4E Muscles, BD&D Bones

[Dausuul]

In a thread on the 4E forums, CrazyJerome posted the following:

The one I'd like to see is Rules Compendium combat, cleaned up mechanically using 4E ideas, but adhering closely to the RC spirit and model. Then tack 4E non-combat on that.

Come to think of it, that would pretty much be the same process for combat and non-combat. Start with RC. Keep the spirit and scope of rules. But use the lessons learned in 4E to make the rules as consistent and streamlined as possible while keeping that spirit and scope. I'd play that game--whatever you did with gamist/simulationist/narrative concerns.

Others expressed interest, including me, as I've been thinking about trying my hand at something like this for a while. I asked for more detail, and Jerome suggested rightly that the discussion belonged in a new thread. So here it is. (This might belong in the House Rules forum, or maybe the 4E rules... not sure.)

What do you consider to be the "spirit and scope" of BECMI/Rules Cyclopedia D&D? What would you feel is necessary to keep it recognizably what it is, and what could be set aside in the name of more polished mechanics?

[size=-2](Incidentally, how come there's not an option for BECMI/Classic/Basic D&D in the Prefix list? There's OD&D, and AD&D, but no BD&D.)[/size]

 

[pawsplay]

Hm. 4e uses scaling attack modifiers and defenses, whereas in BECMI, ACs exist in a sharply limited range. The first thing that occurs to me is that you have to decide whether you want characters to live in the same numeric space, as they do in BECMI, or whether you want scaled encounters. Both result in similar outcomes; a low level party can take on a smallish red dragon, not without risk. BECMI tends to be soft on scaling, higher on swinginess, somewhat inconsistent on deadliness.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

Assumption and Caveat: For the effort to have any meaning, the resulting game should be different from other versions of D&D. If it is just like RC, for example, why bother? Just play RC. You can get a clone that is 99% of RC, even if you don't have a copy of the original. Likewise, this shouldn't be an effort to make a "faster 4E" or a "more sim 4E" or any number of other version combos one could tease out of the idea (e.g. diverge 3E from its 3.5 to 4E path into an RC-like game). I say this as someone who more or less likes all versions of D&D, BTW. So while I think any number of variations of RC could be fun, to fit the pattern of a spirit of RC with 4E design, the options are more limited. I'll talk about the spirt of RC within those contraints.

Also, my copy of RC is in storage at the moment. So please excuse errors based on memory.

Keep - all the rules in one book, complete with modest starter selection of magic items and monsters. Can add adventures, and more magic items and monsters later, but very relunctant to add new classes or character abilities. Why, this is a brake on bloat. There are tons of good things that could go into such a game, simply on their own merit, but that isn't sufficient for RC. A good thing has to beat out all the other good things competing for its space.

Set Aside - racial classes and racial level limits. Why, these are mechanics mainly to give the human/demi-human mixes a certain default flavor. You can encourage that flavor without hard limits and get most of the bang.

Keep - limited weapons, spell lists, options at each level, etc. Why, everything can't be complicated in this game, and historically the bloat in D&D (since 1E) has been quick to creep in here.

Set Aside - highly tactical game widgets. This is counter to the spirt of the "strategic" aspect of RC play, at least in practice. And besides, we haven't had a D&D version that really went after strategic play since 1E.

Keep - some strategic options, such as spells with particular counters, fighter/wizard trade-offs in tactical combat, etc. If some tactical play emerges out of this, so much the better, but it isn't necessary.

Set Aside - secondary "professions" (or whatever they were called), tacked on class options (e.g. mystic), the optional weapon rules, etc.

Keep - the flavor of professions, class options, weapon options, etc. via fully modernized mechanics--however, as options and still limited in space devoted to them. Why, basically this isn't the central focus of RC play, but it is a signficant secondary focus.

(The temptation to start with DragonQuest "professions" as a separate axis, weld it onto RC, and then modernize it--would be very strong for me. However, I have to admit that this isn't quite RC spirit.)

Set Aside - to hit charts, saving throw charts, different saving throws, etc. Just lift this out of 4E, with the caveats below.

Keep - lots of levels, with relatively little power difference between any two levels (with notable exceptions). Why, this is an area where RC and 4E are already somewhat more in agreement than other versions, low level play and pace of advancement being the biggest exceptions. I think 4E's smoother power progression is superior in isolation, but RCs differences in power from 1st to max wins out. If this means, for example, that the resulting game's wizards don't get "fireball" until 7th or 9th, then so be it, if that is when "fireball" is worth having.

Simply Different - assume that magic items are mainly consumable, low-powered, and reasonably available. This will address some of the "wizard without stuff to do" and lethalness concerns at low levels. But the consumable part will keep strategic issues alive. Basically, when you write the "typical" combat example, you go through three or four combats--then the kobolds kill the cleric.

Keep - treasure acquisition being the main way to advance in level. Why, strategic play again.

Set Aside - magic items counting as "treasure" for advancement. Why, you can have lots of magic at low level, and thus have staying power. Or you can have lots of gold, and thus gain personal power. The two don't have to be lock step. The default rules don't always get the mixture right for certain playstyles. This lets the DM vary one or the other to get a wider variety of styles covered. (This happened in RC, but took work.) Cover a wider variety of styles, more likely to hit the "spirit of RC" for a given group.

Note, this basically means that permanent magic items are somewhat in between, and thus also a different way to vary advancement.

I'll probably think of more later.

 

[P1NBACK]

I'm working on something like this right now. I'll post more if I can get a draft finished.

 

[Raven Crowking]

Removed

 

[Lanefan]

Most of your ideas are quite solid, and I'll be interested to see where this ends up. But one thing to watch:

Set Aside - racial classes and racial level limits. Why, these are mechanics mainly to give the human/demi-human mixes a certain default flavor. You can encourage that flavor without hard limits and get most of the bang.

Agreed on setting these aside, but you'll need to put something in to replace these penalties or else the benefits of playing a non-Human will see very few Humans getting played. (what we did was simply tone down some of the racial benefits and put in some racial penalties; it's not perfect but it's at least functional)

A few other thoughts:

Keep - treasure acquisition being the main way to advance in level. Why, strategic play again.

This would be a huge change from a 4e standpoint, but an interesting one. Right now you've got experience points given out in measured-by-encounter batches for defeating foes and treasure given out in measured-by-level parcels. Messing with one doesn't change the other e.g. if you decide there's going to be no treasure here then so be it, the party still get x.p. for what they beat. But if you bundle x.p. in with the treasure parcels that means a DM would be somewhat obligated to give out treasure no matter what but also means adventures can be designed without such a combat-first background. Hmmm....

Set Aside - magic items counting as "treasure" for advancement. Why, you can have lots of magic at low level, and thus have staying power. Or you can have lots of gold, and thus gain personal power. The two don't have to be lock step. The default rules don't always get the mixture right for certain playstyles. This lets the DM vary one or the other to get a wider variety of styles covered. (This happened in RC, but took work.) Cover a wider variety of styles, more likely to hit the "spirit of RC" for a given group.

Note, this basically means that permanent magic items are somewhat in between, and thus also a different way to vary advancement.

How do you handle PCs creating their own items to avoid double-dipping i.e. getting a bunch of x.p. for claiming lots of gold (as opposed to items) then turning around and plowing that gold into item creation, thus ending up with x.p. *and* items?

The simple answer - one I like but not many others seem to - is to simply take item creation out of the PCs' hands. If you want to make an item then fine, but you'll be home for a year or two while your companions keep adventuring...

Lan-"give me the gold. I'll steal the items later"-efan

 

[Dausuul]

Something that just occurred to me: I have the old Mentzer boxed sets (Basic, Expert, Companion, Master). I've never actually read the Rules Cyclopedia, but had the impression that the sum of these four sets plus Immortals is more or less equal to the Cyclopedia. Is this correct? If not, what are the main differences?

 

[pawsplay]

Something that just occurred to me: I have the old Mentzer boxed sets (Basic, Expert, Companion, Master). I've never actually read the Rules Cyclopedia, but had the impression that the sum of these four sets plus Immortals is more or less equal to the Cyclopedia. Is this correct? If not, what are the main differences?

The RC includes the General Skills rules from the Gazeteers, and it doesn't tell you what happens when you run out of hit points. Also, it provides very little information on Immortals; some "fluff" from the Immortals set but only the rules from the Master set.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

Something that just occurred to me: I have the old Mentzer boxed sets (Basic, Expert, Companion, Master). I've never actually read the Rules Cyclopedia, but had the impression that the sum of these four sets plus Immortals is more or less equal to the Cyclopedia. Is this correct? If not, what are the main differences?

I'm sure someone will be along later to give you a more informed report. I've got RC, but only had the Basic and Expert of the originals. My understanding is that the Immortals material was severely cut in RC. The rest of it is more or less an intergrated form of the BECM, with a few rough edges smoothed off.

 

[Dausuul]

The RC includes the General Skills rules from the Gazeteers, and it doesn't tell you what happens when you run out of hit points. Also, it provides very little information on Immortals; some "fluff" from the Immortals set but only the rules from the Master set.

Thanks! So, I'm guessing General Skills is the rough equivalent of the 4E skill system?