Dungeons & Dragons Rules Cyclopedia

[Obryn]

Well, to be honest, I bought it for this romantic notion that at some point I would like to learn & play all of the different editions of D&D.

That's actually a very worthy goal! Don't limit yourself to D&D, though - there have many advances in RPG design over the decades, and there's some great newer games coming out, too!

With that said, I think RC D&D is one edition that's really stood the test of time. It has a tight design sensibility, good rules, excellent class balance (with weapon mastery), and an economy of rules that later editions would do well to recall. It works best as a zero-to-hero kind of game, and each tier provides a completely different play experience.

I'd definitely use the XP-for-treasure rules, by the way. As [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION] noted, it's amazing how different it makes the game from more modern versions.

You can get PDFs of lots of old adventures for the edition, too. My personal favorite is B4 The Lost City, which is a whole self-contained mini-campaign. B2 Keep on the Borderlands is great, too, and is a very common shared experience for lots of us older gamers.

 

[MerricB]

With that said, I think RC D&D is one edition that's really stood the test of time. It has a tight design sensibility, good rules, excellent class balance (with weapon mastery), and an economy of rules that later editions would do well to recall. It works best as a zero-to-hero kind of game, and each tier provides a completely different play experience.

I'm a little dubious about some of the higher-level rules, but I definitely think it's the best put together set of the D&D rules - certainly considering its scope.

Cheers!

 

[pemerton]

Well, to be honest, I bought it for this romantic notion that at some point I would like to learn & play all of the different editions of D&D.

<snip>

I guess to answer your question, eventually I'd like to learn & play all of the various D&D systems and thought that the RC was the "Basic" system, while everything else was the "Advanced" system.

I am still up in the air on OD&D.

The OD&D rulebooks are bizarrely opaque. If you want to get an OD&D-style experience, I'd suggest playing Basic D&D (so either use your RC at levels 1 to 3-ish, or find a copy of Moldvay Basic) but without thieves. AD&D 1st ed is in many ways similar in basic orientation, but with a lot of baroque resolution mechanics layered over the top. For a classic AD&D 1st ed module, I'd suggest White Plume Mountain.

For AD&D 2nd ed, I think your 5e experience will probably stand you in good stead.

For 4e, you might want to look at this thread, which has a lot of discussion from experienced 4e players and GMs about the strengths of that system.

 

[MerricB]

For a portal into OD&D, you might also want to have a look at Swords & Wizardry, which is an OD&D clone but presented in a fashion that is easier to understand. Or the Holmes edition of Basic D&D (that's the very first one from 1977), which was intended as an introduction to original D&D, despite the AD&D references.

Although I think Moldvay's 1981 edition is one of the very best introductions to D&D, it also changed the rules enough to not be original D&D any more.

Cheers!

 

[Obryn]

I'm a little dubious about some of the higher-level rules, but I definitely think it's the best put together set of the D&D rules - certainly considering its scope.

Cheers!

I would certainly not vouch for either incarnation of the Immortals rules, mind you.

 

[painted_klown]

For a portal into OD&D, you might also want to have a look at Swords & Wizardry, which is an OD&D clone but presented in a fashion that is easier to understand. Or the Holmes edition of Basic D&D (that's the very first one from 1977), which was intended as an introduction to original D&D, despite the AD&D references.

Although I think Moldvay's 1981 edition is one of the very best introductions to D&D, it also changed the rules enough to not be original D&D any more.

Cheers!

This statement has me confused. Were these box sets different variations of D&D then?

If so, what are the sets that are compiled into the RC? Holmes, Moldvay, Cook, Mentzer, or a mix of all of them?

If my online research has not failed me, the RC is a compilation of the boxes done by Frank Mentzer, and is designed to be ran after completing the black box?

If it's easier to point me somewhere to read vs trying to explain it all, that will work for me.

My apologies for being a little "dense" on this, I just like to be sure that I know what I'm talking about, and when my friends ask "What's that book?" I don't want to have to answer with "I'm not really sure, but it's really popular with veteran players." LOL!

Additionally, I oddly find the history of the game to be highly fascinating. Being all excited about my new book purchases today, I was telling my GF that while I LOVE 5E, I get a different sort of "vibe" from the older stuff. Almost as if there is a sense of real wonder and imagination built right into those older books. Even cursory glances at my 1E books, fills me with a sense of awe and wonder that I don't really get with 5E. Perhaps though, it's because I've never actually had a chance to play it, only DM thus far. The 1E DMG I find especially inspiring...Gygax could write. R.I.P.

 

[MerricB]

This statement has me confused. Were these box sets different variations of D&D then?

I've researched and posted about this a lot over the years! The history of the game fascinates me as well!

Anyway, here's the basic history of the game rules:

1974: Original Dungeons & Dragons. Three classes (Fighting Man, Cleric and Magic-User). Relies heavily on rules in Chainmail.

1975: Supplement I: Greyhawk is published, which makes some major revisions to the rules. (The original rules actually only use d20s and d6s. It adds in different hit dice and weapon dice, and a lot of other things). A major change is the way it handles ability scores - the original had hardly any bonuses due to them (no bonuses from Strength, for instance), but this expands the range of bonuses significantly. Further supplements (Blackmoor, Eldritch Wizardry) expand the game, but they don't change it as much as Greyhawk does.

1977: Basic Dungeons & Dragons, edited by Eric Holmes. It's an introduction to original D&D with a few rules from Greyhawk included. The ability score modifiers follow on original D&D without the Greyhawk adjustments. It covers levels 1-3.

1977-9: Advanced Dungeons & Dragons. This is a revision of OD&D with all the supplements included. It uses the Greyhawk ability score modifiers with some adjustments, and has classes that were added in the supplements or in the magazines (The Strategic Review and The Dragon).

1981: Basic Dungeons & Dragons, edited by Tom Moldvay. This is a major clean-up of the rules. It is based on the original D&D games but makes a number of changes (for instance, ability score modifiers are +1 for 13-15, +2 for 16-17, and +3 for 18). It is complemented by a D&D Expert set by David Cook (levels 4-14). This is the version of D&D I learnt off, and it is generally regarded as one of the best expressions of the rules.

1983: Basic Dungeons & Dragons, edited by Frank Mentzer. This one is the famous "Red Box". It's basically just the Tom Moldvay rules formatted slightly differently with Player and Dungeon Master books. Although this is the best-selling version of the rules, I don't like it as much as the 1981 version. There are a few rules changes in the Expert book so that higher level play in the Companion (15-25) and Master (26-36) levels could be supported. Eventually an Immortals sets of rules came out to handle post-36th level play.

1989: Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 2nd Edition. A major revamp of the main D&D game. Although the mathematical foundation is mostly the same, a lot of how the classes worked changed, and the rules were presented in a much clearer form. Gygax was good at inspirational writing, but rarely at writing clear rules.

1991: Basic Dungeons & Dragons Black Box. It's really just the 1983 box rules again in another box, but covering 1st to 5th level. Why was it needed? Because of the next product...

1991: Dungeons & Dragons Rules Cyclopedia. This is the one you have. Compiling the Mentzer Basic, Expert, Companion and Master sets into one book. It's comprehensive. It's not really for the beginner (that's what the Black Box was for). The Immortal rules were completely rewritten in Wrath of the Immortals, but by this time the Basic line was on the way out. A couple more products and, by 1993, the line ended, with only a couple more products being released.

1995: AD&D Player's Options. These three books (Combat & Tactics, Skills & Powers and Spells & Magic) gave a lot of optional ways of running the game. They used (basically) the same mathematical underpinning as 2E, but added a LOT of options for players and DM in how to handle combat, build new classes and use magic. Occasionally referred to as 2.5E, they are also of dubious balance - though I loved them (especially Combat & Tactics) at the time.

2000: Dungeons & Dragons 3rd Edition. And we get to the modern (Wizards) era of the game. A huge update of the AD&D rules, with the "advanced" being lost because it no longer made sense. (It's intimidating for new players, for one thing). It's definitely a member of the AD&D line, however.

2003: Dungeons & Dragons 3.5 Edition. Lots of small changes make a .5 revision!

2008: Dungeons & Dragons 4th Edition. Another massive change in the rules. It wasn't that successful.

2010: Dungeons & Dragons Essentials. Not exactly a new edition, but another way of approaching 4E. This take on the classes is pretty good, but it couldn't help the terminal state the game was in.

2014: Dungeons & Dragons 5th Edition. Where we are now! Another massive change to the rules, but drawing much more on older editions. And recent editions.

Cheers!

 

[Obryn]

This statement has me confused. Were these box sets different variations of D&D then?

If so, what are the sets that are compiled into the RC? Holmes, Moldvay, Cook, Mentzer, or a mix of all of them?

If my online research has not failed me, the RC is a compilation of the boxes done by Frank Mentzer, and is designed to be ran after completing the black box?

If it's easier to point me somewhere to read vs trying to explain it all, that will work for me.

My apologies for being a little "dense" on this, I just like to be sure that I know what I'm talking about, and when my friends ask "What's that book?" I don't want to have to answer with "I'm not really sure, but it's really popular with veteran players." LOL!

Additionally, I oddly find the history of the game to be highly fascinating. Being all excited about my new book purchases today, I was telling my GF that while I LOVE 5E, I get a different sort of "vibe" from the older stuff. Almost as if there is a sense of real wonder and imagination built right into those older books. Even cursory glances at my 1E books, fills me with a sense of awe and wonder that I don't really get with 5E. Perhaps though, it's because I've never actually had a chance to play it, only DM thus far. The 1E DMG I find especially inspiring...Gygax could write. R.I.P.

Oh boy. It's a tad complicated, so here goes.

There's OD&D, which is quite different from most of what came after. It's pretty primitive and uses Chainmail rules in places. I would go with a retro-clone like Swords & Wizardry instead, since OD&D is not really written in such a way that it's easy to learn from the books.

There's Holmes Basic, which is kind of like an evolutionary midpoint between OD&D and AD&D.

There's B/X, the Moldvay/Cook variant, which took Holmes Basic and remade it for a more beginner-friendly approach. It was intended to have a Companion set, but instead TSR started over and republished the Basic and Expert sets into ...

BECMI, which starts with Mentzer Basic. Rules-wise, it's nearly totally identical to B/X, though B/X has a much kinder Thief Skill and Saving Throw progression. The Companion set was finally released in this line, along with Master and Immortal.

Then in (shoot) 1991, Aaron Allston edited together the BECM part of the BECMI line, and added in a lite version of the Immortal rules. He included a quick primer on the Known World (later Mystara) and a few summaries of the gonzo weirdness of the original gold Immortal set.

 

[arjomanes]

Congrats on finding a copy of the Rules Compendium! It's my favorite D&D book of all time.

I had a copy back in high school, but it went the way of all my D&D stuff when I went away to college (my mom unloaded a bunch of my toys, books, etc). I've missed that book more than anything (even more than the Planescape, Spelljammer, and Dark Sun boxed sets). I purchased the PDF; I just haven't bitten the bullet yet to buy the actual book.

My advice is to explore the concept of Old School D&D. There is a bigger difference than just the mechanics. There was a different play style in the old days and a somewhat different philosophy to the game. Part of that was necessary (the game was younger and everyone was newer at it) and part of it was just a difference of style.

I'd start with Matt Finch's Old School Primer for his take on the idea of Old School.

I'd also pick up a copy of one of the classic old school Basic modules. Any of the classic early level 1 modules would be great. They are rated highly for a reason. Here are my recommendations:

B1 In Search of the Unknown
B2 The Keep on the Borderlands
B4 The Lost City
N1 Against the Cult of the Reptile God

Read through the modules and notice how sparse they are compared to 5e modules (especially B1 — it's up to the DM to populate the dungeon with monsters!) Feel free to pencil in notes, flesh things out, and use them as a starting point for your own campaign world. Much of the B/X experience was that the D&D world was brand new, undefined, and ready for a DM to make her own. I think it's great to embrace that, get the graph paper out and make a dungeon. Get a hexmap out and start plotting ruins and lairs in a circle around the starting village.

I really appreciate your enthusiasm to play the different versions of the game. That's pretty impressive! Since you're interested in the history of the game, I also highly recommend Playing at the World, both the blog and the book. Jon Peterson has done some exhaustive research into the origins and growth of Dungeons & Dragons, and his book is a masterpiece of the history of the greatest game.

 

[Jan van Leyden]

[MENTION=6785485]painted_klown[/MENTION], if you want to re-live the old way of playing and growing you should really get some of the old B-modules as well. They assume the basic rules only and limit themselves to this are of play, namely dungeon crawling. When your players have reached level 3 and are ready to proceed you might switch to the good/classic X-modules like X1: The Isle of Dread, which pull the characters out of the dungeon and let them explore some wildernis regions. A somewhat special case is B10: Night's Dark Terror, which is designed to smoothly make the change in play style. But it was written later and looks more "modern" than the older stuff.

Regarding the play style, you'll note some differences compare to 5e:

• The rules aren't really systematic; you'll find some special rules and cases which employ separate sub-systems
• The rules are light; they cover only so much areas. Instead looking up a rule for some situation you'll have to make - as DM - your own ruling on it.
• Use your common sense. Listen to the players' descriptions of their characters' actions and imagine the situation. If someone wants to climb your standard cherry tree, he will succeed without die roll. If someone wants to climb a smooth wall without help, she won't succeed, regardless of any stats.
• Expect character to die - often. Any character may start at first level with 2 hit points; a single hit from a simple kobold may send him to the grave. This isn't a bug, it's a feature, and begets a fitting playstyle: be very careful!

Well, all told I wish you metric tons of fun with your RPG time machine!