Search results

I got into D&D in 1982 and didn't buy a D&D product in an FLGS until the 90s. I would get my AD&D books at either book stores are JC Penny. So buying D&D stuff at a Target as opposed to an FLGS is pretty normal for the history of the game.

Very interesting. The codes are for D&D Beyond which is where you actually purchase digital content for D&D. Many don't like that since they've already forked out the money for the books. This makes perfect sense here though. Fork out money only for a beginning set, and then buy your further...

Interesting you should say that since I've played the idea of a board in a pub or town centre where jobs/adventures are posting since the 80s. I've done it for low-level adventures. Small adventures like caravan guards, rats in the sewer, recovering a merchant's stolen item. I believe it's...

Wow, you sure are nit-picky. I can hardly believe you wasted energy typing that. C'mon, be real man. You know what I was getting at.

I think you're on to something there big time.

I personally hope so too. But it seems to me that some traditional D&Disms are being changed. Probably because it doesn't make sense to the makers of 4e. Like something so simple as changing spell levels. Instead of 0-9, there are 1-25 level spells?? Sure, in a logical way it makes sense...

I would agree with you as an old time player. ;) But in all seriousness, at least 3.5 at it's core is very much a D&D style game. It's all the extra books that expands it past traditional D&D. 4e at it's core is seeming like a different game altogether. I was a huge fanboy of 3e before it...

Well, that was an unexpected comment. Where do you get the impression that I would insult anybody? The meaning of my post is that a company being able to use the name "Dungeons & Dragons" for a game that is quite changed in many of the game's core elements from the earlier editions of D&D is...

And one they get to call Dungeons & Dragons. I bet the boys of Kenzer&Co., Troll Lord Games, Mongoose, Green Ronin, and any other game publisher that's created a fantasy RPG wish they could call their's Dungeons & Dragons. Name recognition is king baby! New D&D players raised on 4e will have...

I play C&C because it has that old AD&D feeling to me. I don't play AD&D because I like the streamlined SIEGE mechanic.

Wow, that is totally an untrue statement. I've played C&C as is btb and it's just fine on its own. When I was first introduced to C&C, it had nothing to do with importing rules from other systems. I think the reason it can though, as compared to older D&D versions, is that today there are many...

I wouldn't say, advice to heavily adapt to your liking. I would say that it can be easily adapted as you like, for the most part. I ran AD&D pretty much BTB. I run C&C pretty much BTB. C&C is to me as complete a system as AD&D is, if you just include the three core books. C&C is new and...

Looks like this thread has changed into a debate thread.

It doesn't really work that easily. It's easier to add something than to take something away. I tried that and have seen other DMs try that, and players get frustrated and say things like, "Then why did I buy this damn book if I can't use what's in it?". I'd rather see rules be more...

And as a 1st Edition AD&D player, I had major issues with various changes in 2nd Ed. Like the Ranger who turned from a butch orc and giant killer into a dual-sword wielding master, all because of Drizzt fame. Changes between editions are par for the course unfortunately. That said, 4e is...

I know this discussion has gone off topic a bit, but my take on a computer based D&D is thus. I can play poker on a computer, over the internet, but I still find it more enjoyable to sit around a table with a bunch of friends with physical cards. I can play many different board games on the...

From perspectives, I find that big fans of AD&D see a lot of 3e in C&C. And gamers who grew up on 3e D&D, don't see much 3e in C&C. :D It really is all in the perspective. There is a lot in 3e that I liked, thus I dove into it hard and fast in the beginning. And when using primarily the...

That's the first time I've heard C&C touted as such. I would not agree with that. It's too d20-ish in its mechanical style. I see C&C as what 3e should have been. It would have made a good 3rd Edition AD&D. C&C is like 3e with an old-school feel. For anyone who doesn't like d20, but does...

I really understand where you are coming from. I come from a 1st Ed. AD&D background, and one thing that bugged me was that if I had to create a rule or run an off the cuff roll for a situation, the game ran well, but would not be the same thing another DM might do. So in essence, my game was...

I can totally agree with you. But you left one out. If you want to play a game with old-school feel and nostalgia, and that's 3.x friendly, there is C&C. :D