BECMI vs Rules Cyclopedia vs Castles & Crusades

[Betote]

I'm planning to introcuce some non-rolepaying friends to D&D, and what better than going back to the basics?

I have the Rules Cyclopedia, and I'm wondering what are the differences between this and the 5-part set. Is it worth it to buy e-versions (I supposse they exist) of them or do I have enough with the RC?

Or, going even further, should I use Castles & Crusades?

What I'm looking for is, mainly, the simplest form of D&D for some folks who have played and enjoyed HeroQuest and the latest D&D boardgame. What're your suggestions?

Thanks in advance

 

[jdrakeh]

Well, Castles & Crusades, despite a very spotty release schedule, does have some ongoing support. If that is a factor for you, the choice is clear. OTOH, C&C doesn't really do anything that BECMI or RC D&D doesn't, so if you already have the D&D books and access to the original supplements, there's probably no real compelling reason to choose C&C.

Ultimately, it might come down to which you are more familiar with (or which you prefer).

As far as differences between BECMI and RC, the only obvious one that I can think of right off the top of my head is that RC D&D incorporates Aaron Allston's skill system from the Hollow World boxed set. I'm certain that there are others but I've neither owned nor played RC or BECMI D&D since the Summer of 2001.

 

[Clavis]

All three of the systems you mention would be excellent choices. Probably the easiest for beginners would be BECMI, especially if you just start them out with the Basic rules. Rules Cyclopedia has the advantage of being a complete version of D&D in one book. RC is 95% BECMI, with some small changes (certain monsters were altered, or left out, for instance). Also Rules Cyclopedia includes enough Mystara information to get a a campaign started, if you like the world. Castles & Crusades has the advantages of still being in-print and supported, being endorsed by Gygax as the best update of D&D, and being the most like the current edition of D&D (while still largely compatible with both BECMI & Rules Cyclopedia). So, while it pains me to tell anybody not to play BECMI or RC D&D (because I love them and would love to play them again myself), I would advise starting new players with Castles & Crusades.

 

[Doug McCrae]

If you already have RC, stick with that. BECMI might be a little better because it introduces complexity gradually. With BECMI new players don't need to worry about Weapon Mastery, a surprisingly complex subsystem, whereas with RC they do. I'm not really a fan of Weapon Mastery. It's necessary to empower fighters but it's rather at odds with the simplicity of the rest of the game.

I'm not familiar with Castles & Crusades.

 

[Jack Daniel]

I've played enough of C&C to know that I don't like it as much as BECMI. The problem with C&C is the same one that plagues AD&D 1e: once you pass level 12, the rules start to break down and it's very difficult to have a fun campaign played by-the-book. It's not a problem if you only mean to play low-to-mid level games (C&C is a fine system for low-to-mid levels), but I tend to run longer campaigns that work their way all the way from 1st to well above 25th.

I don't consider BECMI and the RC to be separate versions of D&D. I use both when I play (they together constitute my system of choice). The boxed sets are good for running a long campaign, because they let you introduce the more powerful magic, monsters, options, etc. slowly. The Cyclopedia is indispensable as a one-volume reference guide to the whole game (especially if you want to allow mystics, druid spells, general skills, and weapon choices all from level 1).

And as for the in-print support argument, it doesn't hold much water. C&C isn't even all the way out yet! Still no Castle Keeper's Guide... I just can't play a game that's incomplete. Classic D&D, on the other hand, has a huge library of adventures (from the B/X series all the way up through the Thunder Rift modules) and some compatible clone games that manage to keep the rules in print under the OGL.

Labyrinth Lord (A very faithful clone)
Basic Fantasy RPG (A more idiosyncratic game)

 

[Greylock]

The Castle Keepers Guide is intended to be a book of options. Everything you need to play, and it was intentionally designed as such, is contained in the PHB and monster book. The game is quite complete.

 

[jdrakeh]

The Castle Keepers Guide is intended to be a book of options. Everything you need to play, and it was intentionally designed as such, is contained in the PHB and monster book. The game is quite complete.

Yep. I'm not a fan of C&C, personally, but even I have to conceed that it is complete in those two core books. That said, the frequent promotion of products that still (years later) aren't even off the drawing board is maddening from a consumer standpoint.

 

[Sitara]

Wait, cnc only has level profgression till 12. Its officially supported till level 12; you can't really say its broken past that because its not really meant to be played past that.

For instance, in my cnc games the highest level is level 10, while legendary and mythical people can achieve level 11 and 12.

 

[Wik]

Go for BECMI. The RC is a great product, no doubt. However, you're introducing people, and the Basic (B in "BECMI", really) is all you'd want to start with. Those books are designed, after all, to introduce new gamers.

I think the RC could easily overwhelm players. So, why not do what BECMI does, and just slowly introduce new rules as you go along?

 

[Wik]

P.S. I'm probably the only one, but I really love how races are handled in BECMI, particularly the dwarf and the halfling. Halflings in BECMI are just a load of fun, and my favourite character of all time was nothing more than a halfling. And dwarves? Pure awesome.