Dr. Rotwang is just so freakin' funny.

Quote from: AkrasiaDr Rotwang! said what I tried to say with far more eloquence.
:shakespeare:

If by 'eloquence' you mean 'a shrinking time allotment before he had to get back to work', then, yeah, I'm freaking e. e. cummings or somebody.

Quote from: RPGPunditVery good summary Premier, but you left out "Forward... to Adventure!"...

While FtA! looks cool and is clearly inspired by old school D&D (my own copy is in the mail from Lulu as I write this!), it's not really a version of 'D&D', is it?  While Hackmaster and C&C can plausibly claim to be brothers of 1e AD&D, I don't think FtA! can.

Quote from: AkrasiaWhile FtA! looks cool and is clearly inspired by old school D&D (my own copy is in the mail from Lulu as I write this!), it's not really a version of 'D&D', is it?  While Hackmaster and C&C can plausibly claim to be brothers of 1e AD&D, I don't think FtA! can.

That isn't to say that he shouldn't be checking outside of D&D for what he liked about his time playing AD&D.  Because some people really took the books and hucked/ignored them when they played. Well beyond the typical only playing with maybe 1/2 the pages. Those people would be better served to leave not only the D&D brand but perhaps even the obvious derivative works like Hackmaster and C&C.

I'm not fond of C&C at all, but I think AD&D, OSRIC, and Basic D&D are all great.

My favorite edition is still the Moldvay/Cook Basic/Expert from 1981.  128 pages that let you run a game for years.

This is followed closely by first edition AD&D.  You can't beat it for flavor.

Quote from: Abyssal MawI'm not fond of C&C at all, but I think AD&D, OSRIC, and Basic D&D are all great.

Then we must fight.


No, not really.

I gotta lay down my vote for the Rules Cyclopedia. It is great stuff, all of what made BECMI great in the 80s in one handy dandy book.

My personal favourite these days is Moldvay/Cook B/X, with seasoning from the Rules Cyclopedia (and extra monsters and spells and deities from AD&D 1E).

I prefer using Moldvay/Cook as the basis as opposed to the RC because thieves in BECMI are boned - Mentzer slowed down their skill progression to fit a game ranging from levels 1-36, which in practice means that their thief skills are nigh-useless - and since this is before thieves were redesigned as combat characters, that's pretty serious. I also use the rules for followers from AD&D 1E, where B/X does not give specific rules for them - to my mind AD&D 1E did an excellent job of balancing the fighter class by giving fighters large numbers of reasonably well-trained men-at-arms once they build their stronghold; fighters' compensation for their lack of esoteric mojo or kick-ass thief skills is their greater ability to become major political forces in the campaign world.

I go back and forth between preferring the RC versus Moldvay/Cook.  The art is so much better in the latter rules (Otus covers!).  But the sheer completeness of the RC is great (and, I admit it, I love the rules for strongholds and 'warmachine').

Quote from: Warthur...
I prefer using Moldvay/Cook as the basis as opposed to the RC because thieves in BECMI are boned - Mentzer slowed down their skill progression to fit a game ranging from levels 1-36, which in practice means that their thief skills are nigh-useless....

This is true (although thieves are not especially effective even in M/C).

My general solution to thieves in Basic/RC D&D (Moldvay/Mentzer/Allston) is the following:

a. Merge 'move silently' and 'hide in shadows' into a single ability, 'stealth' (using the higher of the two values, namely, 'move silently' iirc).  Thieves can use 'stealth' and move up to 1/3 their normal rate.

b. Let PCs at first level distribute a number of points equal to their DEX amongst their abilities (so a thief with 16 points can add 16 to 'find traps' if they want, or divide it amongst their abilities).

c. Modify thief abilities by the difficulty of the task:

Routine: Automatic success.
Easy: +50
Average: +20
Hard: no modifier.
Very Hard: -20.
Absurd: -50

Quote from: AkrasiaI go back and forth between preferring the RC versus Moldvay/Cook.  The art is so much better in the latter rules (Otus covers!).  But the sheer completeness of the RC is great (and, I admit it, I love the rules for strongholds and 'warmachine').

I have yet to see a better implemented set of mass combat rules in any RPG- The War/Siege Machine rules in the RC strike the perfect balance between sufficient detail, fast resolution, and ease of play.

And gotta love those Stronghold/Dominion rules.

QuoteMy favorite system for these type shenanigans, however, is Castles & Crusades, which has been (in my opinion) best described by someone as being "exactly how I mis-remember playing AD&D".

I really like that quote.  It possesses an honesty about it that is not often found in praise of the older editions of the game.

As well as the games listed above, you might want to look at Microlite20.

http://wiki.greywulf.net/cgi-bin/wiki.pl/Macropedia/Microlite20Downloads

It's based on d20, but so simplified that it's really a different game.

However it still uses most of the same terminology, so you're supposed to be able to use material for 'official' 3rd edition D&D/d20 with it, with a minimum amount of conversion (which is what sets it apart from the many rules-light fantasy role-playing rules around on the internet).

Quote from: Age of FableAs well as the games listed above, you might want to look at Microlite20.

AAAAAH I AM SHAMED FOR NOT MENTIONING IT BEFORE!

Good job, AoF.  Now I gotta go commit seppuku, or somethin'.

I forgot this forum was PvP