Basic Fantasy RPG -- what say you?

[Philotomy Jurament]

my primary dislike of C&C was a lack of mechanical differentiation between characters of the same class/level

If that is your view of C&C, I doubt you'll find BFRPG to your liking, either. In fact, I'd say C&C has more: C&C has assignment of primes and the SIEGE engine to differentiate similar PCs. As others have said, BFRPG is very similar to B/X: it doesn't have a set mechanical system for handing such differentation. Instead, that's up to the player and the GM.

I think BFRPG is cool and fun, and definitely captures an old-school vibe that is similar to B/X. As others have mentioned BFRPG is to B/X as OSRIC (or maybe C&C) is to AD&D. I guess the biggest reason to use it would be if you wanted a B/X-type game and also wanted in-print rules. BFRPG is available in print, and is also available as a free PDF, so if that were a concern for your group, it would make sense to use BFRPG instead of B/X.

I picked C&C for my main campaign as I like the old-school "AD&D-ish" feel, and it's in-print, inexpensive, and readily available, which is a plus for my players. I also liked the prime assignment/SIEGE engine combination for handling skill-like and feat-like actions in a very simple way without all the overhead of full-blown skill and feat systems. Lastly, I liked that I could use all my D&D products from various editions without much fuss (especially the out-of-print stuff).

(I'm also running a Holmes D&D game that's been working out really great.)

 

[Baduin]

It is trivially easy to add skills to Castles&Crusades - a skill allows you to make an attribute check with added level. Skills should be worse compared to respective class abilities - eg Move Silently or Sneak as a skill should allow check to notice, and thief's Move Silently not. When there is no obvious weakness, there is -2 penalty.

If you are not trained in a skill, and it can be used untrained, you do not add your level when making a check.

You start with 4 skills, plus Intelligence bonus, +1 at each 4 level.

 

[Flynn]

If BFRPG is an OGL version of OD&D, and C&C/OSRIC are OGL versions of AD&D, 1st Edition, then who is working on an OGL version of AD&D 2nd Edition?

Sorry for the threadjack, but I'm just curious,
Flynn

 

[Philotomy Jurament]

It is trivially easy to add skills to Castles&Crusades - a skill allows you to make an attribute check with added level. Skills should be worse compared to respective class abilities - eg Move Silently or Sneak as a skill should allow check to notice, and thief's Move Silently not. When there is no obvious weakness, there is -2 penalty.

If you are not trained in a skill, and it can be used untrained, you do not add your level when making a check.

You start with 4 skills, plus Intelligence bonus, +1 at each 4 level.

While I agree that it's trivially easy, I'd argue that it isn't even necessary. Want a sneaky, agile fighter? Assign Dex as one of his primes. Instantly, he's good at all the Dex-based ability checks, which includes things like sneaking around, etc. And under the standard SIEGE engine rules, only members of a class get to add their level to class-abilities (and they get optimum results on a success), so you don't need any additional rules to cover that difference.

(Anyway, this is what I was getting at when I said C&C lets you customize your PC without all the overhead. It's corase-grained instead of fine-grained, but you end up with pretty much the same results with a lot less record-keeping.)

 

[Philotomy Jurament]

If BFRPG is an OGL version of OD&D, and C&C/OSRIC are OGL versions of AD&D, 1st Edition, then who is working on an OGL version of AD&D 2nd Edition?

Sorry for the threadjack, but I'm just curious,
Flynn

I'd say:

OD&D(1974) -- nothing OGL and close exists, AFAIK
Holmes -- nothing OGL and close exists, AFAIK
B/X -- BFRPG is very, very close
BECMI/RC -- BFRPG is close
AD&D 1E -- OSRIC is very, very, close
AD&D 2E -- C&C is probably the closest

C&C isn't 1E clone. It has a lot of 1E "feel," but it's really its own thing. Feel aside, the actual rules are kind of a mix. There're elements of 1E, 2E, 3E, and B/X in there.

 

[jdrakeh]

It is trivially easy to add skills to Castles&Crusades...

Yes, but it doesn't come with that kind of thing by default. Thus, it's not part of the game. I was kind of hoping that BFRPG would have something like the Rules Cyclopedia skills system in it by design (somebody elsewhere mentioned the BFRPG had optional rules for skills but I couldn't find such a thing when I browsed the PDF). If it doesn't, no worries, but it would be nice

[Edit: Regarding C&C primes, that level of abstraction just doesn't get mechanical differentiation done with the level of detail that skills and/or feats do. The ends, despite claims to the contrary, aren't even remotely simiilar. I ran a five month C&C campaign last year and this came up over and over again.]

 

[Philotomy Jurament]

Regarding C&C primes, that level of abstraction just doesn't get mechanical differentiation done with the level of detail that skills and/or feats do. The ends, despite claims to the contrary, aren't even remotely simiilar.

Obviously, your mileage varies from mine: I've been handling feat and skill-like actions from PCs without any problems. Different strokes, I guess. :shrugs:

 

[Breakdaddy]

Obviously, your mileage varies from mine: I've been handling feat and skill-like actions from PCs without any problems. Different strokes, I guess. :shrugs:

I've had a similar experience to you, PJ. We have had no problems whatsoever running it like this. Of course, that doesn't mean everyone will enjoy it. This has just been our experience with a 8-10 person group over the course of about the last year or so.

 

[Mycanid]

http://www.basicfantasy.org/

Thanks sir! DOWNLOADED!

 

[jdrakeh]

Obviously, your mileage varies from mine: I've been handling feat and skill-like actions from PCs without any problems. Different strokes, I guess. :shrugs:

The thing is, you're using one umbrella to cover them all (e.g., a Dex check for anything Dex related). As you pointed out earlier, that isn't the same thing as what I'm looking for -- seperate skill ratings for specific areas of aptitude mean different chances of success for different actions related to those specific aptitudes. C&C doesn't give you this level of mechanical detail 'out of the box' and, apparently, neither does the BFRPG.

Like you note earlier, it's all about granularity -- C&C is like a bag of stones in that respect, while D&D 3x is like a bag of sand. Some people simply prefer sand to stones. Neither group of people is wrong, they simply like different things (really, it pains me that I actually have to type that out, but apparently it's necessary). I won't hold this against the BFRPG when I review it, but I will note that it likely isn't going to appeal nearly as much to people who prefer sand as it will to those who dig stones