The RC and OD&D are both very good and you can't really go wrong with either of them. I'd recommend getting both, reading both, and deciding which is a better fit with the sort of campaign you want to run. The RC has a lot more rules, which can be a good thing or a bad thing, depending on your perspective. If you want a campaign that goes up to level 36 (as opposed to plateauing around level 10-12) then the RC is definitely the way to go. If you want simple/straightforward dungeon- and wilderness-crawling then either will work, though OD&D probably has the edge (both because you'd be ignoring large chunks of the RC, and because (IMO at least) OD&D has better instructions and advice for running this sort of game).
OD&D or RC?
- Thread starter Ry
- Start date
WSmith
First Post
I can't remember where but T. Foster might know where to find the threads about discussions of the original campaigns, i.e., Blackmoor and Greyhawk. This practice was very common, and might be yet another reason to choose the original set, (since what I posted before about the smaller gap between PCs of different levels isn't so great.Ryan Stoughton said:
If you do go with OD&D, lets us know. We have a lot of links for you to check out.
rogueattorney
Adventurer
I would suggest the better rule set for you largely depends on whether you'd rather add on to or subtract from your main body of rules.
The OD&D rules are skeletal in places, particularly the combat rules. A whole bunch is left up to the DM to figure out for himself or to adapt from other products. It's really designed to be a minimalistic baseline to let you graft on your own things to your heart's content. Whether you roll a d20 at all (aside from savings throws) really depends on how the DM is running combat. A game more stongly based on the Chainmail rules instead of the "alternative combat rules" would use a lot of d6's. As far as I can remember, there isn't a single case in the rules where there's a call to roll low on a d20.
The RC is much more "complete" from the modern rpg'er's perspective. Personally, there's a lot in there that I wouldn't use (the optional skills section and weapon mastery to begin with). If you're using the whole kitchen sink of rules you very well might find that you need more than a 3"x5" for your character after you start getting up there in levels, and there'd certainly be a lot more questions on high versus low rolls.
As for levels, OD&D pretty much assumes characters cap out around 10th or 12th level. That's not a "hard" cap by any means. The RC tries to have rules for characters from 1st to 36th level, although I sometimes think that the RC's focus on high levels takes away from the lower levels... Where a 4th level fighter used to be a "Hero," he's pretty much a peon under the level assumptions in RC D&D.
The OD&D rules are skeletal in places, particularly the combat rules. A whole bunch is left up to the DM to figure out for himself or to adapt from other products. It's really designed to be a minimalistic baseline to let you graft on your own things to your heart's content. Whether you roll a d20 at all (aside from savings throws) really depends on how the DM is running combat. A game more stongly based on the Chainmail rules instead of the "alternative combat rules" would use a lot of d6's. As far as I can remember, there isn't a single case in the rules where there's a call to roll low on a d20.
The RC is much more "complete" from the modern rpg'er's perspective. Personally, there's a lot in there that I wouldn't use (the optional skills section and weapon mastery to begin with). If you're using the whole kitchen sink of rules you very well might find that you need more than a 3"x5" for your character after you start getting up there in levels, and there'd certainly be a lot more questions on high versus low rolls.
As for levels, OD&D pretty much assumes characters cap out around 10th or 12th level. That's not a "hard" cap by any means. The RC tries to have rules for characters from 1st to 36th level, although I sometimes think that the RC's focus on high levels takes away from the lower levels... Where a 4th level fighter used to be a "Hero," he's pretty much a peon under the level assumptions in RC D&D.
Ryan Stoughton said:
I'll say this -- all my games are roll d20 & add upwards, and have been since before 3E. In general I run OD&D/AD&D by a "Target 20" system, i.e., roll d20 + bonuses, if the result is 20 or more, you succeed. For example:
Attacks are d20 + attack bonus + target AC. Attack bonus is equal to fighter level or monster HD, etc. Target AC is as given in the rules. If total is 20 or more, you hit.
Ability checks are d20 + ability score. If result is 20 or more, you succeed.
grodog
Hero
WSmith said:
Here are a bunch of chronological threads on DF about John Siebel's group playing at Gary's table in Castle Greyhawk a few years ago:
http://www.dragonsfoot.org/forums/viewtopic.php?t=9622
http://www.dragonsfoot.org/forums/viewtopic.php?t=9771
http://www.dragonsfoot.org/forums/viewtopic.php?t=9956
http://www.dragonsfoot.org/forums/viewtopic.php?t=10112
http://www.dragonsfoot.org/forums/viewtopic.php?t=10573
http://www.dragonsfoot.org/forums/viewtopic.php?t=10738
http://www.dragonsfoot.org/forums/viewtopic.php?t=10862
http://www.dragonsfoot.org/forums/viewtopic.php?t=10890
http://www.dragonsfoot.org/forums/viewtopic.php?t=10965
http://www.dragonsfoot.org/forums/viewtopic.php?t=15269
http://www.dragonsfoot.org/forums/viewtopic.php?t=16810
Jack Daniel
Legend
The RC remains my system of choice to this day. It's certainly just as easy to house-rule as older versions of Old/Classic D&D, which works for my DMing style.
I generally prefer to avoid the complexities of both weapon mastery and general skills. (In place of general skills and %-based thief skills, I invented a really simple skill system based on d6 rolls, which tends to jive better with the way a lot of task checks work in Old/Classic.) As for some of the other additions to the RC that make it more "complex" than its forerunners, though (like the mass warfare engine, fighter combat options, and playable mystics), I find them to be downright indispensable to my campaign!
I generally prefer to avoid the complexities of both weapon mastery and general skills. (In place of general skills and %-based thief skills, I invented a really simple skill system based on d6 rolls, which tends to jive better with the way a lot of task checks work in Old/Classic.) As for some of the other additions to the RC that make it more "complex" than its forerunners, though (like the mass warfare engine, fighter combat options, and playable mystics), I find them to be downright indispensable to my campaign!
Similar Threads
