I've been down on D&D and d20 for a while. I've read some intersting posts mentioning the Rules Cyclopedia, and I'm feeling nostalgic after recently buying an old Basic set virtually identical to the one I had almost 25 years ago (it even has the unmarked dice and the crayon intact). So, I'm pondering getting the Rules Cyclopedia, which I've never read or played. Does anyone have any expereinces to share with the D&D Rules Cyclopedia?
D&D Rules Cyclopedia-any experiences
- Thread starter scourger
- Start date
arwink
Clockwork Golem
If I was god-emperor of the universe, the DnD 3e books would have been a single tome that imitated the look and feel (although not the art) of the Rules Cyclopedia. The rules aren't really any different to the Basic-through-Master rules set, but the amount of information that was crammed into that back was astonishing.
Remathilis
Legend
You bring me back to my D&D infancy; Cyclopedia is what STARTED me in D&D, I went on to 2e, then 3e from there.
I love it. Really. Barring 3e, its the only other version of D&D I'll play/run. Part of it is nostaligia I guess. However, these are my favorite things...
1.) Simple, but expandable ruleset. Can encompass skills and weapon upgrades, but plays JUST ducky at basic level.
2.) Dominion, siege, and minion rules. Core.
3.) Four classes, 3 racial classes, 2 optional classes. Room to expand if you like.
4.) One book, everything you need from monsters to magic.
5.) Old-skool dungeon feel, but can run JUST about anything.
6.) Plays great out of the book or slathered in houserules.
7.) Three broad alignments.
8.) Most 1e/2e modules work with it (with some conversion), as does ALL basic D&D modules.
My only negatives:
1.) Race/Class Combos are a no-no.
2.) Demihuman level limits.
3.) Not nearely enough magic/treasure/monsters to ensure variety. You'll be hunting modules/supplements or making alot up yourself.
4.) Little/no character customization from a rules perspective. Every fighter is the same, so is every rogue, cleric, etc.
5.) Rules lite: be prepared to ad-hoc rules for unique situations that the CR don't cover.
6.) THAC0 and Downward AC. 5 Save Catagories.
However, if your cool with that, then enjoy. You could also look into Castles & Crusades for the same feeling with upwards AC.
I love it. Really. Barring 3e, its the only other version of D&D I'll play/run. Part of it is nostaligia I guess. However, these are my favorite things...
1.) Simple, but expandable ruleset. Can encompass skills and weapon upgrades, but plays JUST ducky at basic level.
2.) Dominion, siege, and minion rules. Core.
3.) Four classes, 3 racial classes, 2 optional classes. Room to expand if you like.
4.) One book, everything you need from monsters to magic.
5.) Old-skool dungeon feel, but can run JUST about anything.
6.) Plays great out of the book or slathered in houserules.
7.) Three broad alignments.
8.) Most 1e/2e modules work with it (with some conversion), as does ALL basic D&D modules.
My only negatives:
1.) Race/Class Combos are a no-no.
2.) Demihuman level limits.
3.) Not nearely enough magic/treasure/monsters to ensure variety. You'll be hunting modules/supplements or making alot up yourself.
4.) Little/no character customization from a rules perspective. Every fighter is the same, so is every rogue, cleric, etc.
5.) Rules lite: be prepared to ad-hoc rules for unique situations that the CR don't cover.
6.) THAC0 and Downward AC. 5 Save Catagories.
However, if your cool with that, then enjoy. You could also look into Castles & Crusades for the same feeling with upwards AC.
johnsemlak
First Post
The Gazatteers provided furhter options for demihuman characters such as a dwarven cleric, a wierd class for halflings called guardian of the flame, etc. In reality, it was easy to modify these rules anyway. In my campaigns halflings thieves were allowed, as were most options that were allowed in AD&D 1e. The key hting here is that it was easy to allow such things without greatly imbalencing the game (which wasn't so balanced anyway).
That is the disadvantage of any one-book RPG. There were plently of supplements that helped this, plus DMs were encouraged to develop their own.
the Weapon mastry system did allow some variety, but definitely, there was less customization--especially for rogues.
internetotaku
First Post
The Rules Cyclopedia is fantastic, especially if you play the older stuff like I do. I whould say, if the price is right, go for it for sure. I know that I whould (had I not had it already anyhow)
Alzrius
The EN World kitten
I really can't say enough good things about the D&D Rules Cyclopedia. For Basic D&D, there is no other book you'll ever really need once you have that. I started playing Basic D&D out of some introductory sets, and once I got that book, I had everything I needed until I went to AD&D.
I'd recommend that book to any D&D enthusiast, even if you don't play the Basic game.
I'd recommend that book to any D&D enthusiast, even if you don't play the Basic game.
Wild Gazebo
Explorer
It makes me feel warm and fuzzy.
I remember moving to a new town when I was younger. The new gaming friends I made only played 2nd edition. I bought the group the Cyclopedia. They became my eternal companions.
Might be an exageration...but not much of one.
I remember moving to a new town when I was younger. The new gaming friends I made only played 2nd edition. I bought the group the Cyclopedia. They became my eternal companions.
Might be an exageration...but not much of one.
Finley DaDum
First Post
One of the Best All-time Deals in Gaming.
I will join the chorus of praise for the book. It is the only old DnD system that I would readily agree to play in. I played in one of my favorite campaigns ever in this system. It was as many others have said packed with virtually everything needed for gaming and the Weapon Mastery Rules were particularly good so much so that at times I have thought of incorporating something similiar in place of Weapon Focus and Specialization in 3.5 DnD.
Only major downside has been mentioned which was lack of monsters and magic items but this can be readily fixed with simple adaptions of monsters from other old systems.
I will join the chorus of praise for the book. It is the only old DnD system that I would readily agree to play in. I played in one of my favorite campaigns ever in this system. It was as many others have said packed with virtually everything needed for gaming and the Weapon Mastery Rules were particularly good so much so that at times I have thought of incorporating something similiar in place of Weapon Focus and Specialization in 3.5 DnD.
Only major downside has been mentioned which was lack of monsters and magic items but this can be readily fixed with simple adaptions of monsters from other old systems.
Ron
Explorer
I run a campaign with it earlier this year and it rocks. It's pretty easy to master the rules (I've a 10 year boy playing in my table) and it is very compact (one volume!). I am sure that, despite the mechanical innovations of 3rd edition, the D&D Rules Cyclopedia is the peak of D&D development.
Regarding the shortcomings listed above, most are easily house ruled. I would let any non human character to take any class assigning a permanent 10% XP penalty to the character. Non human character level limits is never a problem in my games, as characters seldom go after the tenth level. Variety of treasure and mosters is not a problem to those with imagination, whereas the limited list of spells and the rules lightness are rather a few of the selling points to me. Finally, THAC0 sucks, but it's not hard to master.
Regarding the shortcomings listed above, most are easily house ruled. I would let any non human character to take any class assigning a permanent 10% XP penalty to the character. Non human character level limits is never a problem in my games, as characters seldom go after the tenth level. Variety of treasure and mosters is not a problem to those with imagination, whereas the limited list of spells and the rules lightness are rather a few of the selling points to me. Finally, THAC0 sucks, but it's not hard to master.
Similar Threads
