Is there a comprehensive comparison between RC and DD?

[migo]

Is there a similar reason why wrestling was removed? Granted, it does not look like a system I'd use much

That's the main reason. Also, whereas the normal unarmed combat stuff could be shoehorned into the standard Weapon Mastery rules easily, the wrestling rules used a completely different system.

I'm quite disappointed by its removal. The rules in the RC were actually quite good, with the method of figuring out the wrestling score and the procedure involved in wrestling reflecting how it actually works. It might not be something you use often, but it's quite conceivable to have a wrestling match/tournament, with some sort of prize as part of an adventure - say a travelling carnival or yearly festival. From the RC that's what I got the impression the rules were for anyway.

[The Scarecrow]

I agree with you. An excellent work of revisioning of RC but we need some rules on wrestling/grapple combat for non-Monk characters.

[outlander78]

I didn't realize the RC had those significant changes. I recently acquired the BECM (sadly no I) books, but have not read through them or looked for the differences.

I'm curious about this "There are a few places where the BECMI sets would have a rule in a later set that replaces a rule in an earlier set, but the RC simply copies both conflicting rules over to sit side by side without resolving the conflict in either direction." I didn't catch this at all. Could you scholarly folks give me some examples of updated rules as BECMI progressed?

[RobJN]

I didn't realize the RC had those significant changes. I recently acquired the BECM (sadly no I) books, but have not read through them or looked for the differences.

I'm curious about this "There are a few places where the BECMI sets would have a rule in a later set that replaces a rule in an earlier set, but the RC simply copies both conflicting rules over to sit side by side without resolving the conflict in either direction." I didn't catch this at all. Could you scholarly folks give me some examples of updated rules as BECMI progressed?

Mr. Reaper over at Dragonsfoot has an extensive unofficial RC errata document. I think he hits all the conflicts between the boxed sets and the hardback compilation.

[Blacky the Blackball]

Another couple that spring to mind are:

1) The Expert set has rules for damaging wooden ships. The Companion set has separate rules for damaging wooden buildings. The two sets of rules aren't quite the same, but the RC sticks both in and does nothing to resolve the differences between them (I merged them into a single set in Dark Dungeons).

2) The Expert set treats "Civilized" as a hex type. The Companion set, when introducing domains, uses a different nomenclature that doesn't include "Civilized" as a hex type but gives a civilization level to all hexes. Again, the RC simply gives both sets of rules without prioritising either and I merged the two.

3) A rather obvious one - the Basic set had a magic item table for weapons containing individually described ones. The Expert set replaced that with a bigger one in the same format. The Companion (I think) set replaced that one with a different style of table where you roll for the plusses and properties separately. The RC gives the Expert table and the Companion tables side by side and then kind of shrugs and tells you to use whichever you prefer. For Dark Dungeons I made a single table in the style of the Basic/Expert ones but containing weapon types from both those and the Companion tables.

There's probably others, but they are the ones that spring immediately to mind...

[outlander78]

Thanks!

[outlander78]

Thanks!

[Lord Kjeran]

Just wanted to say, great job!

[Morfie]

Just had a brief look through DD, I got to say it's pretty awesome!

Where does the Skysailing come from? I'm pretty sure that wasn't in any of the original RPG's. I very much like it though and plan to use it.

[Blacky the Blackball]

Just had a brief look through DD, I got to say it's pretty awesome!

Where does the Skysailing come from? I'm pretty sure that wasn't in any of the original RPG's. I very much like it though and plan to use it.

The rules for Skysailing are a direct lift from Spelljammer. I've just replaced that setting's "Spelljamming Helm" item with an equivalent "Sail of Skysailing" item.

Other than that, the way they work (slurping spellcasters' power for the day), the speeds they can travel, the way gravity and air envelopes work, the whole Celestial Sphere and Luminiferous Aether cosmology - it's all pretty much the same as in Spelljammer except for where I've tweaked the numbers for 36-level classes instead of 20-level classes.

The system of inner and outer planes is my own invention, though.

[shesheyan]

Does Dark Dungeons use THAC0 or d20 hit mechanics?

[The Scarecrow]

THAC0 or, simply, add to the d20 result all bonuses (Strenght, Dexterity, bonus toHit, etc.) and/or maluses, add target's armor class and, if the result match 20, you hit the target

[Blacky the Blackball]

As The Scarecrow says, it uses a variation on THAC0. It's mathematically identical, and keeps the descending armour class, but instead of...

Roll >= (THAC0 - AC)

...it uses...

Roll + BONUS + AC >= 20

The reason for this is that it's simpler to do the mental arithmetic. People can add quicker than they can subtract (and unless we have ACs less than zero then all terms will be positive), and comparing a total to a nice round number like 20 is easier than comparing to a variable like your THAC0.

Also, it makes descending armour class easier to understand, particularly for kids and new players, because it can be explained in three simple steps:

1) Your basic attack roll is 1d20. You need to get a 20 to hit an armoured target.

2) If you're good at fighting you get an Attack Bonus to add the roll (more intuitive than having a THAC0 that decreases as you get better).

3) If your target is only lightly armoured you get an additional bonus to the roll, called their Armour Class, which ranges from +0 (if they're wearing normal full armour) to +9 (if they're completely unarmoured). If they're particularly heavily armoured or tough then their armour class may even be negative, giving you a penalty to your attack roll.

[shesheyan]

As The Scarecrow says, it uses a variation on THAC0. It's mathematically identical, and keeps the descending armour class, but instead of...

Roll >= (THAC0 - AC)

...it uses...

Roll + BONUS + AC >= 20

The reason for this is that it's simpler to do the mental arithmetic. People can add quicker than they can subtract (and unless we have ACs less than zero then all terms will be positive), and comparing a total to a nice round number like 20 is easier than comparing to a variable like your THAC0.

Also, it makes descending armour class easier to understand, particularly for kids and new players, because it can be explained in three simple steps:

1) Your basic attack roll is 1d20. You need to get a 20 to hit an armoured target.

2) If you're good at fighting you get an Attack Bonus to add the roll (more intuitive than having a THAC0 that decreases as you get better).

3) If your target is only lightly armoured you get an additional bonus to the roll, called their Armour Class, which ranges from +0 (if they're wearing normal full armour) to +9 (if they're completely unarmoured). If they're particularly heavily armoured or tough then their armour class may even be negative, giving you a penalty to your attack roll.

Yes its a much better «spin» than the original system.
Thanks for the explanation.