Moldvay/Cook B/X D&D or Mentzer BECMI?????

[ThrorII]

For those of us who like their school Olde Skool, which D&D game system do you prefer: Moldvay/Cook's Basic/Expert (B/X), or Mentzer's Basic/Expert/Companion/Master/Immortal (BECMI)? Why?

I know there is only minute differences between B/X and Mentzer's first two books (BE), with the CMI part radically changing the game. Personally, I like the 1-14th level completeness of B/X. 36 levels always seemed a little over kill for me (not to mention another 36 levels of 'immortal play'. I also think that the racial level caps on demi-humans is more playable with B/X.

That being said, I do really appreciate all the Elmore art in Mentzer's work, as well as the improved layout. I also really like the Dominion rules and War Machine rules in the Companion set.

[Breakdaddy]

The 3LBB Original D&D Box.

Out of the two you mentioned I'd go with Moldvay/Cook, but there is a place in my heart for the Rules Cyclopedia, so it's a tough call.

[Omote]

Mentzer BECMI. First because of completeness. Second, the books scream Dungeons and Dragons - the artwork is exceptional, the flow and writing is easy to understand and truely, as you increase in experience the amount of complexity begins to show. Though the rules are not perfect, Mentzer is the perfect amalgam of basic D&D mixed with unique ideas (for the D&D game) and increasing complexity that makes advancing through 36 levels fun to do. You can play Joe Farmer all the way up to a god... how awesome is that! Mentzer makes it possible.

Oh, and the presentation of a series of box sets, non-intimidatingly sized books and ELMORE!

~O

[Traveller]

Another vote here for the 3LBBs, though I also use stuff from the supplements, Holmes' Basic, and Best of Dragon I as well.

[mordrene]

I vote moldvay. While i own elmore prints, i prefer otus and sunderland artwork in the moldvay set. Feels more dndish, if that makes sence

[alcyone]

Short answer: of the choices you present, B/X.
Long answer:

I own B/X, BECMI, RC+WotI in print, and I love them all, but at the moment I am using Dark Dungeons, since all of my players can get it in PDF for free or obtain a hardcopy from Lulu. It makes some of the RC rules non-optional, like weapon mastery, so if you hate that you will hate this. It's very well-edited, and it lists rules redundantly everywhere they are needed, so looking things up never requires flipping all over the book to get the whole picture. As far as artwork, it uses woodcuts or lithographs that are in the public domain, and they give a different feel to the work.

http://darkdungeonsblog.wordpress.com/

The problem with BECMI is the rules are spread across 10 books, which sometimes is ok because you don't need them until you reach the appropriate level, but in other cases that isn't true (why not let a 1st level character use bolas?) Spells, too are spread across books.

Since most characters never level beyond expert anyway, B/X means 2 books to look at, and they aren't divided into Player/DM, so if you are going to look something up it will be a lot quicker.

You didn't ask about RC, but it's so good you should have . It's probably the best D&D rulebook I own. My only complaints are the layout could be a little better, for instance, the page numbers are hidden in little curlique illuminations at the bottom of the page, and the expense of acquiring a new one.

Consider, though, that once you get past the nostalgia, you can do all of this in C&C, especially now that the CKG has a little information on war and land-as-reward.

[ThrorII]

I've never played OD&D (not even Swords & Wizardry), so I left it out as it never occurs to me.

Yeah, I deliberately left out the Rules Cyclopedia. I own that as well, and love it too. The problem with the RC (which is really just 95% BECMI and sporadic rules from the GAZ series) is the damn 36 level/weapon mastery/skills/and odd demi-humans don't level past 8/10/12....but yes they do kind of rules. Plus the RC is great as a DM guide, but pretty dry and obtuse as a player reference.

If I ran a D&D game using RC, I'd end up 'limiting' it for my games: Levels up to 14 only, no weapon mastery rules, no skills (ok, maybe skills, because they're not that mechanical, and more flavor than anything), and no prestige classes (knight, paladin, druid and mystic). The problem with level limits, is that I'd have to re-work the saving throws and thief skills back to Mentzer Expert levels, to un-compensate for 36 levels. At that point, I might as well just either Moldvay/Cook or Mentzer Basic-Expert, add in Dominion rules and War Machine from the Companion rules, and call it a day.

Which is why we're back to my original query: What do you guys like best Moldvay or Mentzer?

[alcyone]

Gotcha, and good reasons.

Moldvay: Morgan Ironwolf.
Mentzer: Aleena.
Let the holy war begin.

I like Moldvay as it's more compact, but on the other hand, you can hand a player the player's book for the red box, and they get that memorable solo adventure, and they can do character generation without seeing the critters you are going to spring on them.

I got Mentzer first, and have fond memories of it, and the art is great of course. In terms of rules, I guess I never noticed the difference.

[Joe]

Cut my teeth on AD&D in 6th grade.
Never played basic so don't have the reference.
I do have the RC as reference and it looks like some good stuff but I wouldn't know the difference between the two.

As a snot nosed brat I was never interested in something "basic", when I was already playing the "advanced" version.

Now I know "classic rock" is whatever you grew up with and games seems to be the same.