Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Alzrius" data-source="post: 8200987" data-attributes="member: 8461">The <a href="https://www.drivethrurpg.com/product/17171/DD-Rules-Cyclopedia-Basic?affiliate_id=820" target="_blank">Rules Cyclopedia</a> (1991) is an excellent product, one of the very best in D&D's history. I got it shortly after picking up one of the early 1990's introductory D&D boxed sets, and it kept me captivated for a very long time.One thing to note is that it's in fact a compilation of the first four of the BECMI boxed sets. That is, Frank Mentzer's <a href="https://www.drivethrurpg.com/product/116578/DD-Basic-Set--Players-Manual-BECMI-ed-Basic?affiliate_id=820" target="_blank">Basic</a> (1983), <a href="https://www.drivethrurpg.com/product/116581/Dungeons--Dragons-Expert-Set-Rulebook-BECMI-ed-Basic?affiliate_id=820" target="_blank">Expert</a> (1983), <a href="https://www.drivethrurpg.com/product/17165/DD-Companion-Set-BECMI-Ed-Basic?affiliate_id=820" target="_blank">Companion</a> (1984), and <a href="https://www.drivethrurpg.com/product/17167/DD-Master-Set-BECMI-ed-Basic?affiliate_id=820" target="_blank">Master</a> (1985) rules. It didn't, however, try to include the "I" part of the acronym: the <a href="https://www.drivethrurpg.com/product/17166/DD-Immortals-Set-BECMI-ed-Basic?affiliate_id=820" target="_blank">Immortals</a> (1986) set (that, instead, got its own redux release as the 1992 <a href="https://www.drivethrurpg.com/product/284479/Wrath-of-the-Immortals?affiliate_id=820" target="_blank">Wrath of the Immortals</a> boxed set).While those boxed sets easily predate AD&D 2E (1989), there were several iterations of the game that came out before them in turn. Strictly speaking, Tom Moldvay's <a href="https://www.drivethrurpg.com/product/110274/DD-Basic-Set-Rulebook-B-X-ed-Basic?affiliate_id=820" target="_blank">Basic Set</a> (1981) and Marsh and Cook's <a href="https://www.drivethrurpg.com/product/110792/DD-Expert-Set-Rulebook-B-X-ed-Basic?affiliate_id=820" target="_blank">Expert Set</a> (1981) both predate BECMI, for instance, even though most of the rules are identical. AD&D 1E was released across three years, with the <a href="https://www.drivethrurpg.com/product/17002/Monster-Manual-1e?affiliate_id=820" target="_blank">Monster Manual</a> coming out in 1977, followed by the <a href="https://www.drivethrurpg.com/product/17003/Players-Handbook-1e?affiliate_id=820" target="_blank">Players Handbook</a> in 1978, and finally the <a href="https://www.drivethrurpg.com/product/17004/Dungeon-Masters-Guide-1e?affiliate_id=820" target="_blank">Dungeon Masters Guide</a> in 1979. 1977 was also when the original Basic Set came out, written by Dr. J. Eric Holmes.And of course, <a href="https://www.drivethrurpg.com/product/28306/ODD-Dungeons--Dragons-Original-Edition-0e?affiliate_id=820" target="_blank">Original D&D</a> came out in 1974.With regard to the Rules Cyclopedia specifically, I haven't opened my copy in a long time, but I had several thoughts on the points you posted:As I recall, while even back then those were being presented as issues of personal disposition, the use of those three alone was an artifact of their presentations in the fiction of Michael Moorcock (who cribbed them from Poul Anderson, though Anderson didn't have a Neutral that I recall) where they were representations of cosmic forces; if you were Lawful, for instance, you were in the "camp" of the Lawful mode of the universe, which sort of helped to explain that whole "alignment tongue" thing...even if it still seemed like a silly idea (which, as I recall, actually made it into AD&D 1E for all nine alignments).Starting with the Companion set, there was a shift toward rulership rather than just perpetual exploration and treasure-acquisition. That wasn't necessarily retirement, however; as much as you could call it <a href="https://grognardia.blogspot.com/2009/03/on-loss-of-d-endgame.html" target="_blank">D&D's endgame</a>, there were still a lot of adventures to be had while practicing domain rulership. It was just that the setup, approach, and potential resolutions were different.A lot of those were from earlier editions of D&D (e.g. the monk and druid were in the AD&D 1E PHB), and BECMI saw them being fitted into a different framework to account for how "Basic D&D" had become its own thing by that point.I can't remember if the Rules Cyclopedia kept XP-for-treasure, but the loss of morale from later editions of D&D struck me as a net loss for the game. I understand why they did it; the shift to gaining XP from killing monsters meant that enemies that ran turned into a logic puzzle as to whether you got XP for monsters that you mostly beat but which survived and escaped (and if you then got XP again if you tracked them down and killed them later). Plus the whole issue of the impracticality of taking prisoners, the trustworthiness (or lack thereof) of monsters who offer to join you, etc. Even so, I still miss those rules.Everyone hates THAC0, which always struck me as odd, because it was just a matter of "Your THAC0, minus the enemy's AC, equals the number (or higher) that you need to roll to hit them on a d20." It was certainly easier than pages of combat matrices like in AD&D 1E.Please note my use of affiliate links in this post.</blockquote>

Verification