Going from Rules Cyclopedia to 1st Edition?

Both are solid rule-sets. I'm partial to AD&D, myself, but there's a lot you need to sort through in order to make the game work right. RC is better-polished, but I think AD&D has better adventures and supplements.

If you decide to go with AD&D, I'd supplement/partially replace it with the OSRIC rules. OSRIC is basically D&D with a few minor details changed, but it's been cleaned up a lot. For example, all the combat rules are in the same place. And they make sense, mostly. :)

-O
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Here are the major changes you're going to look at...

1.) Ability Scores: RC uses one modifier (like 3e/4e) while AD&D uses multiple modifiers, most of which start way higher (15+ for most +1's) and cap in odd places (there is no point for over a 16 con unless your a fighter type). Races affect your ability scores, both in modifiers (dwarves have a +1 con, -1 cha) and min/max (dwarves cannot have over a 16 dex, nor less than a 10 str).

2.) Races: More options (half-elf, half-orc, gnome) and races are not limited to a single "class". Its one of the best changes in the game, IMHO.

3.) Classes: New classes (ranger, paladin, illusionist, druid, monk, assassin) but most bring interesting-yet-wonky rule additions (go ahead, compare 1e'd monk to RC's mystic class). Every class gets a HD bump of 1 die (cept mages) and the big one is dual-classing/multi-classing. Lots of options here, but most are too good or too poor to use.

4.) Alignment: 9 vs. 3, with the Good/Neutral/Evil axis added.

5.) Skills: RC has a 2e style NWP system, 1e has "you and your DM decide". Later AD&D added the NWP system.

6.) Equipment: More items (hello polearms!) but the cost is much different. Don't expect your fighter to start with plate (or even chain) like he did in the RC! Also, encumbrance is a bear; ignore it unless your PCs are carting sofas out of dungeons or you are a masochist!

7.) Combat. There is a lot of changes here. All fighter options are gone or obscuring moved around in other places. Initiative is confusing at best and rarely understood/done right; use RC or 2e's systems IMHO. The Attack/Save Matrices are different (to account for different leveling and classes).

8.) Spells. More of em, and most are a lot more complex than RC spells. Not a lot to say here (cept watch your cleric/magic-users power level jump) and for the love of Jebus don't use segments unless you've masted 1e's Arcane Initiative system!

9.) Magic Items: Like Spells, most magical items become complex, have more variables, and must be monitored to insure game-breakage needn't occur.

10.) Monsters. Most of the RC favorites are here (though the weirder ones don't, they are replaced by AD&D's weirder ones ;) ). The key element here is demons/devils holding the upper-tier of power, an area in the RC giants, undead and dragons hold. As a result, some monsters are more/less power than their RC cousins. Not also, most are more complex than their RC counterparts, while a goblin is a goblin, a beholder is very different.

11.) Tone. This is a nebulous term for the kind of world you're going into in both games (the default assumptions). RC is more chivalrous and high-fantasy; Tolkien and Lewis, where people become heroes, rulers, and gods. AD&D is more Sword & Sorcery; Moorcock and Howard, where evil, decadence and corruption are everywhere and even the heroes aren't necessarily "good". Of course, the game can be played using the others assumptions, but RC is where knights vanquish dragons and save maidens, AD&D is where hardened mercs kill demon cultists before they sacrifice virgins.
 

I'd probably use OSRIC or Castles & Crusades, myself -- those games work hard to take the best old school rules and streamline play. I love AD&D, and played it for over ten years, but we never did agree on the surprise and initiative rules.

But every time I play AD&D nowadays, I try to grapple, pummel or overbear at least once, just to watch the DM twitch. :lol:
 

I'd probably use OSRIC or Castles & Crusades, myself -- those games work hard to take the best old school rules and streamline play. I love AD&D, and played it for over ten years, but we never did agree on the surprise and initiative rules.

But every time I play AD&D nowadays, I try to grapple, pummel or overbear at least once, just to watch the DM twitch. :lol:

Seconded. If I were in Sandwich's spot, I'd check out Basic Fantasy RPG (Basic Fantasy Role-Playing Game) because its a nice blend of RC/Basic (HD, spells, combat rules) AD&D (class/race split, new classes optional) and 3e (upwards AC, no level limits). Most of all, its free to download (and edit into your own personal copy!) or purchase a paper-copy of Lulu (between $10-20, non of which is profit to the creator).
 

Can your group do RC for a while, then 1E for a while, then go with whichever your group thinks you enjoyed better?

Plus by then you will hopefully feel comfortable with stealing whichever ideas you do like from the one you don't to make whichever you do go with all that much better.

Yeah, the 1E DMG is kind of scary. I looked at it kind of like a game. Its that mysterious tome full of magical mysteries that you can only use if you figure out the book.

The OSRIC suggestion is a very good one, plus you can get print versions from Lulu if you HATE!!!! reading PDF's on monitors. Like I do. Or get it printed wherever else you may prefer.
 

I'd probably use OSRIC or Castles & Crusades, myself -- those games work hard to take the best old school rules and streamline play. I love AD&D, and played it for over ten years, but we never did agree on the surprise and initiative rules.

How easy is it to convert stuff to Castles and Crusades from other editions? I've been interested in the system since I first heard of it, but I've never really checked it out.
 



How easy is it to convert stuff to Castles and Crusades from other editions? I've been interested in the system since I first heard of it, but I've never really checked it out.
C&C might be your thing, if you're looking for a more modern game. The question is - Are you playing RC because it's a simpler and more free-form rule set than 3e/4e, or are you playing it because it's a classic game with all those special benefits that only an old school game can offer?

Personally, I'd look at C&C as a modern, pared-down d20 game. It's not quite 3e, and it's not quite 1e. It's somewhere in-between, and the rules are sparse and simple enough that conversion from anything should be fairly easy, AFAICT. Also, there's a wide variety of support for it, if you look around.

Speaking only for myself, it doesn't really scratch my old-school itch... For that, I turn to OSRIC/AD&D1e. :) For me, C&C reads and feels more like relatively charmless pseudo-old-school, and it just wasn't quite to my tastes. I can appreciate that it's fairly well-made, and that it could be perfect for people who aren't me. I, however, ended up giving my books away to a friend. (Also, I'm prepared to call the Keeper's Guide vaporware, at this point. :))

-O
 


Remove ads

Top