TheRPGSite

What are some assumptions that the game makes that would be alien to "modern" players?

How should you approach this game to have fun with it as a player that is very different from what "newer" editions/games assume.

What kind of adventures did you run in it?

Did you bother using Mystara or did you use custom settings?

How did you handle thief skills vs general skills vs "ability checks" (or did you even use these)?

Did you like the weapon mastery system?

Quote from: Rhedyn;1033467What are some assumptions that the game makes that would be alien to "modern" players?

How should you approach this game to have fun with it as a player that is very different from what "newer" editions/games assume.

What kind of adventures did you run in it?

Did you bother using Mystara or did you use custom settings?

How did you handle thief skills vs general skills vs "ability checks" (or did you even use these)?

Did you like the weapon mastery system?

I ran it weekly for several years recently - when my son was I think 5 we started with Mentzer Basic & Expert, then when he was ca 7-9 I ran a regular weekly group RC game with him as one of the players. It was set in Mystara - Karameikos, later Ylaruam & the Northern Reaches, bit of Hollow World.

For a player - you need to understand that the game is much more outward looking than newer editions. You don't build a PC, you build relationships. Henchmen/Retainers are an important part of the game. Followers, fortresses, Dominions are core & expected parts, too. Your PC should normally be out there recruiting retainers & forming political alliances. Combat is very fast, often very deadly, and should usually be avoided where possible in favour of talk-talk. CHA is as written the most powerful stat, influencing NPC & monster reactions, retainer numbers & loyalty, follower loyalty etc. But the stats in general are not that important; my son's STR 16 INT 10 Magic-User got from 4th to 18th level and did ok, until Disintegrated by a Heldannic Warbird Blight Belcher.  By the time his first PC the MU William died he had a stable of other PCs, notably William's elder son Bravery was a Fighter of similar level.  Don't expect your PC to ever feel invincible, especially not MUs - with no bracers of defence you will never have a good AC! You need to think tactically all the time.

I ran a lot of Basic Fantasy RPG dungeons early on, also wilderness (Monkey Isle), later on lots of war & politics.

I used d20 roll under attribute checks as suggested. Thief skills I gave circumstance bonuses up to +50% so they could be used reliably. I did not use Weapon Mastery; I did give Fighters & demi-humans multiple attacks and a damage bonus though, I fixed on:

Level #Attacks
1-5       1
7-11     3/2
12-23   2
24-35   3
36        4

Level  Damage Bonus
1-3      0
4-6     +1
7-9     +2
10-12  +3
13+     4

Highest level Fighter reached 18th. I did use demi-human attack ranks but by the end around level 17-19 all the PCs were human.

Overall, the main thing I'd say is expect players to do a lot of the world building as they create new PCs and relations. The game encourages stuff like family trees, we had PCs inter-married into each other's noble houses. A good marriage is important! The RC world Mystara is very different from post-apocalyptic Points of Light type settings, it's basically at a kind of magical renaissance level.

One thing that I think is alien to younger players is the notion that not everything your character can do is defined by a widget on your character sheet. The approach seems to be more one of "if the rules don't say you can't do it you can at least try" than "if you don't have the Feat/Skill/Class Ability you can't even try".  This is probably the biggest difference I notice between my younger players of today and the way we played back when I was their age.

I second the importance of relationships to succesful game play. I think having accompanying hirelings, henchmen and dealing with NPCs was an essential feature of game play. Both at low levels and at high levels.

I played from age 8-15, plus again several times since. We never used the Rules Cyclopedia, and our original run at it was as the boxed sets were being released (so, for example, we didn't find out about the Weapon Mastery rules until both the Master set was released and we got some characters up near level 26 such that we'd need to purchase it).

Quote from: Rhedyn;1033467What are some assumptions that the game makes that would be alien to "modern" players?

It depends on what they'd find surprising and of course what they've heard of. I'm going to assume they've heard stories at least about the TSR era and various things like Clerics usually could only use bludgeoning weapons and this is the version where elves were a class and race.

The alien part based on play assumption would probably include the gp=xp and combat avoidance. Also the reaction table and morale, where the goals started with recruiting the enemy, or at least making them neutral, then if fighting occurs the goal is to get them to run. Likewise that fighting is dangerous, and you do not have the hp and healing to keep up, so find ways to win without going toe-to-toe. Also that followers (+mercs, +converted enemies, etc.) are a big help in fleshing out the party (and keeping enemies away from the magic users, who otherwise are really squishy). The party of four is something that doesn't work in BECMI without alteration.

As others have mentioned, relationships are huge. Domain management is assumed (although unlike other assumed things, this one can and was ignored by many). If a fighter isn't running an army or kingdom at higher levels, they will feel small compared to the magic user (although weapon master does keep them relevant in combat to some degree*).
*And, and this is another good point: much of a fighter's class features come off the treasure table, in that fighters (and rogues) get to use magic swords, and intelligent magic swords with X/day spells can readily make a fighter a limited but powerful spellcaster in their own right.

QuoteWhat kind of adventures did you run in it?

Did you bother using Mystara or did you use custom settings?

For the most part, we ran the game in a homebrew setting that included the cities and dungeons and maps included with the boxed set and modules (many of which became part of the 'Known World' which would later be rebranded as Mystara). So we had Karameikos, but the other kingdoms around it were our own.

QuoteHow did you handle thief skills vs general skills vs "ability checks" (or did you even use these)?

Drawing the 1-100% thief skills from levels 1-14 in B/X to 1-36 in BECMI made them nearly unusable as a roll-for-success metric. Almost everyone I've met who used BECMI either 1) threw them out and used a different system, or 2) made the thief skill system 'assumed success under most situations, roll against this low percentage only if there's good reason to think that the thief should fail.'

QuoteDid you like the weapon mastery system?

I like the concept, but the balance is off. Some of the special weapon powers (such as 'Deflect' I think) are just. plain. better. They are a good starting point, but at the level where you can get up to the upper echelons of mastery the game is already pretty swingy based on what magic items you have anyways, so 'balance' is already pretty subjective.

I don't really follow most of the questions in the OP, as I've always felt like RC is just another presentation of pre-3E D+D, all of which are close to identical when it comes to questions about settings, characters, style of play, etc. If you know how to play D+D than you already know how to play RC. The only things that make RC a bit special are the crazy weapon mastery system (I have yet to hear from anyone who uses it regularly and likes it) and maybe the fact that it might be the only standard edition that includes a mass combat system in the core book.

My go-to D&D for years. I ran it mostly as written, using The Known World and other published materials.
The one thing I changed was Weapon Mastery, I think it's really a horrible implementation of a neat idea.
My advice, if you really have to have WM in your game, is to house-rule it somehow.
These days I'd also give the Thief a boost and maybe change another couple of things.

The best idea I ever half-ran-across-half-thought-of for things like weapon master in D&D is the concept of non-magical 'slots' from Warlock. If you don't know what Warlock is/was, google it intensely, as it is a fun corner of gaming history. The basic notion is that, just as an n'th level magic user gets x, y and z first, second and third level spell slots per day, another class (Thieves in Warlock, imaginably Fighters in some extrapolated version of the idea) get x, y and z first, second and third level special powers/actions. To my mind, these should work like magic user spells: they aren't little fiddly bonuses or other crap like that, they are an effect that is actually worth something and  you get to call forth now and then. Perhaps they are sometimes negated by a save, just like spells can be, but mostly they just work. All one would need to do is decide what level to assign each of the known abilities/powers that already exist for the various classes.

I ran Red Box / Blue Box with houserules. My AD&D play was very much a hybrid using stuff from Red/Blue.

I doubt I'd ever run a RC BtB RAW game these days. Also, its easier / cheaper to get Basic Fantasy or Labyrinth Lord which effectively do the same dance as RC.

I never used weapon mastery as written. As for domains, my players were rarely interested which eventually led me to capping my OD&D campaigns to 10th level.

I never use Mystara, but I loved using Hollow World.

Quote from: Larsdangly;1033580The best idea I ever half-ran-across-half-thought-of for things like weapon master in D&D is the concept of non-magical 'slots' from Warlock. If you don't know what Warlock is/was, google it intensely, as it is a fun corner of gaming history. The basic notion is that, just as an n'th level magic user gets x, y and z first, second and third level spell slots per day, another class (Thieves in Warlock, imaginably Fighters in some extrapolated version of the idea) get x, y and z first, second and third level special powers/actions. To my mind, these should work like magic user spells: they aren't little fiddly bonuses or other crap like that, they are an effect that is actually worth something and  you get to call forth now and then. Perhaps they are sometimes negated by a save, just like spells can be, but mostly they just work. All one would need to do is decide what level to assign each of the known abilities/powers that already exist for the various classes.

4e D&D did that.

Quote from: S'mon;10336414e D&D did that.

I understand that this concept underlies 4E, but they extrapolated it to such obscene heights of complexity and grade inflation that it is more of a counter example than an example. I think this notion, properly executed, would provide a fun, interesting and simple mechanism for pulling together all the insane cruft of the core D+D system, with its dozens of fiddly little unique rules and die rolls, without fundamentally changing the power level or power balance or basic game play. 4E might have started with this idea, but they then used it as a way to multiply everyone's daily hit points by 5, hose the player down with 100 feats that mostly do the same thing, then have pangs of guilt for the neglected magic users and so give them 20 more combat spells per day, and so on and so forth. What I'm imagining is that, just as your 1st level magic user is a more or less normal person who happens to get 1 1st level spell per day, your 1st level thief is a more or less normal person who once per day can call on his or her daily 'action' (or whatever you want to call it) as a sort of trump card to open a door, or hide in a garbage can, or climb a precipitous wall.

Quote from: Rhedyn;1033467What are some assumptions that the game makes that would be alien to "modern" players? How should you approach this game to have fun with it as a player that is very different from what "newer" editions/games assume.

I started D&D with 3rd edition, but BECMI is the only edition I run these days. The main difference is that the character sheet does not tell the players how to play. This lack of guidance has its plus' and minus' depending on player expectation. You don't look at it for options as much, you just use it to understand your character more. I find it's a lot easier on players, on the whole.

Quote from: Rhedyn;1033467What kind of adventures did you run in it?

Literally any kind of adventure you could imagine in any kind of D&D.

Quote from: Rhedyn;1033467Did you bother using Mystara or did you use custom settings?

Different made-up ones. I always saw provided setting as 'examples', I never imagined using one of them.

Quote from: Rhedyn;1033467How did you handle thief skills vs general skills vs "ability checks" (or did you even use these)?

I don't know how the rules intended this to be done, but how I've always done it is - thief skills get first crack at anything, since they operate on a nearly-supernatural level of skill-luck. If they fail, when the situation changes itself, the thief can use their ability checks for the same.

Quote from: Rhedyn;1033467Did you like the weapon mastery system?

Never used it. My thinking was if I wanted a skill system based D&D, there are better versions of the game for doing that.

//Panjumanju

Quote from: Panjumanju;1033694Never used it. My thinking was if I wanted a skill system based D&D, there are better versions of the game for doing that.

He was asking about the weapon mastery system (from RC or the Master's boxed set), which gives different levels of combat benefit when using specific weapon (so similar to weapon proficiency, focus, and specialization, from 3e), not the also-optional skill system in RC (similar to 3e's skills).

Quote from: Willie the Duck;1033701He was asking about the weapon mastery system (from RC or the Master's boxed set), which gives different levels of combat benefit when using specific weapon (so similar to weapon proficiency, focus, and specialization, from 3e), not the also-optional skill system in RC (similar to 3e's skills).

Thanks for the correction. I still wouldn't use it. It seems like it sends the system off down a path that it can't then support.

//Panjumanju

Initially I'm driven away from games like Savage Worlds and RC D&D because people extol how rules light these systems are. Then I get around to reading it and find, "oh wait no there is actually plenty of rules here, it's just simpler to play/run" and then that becomes "I need to run this".

Really it's the weapon mastery system that sold me on the book. So I was curious of people's impressions/use of it. (Because I've yet to play a game that can nail the iconic Sword Master well. As much as I like Savage Worlds, the best you get for that concourse l concept is like a +2 to hit, which although meaningful, isn't nearly as cool as what an RC D&D Grandmaster of the sword can do).
And by "sold", I mean the tipping point. I was pretty floored to find out how great the magic item crafting rules are post purchase.

I got the book for nostalgia's sake and now have a game up and running. It plays like butter and as the players are new to D&D (but not more modern games like Fate and A*W stuff), I feel like they're getting a great introduction to the whole shebang.

Quote from: artikid;1033576My go-to D&D for years. I ran it mostly as written, using The Known World and other published materials.
The one thing I changed was Weapon Mastery, I think it's really a horrible implementation of a neat idea.
My advice, if you really have to have WM in your game, is to house-rule it somehow.
These days I'd also give the Thief a boost and maybe change another couple of things.

Someone on TBP did some math and found that WM is pretty close to half an extra die of damage per level of mastery. So you could simplify it by adding an extra die every two levels, for example.

Quote from: Rhedyn;1033713As much as I like Savage Worlds, the best you get for that concourse l concept is like a +2 to hit, which although meaningful, isn't nearly as cool as what an RC D&D Grandmaster of the sword can do).

It is certainly a massive power-up. The two attacks at +8/+6 compared to not using those rules would be impressive alone. Add in the damage increase to avg 15 and 13 instead of 4.5, AC Bonus, increase range, Save vs. wands vs. 3 attacks to deflect, and opponent save or be disarmed... it is definitely a completely different game, with regard to high-level fighter power. If you do want to keep dungeon adventuring after name level instead of becoming lord and general, and the DM does not want to give out a bunch of intelligent magic swords or the like to up a fighter power, it is at least conceptually a great idea. I'm not 100% plussed on the balance (All fighters are even more incentivized to be swordsmen, and everyone else should use a quarterstaff and nothing else).

QuoteAnd by "sold", I mean the tipping point. I was pretty floored to find out how great the magic item crafting rules are post purchase.

Magic item crafting? I don't recall BECMI's magic item crafting to be that different than any other post-oD&D, pre-3e version of A/D&D. A quick look at RC suggests that the key points are:

• level 9+ spellcaster
• have relevant spells (e.g. know Fly to make flying carpet
  
• have well-made item made by specialist (so weapon smith makes sword to be enchanted)
• DM determined rare and exotic components (quest items, if you will)
• chance of success based on Int (Wis for cleric) and spell level of relevant spell, with the formula of: Success Chance (%) = ([Int + character Lvl] x 2) - (3 x spell level)

What about that do you like?

Quote from: Rhedyn;1033467How should you approach this game to have fun with it as a player that is very different from what "newer" editions/games assume.

One of two ways, IMHO.  Either will work fine:

A. Take it for what it is, and run wild with it.  Embrace the assumptions embedded into the rules with "race as class" and so forth, and what that says about the society.  Run it in a setting very much like the embedded one, but extend that setting on your own.  That's more or less what we did with the original materials, before there was an RC.  We didn't have some of the later stuff, such as the skills and the weapon mastery.  

B. Tweak it to fit an alternate setting that still takes the core idea at face value.  This one is a little more difficult to explain, and is the way I've used it since.  One example might clarify, though.  Conceptually, I don't much like "race for class."  It causes extra work for me that I'd rather avoid.  But to tweak the setting and keep the core concepts, you don't separate race and class.  Instead, you make up different "classes" to fit your setting.  If not all elf adventurers are fighter/magic user hybrids, but are instead either swashbuckling types or nature casters, then you make two classes named something appropriate for those things, and note them under elf.  In this way of seeing things, maybe all elves are "Rangers" or "Druids" (or "Shaman") and no one else is.  That's why "rangers" have magic--they are all elves, and all elves are at least a little magical.  Maybe the existing "cleric"--the heavily armored divine caster, is only a dwarven thing.  Then you add a "Priest" class or a "Hermit" class or whatever your concept of a human divine caster is, or even mix and max between that an magic users to get a "Loremaster" class or some other kind of hybrid.  However you do it (and race as class is just one example of the thing), when you are playing, everyone's got a simple "class" that advances according to some formula.  You roll up stats, you pick a class, and off you go.  

All the other things you asked about, to me are just tools in the toolbox.  They might be applicable to a given campaign or not, but I'm feeling fairly secure in adding them, banning them, or altering them as needed.  The core thing is fairly resilient.

Quote from: Willie the Duck;1033721Magic item crafting? I don't recall BECMI's magic item crafting to be that different than any other post-oD&D, pre-3e version of A/D&D. A quick look at RC suggests that the key points are:

• level 9+ spellcaster
• have relevant spells (e.g. know Fly to make flying carpet
  
• have well-made item made by specialist (so weapon smith makes sword to be enchanted)
• DM determined rare and exotic components (quest items, if you will)
• chance of success based on Int (Wis for cleric) and spell level of relevant spell, with the formula of: Success Chance (%) = ([Int + character Lvl] x 2) - (3 x spell level)

What about that do you like?

Weapons, armor, consumables, wondrous, and even constructs (including custom) all in the core book and at prices/time that's actually doable. And then tops it off with the rules I need to make a flying castle.

Also gives me a reason to make all these dungeon runs feel organic (Wizard needs a rare component and will pay nicely for it. Wizard lost control of his basement and hires adventurers to find things for him, ect.)

But I don't have to pay xp, build for feats, optimize a crafting familiar, allow fighters to do it (4e rituals), or be given bunk rules that basically tell me I shouldn't let my players do this (5e). Admittedly, I don't know what 2e or 1e asked of the caster.

PF's custom magic item section (probably just a reprint of 3.5) had a lot of the same stuff, but PF is rules heavy and a tad too intricately balanced to let one weird item derail a campaign.
Savage Worlds various magic item creation rules aren't as comprehensive (no constructs or flying castles).

Quote from: Rhedyn;1033735But I don't have to pay xp, build for feats, optimize a crafting familiar, allow fighters to do it (4e rituals), or be given bunk rules that basically tell me I shouldn't let my players do this (5e). Admittedly, I don't know what 2e or 1e asked of the caster.

Er, yeah. About that... It was pretty much another 'yes you can, but you'll never want to' situation like 5e. Pretty much exactly like the BECMI rules, except also requiring the casting of a Permanency spell (requiring the permanent expenditure of a point of Constitution).

Quote from: Willie the Duck;1033770Er, yeah. About that... It was pretty much another 'yes you can, but you'll never want to' situation like 5e. Pretty much exactly like the BECMI rules, except also requiring the casting of a Permanency spell (requiring the permanent expenditure of a point of Constitution).

Yeah something I've also noticed is that spells don't ruin you like they can in 2e. Like Permanency is an 8th level spell, but it doesn't drain your con.

But I think BECMI supports characters taking on less risky adventuring roles more than other editions. You can still gain xp and wealth without taking a huge risk.
I'm seeing more support for troupe play or branching narratives/multiple-DMs where high level characters go on a personal quest away from the party and then attract new allies to help.

Quote from: Rhedyn;1033467What are some assumptions that the game makes that would be alien to "modern" players?

How should you approach this game to have fun with it as a player that is very different from what "newer" editions/games assume.

What kind of adventures did you run in it?

Did you bother using Mystara or did you use custom settings?

How did you handle thief skills vs general skills vs "ability checks" (or did you even use these)?

Did you like the weapon mastery system?

The main advice I would provide is this: make sure your setting acts like the various conceits of the system are part of the reality of the world.

Mystara is a great setting for BECMI/RC because it does just that.