• NOW LIVE! Into the Woods--new character species, eerie monsters, and haunting villains to populate the woodlands of your D&D games.

BECMI: not D&D?


log in or register to remove this ad

Doesn't the new Blackmoor book have a picture of a Thoul? Because I've never, ever seen one in print.

I just used them as Lovecraft's "Pickman's Model"/Dreamlands Ghouls in my old games
 
Last edited:



Wormwood said:
The Cyclopedia was such a leap forward in game presentation that TSR didn't know what to do with it.

I was honestly surprised that WotC went back to the 3 core books models in 2000.

I'm more than a little disappointed that they're doing it again in 2008.

I as well. However, D&D Cyclopedia was a bit spartan on monsters and magical items. Easily the quickest things to add to the game for sure, but still some skimpy numbers compared to the thee-book sets.
 

For whatever reason, BECMI & AD&D2e are the points that begin to feel a bit like pseudo-D&D to me. Probably just having to do with me associating my first products in each line as the "true" game. The relatively high degree of mechanical compatibility, however, makes it easy to cherry-pick from them.
 

Remathilis said:
So I'm sure some purists (or anyone who owned the Cyclopedia) would recognize a game of D&D without Mordenkainen's Sword, Balors, or gnomes-as-PCs as "old skool" but just as many probably never played, didn't notice, or didn't care about such things and thus these "back to basics" elements seem Un-D&D to them.

To be fair, the Cyclopedia did include gnomes as a PC race.
 


Lorthanoth said:
The Mystara Monstrous Compendium had a pciture of Thoul - he looked kind of like a rather small Troll in armour and clothes.

Funny, they were supposed to basically look like Hobgoblins....
 


Into the Woods

Remove ads

Top