Going from Rules Cyclopedia to 1st Edition?

[FriarRosing]

My gaming group has essentially given up on 4th edition for the time being. We've switched our focus to the Rules Cyclopedia to get our D&D fix. One thing I was thinking about, though, was if I should up the game to 1st edition. I've got the core books plus a few others, but I haven't looked at them too hard. The main thing that's holding me back is that the DMG is frightening in its layout, and I don't really know what good stuff 1st edition has that I may be currently missing out on.

Anyone give me a yea or nay, or any comments on what good stuff it could add to our game?

 

[Orius]

Good stuff? There's the various modules, and you've got the choice of playing in Greyhawk rather than thhe early Mystara setting (later Dragonlance and FR too). Though really that makes little difference since a lot of groups mixed the B and X series with the Slavers series, the ToEE and GDQ, right?.

Doesn't the RC have a section on converting between the RC and 2e? That should help you move from Basic to AD&D if you choose. Even though it's 2e, you can probably use those guidelines to go 1e if you want.

 

[Cerebral Paladin]

IMO, Rules Cyclopedia is in most ways a better rule set than AD&D 1e. It is more streamlined, more consistent, and it has less junk that most people ignore. With the skill system and the optional rules, it ends up being surprisingly robust.

The principal downside it has relative to AD&D is fewer character class/race options. Some players will want to play an elven thief, or just an elf who is a fighter or magic user instead of being both a fighter and a magic-user. Likewise, there's no direct analog to the AD&D ranger in Rules Cyclopedia, and paladins and druids only show up at name level (which some people prefer, but others dislike). This isn't a clear advantage for AD&D-- Rules Cyclopedia's simplicity of classes also has a lot going for it, and the more robust skill system and weapons mastery probably makes characters more varied, not less. But it's a legitimate concern.

But yeah. I'd rather play or run RC than AD&D 1e, so I wouldn't "upgrade." (FWIW, viewing that as an upgrade is also ahistorical-- RC was later than 1e, and shows signs of further polishing.) As mentioned, if you want to draw on the wealth of AD&D modules, they're easily portable.

 

[Korgoth]

My gaming group has essentially given up on 4th edition for the time being. We've switched our focus to the Rules Cyclopedia to get our D&D fix. One thing I was thinking about, though, was if I should up the game to 1st edition. I've got the core books plus a few others, but I haven't looked at them too hard. The main thing that's holding me back is that the DMG is frightening in its layout, and I don't really know what good stuff 1st edition has that I may be currently missing out on.

Anyone give me a yea or nay, or any comments on what good stuff it could add to our game?

Well, if you want to be really Old Skool about it you will create a Frankensteinian mishmash of your favorite house rules, subsystems and editions.

One easy way to approach 1e via RC is to use the 1e classes, spells, weapons, monsters, etc. but use the combat system and other fundamentals from RC (then you won't have to learn the Plutonian Calculus of 1e's initiative system). So the things that people often want to be simple (combat, environment, etc.) can be simple, but you have more "stuff" with which to trick out characters, and the full range of monsters.

 

[FriarRosing]

How bad of an idea would it be to just mix some 1st edition classes with rules cyclopedia ones? Would that be an awful idea, an ok idea or just a bad idea.

 

[Akrasia]

How bad of an idea would it be to just mix some 1st edition classes with rules cyclopedia ones? Would that be an awful idea, an ok idea or just a bad idea.

It would be an 'ok' idea IMO.

One advantage of the RC over 1e AD&D is that the RC has no 'hard' level limits for non-human characters. Yes halflings cannot progress beyond level 8, elves beyond level 10, and dwarves beyond level 12. HOWEVER, thanks to 'attack ranks', these 'level limits' do not mean much. Non-human characters continue to improve with experience, as they gain attack rank A, B, and so forth (along with improved saving throws, etc.). This system, though, is 'built' into the RC classes. Using 1e AD&D classes and/or races would make using the RC system of 'attack ranks' more difficult.

Using the RC skill system, weapon mastery rules, 'prestige classes', and so forth, should give players lots of options. If you want more options for non-human characters, look at the relevant Gazetteers.

 

[rounser]

One advantage of the RC over 1e AD&D is that the RC has no 'hard' level limits for non-human characters. Yes halflings cannot progress beyond level 8, elves beyond level 10, and dwarves beyond level 12. HOWEVER, thanks to 'attack ranks', these 'level limits' do not mean much.

As an addendum, it's often overlooked that there's optional rules in the RC for removing level limits entirely, hidden away in Chapter 19, "Variant Rules". So your halfling, elf, dwarf or mystic can truly proceed to level 36 under the RAW if the DM so chooses.

 

[rounser]

I don't really know what good stuff 1st edition has that I may be currently missing out on.

Basically splat. Seemingly, the lion's share of in-house creativity and scope was saved for AD&D, as were contributions to the magazines. D&D and Mystara seems to have been mostly Frank Mentzer's rules, plus freelancers making the supplements.

With regard to raiding AD&D, I think the motherlode is the 2E Wizard's and Priest's Spell Compendiums and Encyclopedia Magica books, which compile about 20 years of material across all D&D and AD&D editions. Also, basically all 1E monsters eventually saw their way into the 21(?) Monstrous Compendiums, but lavished with more fluff detail. Collectively, these books represent thousands of weird and wonderful spells, magic items and monsters, the like of which will probably never be seen again.

These resources weren't fully appreciated at the time of release because 2E was at that time creaking under the weight of umpteen broken kits and players option books, plus a wide variety of other random stuff from chronomancers to celtic historical setting classes. People were ready for a change, and 3E was just around the corner.

That said, 1E books are potentially cheaper (see amazon), and the artwork is more "eldritch". Monster Manual 2 is probably a high water mark for monster books for the game IMO, and Fiend Folio has some highlights even if it's more inconsistent (and was widely disparaged when released). White Plume Mountain is my favourite 1E module, but everyone has their own list. Unearthed Arcana has some amusing tongue-in-cheek fourth wall breaking cantrips.

Dungeon Magazine is probably the other "motherlode" resource to raid (the print version, not the 4E website). There are several lifetimes worth of adventure for the plunder in there alone.

So pick and choose. You may find wrt splat that less is more, and just stick to the RC to begin with.

 

[JustKim]

How bad of an idea would it be to just mix some 1st edition classes with rules cyclopedia ones? Would that be an awful idea, an ok idea or just a bad idea.

This is actually what we did when I first started playing D&D. It was a lot of fun, although I wouldn't want to make sense of it now.

 

[Fanaelialae]

One of my players and I were discussing RC just this past weekend. He mentioned that back when he played [RC], they got around the idea that elves can't be clerics (and so forth) by simply saying that the cleric was an elf. The rationale was that because the elf wasn't holding with his culture, he didn't get any of the benefits of being an elf but rather advanced as an ordinary cleric. Nonetheless, for RP purposes the character was an elf.