The New Rules Cyclopedia

[AFGNCAAP]

As a 3.5 version product? Nope, can't see it. Though the core 3 books cover a lot of material, I think it covers a lot of fundamental material for the game. And the Rules Cyclopedia wasn't a beginner's set, it was a compilation of all of the OD&D rules into 1 book (rather than having to go through 4+ boxed sets to get it all).

However, as a 4th ed. idea? I'd like it. Then again, I think D&D would need a bit of reworking/reinventing as 4th ed. for this to work.

• generic core classes (either like UA's generic classes, or possibly a generic base/core-class-per-stat ala d20 Modern);
• pared down races (focusing more on hard bonuses for genetic traits [e.g., low-light vision/darkvision, stat mods, etc.], and player-choice bonus selections for learned/cultural traits [e.g., elf prof. with bows & swords, weapon familiarity, attack or dodge bonus vs. certain opponents, etc.]);
• reduced number of monsters (i.e., eliminating a lot of the "AKA monsters" as I like to call them);
• slightly reduced equipment lists (e.g., just 1 type of weapon instead of the light & heavy versions of them);
• pared down spell lists (perhaps being able to pick & choose energy type for attack spells instead of having multiple spells with variances based on form & energy type);
• maybe more chart-based direct info & not chart-&-text-combo info; etc.

I think it'd be a good option, esp. for the new edition.

 

[Bert the Ogre]

Rules Cyclopedia vs. Basic Set vs. Hardback Editions

This opinion comes from an OLD schooler, so take it with the appropriate sized grain of salt...

I started out with the Eric Holmes Boxed Set, then received the core books for Christmas 1982. Later I bought the Moldvey/Cook boxed sets, and D/Led the Rules Cyclopedia. I skipped over 90% of 2nd Edition, and went straight into 3rd Ed. I liked, and STILL like the Moldvey/Cook Basic/Expert editions best for the following reasons:

Simplicity and flexability
Price

As a teenager, I didn't have boatloads of money, and to me the Basic/Expert Boxed Sets were the best bang for my buck. The game included everything needed except for minis, and back then you had the choice of buying lead/pewter minis, or scrounging among the cheap plastic toys at the toy store. I usually bought one or two lead/pewter minis to represent MY characters, and used whatever I could scrounge up for the rest.

The BXD&D boxed sets included around 200 monsters, 80 or so spells, lots of equipment, suggestions for world development, two free modules, dice, and for those with access to a copier and White-Out, character sheets! Not bad for I think $20.00 for both boxed sets!

I did buy the Orange Basic Set during the WoTC D&D rerelease, and later the big Basic Set with the minis. Although all the Basic Sets were meant to introduce the game, it seems like the only sets to actually allow play beyond a few sessions was the old BXD&D boxed sets. The 3.x editions were far to limited in monsters/spells/equipment to allow much more than a taste of the game.

I'd like to see a "New" version of the BXD&D edition come out for 3.99 or when 4.0 comes out. A boxed set with dice, a few minis, a decent selection of spells, equipment and monsters, and maybe even a "free" module. A version that allows you to play as long as you like, but still act as an introduction to the much larger worlds that AD&D/D&D 3rd. Ed. can become!

I know that's a mighty tall order for twenty/twenty-five bucks, but once you have the boxed set, it's not that hard of a leap to the hardbacks.

 

[Cthulhudrew]

(Heck, we could do it ourselves as a "mini"-SRD. Would that be OGL legal?)

Sadly, as I understand it, due to the lack of being able to include things like experience and advancement, no. But otherwise, I think you're right that it could be pretty easily done from the SRD.

 

[Cthulhudrew]

Honestly, I feel we already have this. It's called d20 Modern.

Interesting. I've only ever glanced through the d20 Modern book, but from the way you describe it, I might have to check again. It does sound remarkably similar to the sort of RC type of book we've been talking about.

I'm wondering if formatting might account for some of the differences (notably the bestiary sizes). I know that d20 monsters definitely take up more room than the BECMI stat blocks ever did, but I also know that the RC used a three-column format and much smaller margins than do most current RPG products (two-column, wide margins). That would account for quite a bit of extra material (though I'm no expert on printing costs, so it might be more expensive. I seem to recall that one reason TSR products switched to their two-columnar and huuuuge margin formats was to cut costs. Though I think it may have also been to cover a lack of material to fill books and/or rushed products back in their not-so-glorious days at the end.)

 

[Xyanthon]

Much as some others have said, I'd like to see a stripped down version with 4 classes (ala D&D for Dummies), some world building advice, monsters, some simplified mechanics (maybe do away with AoO and the like, simplified feats, more general skills) that are still compatable with the main game, only humans, elves, dwarves, and halflings as playable races, etc. I guess I'd like to pull concepts presented in the new D&D Basic game, D&D for Dummies, and Dungeon Mastering for Dummies into a streamlined whole that was somewhere on the order of 300 pages or so. That I could definately go for.

 

[Gentlegamer]

In its waning days, following the publication of the Immortal Rules boxed set, OD&D got repackaged in an all-in-one Rules Cyclopedia book with character rules, monsters, DM info and the like between two hardcover covers.

The Rules Cyclopedia was the Mentzer BECM (but not I) rules collected in one book, not OD&D. [/nitpick]

 

[Philotomy Jurament]

I'm not interested in a 3.X version, but I'd take a look at a 4E version (especially if the rules were more like the original RC version than like 3.X).

 

[eyebeams]

It wouldn't need to be too big. Arcana Evolved is a decent size and is complete, if light on the monsters side. D20 Modern's not bad either.

 

[Ghendar]

Couldn't you trim down the PHB to four classes (cleric, fighter, rogue, sorcerer), cut the spell list in half (or shorter), stick in two dozen monsters and a quarter of the magic items from the DMG and get pretty close to Rules Cyclopedia size, though?

In all seriousness, with the PH in existence filling this niche, what would be WotC's financial incentive to even make such a product?

And bedsides, doesn't the D&D Basic Set serve as an introductory product to D&D? When I demoed it at Gencon last year, it sure seemed that way.

 

[Nikosandros]

Sadly, as I understand it, due to the lack of being able to include things like experience and advancement, no. But otherwise, I think you're right that it could be pretty easily done from the SRD.

If you don't brand it as d20, you can include experience and advancement rules.