Moldvay/Cook's B/X D&D vs. Mentzer/Allston's BECM/RC D&D?

[diaglo]

Having run stuff designed for classic D&D with C&C: Using the Mystara stuff with C&C instead of the RC is almost trivial.

Besides, if you've got everything, some of that Mystara stuff is 2e. One could argue that 2e to C&C is an easier conversion than 2e to RC.

But the real point is that RC & C&C are similar enough that it hardly warrants the term "conversion".

I'd hold out for the C&C PHB, though. (As I am, in fact, doing myself.)

On the other hand, when all is said & done, I still prefer classic D&D to C&C.

i'm not a fan of Mystara. nor was i that impressed by C&C. since as RFisher says it is closer to RC and to d02.

C&C didn't go far enough back to the roots for my tastes.

 

[rogueattorney]

Chiming in on what some others have said... Taking the Basic and Expert levels in isolation, there isn't a whole lot of difference between the Moldvay/Cook and Mentzer versions of the rules. It's really only freaky B/X D&D fans like me who even notice. People mix and match the game products for the two rules-sets all the time and usually don't even notice the differences. When the differences are noted, the general solution is to decide which (xp, saving throw, to hit, whatever) chart to use and use it.

The main difference is that from levels 6-14 the M/C pc's max out on their abilities, while Mentzer pc's do not. The Mentzer pc's, afterall, need someplace to go during levels 15 to 36. The effect is that mid- to high- level characters are slightly more powerful in M/C, especially the cleric.

The way in which magic-users learn spells/use Read Magic/use scrolls/research is different as well, with the Mentzer version being more like AD&D, and M/C being more restrictive on learning, but less restrictive on researching.

However, the main difference is in the presentation. M/C is more straight forward. Mentzer is more of a tutorial. For that reason, experienced gamers would probably like M/C better, and those who've never gamed before would like Mentzer better.

Obviously, when you add on the high level and optional stuff from the Companion and Master sets or the RC, the Mentzer rules take on an added dimension. Personally, I've found limited use for this stuff, but it does give you more options to add to your game, and they are quite easy to add into the M/C rules.

I use the Moldvay/Cook rules as the base, and then use the RC as a reference.

R.A.

 

[Samothdm]

Maybe I'm getting my editions all mixed up, but I thought that the later stuff (like the RC era) had things like skills and things that weren't in the earlier B/X era stuff. I seem to remember that happening to the Gazeteers as the time went on, and then ended up at a certain point where, once you added all of the skills and non-weapon proficiencies, there were conversions for migrating to AD&D. I never had the Rules Cyclopedia, though, so I'm just talking from what I remember, which seems that the RC had more rules options than the original B/X stuff.

 

[rogueattorney]

Maybe I'm getting my editions all mixed up, but I thought that the later stuff (like the RC era) had things like skills and things that weren't in the earlier B/X era stuff. I seem to remember that happening to the Gazeteers as the time went on, and then ended up at a certain point where, once you added all of the skills and non-weapon proficiencies, there were conversions for migrating to AD&D. I never had the Rules Cyclopedia, though, so I'm just talking from what I remember, which seems that the RC had more rules options than the original B/X stuff.

Yeah, the Rules Cyclopedia had a skills system that was tacked on. It originated in the Gazetteer series, and was similar to the 1e system from Oriental Adventures. It's not heavily integrated into the system and can be used or tossed with abandon.

Pretty much everything else in the RC appeared in one of the 4 Mentzer box sets. Many of the rules from the later box sets such as Weapon Mastery, the proto-prestige classes, and demi-human attack ranks are like the skills system in that they are not integral to the system and can be used or dropped easily.

R.A.

 

[Akrasia]

Having run stuff designed for classic D&D with C&C: Using the Mystara stuff with C&C instead of the RC is almost trivial.
...

Yes, using your "Known World" material with C&C should be a breeze! In fact, I am interested in running a Norse campaign using the "Northern Reaches" GAZ with C&C once I get the chance.

I would recommend either the RC or C&C.

RC is nice because it includes everything you need in a single hardback book (convenient and complete, and more durable than the soft-bound B/X/C/M booklets). As RFisher mentioned, it also includes all the optional rules for D&D that were introduced through the years. I think it is nice to have them all in one place (I personally like the "death's door" and "unlimited demi-human progression" options).

If you own all the Gazeteers and don't mind flipping through many books to find information, then the M/C B/X sets would certainly suffice (and the art in M/C is the best IMO, but I am an unrepentant Erol Otus and Jeff Dee fan).

Don't get the Holmes Basic Set. Contrary to what some have suggested, it does differ in some noteworthy ways from the Moldvay and Mentzer versions (e.g. more complex alignment system, different spell descriptions, etc.). The Moldvay Expert rules includes a "conversion" section, but really you may as well just not get it at all and save yourself the trouble.

As much as I love the RC, though, I think you should take a look at the C&C PHB when it comes out. Like the RC, C&C PHB is complete (all the rules you need to play the game in one book), and even shorter than the RC. In fact, it really is a "rules lite" system (in contrast I would say that the RC is "rules medium" and 3.x D&D "rules heavy; it is even "rules liter" than M/C B/X rules).

And unlike RC D&D, C&C will be "in print" and thus actively supported. It uses the single d20 mechanism to resolve all tasks.

But either RC D&D or C&C makes for a great, fast-paced game IMO.

 

[hero4hire]

I mean, the Paladin/Knight/Avenger was probably the first D&D "prestige class"!

I had always considered First Edition D&D Bard to be the first prestige class.

Hrm...

 

[diaglo]

I had always considered First Edition D&D Bard to be the first prestige class.

Hrm...

IMNSHO, the OD&D paladin is the first PrC.

introduced in Supplement I Greyhawk(1975)

long before the Bard(1976) made an appearance in The Strategic Review. and longer still then the 1edADnD Bard made an appearance in the PHB (1978)

edit: converted and to an

 

[kengar]

You mean the three Basic D&D's:

Holmes
Moldvay
Mentzer

Holmes is the closest to OD&D. Moldvay is a revision of that (with some simplification of the combat and alignment system) that extended it with the Expert rules. Mentzer made it more user friendly by splitting books into Player's and DM's, and expanding beyond 14th level as was promised in the Moldvay edition. The Mentzer version eventually introduced additional class options and skills (in the Companion rulebook and beyond). All told, though, the rules are virtually indistinguishable -- they just get rearranged and polished with each revision. You could play a game with three players each using a different Basic rulebook and no one would be the wiser.

I think that Holmes was intended more as a "prelude" to 1e AD&D. The Moldvay/Cook/Mentzer editions were part the "continuation" of OD&D (with significant changes, of course). The two product lines (AD&D and "Classic" D&D) ran side-by-side until about the introduction of 2e. IIRC, that is.

I prefer Moldvay/Cook for presentation & organizational reasons. Also the Erol Otus artwork. I've never had much use for my copies of Companion or Master supplements because I've never had a campaign run that long (14th level -the upper end of Cook's Expert book- takes a looong time to reach).

 

[Alan Shutko]

Actually, the later D&D Gazetteers and the Rules Cyclopedia had conversion info to and from AD&D 2e. I think it was around 1993 when the last D&D products were put out, and they did the bungled Mystara 2e conversion.

 

[RFisher]

Since I guess I hadn't said it in this thread before, I will now: Probably the biggest reason I prefer M/C is that the PCs' abilities max out around 14th level. I like this because I don't want to delay their gratification so long & because I think high level play should have almost no focus on improving abilities.

Well, the biggest reason might be because I already own the M/C books. Or nostalgia. But I think the above, combined with the fact that I don't feel a need for any of the extra stuff, is why I haven't acquired an RC yet.