D&D's spawned some clones. I'm not completely satisfied with any of them, and in an attempt to work out some way of hybridising what I like from each of them, here's a a summary of what I think are their advantages and disadvantages:
D&D 3(.5)E
Pros:
Codified combat, allows for tactical battlemap gaming. -> Huge advantage, combat more fun for players.
Feats and skills add to the player "carrot on stick" factor. -> Huge advantage, hooks players and gives them something to strive for.
High ability to customise characters significantly. -> Huge advantage, players more likely to get the PCs they want.
Some semblance of game balance. -> Huge, huge advantage.
Cons:
Overcodification in some areas (e.g. attacks of opportunity, groups spotting groups, different types of ACs), leading to "diminishing returns" complexity...hard to learn, rules disputes, rules overlooked, slows down play. -> Moderate disadvantage (i.e. can be learnt).
Difficulty in converting from past editions without significant effort. -> Huge disadvantage. Way too much good material off limits because of it.
Difficult to house rule without breaking rules integrity in other areas. -> Minor disadvantage.
Huge statistics blocks, unrealistic assumption that NPCs and monsters will have skills and feats chosen, bonuses added together. -> Huge disadvantage for DMs, unless handwaved (the normal solution). A result of most of the Pros.
Castles and Crusades
Pros:
Very high ease of conversion. -> Huge advantage, there's tonnes of D&D IP to plunder from all editions, the Dragon Archive CD-ROM, Hackmaster, those 2E books containing all spells and magic items from all editions, Dungeon magazine, modules etc.
Unified resolution mechanic without 3E-style strings attached. -> Huge advantage, speeds up gameplay, allows GM to "flavor" the rules with the style of game they wish to run.
Ease of adventure creation. -> Huge advantage, and a result of trivial statting and low rules codification.
Ease of house ruling. -> Moderate advantage. Practically begs to be house ruled.
Cons:
Little to no character customisation. -> Huge, huge disadvantage.
Little to no "carrot on stick" in terms of cool abilities to get later on. -> Huge disadvantage.
Low level of rules codification. -> Moderate disadvantage, less rules power in player's hands as with D&D 3E, need to trust your gamemaster.
Not enough monsters, magic items, classes, races or spells splat to make game interesting. -> Moderate disadvantage, really a huge, huge disadvantage but can be easily quelled by plundering other D&D's.
Questionable game balance (suffers from the "obsolete high level rogue" problem of earlier D&D editions, for instance). -> Moderate disadvantage.
Significant spelling mistakes, grammatical errors. -> Minor disadvantage after errata, but doesn't inspire confidence in design ability if the authors can't even get the text right.
Invites dodgy house ruling. -> Moderate disadvantage.
Hackmaster
Pros:
Lots of arguably really cool ideas in the splat which can breathe a lot of new life into sometimes stick-in-the-mud D&D (monsters, spells and items). -> Moderate advantage (a lot of people don't like the style). Huge advantage if you're me, I really dig it.
Pseudo-nostalgia factor, and stylistically oriented towards fun gameplay. -> Moderate advantage (again, a lot of people don't dig it, but a little fun stuff goes a long way towards improving gameplay).
Cons:
Use of all quirky rules borders on the unplayable, slows down gameplay, requires near compulsory houseruling. -> Huge disadvantage.
Questionable game balance. -> Moderate disadvantage.
Implied setting doesn't cater for other styles of D&D play. -> Huge, huge disadvantage if you want to run another style of setting.
I'm leaning towards C&C using D&D IP I like from prior editions, Hackmaster and 3E. Unfortunately, this is selfish towards players - 3E offers very significant advantages in terms of keeping the game compelling and fun for players. I'd also have to extensively house rule it (such as rewriting the classes), so I'm not sure it's worth it. On the other hand, I don't want to run 3E either, because of the DM-unfriendliness and unrealistic adventure preparation and extensive conversion I think it represents. I'm not sure how to resolve this - am open to suggestions.
D&D 3(.5)E
Pros:
Codified combat, allows for tactical battlemap gaming. -> Huge advantage, combat more fun for players.
Feats and skills add to the player "carrot on stick" factor. -> Huge advantage, hooks players and gives them something to strive for.
High ability to customise characters significantly. -> Huge advantage, players more likely to get the PCs they want.
Some semblance of game balance. -> Huge, huge advantage.
Cons:
Overcodification in some areas (e.g. attacks of opportunity, groups spotting groups, different types of ACs), leading to "diminishing returns" complexity...hard to learn, rules disputes, rules overlooked, slows down play. -> Moderate disadvantage (i.e. can be learnt).
Difficulty in converting from past editions without significant effort. -> Huge disadvantage. Way too much good material off limits because of it.
Difficult to house rule without breaking rules integrity in other areas. -> Minor disadvantage.
Huge statistics blocks, unrealistic assumption that NPCs and monsters will have skills and feats chosen, bonuses added together. -> Huge disadvantage for DMs, unless handwaved (the normal solution). A result of most of the Pros.
Castles and Crusades
Pros:
Very high ease of conversion. -> Huge advantage, there's tonnes of D&D IP to plunder from all editions, the Dragon Archive CD-ROM, Hackmaster, those 2E books containing all spells and magic items from all editions, Dungeon magazine, modules etc.
Unified resolution mechanic without 3E-style strings attached. -> Huge advantage, speeds up gameplay, allows GM to "flavor" the rules with the style of game they wish to run.
Ease of adventure creation. -> Huge advantage, and a result of trivial statting and low rules codification.
Ease of house ruling. -> Moderate advantage. Practically begs to be house ruled.
Cons:
Little to no character customisation. -> Huge, huge disadvantage.
Little to no "carrot on stick" in terms of cool abilities to get later on. -> Huge disadvantage.
Low level of rules codification. -> Moderate disadvantage, less rules power in player's hands as with D&D 3E, need to trust your gamemaster.
Not enough monsters, magic items, classes, races or spells splat to make game interesting. -> Moderate disadvantage, really a huge, huge disadvantage but can be easily quelled by plundering other D&D's.
Questionable game balance (suffers from the "obsolete high level rogue" problem of earlier D&D editions, for instance). -> Moderate disadvantage.
Significant spelling mistakes, grammatical errors. -> Minor disadvantage after errata, but doesn't inspire confidence in design ability if the authors can't even get the text right.
Invites dodgy house ruling. -> Moderate disadvantage.
Hackmaster
Pros:
Lots of arguably really cool ideas in the splat which can breathe a lot of new life into sometimes stick-in-the-mud D&D (monsters, spells and items). -> Moderate advantage (a lot of people don't like the style). Huge advantage if you're me, I really dig it.
Pseudo-nostalgia factor, and stylistically oriented towards fun gameplay. -> Moderate advantage (again, a lot of people don't dig it, but a little fun stuff goes a long way towards improving gameplay).
Cons:
Use of all quirky rules borders on the unplayable, slows down gameplay, requires near compulsory houseruling. -> Huge disadvantage.
Questionable game balance. -> Moderate disadvantage.
Implied setting doesn't cater for other styles of D&D play. -> Huge, huge disadvantage if you want to run another style of setting.
I'm leaning towards C&C using D&D IP I like from prior editions, Hackmaster and 3E. Unfortunately, this is selfish towards players - 3E offers very significant advantages in terms of keeping the game compelling and fun for players. I'd also have to extensively house rule it (such as rewriting the classes), so I'm not sure it's worth it. On the other hand, I don't want to run 3E either, because of the DM-unfriendliness and unrealistic adventure preparation and extensive conversion I think it represents. I'm not sure how to resolve this - am open to suggestions.
Last edited:
