D&D Basic / Advanced Dungeons and Dragons

Do any of you user have experience playing D&D using the Rules Cyclopedia as your system? The book itself seems like really cool oddity from TSR to have on the shelf, but was wondering how the system actually plays? I've never played much old school D&D at all but have been really wanting to get my group to try it.

Also general D&D / AD&D 1st ed thread.

Other urls found in this thread:

acaeum.com/library/cyclopedia_errata.pdf
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

Rules Cyclopedia is BECMI, not AD&D.

>Also general D&D / AD&D 1st ed thread.
Check the catalog next time.

>Rules Cyclopedia is BECMI, not AD&D.
He actually says "D&D Basic / Advanced Dungeons and Dragons" in the subject. Not quite sure why 2e was specifically excluded in this line though: "Also general D&D / AD&D 1st ed thread."

>Check the catalog next time.
If you're not that familiar with /osr/, you might not know to look for it, or you might think you'd get a better response creating your own thread (while in actuality, I think you'll get a worse response more times than not, as I think the grogs are more likely than others to keep themselves to themselves). So yeah, asking your questions in the /osr/ general might not be a bad idea (though it is admittedly getting a bit long in the tooth now).

Anyway, as far as the subject goes, B/X is more my thing when it comes to Basic D&D, so I don't have much experience with BECMI or the RC, which I think add more extraneous shit than is necessary, moving the game at least partway in the direction of AD&D (though it's still a decent bit more streamlined than that).

As far as AD&D vs. Basic goes, AD&D has more options (more classes, more spells... more everything, really), but a good deal of clutter, and fiddly stats and restrictions and so forth. I think that Basic is a better game for what it actually covers, though depending on your outlook, it may not cover enough for your tastes. My approach at this point is to selectively port shit from AD&D to Basic, which is pretty easy, as they both use the same core system and are really very similar (AD&D just stacks more shit on top). Of course, Labyrinth Lord's Advanced Edition Companion seeks to marry AD&D's expanded options with Basic's more streamlined core, so that's another way to go. But then you were asking about the RC in any case...

>Rules Cyclopedia is BECMI, not AD&D
ok, knew that

>Check the catalog next time
you ok broh?

>thanks for your thoughtful response. I dig the idea of using Basic and implementing hand picked things from AD&D that work for me.

>not quite sure why 2e was specifically excluded in this line though

I guess I could have included 2nd edition but I mainly am wanting to try the earlier stuff because I havn't played much of that material it at all and want to know more. I would really like to start with basic out of the RC and then once my players have a grip on the rules (a few of my players are pretty green, only 1 other person has any serious gaming experience) and then eventually integrate AD&D stuff or just convert using the tables in the RC when we run an AD&D module.

>Of course, Labyrinth Lord's Advanced Edition Companion seeks to marry AD&D's expanded options with Basic's more streamlined core, so that's another way to go.

From what I have read, ll looks really neat. I am really into playing through Mystara and Greyhawk stuff, isn't it true that ll is pretty much compatible with all of that?

Labyrinth Lord is extremely similar to B/X, and BECMI is really just a slightly tweaked, expanded B/X (and RC is really just a condensed BECMI... minus the I). The significant changes from B/X to RC that I can remember are slowing thief skill progression (so that thief skills go from terrible to abysmal), regularizing the cleric spell progression, giving demi-humans the ability to increase some of their scores after they hit their level cap, covering past level 14, higher level cleric and magic-user spells available, adding a couple of funky bonus classes (mystics and druids are essentially prestige classes), and the optional weapon mastery rules. But overall, this amounts to less of a change to the core rules than many people's house rules.

That pic is for the core LL rules, by the way, not the AEC, though the latter is supposedly design to be compatible with the core rules, allowing you to mix and match characters (having a race-as-class elf in the same party with separate race and class elves, for instance).

RC is broken and full of contradictions and untested stuff, even Mentzer shits on it.
For example, there's only one action per combat round, you either move OR attack. Even if you houserule it so winning initiative means going last, there's still lots of broken things like retreat and casting interruptions - and no way to fix them. Stay away.

It's cool if you play BX and want extra options, but honestly (as someone who plays motherfucking *black box*) - better steal from AD&D.

Level 1-36 progression in Rules Cyclopedia borks thief skills. The character progression from the Basic/Expert set is much more reasonable; I'd suggest using it instead of RC if you want a taste of "Basic" D&D.

Rules Cyclopedia is awesome as far as being a "one book solution" to D&D though, it's something the game has rarely had throughout its history. Even though there are better alternatives to playing that style of game, I wouldn't trade my copy for the world.

Thief skills are screwy anyway. If you roll directly against them with no other checks or considerations, they are dramatically too low, even in B/X. If you factor other things in (an attribute check, or a judgment call based on verbal description--though I don't know how you describe picking locks or hiding in shadows), then it's quite possible that the thief skills will almost be an afterthought, making it really difficult to properly judge their balance.

In any case, one very easy way to boost BECMI/RC skills is simply to use the stats from 5 or 10 levels higher. Since the systems go up to 36, you've got plenty of space before you hit your head. Just look at the probabilities of success and decide where you're comfortable starting, and assign the appropriate level correction. Pic is the RC skills at 7 levels higher, and as you can see, most of them are still below 50% (though when couple with reasonable bonuses for easy traps in low level dungeons and such -- maybe +20% -- these start to look a bit better).

Alternately, if you want to view your thief skills as a sort of "saving throw" after a normal check has failed, you could do something like in this pic, which assumes that normal people get a 2 in 6 chance to do shit, and rolls this into the thief checks, thereby reducing their chance for failure by a third.

To to 3th ed older visions of D&D were miss max rules. There are bad company thought that lead to TSR going bankrupted but It mostly happen due to better systems with better rules came out.

>There are bad company thought that lead to TSR going bankrupted but It mostly happen due to better systems with better rules came out.
Old school D&D certainly has some clunkiness to it -- there's no unified mechanic, and AD&D in particular has a lot of disjointed and unnecessary bullshit -- but 3e fucks up some important shit that old school D&D got right. Take saving throws, for instance. Saving throws get easier and easier to make as you reach higher levels, providing an important counterbalance against the growing power of casters. Speaking of casters, wizards are considerably squishier and don't have the same flexibility which allows 3e casters to completely overshadow their muggle peers.

>thereby reducing their chance for failure by a third.
Not how math works, actually. It's a bit less than a third.

I do thief skills based on AD&D. They start with 20% each, climb 80% and HiS 10%.
Each level you get +5% to all, and can realocate a 5% or 10% from one to another.

This makes it a) simple b) not so sucky while keeping it low-powered c) rollable on a d20 like a save d) meaningful, avoiding pixelbitching and retarded 1% differences between levels.

>Not how math works, actually. It's a bit less than a third.
No... I'm pretty sure it's exactly a third. In order to fail at a task, you'd have to fail at both rolls. So let's say you're a 4th level thief in B/X, and you're trying to open a lock. The book gives your open lock percentage as 30%, which means that your chance to *fail* that check is 70%. Your chance to fail the every-man 2-in-6 check is 4-in-6, or 2/3. Your chance of failing both rolls is thus 2/3 times 70% = 46.67%. Since you're literally multiplying your chance to fail your thief skill by 2/3, it should be obvious that you're reducing the chance of failure by that remaining 1/3 (that is to say, that 2/3 is 1/3 less than 1). But if you don't believe me, do the math and divide 46.67% and you'll get .67%, or 2/3.

Looking at it another way, if you succeed your thief skill roll, it doesn't matter what you make on the 2-in-6 every-man roll. You will have already succeeded. So we just need to look at what happens when you fail your thief skill roll. Well? In that case, you have a 2-in-6 chance to succeed anyway. What's 2-in-6? It's a third. So you have thus reduced your chance to succeed by a third.

>I do thief skills based on AD&D. They start with 20% each, climb 80% and HiS 10%.
>Each level you get +5% to all, and can realocate a 5% or 10% from one to another.
But this gives you a base 25% chance to succeed at most skills when you're first level, which is fucking terrible. Even with a hefty bonus (say 20% for easy trap), you've still got a less than 50/50 chance. Why would you even attempt to disarm a trap if you have a greater chance than not of having the whole thing blow up in your face (either figuratively or literally)? And that's for a really fucking easy trap.

And sure, you can focus more points into one skill, but only at the expense of making others worse.

>This makes it... c) rollable on a d20 like a save d) meaningful, avoiding pixelbitching and retarded 1% differences between levels.
I agree that the granularity of percentile scores isn't really needed here, and approve of the idea of using a d20.

Because this is for Basic D&D, where PCs don't get amazing abilities to do stuff - instead they get fucked chances for solving a task with a roll. On top of that, you only get one roll per task per level (excep attack rolls) -- if you screw it, don't worry: you can try again next level.
However, they have a *100% success chance* if they solve *any task* via role-playing!
It doesn't get much better than that.

>25% chance to succeed at most skills when you're first level
20% at 1st level, but I'd let a player rearrange that 10% at chargen. There's no bonus for easy/hard traps. Oh and there's no auto-success, they cap at 99% instead.

>Why would you even attempt to disarm a trap
Because you're the only one who can do it?
Because you're lazy to poke it until you crack how to open without triggering it? Because there's no time for that? Because stealing treasure in its container its a suboptimal option? Because you suspect forcing the chest will break/spoil the contents? Because the wizard will fry you if you don't?

>point swap
obviously, you take from one into another skill. I was tempted to do it like ability scores (spend 2 to raise 1) but that's just... lame.
Nobody does that at chargen anyway, and we roll 3d6 in order.

>for a really fucking easy trap
Those don't need a roll, I just describe the thief disarming a mechanism with ease.

You could, of course, get fancy and use a different system entirely.

>No... I'm pretty sure it's exactly a third.
might be screwing my notation a bit here,
but the math at leats is good:

P(x) = x
P'(x) = (1/3)+(2x/3)

P(x) + (1/3) ?= P'(x)
x + (1/3) ?= (1/3)+(2x/3)
x ?= (2x/3)
1 ?= (2/3)
1 =/= 2/3

>P'(x) = (1/3)+(2x/3)
to be clear here:

P'(x) = (1/3) + (1- (1/3) )x

We already have a thread about this

see

First.

We already have a post telling us we already have a thread about this, dude.

I wish they would reprint it with incorporating the errata rules

There are some pretty big omissions: acaeum.com/library/cyclopedia_errata.pdf

>you might think you'd get a better response creating your own thread (while in actuality, I think you'll get a worse response more times than not, as I think the grogs are more likely than others to keep themselves to themselves).
>So yeah, asking your questions in the /osr/ general might not be a bad idea
I really hate this desu
Geberals don't generate the kind of discussion a thread does. People with negative experiences come into threads, while in generals it's all just fanboys.

Besides that, it's almost impossible to sustain a conversation in a general because people are constantly starting new subjects. You'll get maybe 5 replies, if you get any replies at all

Tl;dr generals are cancer

>Tl;dr generals are cancer
You have to go to to find geberals more cancerous than *THIS* thread.

>Tl;dr generals are cancer
/osrg/ is quite nice actually (usually [not this one in particular])

Thanks for this, but...
"Look over at the third column section

Movement

, under the sub heading

Encounter Speed.

Put a line through the last sentence that
reads

...and still make his attack this round.

That rule is wrong, as we have just seen on pa
ge 102! Confusing? Simply, you can't
move and attack at the same time unless you're within 5 feet of your opponent (you can only perform one action in a round).
"
Honestly, why? The person who wrote this 'errata' didn't playtested it. Using this system screws combat, and makes winning initiative bad for you.

>Orcs open the door! *roll* You have initiative
>we charge!
>you close in, but can't attack this turn. the orcs cut your faces.
etc etc

why defend this thread?
OP specifically says

>Also general D&D / AD&D 1st ed thread.
>general

I don't follow your notation, but this looks really wrong to me.

>P'(x) = (1/3) + (1- (1/3) )x
You have 1/3 existing off by itself -- not 1/3 of a thing, just the value .333333 -- and I can't think of any reason why this would be.

In any case, I can show you I'm right. To simplify things, let's represent your thief skill as a d10 roll instead of a d% roll. Let's say you have a 7-in-10 chance to succeed your thief skill roll. You still have a 2-in-6 chance to succeed the "every man" roll. In order to fail a check, you must fail both rolls. The pic here lays out every possibility. You can literally count the results. Without the d6 roll, you have a 3-in-10 chance to fail. With the d6 roll factored in, you have a 6-in-30 chance to fail, or 2-in-10. 2-in-10 is two-thirds of 3-in-10, right? So it's been reduced by a third.

P' (that is, Probability prime (or, altered Probability)) has two components:
a "one third chance of success (2-in-6)" and a "two thirds chance (failing the 2-in-6) of thief skill chance"

that's from me misreading , but the example is still a fine example

If you'd rather I rework for your specific description


P(x) = x
P'(x) = (2/3)+(P(x)/3) thereby reducing their chance for failure by a third.

F(x) - (1/3) ?= F'(x)
F(x) - (1/3) ?= (F(x))/3
3F(x) - 1 ?= F(x)
2F(x) ?= 1
F(x) ?= 1/2

F(x) = 1/2 is a pretty meaningless statement
but it means that
>thereby reducing their chance for failure by a third.
is a true statement IF AND ONLY IF the base probability for failure is 50%
for any other value of x (for any other unaltered theif skill chance)
>thereby reducing their chance for failure by a third.
is false.

as a better example, your picture says
F(70%) = 3/10
F'(70%) = 6/30


>thereby reducing their chance for failure by a third.
F(70%) - 1/3 = 3/10 - 1/3 = 9/30 - 10/30 = -1/30 =/= 6/30 = F'(70%)

>>thereby reducing their chance for failure by a third.
>is a true statement IF AND ONLY IF the base probability for failure is 50%
>for any other value of x (for any other unaltered theif skill chance)
>>thereby reducing their chance for failure by a third.
>is false.
Look at the picture in the post above you. You can literally count the results. A 3 in 10 chance to fail is reduced to a 6 in 30 chance to fail when the 2-in-6 "every man" check is added into the equaton. That's .3 reduced to .2. Explain to me how going from .3 to .2 isn't a 1/3 reduction.

>P'(x) = (2/3)+(P(x)/3)
This still doesn't make any sense to me. Why do you have 2/3 off by itself and not modifying something?

>F(70%) - 1/3 = 3/10 - 1/3 = 9/30 - 10/30 = -1/30 =/= 6/30 = F'(70%)

No, dude. We're not looking at "3/10 - 1/3". We're looking at "3/10 - (3/10 * 1/3)".

We're reducing the chance of failure by 1/3 of its own value.

ah! may have misread two of your lines
>thereby reducing their chance for failure by a third.
read literally, this means "subtract 1/3"
you seem to have meant "multiply by 2/3"
>Your chance to fail the every-man 2-in-6 check is 4-in-6,
i had this right here: but thought was telling me i'd read it wrong

>You have 1/3 existing off by itself -- not 1/3 of a thing, just the value .333333 -- and I can't think of any reason why this would be.
that's from me misreading , but the example is still a fine example


P(x) = x
P'(x) = (1/3)+(2P(x)/3)

chances of failure
F(x) = 1 - P(x)
F'(x) = 1 - P'(x) = 1 - (1/3)+(2P(x)/3) = (1-P(x))*2/3 = F(x)*2/3
>thereby reducing their chance for failure by a third.

F(x) * 2/3 ?= F'(x)
F(x) * 2/3 = F(x) * 2/3

tl;dr
(You) are pic related.

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

>read literally, this means "subtract 1/3"
>you seem to have meant "multiply by 2/3"
Well, yeah. If a scientific study comes out that says eating a certain diet reduces your chance of heart attack by 50%, and the incidence rate of the control group -- those not eating the diet -- was 4%, that means that those eating the diet had a 2% chance to have an attack, not a negative 46% chance, whatever that would mean (they grow an additional heart? they reverse the heart attacks of people around them?).

Best edition desu

Jus' havin' a giggle