Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="jdrakeh" data-source="post: 3513699" data-attributes="member: 13892">I agree. Indeed, I see it much less as a return to previous editions of D&amp;D than I do as a stripped down D&amp;D 3.5 -- there's no doubt&nbsp; that it attracts many old school gamers, but I think that this was more serendipity than actual marketing/design. So far as I can tell, it has almost exclusively been marketed as an alternative to D&amp;D 3x rather than as an old school game (many fans and third parties have promoted it as an old school game, but that's not really the same thing). That said. . . I see the BFRPG as being the 'old school with new rules' product that C&amp;C is often touted as. Where C&amp;C's primary design concern seems to have been stripping out the more complex parts of D&amp;D 3.5, the BFRPG seems to have been more concerned with porting in pieces of past D&amp;D editions. I think that both products succeed at what they set out to do, but I very much think that they set out to do different things.I'd use C&amp;C as a rules-light alternative to D&amp;D 3.5, but I much prefer the BFRPG as an actual model for old school play using SRD-derived rules.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="jdrakeh, post: 3513699, member: 13892"] I agree. Indeed, I see it much less as a return to previous editions of D&D than I do as a stripped down D&D 3.5 -- there's no doubt that it attracts many old school gamers, but I think that this was more serendipity than actual marketing/design. So far as I can tell, it has almost exclusively been [i]marketed[/i] as an alternative to D&D 3x rather than as an old school game (many fans and third parties have promoted it as an old school game, but that's not really the same thing). That said. . . I see the BFRPG as being the 'old school with new rules' product that C&C is often touted as. Where C&C's primary design concern seems to have been stripping out the more complex parts of D&D 3.5, the BFRPG seems to have been more concerned with porting [i]in[/i] pieces of past D&D editions. I think that both products succeed at what they set out to do, but I very much think that they set out to do different things. I'd use C&C as a rules-light alternative to D&D 3.5, but I much prefer the BFRPG as an actual model for old school play using SRD-derived rules. [/QUOTE]

Verification