Oldschool Roleplaying: Dark Dungeons (BECMI clone)

[Yuki Akuma]

I was introduced to this BECMI clone (oldschool D&D - it stands for Basic, Expert, Companion, Master, Immortal) by a friend a few weeks ago. Now, I've never played Basic D&D or any of its expansions, so I can't say for sure if it's a completely faithful adaptation or not, but my friend assures me it is.

It's class-and-level based, of course. Each class has different XP totals for leveling up, just like pre-third edition D&D, based roughly on how awesome the class is.

The classes are Cleric (which can become a Druid at 9th level), Dwarf (essentially a fighter), Elf (Magic-User/Fighter), Fighter (who can become a Paladin at 9th level), Halfling (sort of a Fighter/Thief), Magic-User, Mystic (monk, with some Thief abilities), and Thief.

Classes have prerequisite ability scores, although usually just one at 9. The exceptions are the Halfling, who needs both Dexterity and Constitution at 9, and the Mystic, who needs both Wisdom and Dexterity at 13. And as ability scores are, by default, 3d6 down the row, getting the two 13s you need to be a Mystic can take some luck, although you are allowed to fiddle with your scores to better suit your class.

You can get the PDF version for free here (http://www.gratisgames.webspace.virginmedia.com/darkdungeons.html). You can also get physical copies for not-free from there, too.

I really, really want to try this game some time. I've never played any RPG older than D&D 3e, so I think it'd be neat and different.

[thirdkingdom]

It is actually a clone of the Rules Cyclopedia, which was a compilation of the BECMI books, as opposed to BECMI directly. There have been some changes, but nothing too major.

For those interested in how it plays (at least as a pbp) I have been running a game using it here (http://www.unseenservant.us/forum/viewforum.php?f=70) since January.

[Roland St. Jude]

I've been running a BECMI/RC game for a couple years now (link in sig), and I really enjoy it. I think a couple of the players we've had over the years have used Dark Dungeons because it was free and available online. It worked fine compatibility-wise. I actually had an opening yesterday but it filled in record time!

I really enjoy AD&D 2e, mostly for the settings, but there's nothing more iconically D&D for me than BECMI set in the Known World.

[Yuki Akuma]

Would you say DMing BECMI/RC/etc. is more or less demanding than GMing more modern games?

[MeeposFire]

Would you say DMing BECMI/RC/etc. is more or less demanding than GMing more modern games?

Less demanding at least in the way you are likely asking. The rules in and of themselves are easier to use and implement in general. Just slap a couple stats and you have an npc. In 4e D&D that may require some simple math using the rules and naming powers and in third edition it would require choosing skills, feats, abilities, and even full on equipment. Just in that one area you can save a LOT of time and energy playing older school D&D.

However it is just as demanding in terms of creating a world and the like. It is also more demanding in other more subtle ways. Older editions require the DM to adjudicate more. A DM will need to make decisions not based on hard rules all the time.

For instance a character tries to convince a king to allow the party to go free. In 3e and 4e this can be handled by a simple diplomacy check (granted you would likely require it to be roleplayed but the important mechanic is the skill roll). In AD&D and older D&D you could handle it in many ways. Some DMs liked to decide strictly by how they think would react to what the player says in roleplay. Some like to use cha checks (roll a d20 and if the number is lower than your cha you win). There could be other ways but the point being as a DM you need to decide how to handle that situation because often times the rules don't cover many things on purpose.

[Rhynn]

However it is just as demanding in terms of creating a world and the like. It is also more demanding in other more subtle ways. Older editions require the DM to adjudicate more. A DM will need to make decisions not based on hard rules all the time.

I'd agree; older editions tend to assume that you're passionate about creating your own world (rather than telling any kind of specific story/stories). Of course, you absolutely don't have to: you can easily slap one together mostly from modules and other published/borrowed material. And the world-creation itself isn't any more demanding for old-school games than for newer games.

But you don't have to make this hard work, either. By adopting a "just in time" style of world creation - creating only what you're going to need next - you can create a world on the go, influenced by your players (making it feel like a shared world). It doesn't make sense, to me, to spend a hundred hours creating a world before you ever even play in it! Great, deep, broad settings are created over years and years of play.

All other aspects of running an old-school game (any D&D retroclone basically) are, IMO, much easier on the GM.

[MeeposFire]

I'd agree; older editions tend to assume that you're passionate about creating your own world (rather than telling any kind of specific story/stories). Of course, you absolutely don't have to: you can easily slap one together mostly from modules and other published/borrowed material. And the world-creation itself isn't any more demanding for old-school games than for newer games.

But you don't have to make this hard work, either. By adopting a "just in time" style of world creation - creating only what you're going to need next - you can create a world on the go, influenced by your players (making it feel like a shared world). It doesn't make sense, to me, to spend a hundred hours creating a world before you ever even play in it! Great, deep, broad settings are created over years and years of play.

All other aspects of running an old-school game (any D&D retroclone basically) are, IMO, much easier on the GM.

I think part of hte move away from what we used to do was to highlight what the character knows and can do rather than the player. Older games tended to require a lot out of players and DMs but you had to wonder could the character have done it? For instance the player comes up with a great speech that is absolutely convincing to a king for assistance. However the character giving it has low cha and/or low int. Could the character make that speech? Perhaps though the DM has to choose whether to reward the player for clever playing (very common in stories you hear from back then and in fact many modules were designed to reward clever players or punish them in the case of the Tomb of Horrors) or to say no/come up with a mechanic to decide whether that action works. Later games took this out by making things like social skills mechanical. In that game the action is decided with a die roll which allows us to accurately portray how the character would perform but that does take away some of the potential player cleverness.

Of course you can still be clever in later games just typically not in that way with that kind of success.

[Rhynn]

Well, real old-school D&D doesn't actually tell you what the numbers really mean, anyway. You can tell that the PC with Cha 9 is less charismatic than the PC with Cha 10, and so on, but by how much? Even if you apply statistical analysis, it doesn't do you much good: what does it mean to be more charismatic than 62.5% of people?

If I'm playing a mechanics-light game like old-school D&D, I embrace this; the numbers are just numbers, and play no more part than their few mechanical effects and whatever roleplay the players wish to draw from them.