as a truth in the campaign not requiring any DM handwaves. This is why I think when judging any system you need to take the roleplaying aspect out of the equation and assume the roleplaying can be just as good under any system, because I've seen that to be the case. There's also the issue of fairness. Mechanics make things fair and even, since it applies to all and is objective. There are no mechanics in older systems for quite alot of situations. Opposed checks to notice stealthy characters is one big glaring one for me. Its frankly unfair to have the skill of the rogue be the only determinant in whether he or she is hidden. What about the skill of the perceiving party? A DM can give an abstract ruling to take things into account, but its a very clunky and case by case way of doing it. You're absoloutely correct that relying entirely on skills can cause bad habits to creep in. However, I can't see blaming a system for what is essentially a player and DM fault. Its laziness, pure and simple. Its no different to DM's who don't describe combats, but boil it down to "you hit, you miss, you hit". Before a player makes any roll a DM should ask how do you say this, what's your approach, and so on. No one should ever simply say "diplomacy" and roll to win a conversation. A DM who allows that is frankly not a good DM in my view. I love the videos you make where you extol the virtues of older systems, because those virtues exist. I don't think "well the roleplaying is better" or "everything being abstract is fun" are among those. Frankly, I think its insulting to quite alot of modern players who do roleplay, and who do find feats and skills useful as roleplaying aids. I believe there's plenty of virtues that older systems have. I don't think running a negative campaign against new ones in order to attract people is necessary, and it strikes me as simply edition wars part 5 million.
I could not disagree more. The response, "The difference is you," doesn't actually answer the question, which is really an expression of preference for a larger play space, and no sort of mechanical differentiation survives this universal solvent. Why have any sort of mechanical differentiation if "you" are always sufficient? Ability scores, level, class--everything you could point to on the sheets to show how this character is different from that character is not just superfluous, it's actually "a prison" that limits play. After all, what could possibly be the value in limiting play or in having elements of a game that players require time to learn and effort to master? The kicker to me is that you actually do understand the value of mechanical differentiation, but you've somehow walled that understanding off from your analysis. Why do we have different stats for weapons and armor? Why have more first level spells than a beginning MU can know? Why would someone opt to play a Magic-User instead of a Fighter? The answer is simple: these decisions affect the set of strategic and tactical options available to the player, and navigating those options in the dungeon is an entertaining and rewarding experience. The "you" is a constant across all the potential characters a player could create. Whether he chooses to play a Fighter, a Druid, or a Mystic, that aspect doesn't change. Where there's no difference between Fighters, "Fighter + you" is a singular choice, while "Fighter + you + twoFeats" comprises a multiplicity of choices with a variety of potentially interesting effects on the decision space during gameplay. Rather than opening the play space, removing mechanical differentiation actually reduces the number of meaningful choices afforded to players. It's fine to have a preference for a smaller play space, of course. I mean, BECMI is my second favorite TTRPG of all time, so I'm not ragging on it. What grinds my gears is acting like smaller is larger and larger is smaller. I think a better response to your friend's question would be to own it: _At first level? Beyond your ability scores and starting equipment, nothing. You're an empty vessel, a blank canvas, full of nothing but potential. As you adventure, you'll acquire enchanted items, attract followers, master weapons, and perhaps take on the role of paladin, knight, or avenger. You'll have many opportunities to differentiate Robilar from Krusk--just not at first level. Differentiation, separating yourself from the vast multitudes, is one of the rewards of adventuring, rather than something you get as a free door prize just for showing up._
![[GWENT] Last Time I Was Called Out for Not Showcasing Udalryk Properly, So Here It Is (+Bonus Match)](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/bspNZOK1qfU/mqdefault.jpg)
Never stop "bothering" me with your well timed and perfectly worded advice friend, every video from you is a blessing.
I appreciate that!
I remember my first campaign. B/X 1982ish. Still wrapping my head around the character sheet. DM helped me build a fighter, guess he figured the less mechanics the better. I remember char. creation was real fast. I stared at the completed sheet for a long time then asked the DM what else I could do besides hit things.
He smirked at me. "Anything you want."
I'm a player in a BECMI campaign, comprising of 50-somethings who each have a few decades of adventuring under their belts. At the commencement of the campaign, the topic of the "relatively bare-bones" BECMI character sheets came up in conversation, and I commented on never having felt constrained by the old-school character classes, unadorned by powers and feats. By contrast, I've always felt that as more classes, subclasses, prestige classes etc. came into play, the more a character seemed to enter an "uncanny valley" of being very nearly, but never EXACTLY the character I wanted. As you've so eloquently expressed in your video, sometimes those gaps in the rules can be the windows through which boundless vistas of possibilities can be explored.
The fundamental realization is that your huge manifest of feats and skills isn't a list of what you can do, it's a implicit list of what you *can't* do. The kewl powerz that either aren't on your sheet or are present at an effectively "unusable" level are the ones that really matter, as they amount to an invisible straitjacket.
Which might be why I, who actually likes the "modern DnD style", like that those tricks you **can't** do are essentially superpowers, and you still **can** do anything normal-ish for your character (those still CAN be very off-the-wall ideas, just not the ones that are superpower-powered).
@@Alche_mist True, but good luck if you aren't proficient in the skills you need for whatever skill roll the DM calls for, or the DM on prompting of the rules lawyer won't let you impersonate voices because the RL has [Actor] as a feat and you don't so he'd feel like you're stepping on his toes.
The more you have on your sheet the more your actions are constrained.
Similar to the “Character Sheet as trap” problem is the concept that the more voluminous the character sheet is, the more likely it becomes a record of what you CANT do. Whereas the simpler a character sheet is, the less likely it is to be a hindrance to fully exploring your character and the qualities you think they should possess.
One of my players wanted to "sub class" into bard in my basic D&D campaign.
So I told him to start writing songs and stories about the parties adventures and he did.
The only mechanical benefits it's given them is +1/+2 reactions when hiring mercenaries and retainers in the tavern or keeping moral up during downtime in the wilderness.
It's a lot more satisfying than modern bard classes IMO.
"The difference is you" is exactly what sprang to my mind when you narrated your friend asking the question. Feels good to be on the same page!
Modern game is more similar to tactical boardgames. Despite old school was born out of wargame, it was more genuine to a play pretend children philosophy. And that is its power and beauty
In BX that might be true but in BECMI you do have ways to make your character stand out. You can use weapon feats like weapon mastery levels and also proficiencies for skills.
Nice summary of "old school" character concept verses modern concept. I find them to be very different approaches and most people prefer one over the other.
Personally I always sigh a bit inside my head when my players stare at their character sheet looking for an answer that isn't there. "I guess it's time to use your imagination." I say.
Cheers!
I played a battle master fighter once in 5e but my most memorable combat move had nothing to do with the fancy class features, it was me responding to someone attacking me running up a set of stairs and I said "I kick him back down the stairs"
Oh man, that reference to David Eddings and the Belgariad really got me. Of all the fantasy series I hear people mention, that is one I never seem to hear and the first 5 books, at least, are second favorite behind Dragonlance
I cut my fantasy novel teeth on that series
Another great video. I am going to recommend it to my group as they seem to be stuck with looking for answers on their character sheets rather than using their imaginations.
So the 2 Fighters with similar stats you mentioned at the start. Does the first player possess imagination and creativity? Same question for the second player. It's very unlikely they will interpret being a Fighter in the same way. Which is more or less what you said. Character sheet is part of the whole. Thank you for your continued sterling work!
Thank you. I think that was the point I was trying to make with my friend. He had lost that perspective due to playing 5e so long. He had forgotten that his imagination was the difference.
Agreed, but there is a middle ground between 5e and BECMI, it doesn't have to be an all-or-nothing situation, at least that's how I feel. Great video again sir!
Absolutely. I think I’m arguing that for older editions that approach came more naturally. Happy to be proved wrong! Thanks for coming back to the channel!
@@becmiberserker I'm here for every video sir, you do good work. As for arguing, not my style. Would just say somewhere between all the Feats and Class Abilities, or the more bare bones nature of BECMI/B-X, there can be a D&D that finds a middle ground. Sadly I've not seen it yet.
I'm new to Old School Play, but I've found it to be amazing and really fun and freeing. When I introduce others I find that it's way easier for new players and the game actually plays the way they expect and they love it. 3e and 5e players often struggle to get a handle on old school play (I did too at first). 3e and 5e teach you that you can't do anything that you haven't "built" your character to do or you'll fail horribly. That can be really hard for people to unlearn.
It's about how you think about Skills. In my games, you can attempt anything that makes sense at the moment, the skill bonus is just a bonus to the roll, not something that tells you "you can't try this". Even in old school, DMs make players do ability checks, which can have the same effect as DnD Skills, "oh no, I have low Charisma, I will try something else instead"...
"The things that you own, own you."
Same idea with the sheet in front of you. Even with the later mastery rules and general skills, you didn't have to use them or you can pick them up later after the character has lived a little. From even 2e on you basically tried to plot out your character's career when you were rolling stats. Getting a list of things you will have to collect or build up (feats&skill ranks) just to pull off something that in BECMI was just a plan and a die roll and who doesn't love it when a plan comes together? Everything you said is 100% on point. Less is more and those sheets become a cage. BECMI really is the only system you need and though you didn't want to say it, it was just better in the old days!
Running a game of Dungeon Crawl Classics, which is really a love-letter to BX, and a player with a warrior asked how he could play a ranger. I said "so play a ranger. You have a concept for your warrior, which is great. Lean into being a ranger, and I'll accommodate that." Having fewer rules isn't limiting, its liberating. The same pile of stats could be Aragorn, Lancelot, Charlemagne, Ivanhoe; whatever you want to play. And a light goes on, when players realize this.
Bravo! The internet needs content like this!
Freedom is an amazing thing.
Add that with imagination you then have the power to take your game anywhere.
Both a minimalist edition like 1e and a crunchy edition like 3e have their merits. I've seen some crazy stuff done in 3e that is straight out of the free-for-all spirit of 1e, but has a mechanical backing that allow you to gauge how to implement it. I like the fact that everyone can attempt most stuff (aside from a few class-specific checks), but you can also train and specialize by taking feats and skills. In 1e you mechanically are as good at climbing at lvl 1 as you are at lvl 5. You talk about how each character is different by the way they fight and solve problems. 3e supported that as well, but gave your choices a mechanical advantage. For me, a character started with an idea, then I used the various options to have that idea manifest within game rules. It's much more so 5e that narrows down my thinking to what is on my character sheet.
Couldn't agree more! I never even heard the term "character build" until the 3rd edition rules. Suddenly I found that min / maxing had become the accepted norm, with people "dipping into" a class for a few levels to gain specific benefits and openly abuse the system. Any attempt to ask them to justify in character why their paladin had 3 levels as a rogue, just led to blank looks and not a moments thought for the fictional character they were creating. Sadly this tendancy has just got worse, with dozens of supplements published with the sole purpose of adding new character powers.
I actually feel sorry for new players who think this competitive character bulding is the purpose of the game. Its great to see sites like this one which I hope some people will take note of and give OSR rules a try.
Thanks for a fun little trip down memory lane. You said something that really resonated with me in your comment regarding how the focus on builds in the more recent versions has made characters prisoner to character sheets. A few years ago, having been away from playing D&D for many years, I spoke with a friend from my high school (15-18 year old) D&D days. He mentioned that now there were so many other things we could do with characters due to new classes and sub-classes. I thought a bit and then just asked him what kept him from doing that in the past? All he had to do was discuss it with the DM and voila, a tailored/specialized character class or subclass or just a twist on an existing class. I guess I just never realized we needed permission to do that (LOL).
Love the video! Oh and for "free" OSR, check out Basic Fantasy RPG.
Great one again, sir! Your echo what I've been saying for a year now in my channel. Thnx for this and keep them coming! 😁🤓👍
Yes, absolutely right. The character is much more than the sum of its parts as captured on the sheet.
Fantastic video and explanation. This is required viewing for anyone considering or arguing against older versions of D&D.
My favorite system is 3.5e, and that's not likely to change. But I love your POV and I love your channel. Really, any system is fun with the right crew. But BECMI stands strong, and it's a great system.
I started with BECMI in middle school and moved to 1E AD&D by the end of middle school. I used BECMI to fill in the gaps of my 1E game. Then half way through high school made the switch to 2E AD&D and before the splat books started coming out, had been using my BECMI and 1E books to beef up my 2E game. By the end of high school my collection of 2E books was large enough to where the BECMI stuff and most of the 1E stuff I was using faded out and it was 90-95% just 2E rules that I based my homebrew rules on. Looking back I think part of the impetus as to why I moved away from BECMI into 1E and then into 2E was that the more organized and detailed the rules got, the easier it was to homebrew new stuff just by basing it on an existing rule and tweaking things rather than having to come with it all from scratch.
The other impetus was the more organized and detailed the rules got progressing from BECMI to 1E and then 2E was that it was easier to say "No, you can't do that" and then point to a rule when someone tried to do something game breaking or story breaking. I believe these days there are official names applied to the behavior known as "Power Gaming" and "Main Character Syndrome" ...which I absolutely fucking hate and that is what makes getting into 5E real difficult to like since the 5E design, rules, and culture make the game a blackhole-level attraction for narcissistic power-gamers and attention-seeking theater kids.
AD&D 2E was my favorite edition of for its better organized rules and massive (yet not overwhelming) variety of optional stuff to add into your game. Unearthed Arcana and Oriental Adventures from AD&D 1E were inspirations for so many things in my game, but I sometimes miss the simplicity and almost innocent-like feel of playing BECMI D&D.
Some great thoughts in the lack of clutter on a Character’s sheet.
This! So much this! This is the difference between the best games I've played and the games I most often participate in.
I absolutely love your videos. Watching this stuff makes me want to jump back into BECMI right there, right now, every single time.
You had better DMs than I had in the 1980s. Everything i tried to do that wasn't included in the class abilities was slapped down. (If you want an example, a 1st level AD&D ranger that was slapped down for trying to use sticks and branches to build a lean-to.)The main improvements for me in second edition, third, 3.5 was that more was spelled out on paper, so that the DM couldn't say "You can't do that". 10:23
That’s a shame. All I can say is we’re out there! 🙂
@becmiberserker Hey, the point where I gave up was when I told the DM I was working on making a Dwarf an eccentric inventor, and I was starting with a holy water squirter. His verbatim reply was "No problem, I'll just make everything immune to holy water". Heh. It's not just player imaginations that run short.
The Mystara GAZ series and the Rules Cyclopedia introduced the best skill system D&D has ever had. When paired with weapon mastery, the two systems fills a significant amount of the "void" of character options.
Yep; and we're about to dive back into those, hopefully running a long-term Mystara campaign that will allow me to bring a lot of that stuff in. I also highly recommend the fan-made gazetteers available on Vaults of Pandius.
Lovely video Berserker, albeit finding it 'late', as I would have loved to catch it when it was new. This is a topic I often discuss with my Father that introduced me to DnD as a whole, he introduced me into BECMI, and I moved forward to Pathfinder(1E). I still play Oldschool games weekly with my father and other friends in various systems, which is why I wanted to comment here.
I dispute the statement made at 1:25 because it is one that often comes up. The reality is this is true in every single game. Even in Old school, or new school games, learning that your character is you and not your sheet is entirely separate from the question being levied at you and I have always found it a meaningless evasion of the point. The point being asked was, what is the meaningful difference between the two fighters, and the answer is, their stats and their weapons and equipment. Beyond that, there is no variability between the actual characters, but any person could play either character any way they wanted. Those two players could swap their sheets and play the characters the exact same way they were before because there is no meaningful difference between them.
The narrative difference is something you can do in any edition. The only difference is the mechanical benefits that can come from those narrative differences. In 3e, or pathfinder the superior version of such, you can use feats and skill to create narrative differences in your character, to represent them, rather than simply making up a paintjob on the exact same thing as the next guy. I'm fine with this /being/ the case, but it has always annoyed me that anyone pretends it is not the case. Those two fighters wielding a sword, shield and plate, are by all means and function, the same fighter. When you put them against the ogre, assuming they have the same strength, dex, and Con, and rolled the same HP, they will both do as well as the other. It doesn't matter if one narratively says he dances around and fiddles his sword like a duelists rapier, and the other says he walks up and hits the guy. And that's okay. In Pathfinder, the one guy might just be a generic fighter who walks up and hits things, while the other could actually be a feinting duelist denying his opponent dexterity for himself or that fighter. An actual benefit for the flavor he was going for.
I also despise the argument that "because there aren't rules for it, you can do anything". This is partially a preference thing, but both as a player and as a DM, I love to comb the rules. That is genuinely the best way to tell that I am interested, or trying to be interested, in the game we are playing, is if I am spending my time before, after, and sometimes during the game, glancing through the games rulebook. The idea that you can simply invent rules and have it be a good thing all the time, or even most of the time, drives me crazy. I have had this discussion as well many times with my father about our Becmi games, about doing things 'outside the rules', and how whether I am DMing Becmi, or another edition, or another Old school game, I am far more likely to either find a rule in the game to base it off of, or to simply have it be wasted.
To give a specific narrative example, the party was fighting a bone golem, and the halfling didn't believe he had a weapon he could hurt it, so he instead shot an arrow with a rope through the bones, and then proceeded to "run around it's legs to trip it". The DM said it worked, and that's fine, but I know had I been DMing, I would have pointed out that this was a massive bone golem, and some rope being tugged by a halfling would be like a child trying to trip a full grown adult with a shoelace and his time would have been wasted. The lack of consistency annoys me. Especially if, future down the line, something similar would be tried, and the DM would just say it couldn't work.
Rules Exist to provide a baseline for everyone to mutually work off of, and give everyone an idea of what is, and isn't possible. If I wanted to play a game without rules, then why have the sheets in the first place? Why have dice? Why have stats? Why have classes? Why have minis, a board, why not just everyone sit around a table and say what happens? We all agree rules are important. The only difference is some like making up half of the game themselves with only their own personal preferences as a guideline, and others like having a baseline in the rules, that they can then edit at their group to their groups preferences.
I can respect both styles of play, and often play both versions. I simply do not agree that there is not the same benefits and problems in both games. You can play BECMI badly. Poor tactics, poor weapon choice. Poor decisions making. This is not a 3e onward difference. Both games can have massive creativity, freedom, and design. The only difference is whether or not there is any basis of this design in the rules, or if the rules are half-finished and not bothered to explain the logic and leave it for the DM to decide whether what you are doing is effective, or a total waste of your time.
Old School design did have limited character options. It's why even they ended up expanding them in their own game, creating extra options in other books, expanded class designs that are very fun (Glantrian schools of magic), even if some of them are a bit half-baked in implementation (Halfling Masters). That said, if you want a straightforward game to learn without many complicated or dynamic decisions to make, it is fantastic for that. Easy to pick up and learn quickly, and with the RC, has a decently interesting rule book to look through.
Nice comment and perspective. Thanks for sharing. 🙂
This was my main blocker to migrate my players from 5e to OSE Advanced. They eventually got it. Character uniqueness is based on what happens in the game the gear you get and what emergent play generates. And ultimately the characters “motivation”.
I still prefer some chrome with characters, nothing crazy, no more than 1e provides. But even that isn’t required.
Since 2e, I've always found myself explaining this concept. I've got it down to one sentence, two if further explanation is necessary.
First, the more options you are given, the more you are confined by them. And second, offering you a choice to pick either this or that, excludes you from choosing everything else that might be possible.
In BECMI, good communication with your DM about what you wanted your character to be was imperative, because using the books as GUIDE books was emphasized, and we would house rule a lot based on the direction we wanted to go with our characters, with the understanding that these rules, or any rule for that matter, could be adjusted, re-balanced, or just outright removed if it was found not to work in our game. We could spend hours immediately after and between sessions discussing these very points, talking about future character goals, figuring out if any game adjustments might be appropriate, and if so, what those might look like.
That's what the freedom of a more basic unembellished system means, the ability to shape the game to your player's play style, concepts, and desires as needed, rather than attempting to fit those aspects within the constraints of lists of game mechanics from which you must pick and choose, confining your character to the ideas of what the game designers felt they ought to be in the game. These limitations are especially apparent if you're dealing with a digital interface on a VTT which integrates with a particular ruleset. With every iteration of D&D, I think it is getting progressively more difficult to shape the game to your particular group.
In any case, I enjoyed the video, and value the idea it presents. Take care, be well, and enjoy your day.
Thanks for the considered comment. I couldn’t agree more. You also indirectly touch on something here that I raise in my “Don’t be a Hero” video. In that video, I describe my skepticism around how inspirational D&D is today compared to older rulesets. Your description of making the rules work with your group is a great example of how D&D developed players, through understanding, communication, collaboration, negotiation, and compromise. I just don’t see that in groups today.
Keep up the great job!! This really made me realize why I like the old stuff. I am in the game, not looking at what my sheet says I can do.
This video sums it up perfectly. Sending it on to some friends I’m trying to convince!!
Great video topic! This is something I've discussed with friends as well.
All the character options, backgrounds, etc, are just further systems and mechanics. It takes away from creative thinking. You become locked into parameters, like a computer game; you can only do what the game allows you to do, or rather, it's designers.
Good job, Berserker 🤘
I'd argue the point a bit, since I think the systems are better at encouraging different types of people to think beyond the system. I started with 3.5, picked up 4, dabbled with 5 and just got a yearning to try Rules Cyclopedia (just waiting on that and the modules to arrive) but I've really only ever felt constrained by the DM, not the ruleset. I've noticed certain people do kind-of need the more fleshed out rulesets to have a foundation for adjudicating cases, especially when they're inexperienced. I would not have done well trying to run early editions when I first started and certainly benefited from both 3.5 and 4. However, I do admit that people often get stuck in a rut.
Then again, I am the person who spends half their character creation in the adventuring gear section even when playing squishy casters because I will not be meeting with the king before a trip to the river with a bar of soap.
I am not even a DM or DnD player. But the same thinks could be said about the dark eye, the dominating TTRPG in Germany. I love your videos. They are like a history lesson and like a therapy session at the same time. It’s true. Less is more 👍
i did enjoy the BECMI system. I preferred 2nd. An gladly run my friends though many adventures as a forever GM. your channel gives me hope that others will return to an old school why of thinking and having fun.
Cool, thanks!
BECMI and all the supplements is huge. then there is home brewing something for a character. I had a player who wanted to make a fighter like Conan. I.e. loin cloth and all. So i just said ok when wearing no armour add your dex and con bonuses to you AC. then at 4th level you start to get +1 ac per level. He was really happy with that. nice and simple and he played that fighter so well. The ac bonus was just a lever to get the character he wanted to play out into the game. He even refused magical armour that would have improved his ac because he had so much fun in a loin cloth. I am always happy to work with a player to bring a character to life for them. I love seeing where the character and their imagination takes them.
It's the whole idea of "Role-play" vs "Roll-play." I feel very fortunate to have never fallen into the "What-see" trap and all of the nonsense associated with it.
Yes
I quite like skills ad an add on to BECMI (as first appeared in the GAZ series and then in the RC), but I do think that having them in game runs the risk of defining a character by what they -can't- do rather than what they're -good at doing-. A character without the tracking skill can still try to track someone, they're just not as good at it, but the temptation is always for a DM to just say 'no' or for a player not to even if their character can try. The paucity of information on the classic character sheet is fine, but you can add more to it to make the character more akin to what modern players like by using skills, weapon mastery etc. WITHOUT restricting the character in that way. You just have to be up-front that those skills are more about colour and character and less about power.
In the campaign i was part of that lasted 5 years + we had 2 mages in the group and never once did i wonder what made us different. My half elf was all about in your face big brash spell casting, my friends elf mage was all about subtlety understatement, we had access to the same spells but used them very differently. We didn't coordinate this, it just happened.
You can still use skills and weapon mastery that comes as options of the characters and leave a great deal for your imagination to find out what you have at hand. All of a suden I recalled some of my characters, like a peasant fighter or another one who was a bit more like an american native both looks and fighting style (for most) and all of that wasn't in the character sheet.
As an RPG player, not a regular D&D player, I cannot agree in that there are games that both give plentiful character options and encourage creative roleplay far better than either D&D 5 ed. or old editions/OSR ones. That being said, I am on a BECMI side in this particular discussion. I found your video very thought-provoking - thank you!
You’re welcome. 🙂
New to the channel here. I think the problem is caused, as it so often is, by the Thief. And I used to mostly play Thieves (capitalizing to distinguish the class, by the way).
The Thief class offers something no other class does in BECMI (at least until the introduction of Skills...in Hollow World first I think? Someone correct me), and what they offer is a mechanical way to engage with the game world in explicit terms. And in doing so they, by implication, prevent any other class from doing the same.
Because the Thief can Hide in Shadows, Move Silently, Climb Walls and Hear Noise, we know that Fighters, Clerics and Magic-Users glow in the dark, stomp everywhere they go, can't hop a fence and are stone deaf.
Thieves really shouldn't exist. They were the first nail in the coffin of creativity where the ability to interact with the world in improvised format was removed from the hands of the DM and players and instead codified into mechanics. From there it's easy to see where things like Feats came from.
All this being said, I'd never run a BECMI game without the Thief. Still love them, but they're just as problematic in the rules as they are when they're deciding to pick the local magistrate's pocket in play.
Welcome! I really appreciate the comment. The Thief class always caused that issue of “why can’t I just try and pick the lock?” in other classes. In my opinion, this caused the slide into shared skilled systems that we have today, which are still imperfect, as they cause things like Fighters to pass insane Arcane checks.
My own imperfect method is to not rely on skills so much and let things serve the narrative as best as possible, but when a some intricate stealth-ing is required, then that’s when you need a Thief. Just my opinion.
Thanks for the comment. 🙂
Great video! Character sheets are like skeletons: they're the base but need to be fleshed out.
What is different?
Their name, and names have power!
Well said. It can be hard for people, if they are used to looking to the sheet for what they can do. But every time a sheet says one character CAN do something but does not say it for another, it now means that other character CANNOT do the thing.
I admit I love 5e but often feel frustrated by my characters dependency on their character sheets. BECMI is my first love and I’m preparing to run a campaign as soon as we wrap up our current 5e adventure.
Great stuff here! That character sheet takes me way back! 🤓
I agree, and thanks for shouting out some OSRs.
As in an old school game the DM doesn't have any rules to hide behind to obfuscate the fact that he's either good or bad at DMing, in the same way an old school player doesn't have the character ability menu to choose what they're gonna do in lieu of actually considering a situation and coming up with a plan or at least an idea on their own.
Great topic and conversation :)
Recently got the Red Box, and looking forward to playing at our table in the near future. I think you hit the nail on the head with your answer to your friend’s question regarding the differences in the fighter. Too many players dumb their characters down to just numbers
This explains why my last group loved my becmi game over 3.+
Totally agree to every single word. I just love your videos! 😎
I love all of your videos, but this one is my favorite so far. Here's to many more excellent episodes! I would love to see you take a deep dive into your favorite (and even least favorite) modules - B4 being my #1 pick!
One can validly play different characters with as few as F1 Ac7 HP8 etc ... High dex no armor, low Dex and whatever combo of armor you like, just make the person up in your mind...
In the old days, if you wanted to have your character be an Acrobat of sorts you just made a little backstory of them being in a circus and played them accordingly. When 2nd edition came out with the Thief/Acrobat, none of our DM's wanted to use it. If you wanted that type of character you could just make a backstory of being a "cat burglar" of something similar. We didn't need a gazillion rules. What we wanted was creative play of your character. In fact, more than skill checks you needed to have appropriate equipment to perform the tasks you were trying to perform or figure out a way to do it without that equipment.
This is the best thing I ever saw.
Great Stuff! Thanks for making your videos.
My pleasure!
Another fantastic video. 👍🏼
BB - I have played and enjoyed the newer versions of DnD but feel that the old school versions are best. Although there is enormous charm in the character creation process with progression and feat selections, I feel that the organic nature and creative storytelling and play that reveals the characters has been largely lost.
The character should develop in time and their experiences in game should be the driving factor behind their progression. I appreciate the “art” of character creation and development more than the “science”.
When my group were playing 5E, I had a swashbuckler rogue hellbent on killing an emperor for personal reasons (yada yada, revenge, yada yada first character.) Said emperor was the head of a religious empire who was leading the charge against the powers of darkness. My party had earned the man's trust and were embarking on a quest to aid in the fight against a lord of chaos with one or two of his trusted clerics/paladins to accompany us.
One night, our camp was attacked by a blue dragon in league with the dark lord, and after several failed attempts to escape a grapple and several failed wisdom saves to stop being terrified, it was looking like the end for my poor rogue, so I did the only thing I could think of: "Why kill me when I seek the head of your greatest enemy?" When the dragon learned I was a potential man on the inside for his lord, he struck a bargain with my party to aid in the downfall of the emperor and probably the destabilization of the empire. Absolutely changed the course of the campaign. I still remember my heart beating out of my chest that night.
I'm not writing this as a 5E apologist (though I look upon the flawed system fondly,) but in agreement that most of the time, the biggest game changers are not the ones on your sheet. My uncle gave me his old BECMI sets, and I've been toying with the notion of running them for some time now, though it's been members of the OSR who've convinced me of the viability of basic and advanced D&D. I've become fascinated with this channel in particular, partly because you favourably cover the material I own, and partly because of the general quality of your output. I'm only a few videos deep into your Known World playlist, but tell me, are you planning to go over the hollow world at some point? I haven't noticed any videos on your channel on the subject, so forgive me if I have overlooked it. Cheers!
Love this comment! The experience you relayed is exactly how Dungeons and Dragons should work. The feeling you had when it was all playing out is very familiar to me. It’s strange because, in our heads, the imagination makes it so vivid and feel like an achievement that transcends into the real world. I hope that makes sense - I am, of course, not suggesting we can’t distinguish things from the real world…most of the time anyway ;). This type of play should be system agnostic but, as I hope I conveyed in the video, the falling back on what’s on the character sheet can, for some, limit imagination at times.
It’s great you want to try OSR/BECMI. My only advice is that if playing with hardened 5e players, be prepared for some negativity at the perceived lack of abilities. Only saying, as that can be a barrier to keeping things going.
As for Hollow World, I hope to get there someday. I try to mix up my content, which is why the Known World isn’t finished as yet. I’d like to have that done first before continuing into the Hollow World, and as I have a job and busy family life (and a CoC campaign I’m running), it might be some time before I do a first video on it. Just being transparent.
Anyway, thanks again for the comment and watch out for the vengeful sons of fallen emperors!
I feel this does not answer the question you posed of "what makes two fighters different?" If the answer is you, then what makes the difference of two of your own fighters with similar stats? I get that you're trying to imply players need to consider personality and story details instead of mechanics, but why can't you do both? Maybe I'm lucky, but my players understand that a 5e character is made of both mechanical choices and role play history. Having two characters of the same class in 5e has never (at my tables) led to the characters overlapping in style or personality and my players understand that the character sheet does not define all their options.
All that being said, I do appreciate your content. This is the first video that I actually disagree with, so please keep it up. You've still inspired me to look into becmi.
Disagreement is healthy! Thanks for watching.
Playing 5e at the moment but trying some house rules to bring the feel a bit closer to the old days. Sent this video to my players. We'll see how they respond.
This is so true .. character sheet has become a prison.. indeed! The system is left to define the character. D&D has indeed changed from roleplay to rollplay. "What techniques does he utilizes... ? this might not have effect on game play." Exactly.. and I am still guilty of walking into this trap... adding this and that mechanical data on the character sheet which somehow solidifies to a bloated system. Less is more. While I implement small benefits and draw backs for dualwielding this does not circumvent any normal mechanic.. like no more than one attack per round. Two characters may have the same stats.. both with a shortsword and a bow.. but they feel differently when one is more melee combatant and the other the ranged one.. even two melee may differ.. one is more static.. hold his ground.. the other utilizing enviorment... still the same dice are rolled and the same modifiers added.
Going back to BECMI is for me not just a switch in system, .. I sometimes feel on addiction therapy.. slipping back in old habbits. But I enjoy the journey.. just like I enjoyed it through AD&D 1st and 2nd.. 3rd.. pause.. and realizing that 5e is just another iteration of the same marketing they did with 2nd... cutting everything away.. making it look need and then reintroducing all the same bloat back in..
Good video as usual. May I suggest taking a look at the Shadowdark rpg. The starter kit is free.
What sets these characters apart? Same thing that sets all us 1st level commoners apart irl...
Well said!!!
I need to read through the rules cyclopedia and 1e dmg, I've got them both on my phone, just need some train rides to spend reading them.
Love this!
Bravo, young man. I became a businessman and artist from a life of becoming better at learning my hobby, I've taken fencing, forging, archery, SCA training, history etc... 5E is a guided prison to newer players. It is a fanciful trap, andvstifles creativity. I've been kicked out of 5E games, for trying to explain what my Character was trying to accomplish that wasn't covered in the RAW.
Yes, back When the idea was to become a better Players. Interacting with the described world as it developed over game-play.
Come up with a plan, and watch the OSR Ref smile. OR 5E "DM's" kick you from their game
Well stated!
Could not agree more; I must say, however, that any 5e skill finds its root in a basic characteristic (strength, wisdom, etc.). So anyone willing to roll skill checks with BECMI could do so very easily. It’s just a matter of balancing role playing and rolls…
I saw some of your shorts showing classic adventure modules. In case you haven't already added it to your list of video ideas. How about covering some of those classic adventures in your videos?
I will. 🙂 Going to do the RC next and then going into the modules.
@@becmiberserker Fantastic, looking forward to it!
I noticed the 3.0 did turn.our d&d into roll play.,
Seriously 1 hour to roll up a character?.
BECMI forever Imho
Great video. Also, would you mind either linking to where your art comes from, or doing a video on where you get those awesome old-school illustrations? I know, mostly D&D books, but there's hundreds of those at this point.
Good point. I’m on the road at the moment, but when I return home I can do that. Was there any particular ones that piqued your interest?
@@becmiberserker Wow, thanks for the reply. The ones that caught my eye were the black and white fighter illustrations you were showing when talking about what makes old-school characters different from one another.
@@jasencaram8893 They’re from the Rules Cyclopedia, which was the amalgamation of the BECM parts of the BECMI edition. Probably the most complete D&D rulebook ever, but then I’m biased. 😉
What makes them different? Who their fighters become. Not where they start. Personality and Culture and life experience.
Where they came from helps though. I don't need or want a complete backstory, but a few thoughts regarding why this person is willing to risk their lives, what does their equipment look like, etc. helps us both bring them into focus.
I think this is true of feats, but not really skills.
I've played a lot of skill based games like CoC and it doesn't really come up. The players come up with their cockamamie plan and then get told which skill to roll.
Feats on the other hands really feel like a list of things you can't do, as much as a list of things you can.
Hi, Berserker! I love the idea of BECMI and the more minimalistic OSR-style systems, but I keep getting stuck on one issue and I'd love your input on it: how would you handle a one-on-one duel?
I ask because a duel can result in a very dramatic scene with plenty of potential for character development, but for the life of me I could never find a good, elegant way to handle them. Not in OSR, not in 3e, and *definitely* not in 5e with its bloated HP pools. It's definitely a bit of an issue with trying to fit a square peg in a round hole since d20 systems with 6-10 second long rounds and abstracted combat intended for speeding up group-on-group encounters aren't going to have a lot of granularity by default, but I've always felt it's a blind spot, and one I'd love to see discussed.
For example, one of the ideas I've seen suggested is to make it less about the combatants' draining each other's HP pools (since that can be a slog at higher levels), and more whoever manages to reach a certain number of hits first, or finish a round with X more total attacks hitting than the opponent, wins. Or even rolling the attacks as contested attack rolls, whoever wins gets a "hit", with time between the clashes for descriptions and/or dialogue.
Either way, have you ever had a duel happen in your games? How would you handle such a scene?
Thank you for your time!
Hello. I’ve not had to run a duel in that way before. There are many variables here but I’m going to assume two fighters of similar ability.
If the objective is to speed up the combat to give it much more of a one-hit-can-kill thing, I would suggest dividing the total hit points of each opponent by 5 or 10, whichever is most appropriate to get them under or around 10 total. Then I’d run it as normal.
Obviously, the players would have to be in agreement, but if they have a heads up that this was how duelling works, it would feel a lot more of a risky process and perhaps something to be avoided.
I hope this helps. Thanks for commenting.
I may be six hours late but that's fine by me, I am really digging all the work your putting into this, however while I believe I have a fairly good imagination and can come up with some good ideas, I for one prefer having "the character" supported by "the character sheet" if that makes sense. It just makes it more fun in my opinion.
A character sheet is of course necessary in some form.
@@becmiberserker yeah I know it'll be used for ability scores and items... and spells if your a caster of some variety... I dunno how to say this other than look at fighting games everyone uses the same commands to do different stuff and the system backs it... the system allows it... the system is built to have mechanical benefits and pitfalls to certain actions being performed by the player based on the character being played. For example a combo that Ryu can do might not work for ken even though they are in the same game using the same fighting style as backed by the system. I dunno if they are that different now I haven't played street fighter in so long... not the point. The point is having it backed that a character as created or used by a player is mechanically different from another character who shares one trait (both being the same class in dnd or both using shotokan in street fighter) is clearly what your buddy was getting at
@@becmiberserker also please don't get me wrong while I appreciate the sentiment of "you make your character special" it is still a sentiment also I am a fan of fighting games and love the idea of even slight mechanical differences just to make a character feel more or less unique (mechanical differences not stat differences)
@@typolet6883 No worries! I totally get it. 🙂
@@becmiberserker thank you for your understanding and I can't wait to see your next video 😀
The way I see it, you form your character (at least on the sheet) over time, with magic items. Your fighter won't be the same as someone else's fighter based on the adventures they have and the acclaim they achieve. In contrast to 5e, which is designed with 'character first' design and you already start somewhat heroic.
IN BECMI, you aren't the WWI Flying ace at level 1. You're a '20 minuter'. There's a million like you, hoping for glory and likely going to die. Are you going to prove your worth and stand out?
It is not my place to tell anyone what to play, yet.... It does seem as though you are trying to talk yourself into (or possibly out of) going back to the BECMI rules. Let's face it, The DM (forever DM as you say) has the final say in the world you play in. I would be very interested in following the progress of your new BECMI campaign, and hearing how players who come from more "Modern" editions think about BECMI.
Well, the last campaign I ran, from 2010 to 2018, utilised as many of the BECMI modules as possible. There were many we couldn’t afford as youngsters, so we tried them now. We had great fun and we were surprised at how diverse the adventure content was. The episodic format was also an improvement due to allowing for downtime and exploration of options outside of the modules. I am currently running oneshots and am getting positive feedback and, wouldn’t you know it, ideas from the players about developing characters. A new campaign could be incoming.
Thanks for your comment.
I really want to try becmi
The Min-Maxers have taken over. Everyone is obsessed with the perfect character. No one wants to role-play. They just want to roll dice and win.
What about a game like Call of Cthulhu with its skill system?
I love CoC. I think a lot of weight is given to profession of the character over the actual skills that, in my opinion, a player would be hard put to ignore this in developing the character.
I kind of agree, kind of disagree.
I agree that the laundry list of powers, abilities, racial features, subraces, subclasses, alternate class features, feats, and all manner of stupid ways in which you can tinker with your character build is more limiting that it seems, even if psychologically. But mechanically it has two effects, one is that a character with the right build can be STUPID overpowered. Even if you're just sticking to core possibly. Two is that it seems Wizards didn't have any "Goal" it seems when it came to building their classes. It just sort of looks like they said "Well, if it makes the tiniest bit of sense for the class to have, it should go in the class." for example, Unarmored Defense with the barbarian, because, hey, Conan never puts on a shirt!
Where I disagree is that classes don't need have their own unique features. (I know you didn't really say this). Especially for fighters, on the surface their class is 'they can use every weapon and armor' but honestly I find that kind of boring. As the game unfolds it turns out that fighters specifically can use magic swords. But I'm not really sure I count that as a true class feature.
My solution was that fighters can pick a type of weapon, like axes, swords, etc. And do the next highest damage die with that weapon. (Also all weapons can be made into magic items)
Becmi, patreon up so i can buy you coffee please
While I don't think that you are entirely wrong here, you also aren't entirely right, either. Is it possible to fall into the trap of not thinking beyond the mechanical options on one's character sheet? Certainly. But just as I've seen old school players who only roll-played, and never actually played a character as a person, I've seen many players who cut their teeth on modern systems roleplay their characters very deeply and intensely. It's all a matter of how one approaches playing a character, and how well their GM encourages and fosters an environment that promotes character development beyond the page.
In a way, along the way, D&D "lost its soul" at some point, that would coincide with the change from TSR to Wizard of the Coast.
Thanks for this.
FYI you sound a bit too polite for a real Beserker. Is this a sham?
Wait till I Rage. 😏
I've heard the "the difference between bob and joe fighter in old D&D comes down to roleplaying" argument before, and its not a good argument to be honest. In order for this view to be true, you're presupposing that players playing modern editions are not engaging in roleplaying as well to make their characters unique. I'm perfectly willing to grant that at some tables this is true. I'm also going to need to call bs on the idea that seems to underpin your argument that every old school player was roleplaying well enough to differentiate their characters, or that they had any interest in roleplaying whatsoever. D&D can be and often is boiled down to just a combat game, regardless of the edition you're playing, and there were quite alot of the beer and pretzel style games present back in 2e where you couldn't see a single bit of roleplaying. What modern systems give you is a way to differentiate your characters mechanically as well as through roleplaying. Feats and skills are aids to roleplaying, not replacements.
For example, in old D&D I've decided that my fighter is going to strive to be the best ranged attacker in the land, able to shoot apples off peoples head at 100 paces and so on. In old D&D there is no mechanic to accomplish this. I'm just as good as any other fighter of my level, assuming stats and weapons are similar. I think that's a significant issue. There's too much left in abstraction land. After all, if it requires a DM handwave of "umm well of course your fighter is the best in the land" then have I really earned it? That's not good roleplaying to me, its simply a DM giving in to his players headcannon.
In 3E I will design my character to not just give lip service, but I will in fact be the best archer in my area. I have objectively more skill, the feats I've taken support my head fantasy, and it combines with my roleplaying to enforce it as a truth in the campaign not requiring any DM handwaves. This is why I think when judging any system you need to take the roleplaying aspect out of the equation and assume the roleplaying can be just as good under any system, because I've seen that to be the case.
There's also the issue of fairness. Mechanics make things fair and even, since it applies to all and is objective. There are no mechanics in older systems for quite alot of situations. Opposed checks to notice stealthy characters is one big glaring one for me. Its frankly unfair to have the skill of the rogue be the only determinant in whether he or she is hidden. What about the skill of the perceiving party? A DM can give an abstract ruling to take things into account, but its a very clunky and case by case way of doing it.
You're absoloutely correct that relying entirely on skills can cause bad habits to creep in. However, I can't see blaming a system for what is essentially a player and DM fault. Its laziness, pure and simple. Its no different to DM's who don't describe combats, but boil it down to "you hit, you miss, you hit". Before a player makes any roll a DM should ask how do you say this, what's your approach, and so on. No one should ever simply say "diplomacy" and roll to win a conversation. A DM who allows that is frankly not a good DM in my view.
I love the videos you make where you extol the virtues of older systems, because those virtues exist. I don't think "well the roleplaying is better" or "everything being abstract is fun" are among those. Frankly, I think its insulting to quite alot of modern players who do roleplay, and who do find feats and skills useful as roleplaying aids. I believe there's plenty of virtues that older systems have. I don't think running a negative campaign against new ones in order to attract people is necessary, and it strikes me as simply edition wars part 5 million.
I could not disagree more. The response, "The difference is you," doesn't actually answer the question, which is really an expression of preference for a larger play space, and no sort of mechanical differentiation survives this universal solvent. Why have any sort of mechanical differentiation if "you" are always sufficient? Ability scores, level, class--everything you could point to on the sheets to show how this character is different from that character is not just superfluous, it's actually "a prison" that limits play. After all, what could possibly be the value in limiting play or in having elements of a game that players require time to learn and effort to master?
The kicker to me is that you actually do understand the value of mechanical differentiation, but you've somehow walled that understanding off from your analysis. Why do we have different stats for weapons and armor? Why have more first level spells than a beginning MU can know? Why would someone opt to play a Magic-User instead of a Fighter? The answer is simple: these decisions affect the set of strategic and tactical options available to the player, and navigating those options in the dungeon is an entertaining and rewarding experience.
The "you" is a constant across all the potential characters a player could create. Whether he chooses to play a Fighter, a Druid, or a Mystic, that aspect doesn't change. Where there's no difference between Fighters, "Fighter + you" is a singular choice, while "Fighter + you + twoFeats" comprises a multiplicity of choices with a variety of potentially interesting effects on the decision space during gameplay. Rather than opening the play space, removing mechanical differentiation actually reduces the number of meaningful choices afforded to players.
It's fine to have a preference for a smaller play space, of course. I mean, BECMI is my second favorite TTRPG of all time, so I'm not ragging on it. What grinds my gears is acting like smaller is larger and larger is smaller.
I think a better response to your friend's question would be to own it: _At first level? Beyond your ability scores and starting equipment, nothing. You're an empty vessel, a blank canvas, full of nothing but potential. As you adventure, you'll acquire enchanted items, attract followers, master weapons, and perhaps take on the role of paladin, knight, or avenger. You'll have many opportunities to differentiate Robilar from Krusk--just not at first level. Differentiation, separating yourself from the vast multitudes, is one of the rewards of adventuring, rather than something you get as a free door prize just for showing up._