Calling the Olde-Tymers! (diaglo, this means you)

[Andrew D. Gable]

How comparable are the 1980s Basic, Expert, etc. (AKA Rules Cyclopedia D&D) rules to the actual, original 1970s DnD? Is it a rewrite, or a reprint?

 

[Breakdaddy]

How comparable are the 1980s Basic, Expert, etc. (AKA Rules Cyclopedia D&D) rules to the actual, original 1970s DnD? Is it a rewrite, or a reprint?

Its pretty much a reprint with some extras thrown in from Dragon Magazine and the Immortals set IIRC.

 

[T. Foster]

The three big differences between Rules Cyclopedia D&D and 1970s OD&D are:

1) RC D&D's 'universal stat bonus' where the same score grants the same bonus in every stat wasn't present in 1970s OD&D, which granted bonuses in a much more ad-hoc manner (more like 1E AD&D)

2) The idea of dwarfs, elves, and halflings as 'classes' wasn't present in 1970s OD&D -- sure in the original boxed set dwarfs and hobbits could only be fighting men and elves were automatically fighter/magic-users, but when Supplement I: Greyhawk introduced the thief class it was open equally to humans and demi-humans alike, so there was never a time in 1970s OD&D when a human could be a thief but a demi-human couldn't

3) RC D&D is based pretty much solely on the 1974 bozed set and about half the material from Supplement I: Greyhawk. There was a lot of additional material in the OD&D supplements (and Strategic Review and Dragon articles) that wasn't included in RC D&D that was included in 1E AD&D, including exceptional strength (18/xx), the magic-user chance to know spell and min/max spells per level table, half-elves, demi-human thieves and multi-classes, druids, paladins, rangers, illusionists, assassins, monks, bards, 2-axis alignment (good/evil in addition to law/chaos), the weapon vs AC chart and different damage values for size SM vs size L opponents, several spells, monsters, and lots of magic items, psionics, artifacts & relics, demons, the Outer Planes -- all of these were present in OD&D before it became AD&D, and none of them were carried over to RC D&D (or at least not in the same form -- for instance, RC D&D does have paladins and druids that were added in the Companion set in 1984, but they're very different from the OD&D classes which are more like the AD&D classes).

Other than these things, you'll find that RC D&D and 1970s OD&D (original boxed set + 1/2 of supplement I only) are pretty close to each other; closer than either is to 1E AD&D (which changed almost all of the numbers around -- xp progressions, spell progressions, character hit dice, the AC scale, the to hit and saving throw charts, etc. -- all of these are the same between 1970s OD&D and RC D&D, and all of them are different in 1E AD&D).

 

[Mark]

Most of the people I know who used the three little booklets in 1974 moved on to the hardcover books when they came out and never picked up any of the later basic boxed sets.

 

[francisca]

elves were automatically fighter/magic-users

Not so. Elves could be either, and could change from one to the other between adventures. however, once an adventure started, the elf had to play that adventure out in that class. Experience in each class was tracked seperately.

 

[Akrasia]

Most of the people I know who used the three little booklets in 1974 moved on to the hardcover books when they came out and never picked up any of the later basic boxed sets.

To some extent this was true of the people I knew/know as well. However, I abandoned AD&D sometime in the mid-1980s, as the 'rules bloat' started to get bad (with OA, UA, etc. being released).

When I looked into D&D again around 1991/1992, I was blown away by the RC. Here was a much more coherent system of rules than AD&D ever was, with a number of interesting optional rules, all in a single volume.

Although I would not want to generalize too much on the basis of my own experience, I would not be surprised if many people switched from AD&D to RC D&D at some point for similar reasons.

 

[Akrasia]

That was an impressive summary T.Foster, though it may be worth mentioning that the RC also includes a number of optional rules (36-level progression charts for the demi-human 'classes', a skill system, etc.) that were never part of OD&D.

 

[T. Foster]

That was an impressive summary T.Foster, though it may be worth mentioning that the RC also includes a number of optional rules (36-level progression charts for the demi-human 'classes', a skill system, etc.) that were never part of OD&D.

Yeah, I probably should've included that. Problem is, while I was refering to it as "Rules Cyclopedia D&D" (because that's what the original poster called it) I was actually thinking of the 1981 (Moldvay/Cook) edition, because that's the one I've got (my copies of the Mentzer sets are stored away in my mom's basement and I shamefully confess I've never owned a copy of the RC itself -- though I mean to get one eventually). So I don't actually know what's in the RC, but I think it's pretty safe to say that anything that's in the RC that isn't in the 1981 Moldvay/Cook version and isn't in 1E AD&D is likely a wholly new addition and not based on anything from 1970s OD&D (which includes those things Akrasia mentioned above as well as the weapon mastery rules, the War Machine mass combat rules, the rules for running dominions, the rules for questing for and gaining immortality, etc.).