I just played my first Rules Cyclopedia based game

[FriarRosing]

No, it wasn't stupid. The RC is great to have, but it's good to have the boxed sets, too, for clarification and comparison.


You're better off getting the individual modules. I was disappointed with B1-9; many of the adventures are condensed (in one case you only get the map!), and some of the stuff they excised is great and worth having.

I'll just get the individual modules. What exactly is in B1? If it is just a dungeon without monsters placed yet, what else is there?

Also one more question: what should I keep in mind if I decide to attempt to use AD&D material with my RC stuff? A while back I bought the old 1e Monster Manual and Fiend Folio. Recently I bought the 2e Monstrous Compendium. I wanted to have at least the monster manual from each of the big editions (I don't really know why). How much conversion will I need to do to use those monsters? I read the 2e are especially harder than the RC ones.

 

[Delta]

The main argument for announcing is because of spell casters. If you don't announce prior to the roll, spell-casters have a too-clear picture of their chances of being interrupted. That is, announcing prior to the roll is a sort of check on spellcasters; they don't know if it's "safe" to cast a spell or not. I like having that uncertainty and check on spell-casting...

Yeah, I'm certainly happy to do it just for spellcasters. (a) It's a sufficiently small amount of stuff to remember a few minutes later. (b) It gives the flavor that something dangerous is in the process of happening.

 

[FriarRosing]

Oh, one more observation about the RC game:
The fact that the encounters aren't premade and can just be random. A lot in my 4e and old 3e games I found that when they players were getting their butt whooped they would think along the lines of, "man, this encounter isn't balanced." It doesn't seem like that in RC. Instead they seem to just think, "crap, we're in over our heads. Too. Many. Goblins!" That feeling--one of being in a situation over your head as opposed to just an imbalance in how the encounter was put together--makes a huge difference in my opinion. It makes the game more immersive and feel more real.

I don't know if it's been this way for anyone else, but it was for us.

 

[Delta]

I'll just get the individual modules. What exactly is in B1? If it is just a dungeon without monsters placed yet, what else is there?

Yeah, P & T beat me to it, but I also have to jump in and recommend against the B1-9 collection. The editing decisions cut out some of the most interesting flavorful parts, IMO. The later modules are frankly not that good. B1-4 are must-haves.

B1 "In Search of the Unknown" is a big dungeon complex. It's set up to get new DMs putting their toe in the water of dungeon design -- the map is there, the furnishings are there (dressing, tricks/traps), but the monsters & treasures are left in a list at the back for the DM to put wherever they wish.

As one example, the B1-9 collection cut everything from B1 -- all the descriptions, furnishings, tricks/traps, monsters, treasures -- and just left the map, saying "stock it however you want".

If you want to save time you can use my recomendations for placing the monsters & treasure (w/3E stats), attached below.

 

[Delta]

Oh, one more observation about the RC game:
The fact that the encounters aren't premade and can just be random. A lot in my 4e and old 3e games I found that when they players were getting their butt whooped they would think along the lines of, "man, this encounter isn't balanced." It doesn't seem like that in RC. Instead they seem to just think, "crap, we're in over our heads. Too. Many. Goblins!" That feeling--one of being in a situation over your head as opposed to just an imbalance in how the encounter was put together--makes a huge difference in my opinion. It makes the game more immersive and feel more real.

That's a really interesting observation.

 

[Philotomy Jurament]

I'll just get the individual modules. What exactly is in B1? If it is just a dungeon without monsters placed yet, what else is there?

B1 gives you a two-level dungeon with complete room descriptions and history. Monsters and treasure are not placed, although the module does provide a list of appropriate sample encounters and appropriate treasures for you to place, yourself. It also provides wandering monster tables, rumors/legends, and a selection of pre-made hechmen/hireling/potential PCs. There's also advice for players, advice for the DM, et cetera.

One of the strong points of B1 is the map. It's a very old school map. It's also well-designed, in the sense that there are many paths for PCs to choose from, and it's possible to explore the dungeon and *really discover* things through good play, which will provide a sense of actual accomplishment to the players. Nevertheless, there's a lot of value in B1 apart from the map; the individual module is definitely worth getting.

Also one more question: what should I keep in mind if I decide to attempt to use AD&D material with my RC stuff?

Very little (if any) conversion is required. Personally, I like the 1e monster books much better than the 2e monster books. The 2e books provide a lot of detail and ecology and such; all that detail tends to encourage "this is how a goblin should be" attitudes, which also tend to shape player expectations. I prefer rulebooks that leave those things undefined and up to the DM. That said, the 2e monsters are also largely compatible with Classic D&D. The main considerations are that giants and dragons were beefed up. You'd be better off using Classic or 1e stats for those creatures, in most cases.

Don't overlook Monsters of Myth, which is full of great (and uncommon) monsters and ideas.

 

[Philotomy Jurament]

The fact that the encounters aren't premade and can just be random. A lot in my 4e and old 3e games I found that when they players were getting their butt whooped they would think along the lines of, "man, this encounter isn't balanced." It doesn't seem like that in RC. Instead they seem to just think, "crap, we're in over our heads. Too. Many. Goblins!" That feeling--one of being in a situation over your head as opposed to just an imbalance in how the encounter was put together--makes a huge difference in my opinion. It makes the game more immersive and feel more real. I don't know if it's been this way for anyone else, but it was for us.

You've touched on a couple of things, here, that I like in my games. One of them is the idea that the encounters aren't necessarily there for the PCs. That is, the PC shouldn't assume that the encounters are "appropriate" for them. They need to learn to judge that, and know when and how to run (there's a reason the older rules mention things like dropping food or treasure, why iron spikes are something of a tradition, and a why there are spells like hold portal).

This is closely related to the idea behind sandbox play. Since the players choose where they go, and there isn't a "right path" to follow, they're free to get in over their heads. If they want to go down to the sixth level of the dungeon while the PCs are 2nd level, they can. That sense of freedom adds to the verisimilitude of the game world, in my opinion.

Wandering monsters are another important aspect of old school play -- especially old school dungeon play. Wandering monsters offer little reward (not much XP, almost no treasure) for a lot of risk. They're an obstacle that is best avoided, if possible. They also act to discourage PCs from wasting time in the dungeon. They promote focus and efficiency; if your PCs insist on a detailed search of every square inch of the dungeon, they're going to run afoul of a lot of wandering monsters. Instead, the PCs need to figure out where to spend that extra time and effort. Wandering monsters promote "good play."

 

[Irda Ranger]

We didn't play it like we usually do--I encouraged my players to just do whatever they wanted. Since I had no plot or setting to ruin, I figured it wouldn't hurt. It was insane. They got in a bar fight right away.

You've got good players. There are two typical reactions to sandbox play: (1) insanity, and (2) sit and stare at the DM in silence. #1 is way more fun.

Suffice to say everyone died.

Good session, men. Good session. <nods>

We actually played our normal 4e campaign later in the day, and I have to admit, I enjoyed the RC game more.

Hook, line & sinker ...

Now, I'm a young dude.

And yet you are well spoken, and have clearly superior taste in RPGs. I expect great things of you.

though our little on-the-fly game lacked a lot of what our 4e game has (mapped out areas and regions, predefined NPCs, dungeons and adventures), it was more immersive.

And good books are more immersive than movies. The imagination has more colors, and fine detail, than any pre-painted mini.

1. Is Keep on the Borderlands a good way to start?

Yes, but too late; you already started. And most excellently!

I ordered it off Amazon the other day. My hope is to start a monthly sandbox style game. Was this a good decision, or would something else have been better?

It's certainly a good decision, but don't lose that freedom from the first session! It's a springboard, not a straight-jacket, and you should ignore any part of it that gets in the way of having a blast.

2. Do the PCs have no hope for life? Though one of my player's mottoes is "I LOVE DEATH," I'm worried the brutality of the game may turn off some of my players. One player in particular doesn't like to "lose." I'm worried that it seems a single goblin can kill a level one character in one hit. I'm worried they'll just run from everything, get annoyed at having to roll new characters all the time or, the worst, get downright angry and frustrated over their characters dying. Are there any ways to help with this? Or does it matter?

It's a different style of game. It's supposed to be that way. Perhaps apocryphally, EGG recommended not naming your PC until 4th level. It doesn't help them survive, but it helps you move on! They'll get used to it, but you may have to help them make necessary mental adjustments.

It is becomes a real problem though you may wish to introduce an HP kicker like some other posters, Negative HP Death & Dying rules, or something more exotic, like an Injury Table.

but RC is just cool in a way no other game I've played has. Maybe I just haven't played enough to discover its flaws, but it was some of the most fun gaming I've ever experienced. And it was only one short session.

That's why even though Monte Cook and Mike Mearls are smart guys, EGG was a genius. He got it right.

 

[Delta]

That said, the 2e monsters are also largely compatible with Classic D&D. The main considerations are that giants and dragons were beefed up. You'd be better off using Classic or 1e stats for those creatures, in most cases.

Seconded. And I do the same thing in 3E, too. (See link.)

 

[S'mon]

Ive done the same. The hit point "kicker" at 1st, though I just make it a flat +10 across the board for all classes.

That's what I've done in my current Labyrinth Lord PBEM, it seems to work very well. Certainly doesn't make PCs unafraid! If anything with the added durability they seem more like real people and less like paper-bag mooks.