I see it mentioned a lot that each of these versions of Basic D&D differ from each other. How so?
Also, as I understand it, The Rules Cyclopedia covered Mentzer D&D. Correct?
And finally which retro clones cover each specific version of the Basic rules?
Quote from: MonkeyWrench;406504I see it mentioned a lot that each of these versions of Basic D&D differ from each other. How so?
Also, as I understand it, The Rules Cyclopedia covered Mentzer D&D. Correct?
And finally which retro clones cover each specific version of the Basic rules?
As you can plainly see, Lloyd has a tiny mole on his left earlobe, Boyd's eyes are a lighter blue, and Floyd has deeper dimples. Any fool can see the difference!
-clash
This is a bit of a FAQ, isn't it? (http://tinyurl.com/2f4m4b4)
Yes, RC is the summation of BECMI, which starts with Mentzer Basic. RC however diverges on the "I" part as I understand--it doesn't include it, and then there's something called "Wrath of the Immortals" (http://www.retroroleplaying.com/cdnd/cdnd-wrathoftheimmortals.php) which adds that stuff back in, but with different rules.
Labyrinth Lord is pretty closely based on Moldvay. None of the other retro clones is based on any of the particular Basic sets very closely.
Quote from: Elliot Wilen;406508...
Labyrinth Lord is pretty closely based on Moldvay. None of the other retro clones is based on any of the particular Basic sets very closely.
Actually, 'Dark Dungeons (http://darkdungeonsblog.wordpress.com/)' is a pretty comprehensive clone of the RC.
Only the Holmes Basic Set lacks a clone. (At least I am not aware of any such clone.)
Cool. Thanks for the info and the link.
Quote from: Elliot Wilen;406508This is a bit of a FAQ, isn't it? (http://tinyurl.com/2f4m4b4)
Yes, RC is the summation of BECMI, which starts with Mentzer Basic. RC however diverges on the "I" part as I understand--it doesn't include it, and then there's something called "Wrath of the Immortals" (http://www.retroroleplaying.com/cdnd/cdnd-wrathoftheimmortals.php) which adds that stuff back in, but with different rules.
Labyrinth Lord is pretty closely based on Moldvay. None of the other retro clones is based on any of the particular Basic sets very closely.
Dark Dungeons does the RC.
Pete
Quote from: MonkeyWrench;406504I see it mentioned a lot that each of these versions of Basic D&D differ from each other. How so?
Also, as I understand it, The Rules Cyclopedia covered Mentzer D&D. Correct?
And finally which retro clones cover each specific version of the Basic rules?
Holmes D&D is the blue book/box D&D published in 1977. It was conceived as a clean up of the first few levels of the OD&D game, and was intended to work as an introduction to the AD&D game. It was providing just a few levels, a basic understanding of the game, how to build a dungeon, with the expectation you'd upgrade to the full system later on. (that's why the New Red Box is actually better classified as a spiritual heir to Holmes D&D, not Mentzer D&D).
Moldvay/Cook is the box with the Otus art on the cover, and a rewrite of Holmes D&D that basically makes it into its own game, apart from AD&D. There are two boxes: the Basic rules, and the Expert rules, hence the "B/X" denomination you can see sometimes on the internet. Labyrinth Lord is indeed pretty close, from what I can tell.
Mentzer D&D begins with the "real/old" Red Box. It's the introduction to a full set of boxed sets, five total (Basic, Expert, Companion, Master, Immortal, i.e. "BECMI" D&D), each of a different color. It is a complete rewrite of Moldvay/Cook. The Rules Cyclopedia is actually the compilation of the Basic, Expert, Companion and Master sets, sans Immortals.
The rules, as well as the general vibe of the game, do change quite a bit. Holmes is extremely simple. The modifiers are more in line with OD&D (which means for instance that say, a +1 weapon is a big deal there), for instance. Moldvay is more of an evolution of this game into its own thing, while Mentzer adds tons of stuff to the mix via the boxed sets.
Personal favorite is Holmes D&D with meepo's sheet, which basically makes it into its own game apart from AD&D.
Quote from: MonkeyWrench;406504I see it mentioned a lot that each of these versions of Basic D&D differ from each other. How so?
The Moldvay/Cook B/X rules and the Mentzer BECM/Allston RC rules are pretty similar.
The main differences:
1. Thief abilities improve more quickly in M/C B/X, pretty much topping out around level 14. In contrast, Mentzer slows the progress. In other words, thieves suck even more badly in BECM/RC than they do in B/X.
2. Spell progression is somewhat different, especially in the case of clerics. BECM/RC has a smoother cleric spell acquisition. In contrast, clerics in B/X have very few spells until level 6, when they gain both 3rd and 4th level spells. At level 7 they gain a 5th level spell. So clerics in B/X enjoy a huge surge in spellcasting ability at levels 6-7.
3. BECM/RC covers levels 1-36, whereas B/X stops at level 14 (although some notes are included in the Expert rules on how to progress beyond that).
4. BECM/RC includes a lot more options than B/X: e.g., proto-'prestige classes' (paladins, avengers, knights, druids), the mystic class, weapon mastery, 'attack ranks' for non-human classes (these essentially enable elves, halflings, and dwarves to improve their combat abilities once they've reached their level limits), skills, etc.
I'm sure there are some other differences, but those are the major ones. Overall, though, B/X and BECM/RC are ~98% identical -- i.e., they clearly are versions of the same game.
Holmes Basic D&D is a somewhat different beast. It draws more on the OD&D and the supplements (e.g., it has 5 alignments -- CG, LG, N, CE, and LE), and was meant to lead into AD&D (even though AD&D was not available yet, so it's not does not mesh perfectly with AD&D, e.g., HD are different for fighters and clerics).
Looks like we do the job with both our posts. :)
I ran Swords & Wizardy at a recent convention. Here's a snippet from a player conversation.
"It's so cool somebody's running 2e"
"I think this is Basic"
"Really? Feels like 2nd."
"No way, no kits. It's AD&D"
"2nd was AD&D"
"No, real AD&D by Gygax"
"Guys, I play Red Box at home. This is it."
"No, this is the original Blue Book from 1974"
We all had a great time. I had to turn away players because I didn't want to do the 12-16 mega table like the previous con.
So yes, there are real RAW differences, but in actual gameplay these differences are utterly unimportant on most players.
Quote from: Spinachcat;406532So yes, there are real RAW differences, but in actual gameplay these differences are utterly unimportant on most players.
So we agree (Lloyd, Boyd, and Floyd) then... :D
So does Jeff Rients! (http://jrients.blogspot.com/2009/08/on-system.html)
-clash
Moldvay also, if one reads the rules strictly, has some interesting magic rules. Basically, an m-u's spell book can only contain a number of spells equal to the number and levels of spells the caster can use in a single day. However (using the Expert rulebook) there is no minimum level requirement to research new spells or create scrolls. I run my dungeon game with these rules, and it actually works well; one player created a scroll specialist, which turned out to be a great strategy.
Moldvay also had a healing rule of 1d3 hit points/day of rest.
Mentzer's basic set talked down to the reader.
There are a bunch of really minor differences like this between B/X and BECMI.
For some people it does matter, for others it doesn't. *shrug*
Quote from: Benoist;406537For some people it does matter, for others it doesn't. *shrug*
The OP asked for differences. I pointed out some differences. What's your problem?
Quote from: KenHR;406538The OP asked for differences. I pointed out some differences. What's your problem?
I think he was replying to my post, not yours, Ken. Of course that may well be my enormous ego talking.
-clash
Quote from: flyingmice;406539I think he was replying to my post, not yours, Ken. Of course that may well be my enormous ego talking.
-clash
Apologies to Ben if that was so.
And I'm very impressed with your ego. :)
Quote from: KenHR;406540Apologies to Ben if that was so.
And I'm very impressed with your ego. :)
Isn't it huge? I flail it around just to evoke envy.
-clash
Quote from: KenHR;406536Mentzer's basic set talked down to the reader.
.
This is the major difference for me. I have a huge problem with this. Also I prefer the art in Moldvay. (I came in through Holmes)
Quote from: Aos;406545This is the major difference for me. I have a huge problem with this. Also I prefer the art in Moldvay. (I came in through Holmes)
This, a thousand times over.
Well I don't play Basic D&D at any stretch so I'll bow out.
I've been playing Rules Cyclopedia along with Labyrinth Lord and I haven't noticed any real difference.
However it seems like it's a big deal and the differences are huge. I'm taking it that this is largely an internet issue.
Nah, none of the differences are enormous. I think you see a lot of attention given them because some folks like dissecting the various rulesets and examining the implications of certain changes.
In short: yeah, the internet.
Quote from: Aos;406545This is the major difference for me. I have a huge problem with this. Also I prefer the art in Moldvay. (I came in through Holmes)
Moldvay was my entry, and the artwork has always been my favorite. Especially that pic in the Expert book with the old alchemist.
Quote from: KenHR;406538The OP asked for differences. I pointed out some differences. What's your problem?
The differences matter to me too, Ken. I was answering to Clash. :)
Quote from: Benoist;406550The differences matter to me too, Ken. I was answering to Clash. :)
See? My ego is not only enormous, but -
once again - correct!
-clash
Quote from: flyingmice;406554See? My ego is not only enormous, but - once again - correct!
-clash
Confirmation bias. ;)
Quote from: Benoist;406550The differences matter to me too, Ken. I was answering to Clash. :)
Apologies, then.
Quote from: KenHR;406559Apologies, then.
It's alright, Ken. :)
I've never read Mentzer's basic set. I see a few of you who say the condescending tone was a turn off. How did it express exactly? Do you have examples?
Quote from: boulet;406561I've never read Mentzer's basic set. I see a few of you who say the condescending tone was a turn off. How did it express exactly? Do you have examples?
An actual random quote:
"We know you pathetic... fungi! - I can't call you maggots because maggots have too much energy! - can't handle advanced stuff like separate race and class, so we mooshed them together so you can play a class of ELF, which is about as creative as your hormone-driven barely teenage brains can handle. You'll probably name the character 'Elf' too. 'Elf E. Elf', the Elf, who does Elf stuff."
See what we mean?
-clash
Quote from: boulet;406561I've never read Mentzer's basic set. I see a few of you who say the condescending tone was a turn off. How did it express exactly? Do you have examples?
If you can wait a week or so, I might have the time to go through it and find something. It's been a long time since my last reading of it, and I don't have the time right now. That said, I think I've already paid my "go through a document you don't enjoy looking for examples of why you don't enjoy it" dues this year in regards to the Old School Primer on the haven.
Quote from: boulet;406561I've never read Mentzer's basic set. I see a few of you who say the condescending tone was a turn off. How did it express exactly? Do you have examples?
The player's book started with a choose your own adventure to introduce you to the concepts and mechanics of the game. This is not bad on its own, but it was written like the author was addressing a 2-year-old. Like, remember those story books that came with tapes or records that told you to turn the page when you heard the sound of the magic wand? Yeah, it was written like that.
I no longer have the Mentzer books, so I can't provide a direct quote. Though Clash's cite is stirring the memory... :)
Thanks to those who corrected me about Dark Dungeons. It's a new(ish) thing and I forgot about it.
To me the big diff between Moldvay and Mentzer is the way that MUs don't learn spells by reading them in...Moldvay I think it is. The spells are more like powers, there's no read magic, you can't learn a spell from a scroll, etc.
Quote from: Elliot Wilen;406576Thanks to those who corrected me about Dark Dungeons. It's a new(ish) thing and I forgot about it.
To me the big diff between Moldvay and Mentzer is the way that MUs don't learn spells by reading them in...Moldvay I think it is. The spells are more like powers, there's no read magic, you can't learn a spell from a scroll, etc.
Interesting.
Do any of them give rules for starting spells in a magic-user's spellbook?
Moldvay has read magic and spellbooks, but essentially spells function like powers. Read magic does not allow you to copy spells from another spell book, only to read scrolls.
I believe Mentzer let you start with more than one spell. RC had this feature, too, I think.
Huh, I didn't remember that read magic in Moldvay is necessary to read scrolls, but it's right there in Labyrinth Lord (I don't have the Moldvay texts handy).
Going by LL: you need Read Magic to read scrolls containing spells from the M-U list, so only M-Us and Elves can cast spells from those scrolls. (The read magic description explains that you use read magic to identify/read the spell, and then you can read/cast it any time without using read magic again.) Clerics (only) can read/cast spells from the Cleric list.
And Thieves can't read scrolls!
However, LL explicitly says that M-Us and elves can learn spells by copying them from a spell book, so this might be a fine difference from Moldvay.
Quote from: KenHR;406666Moldvay has read magic and spellbooks, but essentially spells function like powers. Read magic does not allow you to copy spells from another spell book, only to read scrolls.
I believe Mentzer let you start with more than one spell. RC had this feature, too, I think.
Ken, I just noticed this. Do you have a question about that quote in your signature? It has to do with describing why the Forge games and community came out and developed like they did, not trying to equivocate the advent of D20 with 9/11.
Quote from: Abyssal Maw;406685Ken, I just noticed this. Do you have a question about that quote in your signature? It has to do with describing why the Forge games and community came out and developed like they did, not trying to equivocate the advent of D20 with 9/11.
I found the quote funny. I will change it if it offends. Let me know via PM rather than derail the thread.
Quote from: Elliot Wilen;406680However, LL explicitly says that M-Us and elves can learn spells by copying them from a spell book, so this might be a fine difference from Moldvay.
Hmm...now I have to re-read the spell book rule in Moldvay. I might have made an unconscious house rule.