D&D General Back to First Principles

[Lanefan]

Mixing the simplicity of B/X with the pool of potential players of 5e?
Using the mathematic simplicity of 5e (XP progression, ad/dis/vantages, few bonuses etc) without going to far into the ''buttons to press'' as a player.

I think that this could be a good compromise.

It also keeps such modern things as ascending AC and stat-based saves (as opposed to different saves depending on the source/effect).

Whether keeping those is worth all the other work is, of course, an open question.

It would probably be a lot easier to add a few 5e-isms to BECMI/RC e.g. ad/disad/vantage than it would be to go the other way.

 

[cbwjm]

I'd love to run a game out of the rules cyclopedia. I might bring in some mods from ACKS, like the cleave rules and damage boost for fighters, and bonus spell slots for spellcasters or maybe Bruce Heard's adjusted spell slot tables, but otherwise, I'd love it... though I might also remove Thieves and instead turn their skills into proficiencies...

I've recently been running the thunder rift modules for my group (in 5e) and it is crazy how deadly these modules could be. There was a water elemental in a 1st level game, luckily the players left it alone but it could have easily been a party wipe.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

I don't see what you see, especially since the second quote of mine was a direct response to another post on a specific point. Unless you think any expression of preference is one true wayism, in which case what are we even doing here?

By expecting that change must make the game "better," you are necessarily committing to the idea that game systems can be compared on some scale or scales, with certain systems being better than others, and thus inherently preferable. After all, who wouldn't prefer better gaming over worse gaming?

But when you say you do not pursue any kind of One True Way, you are asserting a plurality of equally valid approaches. That there cannot be a well-ordering of game systems because there isn't any metric by which one could judge one game to be better than another.

How can you say both, "there simply is no common standard for judging game systems" and "things should only be added to the game system if they truly do make the system better"?

Edit: More or less, you seem to be in a place where you have to walk back the second statement: You cannot request that things "make the game better" in any sense. You could instead say, "No 'advancement' can exist without a context, and for my context those things are not useful or productive." But that, as I'm sure you can tell, is both a rather weaker argument and rather a discursive dead end, since it runs aground on "you game your way and I'll game my way" without further potential.

 

[Zardnaar]

One of the things embedded in First Principles is the "zero to hero" development process that not only is slower in BECMI (5 adventures per level, according to the RC) but also "zero" really is not much better than the common man. "Hero" not only takes longer to achieve but it also implies a shift in purpose that we don't see in 5E.

I think one of the things that is attractive in the simple, minimalist design around character advancement is that the acquisition of class abilities is not the primary motivation. The things the characters can acquire in the world, from wealth and magic items to land and social status, is much more important. This in turn produces more realistic and worthwhile motivations for the PCs, IMO. And PCs with strong motivations tend to be more self propelled, making the job of the DM easier in that you don't have to create reasons to compel the PCs to engage with the adventure. It is built in and if sufficiently developed you don't have to prepare an adventure at sll, you just have to adjudicate the consequences of their actions.

Those adventures must be very short. Those early modules got you to level 3 in one adventure.

 

[Zardnaar]

I'd love to run a game out of the rules cyclopedia. I might bring in some mods from ACKS, like the cleave rules and damage boost for fighters, and bonus spell slots for spellcasters or maybe Bruce Heard's adjusted spell slot tables, but otherwise, I'd love it... though I might also remove Thieves and instead turn their skills into proficiencies...

I've recently been running the thunder rift modules for my group (in 5e) and it is crazy how deadly these modules could be. There was a water elemental in a 1st level game, luckily the players left it alone but it could have easily been a party wipe.

Think I would use ACKs as well.

No dead tree version of the RC.

 

[Yora]

Most people who reject returning to B/X or whatever usually cite player facing reasons that amount to "characters are weak and/or boring." Which, fair enough, but I don't see the lower power scales and less complexity as a bug.

No, it's not. They are weak and boring if you try to run them through a 5th or 3rd edition campaign. These are not simply a rules-light version of WotC/Paizo D&D. This is a completely different game.
The Basic character classes were never supposed to have 4 level appropriate miniature fights every day. When using the Basic rules, it should also be a basic campaign to make the whole exercise fun. And the B/X books (and OSE) actually provide very clearly spelled out structures for how the game is designed to be played.

 

[Lanefan]

Those adventures must be very short. Those early modules got you to level 3 in one adventure.

???

Even if you gave xp for treasure (which many didn't) you'd be hard-pressed to get three levels out of one adventure in 1e, for a few reasons:

1. There's only so many xp in the adventure and no guarantee whatsoever your party will find/earn all of them.
2. Parties in 1e were usually larger - 6 to 8 characters was typical - meaning you'd be dividing those xp more ways.
3. By 1e RAW you couldn't advance in level until you trained, which meant going back to town for some downtime.

Contrast this with, say, 4e; whose introductory adventure (KotS) was specifically intended to get you from level 1 to level 3.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

My experience was levelling was very slow by modern standards in early D&D.

 

[Lanefan]

My experience was levelling was very slow by modern standards in early D&D.

It very much was in 2e. In 1e levelling was slow if your DM had dropped the xp-for-gp rule, which IME many did.

And that's exactly how I like it.

 

[GreyLord]

Yup.

BECMI/RC is in my top 3 RPG's of all time. Still play it to this day, off and on, and use a fair number of the rules and systems in it for other game systems/versions (skills, war machine, elemental stuff, race "cultural focus"...Tree of Life, Blackflame and Forge, and sometimes the weapon masteries; Random Dungeon Generation, Morale system...just sooooo many good rules in that thing!).

Anyway, if you want to play it with others and they don't have copies of the RC (they can go for $100, easy, IF you can even find one for sale), go grab "Dark Dungeons". It's basically a retro-clone of the BECMI/RC stuff (minus some of the specific Immortals stuff). It also has a nice simple "thac0" style SLIGHT modification of To Hit vs AC. In a nutshell, each class/race gets a 3e'esque "Base Attack Bonus". That's used, plus the normal modifiers, then you roll your d20 and add the AC of your opponent; if it's 20+, you hit. You can still use the RC tables thought, if that's more your thing. They work out to be almost even except at the extreme ends (like AC 14 or AC -22, etc). It makes for an even FASTER combat round....which is already fast in BECMI.

You can get PDF version of Dark Dungeons for free, or you can pay for a Lulu PoD in various flavours (I loved the system so much I bought a deluxe hardback colour version for myself, plus 7 or 8 other softback b/w copies to give to my players as gifts; expensive, but worth it!).

Here:
PDF: Dark Dungeons - Gurbintroll Games | DriveThruRPG.com
Lulu: Lulu

^_^

Paul L. Ming

Or you could pick up a brand new copy of the Rules Cyclopedia for $21.00 in print currently, or just pay $9.99 for a PDF copy.

DMsguild Rules Cyclopedia