Recently, I've had really good luck at scoring copies of some older games, among them the Moldvay basic D&D book, which I really, really like. I'm considering tracking down a copy of the compatible expert set and writing up a setting for this rule set (Actually I've already started on a setting which takes some of its cues from the book's monster list, but never mind that).
What I want to know is:
Does it live up to the promise of the Moldvay basic?
What's in it?
I like the Expert book a lot; with the Basic book, it completes my favorite version of D&D. It's very much a continuation of Moldvay's text. To me, they're very much of a piece.
It will take characters to level 14.
Good, concise rules on wilderness exploration and seaborne exploration, a few new bits of equipment and, of course, more spells and monsters. Plus you get to see the birth of the Known World; Karameikos is presented as a sample wilderness.
Quote from: KenHR;514700I like the Expert book a lot; with the Basic book, it completes my favorite version of D&D. It's very much a continuation of Moldvay's text. To me, they're very much of a piece.
It will take characters to level 14.
Good, concise rules on wilderness exploration and seaborne exploration, a few new bits of equipment and, of course, more spells and monsters. Plus you get to see the birth of the Known World; Karameikos is presented as a sample wilderness.
Don't forget module X-1, the Isle of Dread. It's D&D's "Jurassic Park".
And the Companion set wasn't bad as well. Course, I also liked the Master set. (Hell, I even liked the Immortals. Never played it, but I liked it.)
It's cute and some of the artwork has a lot of character (I'm quite fond of the illustration of the spectre) but for actual play I find much less cute Rules Cyclopedia more practical. It's all in one place, I don't have try to guess which book to look for something.
Is the all in one aspect the only thing you like better about the cyclopedia?
Low level thieves get shafted big time in the Mentzer rules (including RC).
In B/X, they pretty much top out their abilities by level 14; their abilities were stretched too thin to accomodate the 36 level spread in Mentzer.
As far as referencing separate books...B/X is two 64-page booklets, organized in exactly the same manner. It's really never been an issue at my table.
Quote from: Aos;514734Is the all in one aspect the only thing you like better about the cyclopedia?
The thing is the real aficionados can point to you at all the little rule differences, but to be honest the last time I ran Basic D&D in earnest I made my own Thief ability tables anyway and some other unholy things like add Action points, so any fine rules was kind of moot.
But here's the thing. I have the red and blue books and while they are infused with character and sense of history, it's actually hard to find stuff you want and the pages are yellowed and frail. Then I have RC with it's bland art and soulless train timetable style charts with insipid green highlighting, but it's legible, practical and remarkably complete.
It's a tough call.
How much difference is there really between :
Moldvay B/X
Mentzer BECMI
RC - which is basically just BECM in one book, right?
For basic I cut my teeth on Moldvay B/X as a GM and later picked up CMI, but I got into AD&D before I started Test of the Warlords campaign. I don't remember there being a huge difference in rules.
While I'm on the slightly threadjacked subject, what clones match to
B/X
BECMI
RC
I think Labrynth Lord matches B/X; I know nothing of the other.
I'm not so much interested in the differences between editions though as I am in the specifics of the Expert book. Ken's post was especially helpful inthat regard.
Damn, I love me some X; early 80's American punk at its best and a neat bookend to Killing Joke (crank "Money is not our God," by KJ to 11 and damn the eardrums - thanks for the anger UK). Funny how both their lead guitarists played Gretsches and were bleached blond dudes....wait, what were we talking about????
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lKOikcMpcOg&feature=related
Bottom line: new shit ain't like old shit and sometimes old shit had it right the first time-ish...shit.
Whatever
Quote from: CRKrueger;514761While I'm on the slightly threadjacked subject, what clones match to
B/X
BECMI
RC
Labyrinth Lord
Dark Dungeons
Dark Dungeons
How does LL compare to B/X in the flavor department; also does LL use ascending AC?
ACKS is kind of like a B/X clone (which is to say it's built on a Labyrinth Lord/Basic Fantasy chassis) that looks back to OD&D and First Fantasy Campaign for the C and M parts of BECMI; it also looks forward to the later Basic-line Gazetteers and what can be learned from 3e and 4e. Much of the latter boils down to "even really smart guys getting full-time salaries for years of development time are unlikely to anticipate the detrimental unintended effects of changing the basic D&D genome, so don't mess with success."
Quote from: Daddy Warpig;514723...
And the Companion set wasn't bad as well. Course, I also liked the Master set. (Hell, I even liked the Immortals. Never played it, but I liked it.)
The OP is asking about the Cook/Marsh
Expert rules, which were a sequel to the Moldvay
Basic rules (published 1980-81). While a
Companion set was promised to complete the trilogy, it was never produced.
Instead, Mentzer re-wrote the
Basic and
Expert rules a couple of years later, and then the
Companion and
Masters rules. A few years after the BECMI series was completed, Aaron Allston compiled the BECM rules into the
Rules Companion.
There are some subtle, but I think important, differences between B/X D&D and BECMI (RC) D&D.
Quote from: Aos;514792How does LL compare to B/X in the flavor department; also does LL use ascending AC?
LL uses descending AC.
In terms of rules, there are some differences from B/X. The main ones that I can recall off the top of my head are: (a) clerics get a spell at first level in LL; (b) different spell progression charts for both clerics and magic-users; (c) LL goes up to level 20 for the human classes (whereas X stops at 14, albeit with guidelines for higher levels); and (d) LL includes higher-level spells (6th and 7th level cleric spells; 7th, 8th, 9th level magic-user spells).
In terms of flavour, B/X has
way better art (Otus covers; Willingham and Dee interior pics; etc.).
Quote from: Tavis;514798ACKS is kind of like a B/X clone (which is to say it's built on a Labyrinth Lord/Basic Fantasy chassis) that looks back to OD&D and First Fantasy Campaign for the C and M parts of BECMI; it also looks forward to the later Basic-line Gazetteers and what can be learned from 3e and 4e. Much of the latter boils down to "even really smart guys getting full-time salaries for years of development time are unlikely to anticipate the detrimental unintended effects of changing the basic D&D genome, so don't mess with success."
Hey Tavis, is ACKS available in hard copy now?
Quote from: Akrasia;514802There are some subtle, but I think important, differences between B/X D&D and BECMI (RC) D&D.
Do tell... :D
Quote from: CRKrueger;514831Do tell... :D
More in emphasis. Spell advancement is somewhat different in Cook/Marsh I believe a 6th level cleric has access to 4th level spells...
As a rule book Expert is brilliant. It really takes the world of Basic and expands it in all directions. The rules for travel, construction, followers, hirelings and retainers, construction, etc are great. Plus expanded magic monster lists. it's all good.
B/X is still my favorite edition of the game published to date.
Expert clerics DO rule. Check the spell progression charts compared to the Mentzer set ones. :jaw-dropping:
Cook/Marsh Expert takes everything that is a PITA out of high level play and leaves the good stuff.
There isn't a better version of D&D (especially for the page count) out there.
Oh, as for the game world, the expert set introduced The Known World which was an awesome map with a few notes about the major features leaving the rest to develop as you please. This later became the core of Mystara and spawned the Gazetteer series. While these are cool, you can easily run a full campaign without them.
There were a fair number of cool adventures for expert D&D in the early days of Dungeon mag.
I spent part of last night helping my son make a dungeon using the stocking tables in the basic book. I pulled a random geomorph map from Dave's Mapper and then we went through all the steps from designing a scenario on. It was cool. I really like the step by step instructions Moldvay provides on adventure creation.
In other news, Jeff37923 has offered to send me a copy of the expert book.
Thanks Man! I hope you don't mind me outing how awesome you are.
I've never actually read this edition. I only had the Mentzer basics, and the RC.
The basic set box for this is not cheap.
Quote from: J Arcane;514934I've never actually read this edition. I only had the Mentzer basics, and the RC.
The basic set box for this is not cheap.
I got the book for five USD at a used bookstore. The same place i got my the Holmes box and book (no module) for 14 bucks.
Quote from: J Arcane;514934I've never actually read this edition. I only had the Mentzer basics, and the RC.
The basic set box for this is not cheap.
The full intact box can be fairly expensive. The actual booklets sans box or dice can be had for very little:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/offer-listing/0935696296/ref=dp_olp_0?ie=UTF8&redirect=true&condition=all
I have enough B and X books for my entire group. $3-$5 a pop on eBay.
Quote from: Akrasia;514802Instead, Mentzer re-wrote the Basic and Expert rules a couple of years later, and then the Companion and Masters rules. A few years after the BECMI series was completed, Aaron Allston compiled the BECM rules into the Rules Companion..
You mean Rules Cyclopedia.
RPGPundit
Quote from: KenHR;514962I have enough B and X books for my entire group. $3-$5 a pop on eBay.
Compared to how expensive Rules Cyclopedia is, that's nice.
Quote from: boulet;515140Compared to how expensive Rules Cyclopedia is, that's nice.
I got my Rules Cyclopedia in '95 or '96 at a used CD store(!!) for $12.... :)
Quote from: Aos;514792How does LL compare to B/X in the flavor department; also does LL use ascending AC?
If you prefer Ascending AC, I recommend you get BFRPG. It's very similar to B/X, except for ascending AC and no race as class (any race can be any class in BFRPG).
Quote from: Aos;514917I really like the step by step instructions Moldvay provides on adventure creation.
There is a similar section for wilderness adventures in the Expert book. There is also a
B/X companion (http://bxblackrazor.blogspot.com/2010/07/what-hell-is-bx-companion.html) which was created in the vein of B/X (hence it is quite different from the BECMI version).