I just played my first Rules Cyclopedia based game

[AdmundfortGeographer]

You know, I think I've just had an epiphany.

I've been waiting for a new intro set to D&D as good as the ol' Red Box to introduce my young son to D&D.

And all the time I've been sitting on the BECMI series and Rules Compendium and every adventure every produced except for two and one Dragon magazine issue. Hmm . . .

 

[Ed_Laprade]

Somewhere near the end of the RC is a chapter that discusses optional rules. I'd use the one that removes level limits. Just be careful on the mystic; the text contradicts itself on saves.

Enjoy the best pre-2000 D&D available.

Oh yeah, definitely remove level limits if the characters get that high. (I don't think any of the characters from my group did back in the day. )

 

[S'mon]

I've been waiting for a new intro set to D&D as good as the ol' Red Box to introduce my young son to D&D.

If you want something shiny and new but equivalent, get a print copy of Labyrinth Lord. You can get it via Lulu or some game stores - it's in distribution.

 

[mmadsen]

i would say that the fun you had was at least as much a result of just letting everything go and not worrying much about consequences in game as it was about the ruleset.

Yes, but the more detailed the rule set, the harder it is to just wing it.

RPGs seem to have an inherit tug-of-war between what's more interesting out of the game, while reading the books, and what's more fun in actual play. Complex, detailed rules are more interesting out of the game. A lean, flexible framework of rules is more fun to actually play.

 

[SpiderMonkey]

Say, anyone up for running an RC or Red Box Play by Post game?

If you build it, they will come. Well, I'll come at least.

Seriously. Get on it. Now.

What are you waiting for?



evaniel@vt.edu

 

[RFisher]

Yeah, but in the beginning, I recommend playing it by-the-book until you have a firm handle on the system and how it's designed.

Since you’re using the RC, I’d also advise keeping the optional rules turned off for a while. Get comfortable with the basics of the system first. Know what it is like without an optional rule before you add it.

I think B2 and the other B modules are great inspiration. Personally, I think you’re better off running the game the way you have rather than actually “running” a module. Steal bits from the modules, but don’t run them directly. That’s my advice.

 

[FriarRosing]

i would say that the fun you had was at least as much a result of just letting everything go and not worrying much about consequences in game as it was about the ruleset. You could throw together a short notice game in any edition with which you have some core rules familiarity.

That might be a contributing factor, sure. Certainly it was fun because it was different and everyone did whatever they wanted without concern for the consequences. The session was just kind of an out of the blue, "hey, you guys want to try this out and kill some goblins or something?" kind of venture, but I think that the rules set makes that kind of game a lot easier. I also personally just enjoyed it in that I felt I had less to worry about in terms of rules or mechanics. It was nice to not have to worry about powers or whatever. And for once I actually enjoyed rolling up characters.

I also think the rules fit my style of playing a lot more than the newer editions. I've realized that with D&D it's no different from the rest of my life--I improvise a lot better than I plan.

But anyway, I'm considering buying the Labyrinth Lord books off of Amazon or something since it's pretty cheap and looks cool. I want something my players can look at and maybe borrow to learn the rules better or get an idea of how everything works, and I'm really anal about keeping my books in good shape (especially one as coveted and hard to find for a reasonable price as the RC). If I get a good enough feel for the rules and get confident enough I may even see about running a monthly game at the local game shop for anyone who wants to join.

One question about Labyrinth Lord since I've only been able to glance over PDF so far, not much has changed, right? Does it essentially have all the same information as the RC?

 

[Jack Daniel]

One question about Labyrinth Lord since I've only been able to glance over PDF so far, not much has changed, right? Does it essentially have all the same information as the RC?

Not exactly. The Rules Cyclopedia collects everything from the 1983 Basic and Expert Sets, the 1984 Companion Set, and the 1985 Masters Set. It's a very complete game system meant for playing a campaign from 1st to 36th level. It has rules for general skills, weapon mastery, building strongholds, ruling dominions, and conducting mass battles, all missing from LL; plus many more high level monsters and magic items, and far more detailed rules for making magic items. And the rules for paladins, druids, and mystic monks!

Labyrinth Lord merely emulates the 1981 Basic Expert Sets, which describes the game rules from 1st to 14th level, and then assumes a rather unstructured and open-ended advancement after that. So Labyrinth Lord and the Rules Cyclopedia are compatible, but once the players reach the 15th level of experience, you'll want to switch to using the RC. And you might have to tweak things to make the experience, thief ability, and spell progression tables line up (I just use the RC tables throughout the campaign).

Where are things different between Labyrinth Lord and the old Basic/Expert Game? The changes are minor, but they're there (Dan had to change a few things for copyright purposes). The XP tables are slightly different for all the classes (but that's not very important, and easily ignored). Labyrinth Lord includes 7th, 8th, and 9th level spells, where the Expert set only went up to 6th level spells. But the spell lists in Labyrinth Lord are a little different from the Cyclopedia, because LL had to take all its spells from System Reference Document, in order to be OGL compliant! Also, the RC included the druidic spells from the Companion and Masters sets; LL, of course, does not.

Finally, clerics have two oddball changes in LL. First of all, LL clerics start casting spells at 1st level rather than 2nd level (Dan has said many times that this was a change he made intentionally to make the cleric more playable, and if you want to do things the old way, just bump the cleric's spell progression back by one level). Second, the turning undead table, instead of following the old 11/9/7/T/D pattern, is extended to 11/9/7/5/3/T/D, meaning that clerics must be much higher level before they automatically turn or destroy undead. (I happen to really like this particular change, because it means that low-level undead can challenge a party longer. This is one case where I happily substitute the LL rule for the D&D rule in my campaigns.)

I'm sure there are a few other differences, but they don't leap immediately to mind.

 

[FriarRosing]

Thanks for the info about LL. I'll still probably get it (partly just to support the idea!) but it doesn't seem like as much of a necessity, but it'd certainly be nice to have.

I apologize that so much of this thread has been me just asking questions. I have another one, though:
Do I really have to keep as good of track of time as is described in the book? In all of my 3e and 4e campaigns we were always pretty vague with the passage of time--it always seemed like too much of a hassle to keep up with. Is it more important in RC? For some reason I find that part of the rules a little intimidating.

Thanks to everyone for the responses and info by the way. It's been really helpful. I think we'll probably play again tomorrow. One of the I like the Rules Cyclopedia so much is that if I'm in the mood for D&D I can just go knock on my roommates' doors and see if they're interested. I don't have to worry about having adventures and encounters thought up; we can just play whenever the desire strikes us. It's fantastic.

 

[S'mon]

Time tracking in the dungeon is intended to be by 10 minute turns, for the DM's convenience so that eg he knows when to roll for wandering monsters, an important part of the exploratory paradigm. It's not vital, though.