Going from Rules Cyclopedia to 1st Edition?

[Remathilis]

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.

Depends on how much of a stickler you are for "proper" conversions. The looser you are on converting, the better off it looks.

That said level 10 in C&C ~ level 10 AD&D, which is much weaker than level 10 3e, much more powerful than level 10 4e, and slightly more powerful than level 10 RC.

C&C has the advantage of some fairly regular support (when it comes out) and lots of fan stuff. The PHB (and monsters/treasure book) are solid, and there are some good modules for it (even a few DCCs!) I still am not a fan of the SIEGE engine, but that's just me.

Seriously, check out Basic Fantasy (link above). Its free, and you have nothing to loose. Grab the core book and the almanac (a great example on how to expand the game if wanted) and I think you'll admit someone took the best of RC, AD&D, and 3e and threw them in a blender on puree... If you don't like it, look into C&C.

 

[Rich Forest]

With regard to raiding AD&D, I think the motherlode is the 2E Wizard's and Priest's Spell Compendiums and Encyclopedia Magica books, which compile about 20 years of material across all D&D and AD&D editions. Also, basically all 1E monsters eventually saw their way into the 21(?) Monstrous Compendiums, but lavished with more fluff detail. Collectively, these books represent thousands of weird and wonderful spells, magic items and monsters, the like of which will probably never be seen again.

Rounser speaks the truth. I'm running a Rules Cyclopedia D&D campaign right now in a homebrew setting, and we're using 2e Spell Compendiums, Encyclopedia Magica, and some of the 2e monster books. They are fantastic resources. I don't even bother to "convert" to RC D&D -- it isn't really necessary. The only thing I convert is switching morale scores for monsters to the 2-12 scale of the RC.

 

[rogueattorney]

If you want to play how most people actually played D&D in the 80's... Take all the stuff not explicitly labeled as optional in the RC and use it as your base. Then take all the optional rules from the RC and whatever from the 1e core books strikes your fancy (probably some of the classes, races, spells, and magic items), and hand-waive whatever inconsistencies happen to come along.

Most of us played D&D like that for about a decade.

 

[FriarRosing]

It looks like we'll probably be playing the game like everyone else used to, using the book as the base and adding anything else that seems cool. I think the RC might be my favorite incarnation of Dungeons and Dragons (and I came in with 3rd Edition). It makes me a little sad, though, being unsupported and forgotten or unknown to a lot of modern D&D players, at least the ones I know. I would like it if the ruleset were still thriving.

 

[Treebore]

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.

There is a free Quickstart PDF you can DL from RPGnow/drivethrurpg to get a look at all the basics.

Speaking as someone who has actually been using C&C for the last 4 years, converting to C&C is extremely easy. I have done conversion from every version of D&D to every other edition of D&D, except with 4E, with 4E I have only converted from it to C&C.

So in the last 25 years I have converted from basic to 1E, 2E, 3E, or C&C, or from 1E to basic, to 2E, etc... and one of the things I like about C&C is that it is the easiest to convert to.

Like to convert Basic, 1E, and 2E to C&C all you do is switch the AC to a positive value. In C&C to hit and saves is directly related to your level/HD. In most cases Magic Resistance can be converted to SR on a 5%=1 point on a d20 basis. When it doesn't, you make it whatever works for you. For attributes you just use the C&C modifiers instead of the previous editions.

Magic items and spells are almost seamlessly usable. Spells in particular you will likely need to change the casting time and durations, usually that is it. In some cases, like fireball, you may have to decide which area of effect you want to use from which edition. Haste is another possible example, I like to use the 2E version.


3E is pretty simple for me too. There is a longish looking write up available over on the TLG message boards, but when you get down to it it is very easy. The big question you need to answer first, if your going to even want to convert stuff from 3E, is if you wish to use Feats or not. There are some house rules of various ways people have adapted a limited feat system, or you could even use the full feat system with little trouble. You just have to ignore prerequisites, or adapt them to C&C terms.

Or you could use feats as a big guideline, like I do, as types of "SIEGE checks" your players can do. The wizard wishes to maximize his fireball, I assign a base CL of 3 +3 for the level of the spell, for final CL of 6, so they would need to beat an 18 in the SIEGE system to maximize the fireball, and they add their level to their roll. Most other feats can be used as a guideline for similar SIEGE checks. So in C&C a character is only limited to the imagination of the player, what the CK will allow, and the luck of the dice roll. PC's will no longer be limited by lists of feats, skills, or powers.

Castles and Crusades is, in my opinion, the ideal core system to use if you have ever said to yourself, "Well, there are things I like best from every edition of D&D. I wish there was one game that took all those pieces and put it together." C&C is that core game, and it does not break when I take things I like from Basic all the way to 4E, and put them in my C&C. So C&C is a great base to build EXACTLY the game you want, largely due to how flexibly AWESOME the SIEGE mechanic is.

Plus their is a very good chance someone has already written up house rules documents already doing things you may wish to do to make C&C your personally customized game.

So I think C&C is very worth checking out if things I have said in this post appeal to you.

Plus the game itself is very well supported. Go to trhttp://www.trolllord.com/ and see for yourself.

The Monsters and Treasures just ahd its 3rd printing, and has all new covers and interior layout, and a couple of added pieces of art for creatures previously missing illustrations.

The Players Handbook 4th printing will be out in July, in fact it went to printers today. It too has a new cover, new interior layout, 45 new Illusionist spells, and altered Monk and Barbarian classes.

These 2 books are still $20 each at full retail.

By Gen Con "Of Gods and Monsters", written by James Ward, will be out, and is now considered to be a 4th core book of the system, and is priced at $30 full retail.

Gen Con will also finally see the release of the "Castles Keeper Guide", which is considered the third core book of the system. It is priced at $30 full retail as well.

Now realize that even though Of Gods and Monsters and the Castles Keepers Guide are considered a "core" book of C&C that I, and many others, have been playing C&C just fine for the last 4 years without them. So realize that any time you see anyone implying that you need more than the Monsters and Treasures and the Players Handbook, they are completely wrong.

In fact, if you just want to use C&C as the base line of your personally customized RPG, you can use just the PH and get your monsters from your favorite manual from your favorite edition, or your favorite version, from whichever edition contains your favorite version. Same goes for magic items and spells.

Now if you want to learn C&C "as is", then you will only need the PH and the M&T. Its all I have been using to run my game for the last 4 years, along with whichever monster, magic item, spell, or rule I like best from the other versions of D&D.

Now, if there is a specific edition you still love more than all others, and don't have much desire to pick and choose from every edition of D&D, including 4E, because we have been taking ideas from 4E too, then definitely go with the one you love.

Plus I strongly recommend you check out the old school magazines Knockspell and Fight On!. If you end up being like me and use stuff from every edition than you can also choose to enjoy Kobold Quarterly and Level Up magazine. Plus I also recently bought a print copy of "Swords and Wizardry" from Mythmere Games, the same people doing Knockspell. It is a consolidated and better written and presented interpretation of the original supplement books of D&D. Several cool rules versions in that I am thinking of using in my C&C games instead.

That is one potential problem with C&C. If you are not like me, and have tons of books from every edition of D&D (Except 4E, I only have the PH 1), and you really get into the universal freedom of C&C, then your going to have to resist buying everything having to do with D&D, rather than having it narrowed down for you.

So if you go the C&C route your going to have to either be able to afford to buy anything that strikes your fancy, or resist buying all the stuff printed by TSR and WOTC, AND all the stuff printed under OSRIC, Labyrinth Lord, etc... and trust me, there is already a LOT of new stuff out there!

So hopefully you have the personal discipline to control yourself, I don't.

 

[Orius]

One easy way to approach 1e via RC is to use the 1e classes, spells, weapons, monsters, etc. but use the combat system and other fundamentals from RC (then you won't have to learn the Plutonian Calculus of 1e's initiative system). So the things that people often want to be simple (combat, environment, etc.) can be simple, but you have more "stuff" with which to trick out characters, and the full range of monsters.

This is probably a decent way of mixing and matching. You get more options for characters from AD&D, while using the simpler combat rules from RC. Monsters, you could just use whatever versions are easier, and there's also the 2e monster entries with additional fluff as well. In all the editions before 3e all monsters had d8 for HD anyway, so the differences for most of the really basic stuff will be different. Morale isn't a big deal, I can't remember the last time I actually bothered with rolling for it, and you can just decide as a DM what makes the best sense for the monster. Some monster types will probably have more differences between the two, the one that really comes to mind are dragons.

With regard to raiding AD&D, I think the motherlode is the 2E Wizard's and Priest's Spell Compendiums and Encyclopedia Magica books, which compile about 20 years of material across all D&D and AD&D editions. Also, basically all 1E monsters eventually saw their way into the 21(?) Monstrous Compendiums, but lavished with more fluff detail. Collectively, these books represent thousands of weird and wonderful spells, magic items and monsters, the like of which will probably never be seen again.

Yeah, there's toms of stuff here that you can use, and while the rules are AD&D, most of the stuff can be taken into D&D with little trouble.

 

[the Jester]

Also, basically all 1E monsters eventually saw their way into the 21(?) Monstrous Compendiums, but lavished with more fluff detail.

But not quite all. I am damn sure that there has never been a screaming devilkin other than in 1st edition. Except my homebrewed conversions, that is.

 

[FriarRosing]

Thanks Treebore for the in depth stuff about Castles and Crusades, and thanks to everyone else for their responses and advice!

I'll probably check out C&C, as the price is so good I may as well. I looked into the Basic Fantasy RPG as well, and it looked like 3rd edition AC/attack rules with older edition everything else, which seems pretty cool.

I have decided, though, that I'm not going to use 1st Edition for anything other than a source of monsters, and maybe an occasional class to throw in for fun. I really enjoy the old edition monster manuals, and 1st Edition has been pretty cool for that. I need to get my hands on the 2nd edition material that you guys have mentioned.

At this point, I'm kind of saying screw 4th edition (no offence to everyone who likes it!) For me, D&D is about sitting in a cozy tavern along a dusty road that leads off into unknown wilderness. It's about trying to navigate moldy old dungeons, and the shock and surprise of what may lurk in the darkness. For me it's not about combat and balanced encounters or character builds, but instead is about mystery and atmosphere. That's what immerses me in the game, and immersion is what I'm going for. I think that these older editions of the game are exactly the kind of D&D I need.

 

[rounser]

It makes me a little sad, though, being unsupported and forgotten or unknown to a lot of modern D&D players, at least the ones I know. I would like it if the ruleset were still thriving.

I think that this is the feeling that keeps people buying the bright shinies. That keeps us "keeping up." The promise of new toys....even when few have played out the old ones. For example, hands up who's played all their Dungeon magazine back issues?

Thought so.

Also, the joy of spending cannot be underestimated in our capitalist little culture, where we alleviate boredom and try to fill the emotional holes inside ourselves (better filled by social contact) by buying ticky-tacky. If that compulsion seizes you, there's 30 years of OOP material to buy and adapt, which, due to the wonders of ebay and amazon, are still readily available. Maybe try an RC compatible [ame="http://www.amazon.com/Creature-Catalog-Dungeons-Dragons-Accessory/dp/1560765933/"]monster manual[/ame] or microcosmic [ame="http://www.amazon.com/Thunder-Rift-Accessory-Dungeons-Dragons/dp/1560763817"]campaign setting[/ame].

Alternatively, you could just buy a copy of the RC (or four) and spend what you've saved by getting off the release treadmill on masses of really cheap dice or just a handful of dice that betray conspicuous consumption. Or collect minis, but in the liberating knowledge that the RC doesn't really need them. But the real saving is arguably time. It takes time to keep up with and adapt to all this new stuff.

I read a quote today about the downfall of the global financial market due to innovations in derivatives. The nobel laureate economist pointed out that "like the effects of change, the effects of innovation are neither necessarily good or bad; they are neutral." So you're not necessarily missing out on anything by stepping off the release treadmill.

Something else I read recently - a book called Affluenza - pointed out that the typical goals in capitalist society are, from a certain frame of reference, somewhat mad (e.g. spending our lives paying off large houses that we spend little time in and just serve to isolate the family members in different rooms, or putting off our happiness till retirement). I'd suggest recognising that madness in your own buying habits and don't be afraid to step off the beaten path, because it's not necessarily taking those people anywhere happier.