General RPG DiscussionDiscussion of all RPGs and non-system-specific topics. DM/GM/player issues, settings, etc. Rules discussion belongs in one the forums below.
With regards to the HP thing, be aware that the expected PC party had about 6 characters (and often more), plus hirelings and henchmen! So if your group only has 3-4 characters and no hired help they'll need some sort of boost.
Also, things can get kinda wonky (to say nothing of annoying) if the MU has twice as many HPs as the Fighter! Even with everyone starting at full HP there's still no guaranty that they'll survive the first encounter. Its just more likely. (Watch out for those Save or Die spiders!)
__________________ Scrag 'em all and let the gods sort 'em out!
- I would also not give hp boosts. That radically warps the game as written. And it makes accounting afterwards a pain. If you must, start PCs at 2nd or 3rd level and use RAW.
Full agreement. A "kicker" warps the game, and makes it into something subtly different.
Well, I am looking for something a bit more like Runequest or Fighting Fantasy, where PCs have some durability right from the start - subtly different, yes. I don't want to start PCs at higher level because it sets the default magic level too high. I've switched from C&C to Labyrinth Lord for the same reason - C&C gives too many spells to 1st level casters. I'd rather a LL 12 hp M-U with 1 spell than a C&C 2 hp Wizard with 7 spells.
I would start with B1 if you want an easier dungeon with some wondrous and odd-ball mysteries inside. And if they clear it out they start with a base of operations that they can stock mercs from the expert book with!
I typically run B1 without writing in the monsters, and just add the monsters in at points in the game when I want to speed up the action or pick a monster on an ongoing theme. For instance, in B1 my characters ran into some of the human berserkers so they reasoned that these berserkers were barbarians who had raided the complex. I let them think that, occasionally adding an oddball orcish mercenary of the berserkers, and eventually a berserker leader and his guards in the throne room. Other encounters were large creatures in the provided listing, and I also tried to use up most of the treasure on the list, also on the fly. I really like B1.
By the by, I played a game with Frank Mentzer (the creator of BECMI) last June and I can say that the way you play the game and the way I played the game are just like Frank ran his.
__________________ My Involvement:
Spoiler:
Player of Doral Kinsman the Beguiler in Who Wants to Be a Wayfinder IC
i would say that the fun you had was at least as much a result of just letting everything go and not worrying much about consequences in game as it was about the ruleset. You could throw together a short notice game in any edition with which you have some core rules familiarity.
I have run games without a battlemat prior to 3rd edition, and in the end I almost always end up needing to draw stuff out. The real benefit of a mat in my experience is that it prevents certain kind of arguements from ever happening. In earlier editions, Fireballs have a tendency to encompas every monster and never hit any PC's with friendly fire.
Regardless though, if you think you can have more fun running a game with the Rules Cyclopedia than with a current edition, then go for it.
Inspiring. I'm glad you're having fun with a simpler version of the game. It makes me want to pick another copy of the RC, but I already tried it a year or two ago. It wasn't for me. Savage Worlds is my rules lite choice of game right now, but maybe I'll give the RC antoher look...
4. Are there any sweet house rules people would use?
Somewhere near the end of the RC is a chapter that discusses optional rules. I'd use the one that removes level limits. Just be careful on the mystic; the text contradicts itself on saves.
Let me add that while I love BD&D, the adventures themselves are the best things. I've revisited them in other editions and they continue to play well regardless of what rules set you use.
Oh, and I'm surprised there aren't more recommendations for B4. That module rocks ... almost as much as B2.
__________________ "The Soul of D&D?It's rolling a natural 20 when you're down to 3 hit points and the cleric's on the floor and you're staring that sunnavabitch bugbear right in his bloodshot eye and holding the line just long enough to let the wizard unleash a fireball at the guards who are on their way, because they're all that stands between you, the Foozle and Glory." - WizarDru
Last edited by Olgar Shiverstone; 1st November 2008 at 04:33 AM..
I started with 2e myself, but picked up a Rules Cyclopedia at a used book store a few years back not even knowing exactly what it was, other than a nifty old D&D book (something I always look for in used book stores). Never gotten a chance to play it, though, but all the good things I'd heard about it here has made me want to, with your story being the latest version of that.
In case you aren't aware of it, there's another source of old D&D material besides eBay and Amazon - at least, if you're open to PDF's. RPGNow.com has a lot of old D&D books in PDF form for pretty cheap. I picked up the Red Box set there, after reading so much about it here (and, like the RC, still haven't had a chance to play it).
Say, anyone up for running an RC or Red Box Play by Post game?
Also, this thread got me to finally get Keep on the Borderlands. Decided to go old school on that and get the hard copy off Amazon ($2.50 plus $4 shipping ain't bad!).
__________________ Gary Hoggatt - www.garyh.net "Such heroic nonsense..."
Last edited by garyh; 1st November 2008 at 04:43 AM..
I've been waiting for a new intro set to D&D as good as the ol' Red Box to introduce my young son to D&D.
And all the time I've been sitting on the BECMI series and Rules Compendium and every adventure every produced except for two and one Dragon magazine issue. Hmm . . .
Somewhere near the end of the RC is a chapter that discusses optional rules. I'd use the one that removes level limits. Just be careful on the mystic; the text contradicts itself on saves.
Enjoy the best pre-2000 D&D available.
Oh yeah, definitely remove level limits if the characters get that high. (I don't think any of the characters from my group did back in the day. )
__________________ Scrag 'em all and let the gods sort 'em out!
I've been waiting for a new intro set to D&D as good as the ol' Red Box to introduce my young son to D&D.
If you want something shiny and new but equivalent, get a print copy of Labyrinth Lord. You can get it via Lulu or some game stores - it's in distribution.
i would say that the fun you had was at least as much a result of just letting everything go and not worrying much about consequences in game as it was about the ruleset.
Yes, but the more detailed the rule set, the harder it is to just wing it.
RPGs seem to have an inherit tug-of-war between what's more interesting out of the game, while reading the books, and what's more fun in actual play. Complex, detailed rules are more interesting out of the game. A lean, flexible framework of rules is more fun to actually play.
According to http://quizfarm.com/test.php?q_id=62192:
Storyteller 100%, Butt-Kicker 92%, Tactician 92%, Method Actor 67%, Power Gamer 67%, Specialist 50%, Casual Gamer 33%
Yeah, but in the beginning, I recommend playing it by-the-book until you have a firm handle on the system and how it's designed.
Since you’re using the RC, I’d also advise keeping the optional rules turned off for a while. Get comfortable with the basics of the system first. Know what it is like without an optional rule before you add it.
I think B2 and the other B modules are great inspiration. Personally, I think you’re better off running the game the way you have rather than actually “running” a module. Steal bits from the modules, but don’t run them directly. That’s my advice.
__________________ (^_^)
Anything I type is only my opinion unless explicitly stated otherwise, which should go without saying. Please assume that I've left out a smiley after every sentence. Thank you.
i would say that the fun you had was at least as much a result of just letting everything go and not worrying much about consequences in game as it was about the ruleset. You could throw together a short notice game in any edition with which you have some core rules familiarity.
That might be a contributing factor, sure. Certainly it was fun because it was different and everyone did whatever they wanted without concern for the consequences. The session was just kind of an out of the blue, "hey, you guys want to try this out and kill some goblins or something?" kind of venture, but I think that the rules set makes that kind of game a lot easier. I also personally just enjoyed it in that I felt I had less to worry about in terms of rules or mechanics. It was nice to not have to worry about powers or whatever. And for once I actually enjoyed rolling up characters.
I also think the rules fit my style of playing a lot more than the newer editions. I've realized that with D&D it's no different from the rest of my life--I improvise a lot better than I plan.
But anyway, I'm considering buying the Labyrinth Lord books off of Amazon or something since it's pretty cheap and looks cool. I want something my players can look at and maybe borrow to learn the rules better or get an idea of how everything works, and I'm really anal about keeping my books in good shape (especially one as coveted and hard to find for a reasonable price as the RC). If I get a good enough feel for the rules and get confident enough I may even see about running a monthly game at the local game shop for anyone who wants to join.
One question about Labyrinth Lord since I've only been able to glance over PDF so far, not much has changed, right? Does it essentially have all the same information as the RC?
__________________ IF IT EXISTS, NERDS WILL ARGUE ABOUT IT
One question about Labyrinth Lord since I've only been able to glance over PDF so far, not much has changed, right? Does it essentially have all the same information as the RC?
Not exactly. The Rules Cyclopedia collects everything from the 1983 Basic and Expert Sets, the 1984 Companion Set, and the 1985 Masters Set. It's a very complete game system meant for playing a campaign from 1st to 36th level. It has rules for general skills, weapon mastery, building strongholds, ruling dominions, and conducting mass battles, all missing from LL; plus many more high level monsters and magic items, and far more detailed rules for making magic items. And the rules for paladins, druids, and mystic monks!
Labyrinth Lord merely emulates the 1981 Basic Expert Sets, which describes the game rules from 1st to 14th level, and then assumes a rather unstructured and open-ended advancement after that. So Labyrinth Lord and the Rules Cyclopedia are compatible, but once the players reach the 15th level of experience, you'll want to switch to using the RC. And you might have to tweak things to make the experience, thief ability, and spell progression tables line up (I just use the RC tables throughout the campaign).
Where are things different between Labyrinth Lord and the old Basic/Expert Game? The changes are minor, but they're there (Dan had to change a few things for copyright purposes). The XP tables are slightly different for all the classes (but that's not very important, and easily ignored). Labyrinth Lord includes 7th, 8th, and 9th level spells, where the Expert set only went up to 6th level spells. But the spell lists in Labyrinth Lord are a little different from the Cyclopedia, because LL had to take all its spells from System Reference Document, in order to be OGL compliant! Also, the RC included the druidic spells from the Companion and Masters sets; LL, of course, does not.
Finally, clerics have two oddball changes in LL. First of all, LL clerics start casting spells at 1st level rather than 2nd level (Dan has said many times that this was a change he made intentionally to make the cleric more playable, and if you want to do things the old way, just bump the cleric's spell progression back by one level). Second, the turning undead table, instead of following the old 11/9/7/T/D pattern, is extended to 11/9/7/5/3/T/D, meaning that clerics must be much higher level before they automatically turn or destroy undead. (I happen to really like this particular change, because it means that low-level undead can challenge a party longer. This is one case where I happily substitute the LL rule for the D&D rule in my campaigns.)
I'm sure there are a few other differences, but they don't leap immediately to mind.
Thanks for the info about LL. I'll still probably get it (partly just to support the idea!) but it doesn't seem like as much of a necessity, but it'd certainly be nice to have.
I apologize that so much of this thread has been me just asking questions. I have another one, though:
Do I really have to keep as good of track of time as is described in the book? In all of my 3e and 4e campaigns we were always pretty vague with the passage of time--it always seemed like too much of a hassle to keep up with. Is it more important in RC? For some reason I find that part of the rules a little intimidating.
Thanks to everyone for the responses and info by the way. It's been really helpful. I think we'll probably play again tomorrow. One of the I like the Rules Cyclopedia so much is that if I'm in the mood for D&D I can just go knock on my roommates' doors and see if they're interested. I don't have to worry about having adventures and encounters thought up; we can just play whenever the desire strikes us. It's fantastic.
__________________ IF IT EXISTS, NERDS WILL ARGUE ABOUT IT
Time tracking in the dungeon is intended to be by 10 minute turns, for the DM's convenience so that eg he knows when to roll for wandering monsters, an important part of the exploratory paradigm. It's not vital, though.
)
Linear Mode
And yet another word from our sponsors
