C&C and HM = D&D?

[Silverleaf]

They are as much descendants of the OOP editions as 3e is. They just focus on different aspects of the OOP editions than 3e does. They don't have the legal right to the name, but to those who like the apect that C&C or Hackmaster focuses upon, they are as much 'D&D' as anything else.

If you wanted to get technical about it, HM is probably the closest of them all, since it has entire sections cut & pasted from the 1e books (along with heaps of new stuff). And if you disregard most of the new stuff, it's basically straight-up 1e. It's hard to get any closer than that without an actual reprint. None of other recent editions follow any of the earlier ones that closely.
In spirit though, C&C seems very close in many ways, although the mechanics are quite different.
3e doesn't seem as close in spirit to oldschool D&D as the other two, but it's still more or less D&D. At least it's closer to its ancestors than say Alternity, Ars Magica, Rolemaster, and whatever else inspired the 3e designers (who must have had endless debates on "sacred cows"). Mechanically, it's a bit further away than C&C is.

 

[twofalls]

Wow... this thread conversation really is happening... again, and again, and again... Kinda like a photograph with a shiney camera lense taken into a mirror... when do the images stop...?

 

[Ratughoth]

If you wanted to get technical about it, HM is probably the closest of them all, since it has entire sections cut & pasted from the 1e books (along with heaps of new stuff). And if you disregard most of the new stuff, it's basically straight-up 1e. It's hard to get any closer than that without an actual reprint. None of other recent editions follow any of the earlier ones that closely.
In spirit though, C&C seems very close in many ways, although the mechanics are quite different.
3e doesn't seem as close in spirit to oldschool D&D as the other two, but it's still more or less D&D. At least it's closer to its ancestors than say Alternity, Ars Magica, Rolemaster, and whatever else inspired the 3e designers (who must have had endless debates on "sacred cows"). Mechanically, it's a bit further away than C&C is.

Right on.

 

[Ratughoth]

Wow... this thread conversation really is happening... again, and again, and again... Kinda like a photograph with a shiney camera lense taken into a mirror... when do the images stop...?

If we lived in a static world then I would concur. We have many new people coming here that would like to talk about it though. Like me for example.

 

[Gez]

D&D d20 revised (2003) is the One True Game. All other veditions are poor imitations of the real thing, or half-cooked draft versions.

 

[John Q. Mayhem]

(1.) OD&D (1974 version)
(2.) OD&D (1974) + Supplements (Greyhawk, Blackmoor, etc.)
(3.) Basic/Expert/Rules Cyclopedia D&D (sometimes incorrectly called 'OD&D')
(4.) 1E AD&D
(5.) 1E AD&D + Unearthed Arcana
(6.) 2E AD&D
(7.) 2E AD&D + Various 'Options' Books
(8.) 3E D&D
(9.) Hackmaster
(10.) Castles and Crusades

In contrast, (1.) and (8.) differ quite a bit from (2.) - (6.).

Fascinating. I believe that we can safely assume that OD&D (1974) is D&D? If so, and you accept that d20 isn't D&D because it's different from what came before it, than neither is anything after Diaglo's fetish. I am amused.

 

[Silverleaf]

D&D is the sound of one hand clapping. If you look for it, you cannot find it. D&D will appear to you when the time is right.

 

[driver8]

Is Castles & Crusades and Hackmaster, Dungeons & Dragons?

Quasqueton

(stands up like Tony Curtis in Spartacus)

NO, I AM DUNGEONS & DRAGONS!!!!

 

[John Q. Mayhem]

I am Dungeons and Dragons!

 

[Ratughoth]

(stands up like Tony Curtis in Spartacus)

NO, I AM DUNGEONS & DRAGONS!!!!

"...and you sir, are no Dungeons and Dragons!..."