Search results

Flexor, my advice: Just ignore trancejeremy. He often seems to make trolling statements like the one above, and never bothers to back them up.

In my last group I was the DM, and after running a 3.5 campaign for about a year (which had a satisfying conclusion), I insisted that we switch to C&C for the next campaign -- if I was going to continue to DM. (There were various reasons for this, viz. certain frustrations I had with the 3.5...

100 percent agreement. The Otus covers for the Moldvay/Cook Basic & Expert sets sum up the essence of D&D to me. I also love the 1e AD&D PHB cover by Dave Trampier (and his illustration 'Emirikol the Chaotic' in the DMG).

I've found it very easy to use 1e AD&D modules with C&C (just change the ACs; C&C AC = 20- 1e AC). So if that is something that you're interested in, C&C is an excellent option. Hackmaster has too many rules for my tastes.

I like the products of both companies very much. I find the DCCs easier to 'plug' into my campaign and 'mix-and-match', simply because they tend to be shorter than Necromancer's modules, and provide less in the way of setting/background information. OTOH, a single Necromancer book (e.g. 'Lost...

I don't understand your confusion. Many people have found C&C (and other systems, e.g. Savage Worlds) to require less prep work than D&D 3e (say, 1 hour instead of 3 hours). So while C&C does not eliminate the burden of prepping adventures entirely, it does reduce that burden. This doesn't...

Indeed. There are many systems out there that reduce prep-time on GMs. (I would recommend C&C if you like the 'D&D fantasy genre', but there are plenty of other options available.) D&D 3e is a game that can be very hard on the GM -- I will not GM it myself anymore unless I can make use of...

While I certainly appreciate the sentiment, if I were to get an additional copy of the Wilderlands, I would probably go with the pdf version. The Wilderlands 'box set' is in many respects well-served by the pdf format: you can simply print up the maps and descriptions of the area(s) that you...

I'm a big fan of creating and running 'homebrew' settings... ... But the Wilderlands is the first published setting that has made me want to use it for my games in decades. (At least since the ICE 'Middle-earth' campaign modules and the TSR 'Known World/Mystara' gazetteers from the mid-1980s.)...

It is always important to keep in mind that criticising someone's ideas is not the same thing as criticising that person. Because of the nature of the internet (the fact that we're communicating primarily via messages concerning specific topics, and thus lack a 'broader sense' or...

I agree fully with this recommendation. The great thing about the adventures in DCC29 is that they are all relatively short (but still interesting), and thus make for good 'one session' modules. I would also recommend DCC0 Legends are Made, Not Born for a fun 'intro' adventure.

The City-State of the Invincible Overlord. The best fantasy city for D&D for the past 30 years. :cool:

Check out page 14 of a certain Players’ Handbook. Half-elf druids predate UA by 8 years. But allowing half-elf druids is part of the 'core rules' of at least one well-known OOP game! It seems as core/'non-variant' as anything else, AFAIK. That seems plausible. And I agree in disliking...

Regarding the content of the OSRIC rules: Why are half-elves barred from being druids? It seems strange that, if I were to write a module appropriate for a 'certain OOP game' that explicitly allows half-elf druids, and included a half-elf druid NPC within my module, I could not then claim...

I didn't read this until after I replied to John Stark (whose post I found patronising and incorrect). So my apologies for pursuing a tangent. Suffice to say, I echo others' sentiments that OSRIC and C&C should not be understood as rivals, but rather as mutually-reinforcing lines of products.

I never denied the fact that one would have to get TLG's permission in order to publish C&C material (and had you read my post with proper attention you would realise this). I merely objected to your claims that one would invariably have to surrender control over one's products to TLG, or that...

Do you have any justification for making these claims? Do you know what rates TLG pays people who write modules for them? Authors who have worked for Necromancer Games and Goodman Games are writing C&C material for TLG. I would thus assume that TLG is willing to pay authors at comparable...

"Planning and hashing out ideas" does not amount to "working on a new version" or that "a new Rolemaster is in the works"???? Your claim makes no sense. Sure you might only be at a very preliminary stage, but insofar as you are 'planning and hashing out ideas' you are working on a new version.

For a 1e module campaign, I would use: U1 Sinister Secret of Saltmarsh (I don't like the rest of the series, but U1 is a solid 'intro' module) [Levels 1-3] L1 Secret of Bone Hill (perhaps combine U1 & L1 into a single module -- have Restenford replace Saltmarsh) [levels 2-4] UK2 The Sentinel...

Actually, this is a recent development. Go over to the ICE fora and check out the discussions, if you don't think they're serious.