-
The VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
OD&D or RC?
- Thread starter Ry
- Start date
TerraDave
5ever, or until 2024
The difference: The RC is a book of rules. The little OD&D booklets are guidelines.
Want to have a very free wheeling experience: OD&D. Pretty free wheeling: RC.
If you do use OD&D, you probably want to take a look at the Greyhawk supplement and maybe Best of Dragon 1 or the Dragon CD Rom (if you can find them). Outdoor Survival is optional. But then again, its just guidelines, you can do what you want.
Want to have a very free wheeling experience: OD&D. Pretty free wheeling: RC.
If you do use OD&D, you probably want to take a look at the Greyhawk supplement and maybe Best of Dragon 1 or the Dragon CD Rom (if you can find them). Outdoor Survival is optional. But then again, its just guidelines, you can do what you want.
Remathilis
Legend
Nah, that's just Dialgo's style. 
To further my own post above, I prefer RC with a couple house-rules (all found IN the RC, no less) for a game that is not very rules focused but big on exploration, puzzle solving, and social/interaction. (The latter esp in higher levels). If you go RC, make sure to find either the Mystara Gazetteers and the Module Test of the Warlords (which is great for high level land-owning PCs).
To further my own post above, I prefer RC with a couple house-rules (all found IN the RC, no less) for a game that is not very rules focused but big on exploration, puzzle solving, and social/interaction. (The latter esp in higher levels). If you go RC, make sure to find either the Mystara Gazetteers and the Module Test of the Warlords (which is great for high level land-owning PCs).
raltgaither
First Post
They are utterly different animals, so it depends on what you want from your game.
The LBB are terse, open-ended guidelines put together for a group of hobbyists who already enjoyed crafting their own worlds, rules, scenarios, etc. The "rules" were broad suggestions to get the juices flowing in the right direction for people who were already actively engaged in wildly creative individual endeavors, so that they might be able to get their head into fantasy gaming. The books are unclear in places, but this was most likely not an issue for readers, who probably spent 30 seconds or so trying to figure out any tough spots before just making their own ruling and getting on with play. For contemporary gamers, accustomed to A-Z, spit and polished, ready out of the box games with high production values, it will be frustratingly unclear and inchoate.
The RC (of which I am not generally a fan) came much later in the life of the hobby, when that A-Z, spit and polished, ready out of the box style was more standard. As a result, it's 305 pages of material covering everything from fledgling adventurers to world-shaking conquerors. To me, it is packed to the gills with unnecessary exposition, years of complicated rules piled on top of the simple system of earlier Dungeons & Dragons sets (which ruined the beauty of D&D vs. AD&D), and a plethora of material that I'll never use in my games since we top out around levels 12-14. The standard advantages touted by fans are 1) its completeness, and 2) its convenience. If you use a great deal of the material, those are most likely true, but as someone who uses well less than half of the rules found within and gets everything he needs from two slim softcovers, neither of those is terribly compelling to me. Honestly, I don't understand the rave reviews the RC gets. It's poorly edited and has blah artwork, as well (not that I'm forwarding the LBB as paragons of artistic endeavor, but with the adulation normally shown the RC, I was surprised at how uninspiring its art is). All of that said, if you don't have the time or inclination to pour into a campaign behind the scenes, and if you plan to run to high levels and want a solid rules framework to build your game on, it's probably the better choice for you.
The LBB are terse, open-ended guidelines put together for a group of hobbyists who already enjoyed crafting their own worlds, rules, scenarios, etc. The "rules" were broad suggestions to get the juices flowing in the right direction for people who were already actively engaged in wildly creative individual endeavors, so that they might be able to get their head into fantasy gaming. The books are unclear in places, but this was most likely not an issue for readers, who probably spent 30 seconds or so trying to figure out any tough spots before just making their own ruling and getting on with play. For contemporary gamers, accustomed to A-Z, spit and polished, ready out of the box games with high production values, it will be frustratingly unclear and inchoate.
The RC (of which I am not generally a fan) came much later in the life of the hobby, when that A-Z, spit and polished, ready out of the box style was more standard. As a result, it's 305 pages of material covering everything from fledgling adventurers to world-shaking conquerors. To me, it is packed to the gills with unnecessary exposition, years of complicated rules piled on top of the simple system of earlier Dungeons & Dragons sets (which ruined the beauty of D&D vs. AD&D), and a plethora of material that I'll never use in my games since we top out around levels 12-14. The standard advantages touted by fans are 1) its completeness, and 2) its convenience. If you use a great deal of the material, those are most likely true, but as someone who uses well less than half of the rules found within and gets everything he needs from two slim softcovers, neither of those is terribly compelling to me. Honestly, I don't understand the rave reviews the RC gets. It's poorly edited and has blah artwork, as well (not that I'm forwarding the LBB as paragons of artistic endeavor, but with the adulation normally shown the RC, I was surprised at how uninspiring its art is). All of that said, if you don't have the time or inclination to pour into a campaign behind the scenes, and if you plan to run to high levels and want a solid rules framework to build your game on, it's probably the better choice for you.
Prince of Happiness
First Post
I was wondering, with RCD&D, why have ability checks work as roll under? They have uniform ability bonuses and penalties, why not just assign a DC, apply bonus (if any) from attribute, and have done with it?
ruleslawyer
Registered User
The entire "Adventure Path" starting with CM1 Test of the Warlords *rocks.*
IMO, B/E/C/M/I D&D (or RC D&D) is the only version of D&D that comfortably accommodates play at all levels with relatively little DM tweaking. Part of this is that the shifts in playstyle are made explicit (you stick to dungeoneering at 1st level, go to more open-ended wilderness adventuring at 4th level, move to domain-building at 15th level, and go on to planar adventuring and world(s)-conquering at 26th level, thence to immortality). Part of it is that the power curve is vastly flatter than (A)D&D's.
That said, the rules could use a little polish and rewriting. While a little less guideline-y than OD&D rules, they are nonetheless pretty free-form and can be polished. I'd do the following:
1) Switch to-hit tables to attack bonuses and AC from 0 to 30 rather than 10 to -20. This is easy enough to do, and gets you the "d20 roll high." (Saves are roll high. This all switches around at Immortal levels, but I doubt you're worried about that!)
2) Either ditch the tacked-on nonweapon proficiency system entirely or add in a SAGA-style level-based skills approach.
3) I'd start PCs at 3rd level, but that's just me; IMO, the "sweet spot" for RC D&D is levels 3 through Immortality. 1st and 2nd are the problematic ones due to highly limited PC abilities and ease of dying.
4) Rewrite the demihuman levels from 1-36, or some extended subset thereof, rather than using the "Attack Rank" system, which IMHO is a useless add-on. I'd just literally replace attack ranks A-M with levels 9-21 (for halflings), 11-23 (for elves), and 13-25 (for dwarves).
Regardless, the system does not handle PCs of different levels well any more than any other edition of D&D.
IMO, B/E/C/M/I D&D (or RC D&D) is the only version of D&D that comfortably accommodates play at all levels with relatively little DM tweaking. Part of this is that the shifts in playstyle are made explicit (you stick to dungeoneering at 1st level, go to more open-ended wilderness adventuring at 4th level, move to domain-building at 15th level, and go on to planar adventuring and world(s)-conquering at 26th level, thence to immortality). Part of it is that the power curve is vastly flatter than (A)D&D's.
That said, the rules could use a little polish and rewriting. While a little less guideline-y than OD&D rules, they are nonetheless pretty free-form and can be polished. I'd do the following:
1) Switch to-hit tables to attack bonuses and AC from 0 to 30 rather than 10 to -20. This is easy enough to do, and gets you the "d20 roll high." (Saves are roll high. This all switches around at Immortal levels, but I doubt you're worried about that!)
2) Either ditch the tacked-on nonweapon proficiency system entirely or add in a SAGA-style level-based skills approach.
3) I'd start PCs at 3rd level, but that's just me; IMO, the "sweet spot" for RC D&D is levels 3 through Immortality. 1st and 2nd are the problematic ones due to highly limited PC abilities and ease of dying.
4) Rewrite the demihuman levels from 1-36, or some extended subset thereof, rather than using the "Attack Rank" system, which IMHO is a useless add-on. I'd just literally replace attack ranks A-M with levels 9-21 (for halflings), 11-23 (for elves), and 13-25 (for dwarves).
Regardless, the system does not handle PCs of different levels well any more than any other edition of D&D.
Desdichado
Hero
Ryan Stoughton said:
Ryan Stoughton:
Hobo:
If it were me, I'd go with RC. OD&D is pretty limited mechanically, and I think many players will find that unsatisfying for a campaign, although they'd be fine with it for a one-shot or other limited venue. Also, I think a lot more people have played the RC and have fond memories of it, also helping you to more easily get a group together and give them an experience they'll enjoy. The wealth of material available for it compared to OD&D is also not to be underestimated.
Odhanan
Adventurer
By OD&D, Ryan, are you talking about the original booklets of 1974 or something else?
Assuming that's what you're talking about, TerraDave got it right: "The RC is a book of rules. The little OD&D booklets are guidelines."
If you want general guidelines, a concept which you can alter and build on as much or as little as you want, go with OD&D and create "your own" D&D game.
If you want lots of eventualities taken in consideration in the rules, completeness over improvisation, detail over principles, go for the Rules Cyclopedia.
Both are outstanding, but for very, very different reasons.
Assuming that's what you're talking about, TerraDave got it right: "The RC is a book of rules. The little OD&D booklets are guidelines."
If you want general guidelines, a concept which you can alter and build on as much or as little as you want, go with OD&D and create "your own" D&D game.
If you want lots of eventualities taken in consideration in the rules, completeness over improvisation, detail over principles, go for the Rules Cyclopedia.
Both are outstanding, but for very, very different reasons.
Similar Threads
