I just played my first Rules Cyclopedia based game

[pawsplay]

In terms of PC survival:

1) Hire henchmen. In this version of the game, they will not become obsolute until well until the double digits, by which point high level hirlings will be impractically rare and they will need to switch to maybe hiring or enslaving a dragon.

2) The "max hp at 1st level" rule originally appeared as an optional rule in Basic D&D's DMG. Feel free to use it.

3) There is a learning curve. Specifically, players used to 4e or maybe even 3e, or videogames, may think that going into a situation swinging is a winning tactic. In the old school style, usually the less dice were rolled, the better the odds of PC survival. Very unusual tactics or ways of avoiding monsters were employed. If you did fight, fight dirty. And there is no kill like overkill. Even so, less than half of 1st level characters make it to 2nd level.

 

[Delta]

2) The "max hp at 1st level" rule originally appeared as an optional rule in Basic D&D's DMG. Feel free to use it.

Uh, what? I think you'll to specify a specific edition, book, and page, because those words don't synch up together.

 

[Irda Ranger]

That was mainly the first random phrase I thought of when I tried to figure out what to use as a sig. I think it was because I had recently read Owen's famous poem. I suppose it's fitting, though, with tomorrow being Armistice/Remembrance/Veteran's Day and all.

But anyway

No, no, no. The sweet and proper thing it to make the other guy die for his country.

 

[T. Foster]

Uh, what? I think you'll to specify a specific edition, book, and page, because those words don't synch up together.

The 1983 (Mentzer-edit) D&D Basic Set, Dungeon Masters Manual (or whatever it's called -- the second book in the set). Don't know the specific page number, but I concur that "allow PCs maximum hit points at 1st level" is mentioned in there as an option for the DM to consider (which is one of the things that's so cool about that book -- it gives all kinds of options, explains why you may or may not want to go with them, and lets the individual DM choose how he wants his game to be, encouraging an attitude of house ruling, customization, and viewing the rules as a toolbox of guidelines rather than a strait-jacket right from the start).

 

[Nikosandros]

The rule about maximum hit points is on page 18 of the Dungeon Masters Rulesbook (Basic Set, Mentzer edition).

 

[Grazzt]

In terms of PC survival:

3) There is a learning curve. Specifically, players used to 4e or maybe even 3e, or videogames, may think that going into a situation swinging is a winning tactic. In the old school style, usually the less dice were rolled, the better the odds of PC survival. Very unusual tactics or ways of avoiding monsters were employed. If you did fight, fight dirty. And there is no kill like overkill. Even so, less than half of 1st level characters make it to 2nd level.

Not bad advice at all.

 

[FriarRosing]

Well, our Rules Cyclopedia game has been going well. It works well for now, when I don't have the time to plan any good 4e adventures due to finals next week. Since I don't plan for RC, we can just play whenever everyone has the time.

Their plan now is to take on the Orc King himself after raiding his lair for loot. I sort of accidentally gave them a wand of lightning bolt after reading the treasure tables wrong. And I'm of the mind that after I tell them they've found something, I can't take it back, no matter what. I suppose I could have someone pick pocket it off of them, but it's probably too precious and they're probably too wise for that.

There were a few things I wanted to mention about our game, just to see what people thought:

We don't use weapon mastery--it confuses me very much, and all of the tables with all of the symbols that mean different things for different weapons instill fear in me. Are my players missing out from our not using this?

I didn't use any of the skill system mentioned in the book, but I did allow my players to choose four traits for their characters that I'll take into consideration if they try anything. I let the Magic-User be able to just do really minor magic tricks at will--essentially things like changing the temperature of an object slightly, or something like letting him decide to make some part of his body have a faint, magical glow. The Dwarf (who is affectionately referred to mostly as "Beardy") decided to have swindling, gambling, stealing and hardiness be his traits. I'm not entirely sure yet how he plans on using them. I know he mentioned hardiness would mainly affect his character's getting drunk. My plan is not have these things affect the actual mechanical aspects of the game, but just be minor things for me to take into consideration as the DM in various situations, effecting the outcome only where I think it makes sense or applies. This was partly in an attempt to make the RC game feel like it really is "our" game in addition to being Dungeons and Dragons. I guess I'll find out if it was dumb or not.


I'm kind of planning on including some 1 and possible 2e stuff in the game as it goes on. I know it'll take some conversion, but really, even if I don't convert it I don't think the players will notice. I like the idea of a modular, kitbashed, as they say, D&D game. From what people have said, it sounds like that's the way many people used to play, and probably still do.

 

[Remathilis]

We don't use weapon mastery--it confuses me very much, and all of the tables with all of the symbols that mean different things for different weapons instill fear in me. Are my players missing out from our not using this?

Short answer: No.

Longer Answer: Weapon Mastery adds an interesting layer of tactics to the game, but it also adds a LOAD of confusion and some unneeded power creep. Basic works just fine with the "you are proficient in all weapons you are capable of using" rule; it also encourages PCs to diversify in magical items (so the fighter is ditching cool items because he's mastered two-handed swords, etc)

I didn't use any of the skill system mentioned in the book, but I did allow my players to choose four traits for their characters that I'll take into consideration if they try anything. I let the Magic-User be able to just do really minor magic tricks at will--essentially things like changing the temperature of an object slightly, or something like letting him decide to make some part of his body have a faint, magical glow. The Dwarf (who is affectionately referred to mostly as "Beardy") decided to have swindling, gambling, stealing and hardiness be his traits. I'm not entirely sure yet how he plans on using them. I know he mentioned hardiness would mainly affect his character's getting drunk. My plan is not have these things affect the actual mechanical aspects of the game, but just be minor things for me to take into consideration as the DM in various situations, effecting the outcome only where I think it makes sense or applies. This was partly in an attempt to make the RC game feel like it really is "our" game in addition to being Dungeons and Dragons. I guess I'll find out if it was dumb or not.

The skill system in the RC is pretty much "What do I know" ability checks. Again, not needed, but I prefer them to not having a skill system at all, esp when I get "How do I do X?" questions...

I'm kind of planning on including some 1 and possible 2e stuff in the game as it goes on. I know it'll take some conversion, but really, even if I don't convert it I don't think the players will notice. I like the idea of a modular, kitbashed, as they say, D&D game. From what people have said, it sounds like that's the way many people used to play, and probably still do.

Heh, I fondly recall playing White Plume Mountain using the RC, so feel free. 2e-style rangers and bards would work well (adapted to match RC's style) and most 1e monsters should work with minimum fuss. Just be careful about magic items and spells; Basic D&D doesn't have a lot of multi-function items (like wands of fire with 4-5 fire spells) or complex spells (like summoning) so you have to watch adding new effects that overshadow the game.

If your gung-ho about it, check out some of the Gazetteer line for Mystara; they introduced some new classes and race-classes as well. They're very OOP (they were OOP when the RC was IN print!) but grabbing the PDFs could yeild some interesting things.

Good luck to ya

 

[sjmiller]

In terms of PC survival:

Even so, less than half of 1st level characters make it to 2nd level.

Wow, really? In both BD&D and AD&D I don't think I ever lost a 1st level character. Now, 2nd level characters died a lot, for some reason. Maybe we just ran away more than most.

 

[mmadsen]

In both BD&D and AD&D I don't think I ever lost a 1st level character.

We routinely had characters with names like Bilbo III. Only a tiny fraction of starting characters survived to second level. Some of those made it to third. From there on out they were pretty safe -- until someone wanted to try out a new module they'd just bought.