OD&D or RC?

[Ry]

OK, I've got both OD&D (1974 3 books) and the Rules Cyclopedia in .pdf form now, and I see the nostalgic appeal of OD&D but I hear good things about the completeness of the Cyclopedia. (Disclaimer: I was born in 1981)

The main question:
Which one's better for a campaign, and why?

Extra Questions:
Can stat blocks fit on playing cards?
How much is NOT d20 roll high?
How does it handle player characters of different levels?
What's the sweet spot range?
How does it handle player characters of different levels across the sweet spot?

 

[Geron Raveneye]

What kind of campaign are you looking for, then? RC D&D is basically set to take characters from local adventure seekers through regional heroes towards political power players and finally (as coup de grace) towards immortality, and delivers enough tools for each stage to make it possible.

 

[Remathilis]

I much prefer RC to OD&D due to general spit and polish (though its by no means perfect).

 

[Vigilance]

RC is just an amazing rule book.

I would especially pick the RC PDF over the OD&D PDF, which has some pretty bad errors, like halves of sentences missing.

 

[an_idol_mind]

I would recommend the Rules Cyclopedia. Not only is it a more complete game, but it is also laid out much better than the original box, and has fewer contraditctions built into the rules.

Both Cyclopedia stat blacks and oD&D stat blocks should be able to fit onto note cards, although a long spell list can change that. They're about equal in terms of d20 use -- thief skills are percentile, and ability score checks (roll low on 1d20) replace skills (although I don't think ability checks are actually mentioned in oD&D).

As long as you've got a party within two or three levels of each other, there shouldn't be much problem in handling a variety of levels. Each level is not as much of a jump in power as in 3rd edition. The sweet spot for oD&D seems to be in the levels 1-10 range. Rules Cyclopedia has a similar sweet spot, but the BECMI rules it's based on is designed to accommodate different types of adventures at each level. In general, levels 1-3 are dungeon crawling, levels 4-14 are wilderness exploration, levels 15-25 are nation building, and levels 26+ are extraplanar, epic games. If you go with the Cyclopedia, I'd recommend checking out the Mentzer boxed sets that correspond to the given level group you're running.

 

[MrFilthyIke]

Both are great, but as a gamer probably used to a more polished and complete product you'll get more use and enjoyment out of the RC.

 

[tankschmidt]

OK, I've got both OD&D and the Rules Compendium in .pdf form now, and I see the nostalgic appeal of OD&D but I hear good things about the completeness of the Rules Compendium. (Disclaimer: I was born in 1981)

The main question:
Which one's better for a campaign, and why?

Extra Questions:
Can stat blocks fit on playing cards?
How much is NOT d20 roll high?
How does it handle player characters of different levels?
What's the sweet spot range?
How does it handle player characters of different levels across the sweet spot?

I found myself in your exact situation a couple months ago. I was sure that I wanted to run a back-to-the-basics D&D campaign, but I wasn't sure what system to run it with. So I read through the original 3LB, Moldvay B/X, and RCD&D. In the end I chose the RC because I wanted to try to keep houserules to a minimum, and you really can't do that with OD&D. There's just so much that you have to come up with on your own. And that's not a bad thing at all! It's just not what I want right now. Let me try to answer your questions:

1. As to which one is better for a campaign, there is no answer. Either is perfectly suited to playing a full out campaign with dungeon and wilderness adventures.

2. The stat blocks in either version are approximately the same, and either can easily fit on a playing card. This gets a little more complicated in RCD&D if you use the optional weapon mastery and general skills rules. Any monsters who take advantage of those rules will require a little more work and space.

3. It's easier to ask how much IS d20 roll high. In either game, you pretty much have attack rolls and saving throws. Most of the other rolling in OD&D is with the d6. A lot of d6 rolling is also used in RCD&D, but attribute checks are made with d20 rolling low. Thief skills, of course, are percentages (if you even use Supplement I).

4. I don't have much experience with this, but it was definitely more accepted in those days to bring along characters of different levels. Somewhere in the RC it says something about keeping the PC's within four or five levels of one another.

5. The sweet spot for either game is really levels 4 - 10. I think that's probably true for every D&D game ever invented.

6. Again, not much experience with this sort of thing.

And by the way, it's called the Rules Cyclopedia!!

 

[WayneLigon]

The main question:
Which one's better for a campaign, and why?

The Rules Compendium is much, much better for any sort of extended campaign. Not only are all the rules in one compact place, they have also been supplemented with some excellent optional rules.

Can stat blocks fit on playing cards?
Easily. Depending on how good your memory is and if you don't want to list every picky bit of equipment a person has, you could probably get 2 or 3 people on a 3x5 card.

How much is NOT d20 roll high?
Hell, I don't remember. It always varies. Saving throws are roll-under, I think.

How does it handle player characters of different levels?
Not worth crap, just like pretty much every version of D&D Once there is more than a 2 level gap between people, expecially at lower levels, the lower level people die like flies.

Multi-classed characters, by the way, usually count as the sum of their classes -1; they'll on average be about a level below other party members but around ummm fifth or so they tend to even out because of the large amount of XP you need to go up levels. Even people who lose levels eventually catch up in levels and then they'll see-saw back and forth since they'll be entering a level a few sessions before others leave it.

What's the sweet spot range?
Well, we never had a game go past about 9-10th since that took about 18 months or more to acheive, so to me the 'sweet spot' ran about 3-9th. Right about 3rd level you stopped being scared of your own shadow and things got much easier the instant you hit 5th since that's when the wizard gets his area-of-effect mass damage spells and can carry the party though large encounters.

How does it handle player characters of different levels across the sweet spot?
See above; there's no real difference in sweet spot and non-sweet spot unless you have a campaign that lasts an unusually long period of time or if you just happen to start at higher levels. Note that because XP in basic D&D doubles every level but the amount of stuff you get rewarded for stays roughly the same you'll spend months at the same level. In other words if it took you a year to get to 9th, then it'll take about that amount of time to get to, say, 13th.

 

[WSmith]

The main question:
Which one's better for a campaign, and why?

Both are equally suitable for long term campaigning. The difference is that if using the OD&D books, Vol I-III, you might have to use the supplements, Dragon and Strategic Review Articles (found the the Dragon archive CD Rom), other sources like Judges Guild products, and some well crafted house rules to get the feel of the game you want. I say might because I am putting together a OD&D game based solely on the three little books, with a few of my house rules thrown in. Knowing your involvement with Microlite 20, you could pull this off if you want to. The Rules Cyclopedia is an amazing book, and complete with lots of optional rules. There are way too many optional rules for my taste, but a lot of folks I have met that didn't have actual gaming experience with the older editions of D&D, and that tried 3rd edition and didn't care for it for whatever reasons, seemed to really love the RC. I think the reason is, and this is completely for another thread, is that the Rules Cyc. is as much (if not more) an influence on 3rd edition D&D than 2nd edition was. I won't derail this thread with that topic though.

Extra Questions:
Can stat blocks fit on playing cards?

Yes to both, although I think with RC D&D you might want a little bigger card, just cause of the more info available.

How much is NOT d20 roll high?

If I read your question correct, in OD&D I cannot think of any instance where to rolling of a d20 with the intention of rolling low is the goal. In RC D&D, the only instance I can off the top of my head remember is when using the optional ability check (when you roll a d20 and it has to be equal or less than the relevant ability score.) I don't use this method. There are times when rolling low is good like morale but the dice are different, (2d6 for morale.) Saving Throws are always roll the highest possible on a d20, as are attacks.

How does it handle player characters of different levels?

Very well, but the edge on this one goes to OD&D. In Vol I, everyone uses a d6 for hit dice so the spread isn't that big. Even if using Supplement I Greyhawk with different hit dice types for each class, the range is not that great that PCs of different levels won't be out of sorts. Keep in mind by default, in either edition, hit points are rolled and not given. So you might have a 3rd level fighter with 9 HP and a 2nd level magic user with 8 HP due to some lucking HD rolling.

What's the sweet spot range?

I say with every pre-modern edition of D&D, the sweet spot starts at 5th level, and as cheesy as it sounds, because that is where not only does the survivability increase dramatically , but the most sought after spells become available, (i.e., lighting bolt and fireball to name two.) It ends around 9-12th level depending on which pre-modern version D&D you are playing.

How does it handle player characters of different levels across the sweet spot?

See above. Pretty much the same.

 

[diaglo]

OD&D(1974) is the only true game. All the other editions are just poor imitations of the real thing.