Betote said:
I suggest the Basic D&D rulebook edited by J. Eric Holmes in 1977/78. That 46-page rulebook is all you need:
http://www.dragonsfoot.org/forums/viewtopic.php?t=27128
BECMI vs Rules Cyclopedia vs Castles & Crusades
I suggest the Basic D&D rulebook edited by J. Eric Holmes in 1977/78. That 46-page rulebook is all you need:
http://www.dragonsfoot.org/forums/viewtopic.php?t=27128
Doug McCrae said:
I have all three. Overall, C&C is a much better balanced game within its core 1-12 level range; Rogues stand up well vs Fighters & Wizards, whereas low level Thieves in BECMI are pretty worthless. In terms of BECMI vs RC, the RC is an impressive work but I think BECMI's gradual introduction of complexity makes it a superior game. There are several things in RC such as the Mystic that are horribly unbalanced in low level play; and Weapon Mastery is way too complex and high-powered for low level games.
However, you don't necessarily need to choose. My own approach is to use C&C and add in bits of BECMI, or use Moldvay-Cook B/X and add in bits of BECMI and a C&C based task resolution system.
Jack Daniel said:
High level in C&C is officially 9th-12th level. Advancement rate in C&C should be no more than half that in BECMI - C&C PCs need twice as much XP per level after ca 8th, plus monster & treasure awards are lower. Conversely each level is a bigger jump in power; more hit points, more attack bonus, more spells. As with 1e, levels above about 14th are best restricted to NPC deities and legendary monsters (in 1e 15th was Demigod, 20th Lesser God, 30th Greater God level per Manual of the Planes).
Last edited:
Jupp
Explorer
When our group decided to create a second campaign there was the question whether we would go 3E, 2e, 1e or C&C. Given the fact that C&C is an in-print product that is readily available without having to hunt on Ebay the choice was pretty clear after a short time. C&C gives us the rules-light system we love to play and at the same time I as the DM have the right tools to convert existing adventure modules regardless of the system they are written in. So for us it was a win-win solution.
We are playing C&C for 8 months now and even the DM of the other group (AD&D 2e) likes the system. It's fast, easy and entertaining. I think C&C is here to stay in our group for quite some time.
We are playing C&C for 8 months now and even the DM of the other group (AD&D 2e) likes the system. It's fast, easy and entertaining. I think C&C is here to stay in our group for quite some time.
Geron Raveneye
Explorer
Depends on how you plan to introduce them, too, in my opinion. The Basic Set is great if you want to give your players the PHB and tell them "Go read this before we play next week". The mini adventures and very clear explanations of game terms help beginners to get into the game, and the next time you meet, you can delve into character creation (a snap) and into the adventure in the DM's Book.
If you're the one introducing and explaining the rules and concepts, it's a matter of preference, but I'd use the RC for D&D in tht case. D&D in that incarnation is a lot easier on the character concepts, if a bit more limited in choices. There are less spells to worry about at 1st level, which can be a boon for a new player, but can also spell fast boredom if that spell is used up in the first encounter and the player doesn't know what else to do. In that case, prepare some unique situations for mystically trained high-Int characters (puzzles with magical references, problems that can be solved by theoretical spellcraft, etc).
C&C, on the other hand, has more choice concerning class-race combinations and offers some more options for each class, while keeping the basic task resolution pretty simple too. You need to watch out for the Challenge Number system, though. In a nutshiell, characters in C&C should really only roll the dice when the task at hand should include a significant amount of failure, because even with an "Easy" task as defined by the PHB, a 1st level character will fail quite a lot of times. They really MEAN challenge as in "hard task prone to failure". This can create some confusion in people who play C&C for the first time (especially when they come from 3.X, where you roll for every little thing). Also, the spells are a bit more like in D20, with a few more stats to keep an eye on.
Apart from a few differences, I'd say both games are equally good to introduce new players to roleplaying if you are the one doing the explaining. Each has strengths and weaknesses, but both are good, solid games.
If you're the one introducing and explaining the rules and concepts, it's a matter of preference, but I'd use the RC for D&D in tht case. D&D in that incarnation is a lot easier on the character concepts, if a bit more limited in choices. There are less spells to worry about at 1st level, which can be a boon for a new player, but can also spell fast boredom if that spell is used up in the first encounter and the player doesn't know what else to do. In that case, prepare some unique situations for mystically trained high-Int characters (puzzles with magical references, problems that can be solved by theoretical spellcraft, etc).
C&C, on the other hand, has more choice concerning class-race combinations and offers some more options for each class, while keeping the basic task resolution pretty simple too. You need to watch out for the Challenge Number system, though. In a nutshiell, characters in C&C should really only roll the dice when the task at hand should include a significant amount of failure, because even with an "Easy" task as defined by the PHB, a 1st level character will fail quite a lot of times. They really MEAN challenge as in "hard task prone to failure". This can create some confusion in people who play C&C for the first time (especially when they come from 3.X, where you roll for every little thing). Also, the spells are a bit more like in D20, with a few more stats to keep an eye on.
Apart from a few differences, I'd say both games are equally good to introduce new players to roleplaying if you are the one doing the explaining. Each has strengths and weaknesses, but both are good, solid games.
JoseFreitas
First Post
Jack Daniel said:
The in-print argument actually shouldn't be too much of a hindrance to any DM worth his salt. C&C (which I don't play but own) is close enough to D&D basic that you can even DM their adventures improvising as you go, which tells you how close they are. Largely, C&C, D&D, OSRIC, the D20 version of D&D, AD&D1st and 2nd (and perhaps Hackmaster if you can see beyond some of the "fluff") are iterations of the same core game and adaptation is pretty easy in any case. I have used some Castle Zagyg (C&C) stuff, Little Keep on the Borderlands and other games in my campaign (AD&D1st) with little if any problem. You only have to be comfortable and knowledgeable about the rules YOU are using and make (relatively) easy decisions on how you modify stats and stuff from the other systems.
I like all the products mentioned, C&C, BECMI and RC. If you go with the old D&D it is a good idea, as indicated previously by some posters, to introduce the more advanced options progressively, even though they are "theoretically" available at 1st level. Stuff like Weapon Mastery should be introduced after the players are comfortable with the combat system. Since players leaning curves tend to be quite steep, this might be as soon as 3rd or 4th level, and might even lead to an interesting adventure. The PCs face off with a knight that has mastery, or travel to a remote area to meet a master at arms, and so on. Similarly with other classes or options that can be introduced as the players become used to the rules, and not necessarily at the "boxed levels" equivalent.
SavageRobby
First Post
I'll start by saying I don't think you can make a wrong choice here. Its nice when you start with that premise.
That said, I'd go the C&C route, for two reasons. First, your players, if they so desire, can get their hands on nice, new shiny versions of the Player's Handbook from their local game store or Amazon or whatnot. I've found (purely my own experience) that new RPG players like to have that option for whatever reason, or rather, they don't necessarily like thinking that they're going to have to dig for some OOP book if they want to read the rules themselves. YMMV (and YPMV).
Secondly, I think C&C is a better "glue" version, that is, its pretty easy to port things from any edition (including 3e) directly to C&C - easier than it is to port directly to B/X. I also like the ease of the Siege Engine rolls rather than having seperate tables for every class ability and skill, but thats just a preference thing on my part. Some people dig tables.
That said, I'd go the C&C route, for two reasons. First, your players, if they so desire, can get their hands on nice, new shiny versions of the Player's Handbook from their local game store or Amazon or whatnot. I've found (purely my own experience) that new RPG players like to have that option for whatever reason, or rather, they don't necessarily like thinking that they're going to have to dig for some OOP book if they want to read the rules themselves. YMMV (and YPMV).
Secondly, I think C&C is a better "glue" version, that is, its pretty easy to port things from any edition (including 3e) directly to C&C - easier than it is to port directly to B/X. I also like the ease of the Siege Engine rolls rather than having seperate tables for every class ability and skill, but thats just a preference thing on my part. Some people dig tables.
FATDRAGONGAMES
First Post
SavageRobby said:I'll start by saying I don't think you can make a wrong choice here. Its nice when you start with that premise.
That said, I'd go the C&C route, for two reasons. First, your players, if they so desire, can get their hands on nice, new shiny versions of the Player's Handbook from their local game store or Amazon or whatnot. I've found (purely my own experience) that new RPG players like to have that option for whatever reason, or rather, they don't necessarily like thinking that they're going to have to dig for some OOP book if they want to read the rules themselves. YMMV (and YPMV).
Secondly, I think C&C is a better "glue" version, that is, its pretty easy to port things from any edition (including 3e) directly to C&C - easier than it is to port directly to B/X. I also like the ease of the Siege Engine rolls rather than having seperate tables for every class ability and skill, but thats just a preference thing on my part. Some people dig tables.
Agreed! While C&C would be my first choice, something else to consider is Labyrinth Lord from Goblinoid Games. It emulates Moldvay D&D, is available for free, and has several new releases planned in the coming year to support it. It is totally compatible with BX D&D, but gives your players the option of a currently available set of rules that they can actually get a new print copy of. If you go with any of the D&D/LL options, you can easily change over to C&C later on as well.
MrFilthyIke
First Post
BECMI all the way.
