D&D Rules Cyclopedia vs. Classic D&D Game
Andrew Blackett
read that the Rules Cyclopedia is the book to get, but I haven't seen it
around anywhere. However, I do know where I can get a copy of "The Classic
D&D Game" box. Do these two sets of rules amount to the same thing ? If
not, does anyone know what the major differences are ?
Thanks,
Andrew.
Thomas K. Javoroski
I bought the Cyclopedia back when my "source" still worked at TSR...for no
other reason than it was cheap (although I later used the Nightwing out of
it as a major villain in my campaign :).
I didn't go through it much, but it appeared to be most of the boxed sets
all packaged in one book. I'm not sure if that's what the "Classic" game
is, all the originals in one, or not...
I can't remember if the Cyclo. had the Immortals boxed set in it...can't
remember.
Tom javoroski
The reasonable man adapts himself to the world.
The unreasonable man persists in trying to adapt the world to himself.
Therefore, all progress is made by the unreasonable man.
-George Bernard Shaw
verkuilen john v
most of what is in Basic, Expert, Companion, and Master into one set. It's
a nice set.
Jay
--
J. Verkuilen ja...@uiuc.edu
"Some people are so defined in what they want and expect that they will
not be able to hear or see beyond that point." --Robert Fripp
Jeremy Reaban
sets. Very little is from the Immortals Rules - that was revised
dramatically, and included in Wrath of the Immortals.
AFAIK, the 'Classic' D&D game is just some very basic rules (the equvalent
to the basic set), plus a lot of additional crap to help play the game.
Thomas K. Javoroski <tjav...@blue.weeg.uiowa.edu> wrote in article
<Pine.A41.3.95.980730140509.55346A-
<snip>
Ian R Malcomson
>I'm interested in getting hold of a copy of some basic D&D rules. I've
>read that the Rules Cyclopedia is the book to get, but I haven't seen it
>around anywhere. However, I do know where I can get a copy of "The Classic
>D&D Game" box. Do these two sets of rules amount to the same thing ? If
>not, does anyone know what the major differences are ?
The "Rules Cyclopedia" is excellent. The "Classic" boxed set will leave
you with the feeling "Is that it?". Anyway, IMO don't bother with the
"Classic" boxed set - save your pennies (cents?) until you find a copy
of the "Cyclopedia". It's worth getting even if you only play AD&D.
--
Ian R Malcomson
"Carry home my broken bones and lay me down to rest,
Forty days of cries and moans, I think I failed to passed the test."
- Rainbow, "LA Connection"
Alan Ogier
100...@yellow.weeg.uiowa.edu>, "Thomas K. Javoroski"
<tjav...@blue.weeg.uiowa.edu> writes
<snip>
>
>I can't remember if the Cyclo. had the Immortals boxed set in it...can't
>remember.
The Cyclopaedia included all the material from the Basic, Expert,
Companion and Master sets. The Immortals boxed set was re-released as
"Wrath of the Immortals".
IMHO the Cyclopaedia was probably one the finest and most compact
versions of D&D/AD&D released to date.
Alan Ogier
"I'm entitled to my opinion and everyone
else is also entitled to my opinion"
Aristotle@Threshold
>I'm interested in getting hold of a copy of some basic D&D rules. I've
>read that the Rules Cyclopedia is the book to get, but I haven't seen it
>around anywhere.
You should try: rec.games.frp.marketplace
If you dont see it advertised, do a search at: http://www.dejanews.com
Good luck!
-Aristotle@Threshold
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
VISIT THRESHOLD ONLINE! High Fantasy Role Playing Game!
Player run clans, guilds, businesses, legal system, nobility, missile
combat, detailed religions, rich, detailed roleplaying environment.
http://www.threshold-rpg.com -**- telnet://threshold-rpg.com:23
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Matt Harris
Jeremy Reaban wrote in message <01bdbbfb$0d2a3fe0$2a4660d1@jer>...
NoelDog
I have seen all the items you are looking for here. Sometimes the older boxed
sets run really cheap. Sometimes $2 each, but nothing is forever or certian.
Check out:
http://titan-games.com/titansite/rpg_items/(highly recommend
http://www.dragontrove.com/listing.html (highly recommend)
http://www.discountgames.com/catalog.html
http://www.nyx.net/~epass/cool1.html(highly recommend)
http://www.arpeegy.com/catalog/usedbrms.html (prices slightly higher here but
some good stuff)
davide
Matt Harris <mjhar...@sprynet.com> wrote in article
<6pr9qe$m0d$1...@juliana.sprynet.com>...
> Classic D&D probably refers to the orignal white boxed set released in
1973.
They were brown boxes. The white ones came out in late '76 or early '77.
The set I bought in '76 was brown.
Jason Cone
Alan Ogier wrote in message ...
>IMHO the Cyclopaedia was probably one the finest and most compact
>versions of D&D/AD&D released to date.
I'll second that.
Edward Glamkowski
>
> I can't remember if the Cyclo. had the Immortals boxed set in
> it...can't remember.
They do discuss it, but not in detail, and they don't have any rules
for actually playing as immortals (just on how to become one).
You still need the actual immortals boxed set if you want to play a god.
:p
--
"Have you no sense of decency, sir?
At long last, have you left no sense of decency?"
Come join my web-ring! http://www.angelfire.com/nj/eglamkowski/null.html
ExTSR
>versions of D&D/AD&D released to date.
Y'know, I really oughta read that some time, to see what they ultimately did to
my stuff. And I don't have Wrath otI either, hm.
-- Frank Mentzer
-- D&D Basic, Expert, Companion, Masters, Immortals
Thomas K. Javoroski
> Thomas K. Javoroski wrote:
> >
> > I can't remember if the Cyclo. had the Immortals boxed set in
> > it...can't remember.
>
> They do discuss it, but not in detail, and they don't have any rules
> for actually playing as immortals (just on how to become one).
>
> You still need the actual immortals boxed set if you want to play a god.
> :p
Nope. You just need the DMG ;)
Tom Javoroski
Jason Cone
ExTSR wrote in message <199807311436...@ladder03.news.aol.com>...
>>IMHO the Cyclopaedia was probably one the finest and most compact
>>versions of D&D/AD&D released to date.
>
>Y'know, I really oughta read that some time, to see what they ultimately
did to
>my stuff. And I don't have Wrath otI either, hm.
The Cyclopedia is pretty much your stuff, just all put together in a single
package. They added non-weapon proficiency stuff from the Gazetteer line,
added some maps of the Known World/Mystara, etc. Put the mystic in as a PC
class. They got rid of a lot of "learn how to play" stuff and made it more
of a reference volume.
Wrath is a complete revision of the Immortals rules, though. It simplified
the rules system and made sweeping changes to the Known World setting.
(Paving the way for a whole slew of revised products, no doubt ;-)
Hey, who did the Red Book edition (the one with the Erol Otis cover art --
the Green Dragon)? Wasn't that the set that eliminated the good/evil axis
from the alignment rules? I know the blue book (Eric Holmes) edition had
good/evil in there with law/chaos. I remember wondering why it was dropped
in the red book edition. Ancient history, I guess. ;-)
Ian R Malcomson
>1973.
>They were brown boxes. The white ones came out in late '76 or early '77.
>The set I bought in '76 was brown.
The white ones were "Collector's D&D"
Ian R Malcomson
>Hey, who did the Red Book edition (the one with the Erol Otis cover art --
>the Green Dragon)?
Tom Moldvay. Edited from J. Eric Holmes' edition.
ExTSR
>from the alignment rules? I know the blue book (Eric Holmes) edition had
>good/evil in there with law/chaos. I remember wondering why it was dropped
>in the red book edition.
When Gary asked me to write the new D&D line, there was emphasis -- from the
legal department to a great degree -- on separating D&D and AD&D as completely
as possible. One of the mandates was to return to straight Law/Chaos, since
AD&D used L/C/G/E.
>>Wrath is a complete revision of the Immortals rules, though. It simplified
>the rules system and made sweeping changes to the Known World setting.
Setting development, fine. But the game rules were tight -- I know, I invested
several years of my life on 'em. I've heard they dumbed 'em down for the
masses, deciding that five-dimensional space was too complex.
-- fm
Barry B Wood
On 31 Jul 1998, ExTSR wrote:
> When Gary asked me to write the new D&D line, there was emphasis -- from
> the legal department to a great degree -- on separating D&D and AD&D as
> completely as possible. One of the mandates was to return to straight
> Law/Chaos, since AD&D used L/C/G/E.
Ignorant question: Why did separation matter?
Barry
ExTSR
D&D was legally ruled to be By Gygax & Arneson. AD&D was by Gygax alone.
Royalties were a factor, I'm sure, but certainly not the only one.
-- fm
Aristotle@Threshold
>On Fri, 31 Jul 1998, Edward Glamkowski wrote:
>> You still need the actual immortals boxed set if you want to play a god.
>> :p
>
>Nope. You just need the DMG ;)
Wait.
I thought to become a god all you did was flip through Deities & Demigods,
pick one, and kick his butt. *grin*
David Trimboli
>>IMHO the Cyclopaedia was probably one the finest and most compact
>>versions of D&D/AD&D released to date.
>
>Y'know, I really oughta read that some time, to see what they ultimately
did to
>my stuff. And I don't have Wrath otI either, hm.
>
>
>-- D&D Basic, Expert, Companion, Masters, Immortals
Hoo hoo!
I, too, am constantly hearing how wonderful the D&D Cyclopedia is, but I've
never read it. I grew up on the Moldvay edition of the Basic Rules, and
your editions of the others. I'll have to find a copy of the Cyclopedia.
David
Stardate 98581.5
David Trimboli
>Classic D&D probably refers to the orignal white boxed set released in
1973.
No, there is a set out there, published in 1994, called "The Classic
Dungeons & Dragons Game." I've got it; it's pretty horrible. I did find it
useful when a couple of players wanted to borrow my 1981 Basic Rulebook, and
I covered it protectively with my arms and shouted "No!!"
David
Stardate 98581.5
Niilo Paasivirta
>>IMHO the Cyclopaedia was probably one the finest and most compact
>>versions of D&D/AD&D released to date.
>Y'know, I really oughta read that some time, to see what they ultimately did to
>my stuff. And I don't have Wrath otI either, hm.
I've tried to find D&D Cyclopaedia without success yet. But I do know
that they added new races such as gnome, and new classes like bard,
possibly ranger too. Sounds like AD&D to me.
But you should also see finnish translation of D&D...(or perhaps not,
unless you know finnish :).
It's quite ridiculous. It seems that the person who translated it
did not know much about roleplaying games nor about "swords & sorcery"
vocabulary, or the whole genre, to begin with.
Also he was not quite qualified to translate books. Every word he did
not recognize was apparently taken from dictionary - and he took the
first word that was listed, regardless if it was appropiate.
Here are a few examples:
English D&D Finnish D&D = In English
--------------------------------------------------------------
Alignment Ryhmittyminen "Getting in lane"
Bugbear Mörköpeikko Bugbear Troll (about)
Cleric Temppeliritari Knight Templar
Companion Set Mestarisäännöt Master Rules
Constitution Rakenne Structure
Dungeon Master Luolamestari Cave Master
Eggs of Wonder Kummastuksen Munat Eggs of Dumbfoundness
Gray Ooze Harmaaliete Gray Sludge
Steam ...something? Höyryviivili (incomprehensible)
Jousting Peitsikarkaus "Lance Escape"
Lich Surmanhenki Death Spirit
Master Set Sankarisäännöt Hero Rules
Rod of Cancellation Peruutuksen Keppi Reversing Rod
Sage Viisas Mies Wise Man (not bad actually)
Seneschal Senesalkki *
(*) Word "senesalkki" is a poor finnish twisting of seneschal, and
sounds ridiculous. The correct term in finnish is of course
"sijaishallitsija" (substitute ruler). There are several other of such
weird "translations" in the books, like trebuchet = "trebusetti", or
"archon" = "arkoni".
And the most (in)famous translation:
English D&D Finnish D&D = In English
--------------------------------------------------------------
Undead Kuolematon Immortal
Too bad they never even tried to translate the Immortal Set. It
would have been interesting.
The terms are weird, but the actual texts is sometimes even worse. Some of
the rules are utterly incomprehensible due the "dictionary-translation"
method. Got to post an example some day.
Déjà Vu...I think I've written all this before... was probably in
finnish newsgroups...
Sadly this D&D translation was the first big roleplaying game in finnish
language. (There were some finnish "roleplaying games" before it, but
they were really embarrassing things ...:)
P.S. The stats for Will-o-Wisp are missing from Companion Set (1984).
--
<a href="http://www.jyu.fi/%7Enp/index.html"> Niilo Paasivirta </a>
towo...@concentric.net
>I've tried to find D&D Cyclopaedia without success yet. But I do know
>that they added new races such as gnome, and new classes like bard,
>possibly ranger too. Sounds like AD&D to me.
Bard? I don't think so. I'm not positive, tho. I know it's got the
druid, avenger, knight, paladin, and mystic; it might have the forester
(from the Thyatis gazeteer set), but I don't recall seeing a bard the few
times I perused it.
--
Jason
http://www.cris.com/~towonder/
Sailor Moon V at http://www.cris.com/~towonder/fanfic.shtml
Alan Shutko
N> I've tried to find D&D Cyclopaedia without success yet. But I do
N> know that they added new races such as gnome, and new classes like
N> bard, possibly ranger too. Sounds like AD&D to me.
Huh?
[pulls it off the shelf]
Classes: Cleric, Fighter, MU, Thief, Dwarf, Elf, Halfling, Druid,
Mystic
Just like the various boxes. The Gazetteer series did add options for
gnomes, forester, etc. classes. Maybe that's what you're thinking
about.
--
Alan Shutko <a...@acm.org> - By consent of the corrupted
May you die in bed at 95, shot by a jealous spouse.
Ian R Malcomson
>I've tried to find D&D Cyclopaedia without success yet. But I do know
>that they added new races such as gnome
Eh? Nope, no gnomes in my copy of the RCy..
>and new classes like bard,
>possibly ranger too. Sounds like AD&D to me.
Um, no bards or rangers, either... No, the RCy is still D&D (ie, not
AD&D...)
Leroy Van Camp III
>Setting development, fine. But the game rules were tight -- I know, I invested
>several years of my life on 'em. I've heard they dumbed 'em down for the
>masses, deciding that five-dimensional space was too complex.
Count me as one of the "masses" who preferred the WotI.
Sure glad it was "dumbed down" for the likes of me.
Leroy "The Unwashed" Van Camp III
mala...@lesbois.com
owner-m...@mpgn.com
ICQ #14585470
"You know, not kneeing you in the groin is a constant struggle."
MST3K
Alan Ogier
writes
>
>Bard? I don't think so. I'm not positive, tho. I know it's got the
>druid, avenger, knight, paladin, and mystic; it might have the forester
>(from the Thyatis gazeteer set), but I don't recall seeing a bard the few
>times I perused it.
>
I have it infront of me and there is definately no bard or forester.
The rules Cyclopaedia did not add any additional rules to the original
four sets, it only served to bring all the rules together in one book.
Alan Ogier
<mala...@lesbois.com> writes
> Count me as one of the "masses" who preferred the WotI.
>Sure glad it was "dumbed down" for the likes of me.
I'm obviously a bit dense as well, I liked it. :-)
Deirdre M. Brooks
>>>Wrath is a complete revision of the Immortals rules, though. It simplified
>>the rules system and made sweeping changes to the Known World setting.
>Setting development, fine. But the game rules were tight -- I know, I invested
>several years of my life on 'em. I've heard they dumbed 'em down for the
>masses, deciding that five-dimensional space was too complex.
That's irritating, although some of the masses I've met had trouble with
three dimensions... (in RPGs, that is)
Mike Markovich
Paasivirta) wrote:
>I've tried to find D&D Cyclopaedia without success yet. But I do know
>that they added new races such as gnome, and new classes like bard,
>possibly ranger too. Sounds like AD&D to me.
those classes debuted in dragon magazine for the original d&d game, before ad&d.
this original game had all the features of ad&d, but these were deleted to
make it the <basic> game.
--
please email reply.
mark...@io.com P.O.B. 49901 Austin TX 78765
Niilo Paasivirta
>Huh?
>[pulls it off the shelf]
>Classes: Cleric, Fighter, MU, Thief, Dwarf, Elf, Halfling, Druid,
>Mystic
>Just like the various boxes. The Gazetteer series did add options for
>gnomes, forester, etc. classes. Maybe that's what you're thinking
>about.
The easiest way to get people to tell about something is to say something
incorrect about it :)
Edward Glamkowski
>
> >I've tried to find D&D Cyclopaedia without success yet. But I do know
>
> Eh? Nope, no gnomes in my copy of the RCy..
They mention gnomes in a paragraph waaaaaay at the end when discussing
AD&D => D&D conversions. They give stats to play a gnome, which is
basically a crossbreed between dwarves and halflings :p
> >and new classes like bard,
> >possibly ranger too. Sounds like AD&D to me.
>
> Um, no bards or rangers, either... No, the RCy is still D&D (ie, not
> AD&D...)
They did include the druid and mystic, however.
You can find D&D bards and rangers in old Dragon magazines (or in
Best of Dragon compilations).
Oh, and they do discuss how to convert these AD&D classes into D&D
equivalents, in the same section where they discuss gnomes.
Elizium
a bit partial simply because I've always preferred D&D to Advanced, I
can say comfortably that the Cyclopedia, is not only the most definitive
and compact version of the rules...but in my opinion,
page for page, the best product released by TSR in the `90s. (though
lacking in the art department)
And as much as I love, the "Red Box" edition, and the 1rst Edition AD&D
hardbacks, if I could only have one TSR book, to take with me on a
desert island...it would be the Cyclopedia...
Shane
Ofcourse, on a desert island, I'd be kinda short on players...but hey,
new people are the funnest anyway. Just not sure, if I'm up to teaching
coconuts and monkeys...;)
Matt Harris
The major difference between them is that the Cyclopedia is in hardcover, is
a lot cheaper, and is better organized ;-)
IIRC, the boxed sets didn't have proficiencies which were originally
introduced in the Gazeteers.
Matt Harris
Thomas K. Javoroski wrote in message ...
>On 30 Jul 1998, Andrew Blackett wrote:
>
>> I'm interested in getting hold of a copy of some basic D&D rules. I've
>> read that the Rules Cyclopedia is the book to get, but I haven't seen it
>> around anywhere. However, I do know where I can get a copy of "The
Classic
>> D&D Game" box. Do these two sets of rules amount to the same thing ? If
>> not, does anyone know what the major differences are ?
>>
>
>
>I can't remember if the Cyclo. had the Immortals boxed set in it...can't
>remember.
>
>Tom javoroski