Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Philotomy Jurament" data-source="post: 3658086" data-attributes="member: 20854">The biggest thing I took from 3E and applied to older editions isn't a rule or subsystem, but rather the concept of &quot;behind the curtain,&quot; or &quot;why are the rules this way?&quot;&nbsp; For whatever reason, 3E made me much more aware of game design (I think the Internet had a lot to do with this, actually).When I started asking the question &quot;why are the rules this way&quot; about older editions, I quickly realized that many things I had previously dismissed as weird or silly or broken made sense in the context of the system's design and &quot;philosophy.&quot;&nbsp; I also realized that the older approach often suited me better than the newer approaches. C&amp;C strikes me as a middle ground.&nbsp; Nevertheless, I think it's more &quot;old school&quot; than &quot;new school,&quot; which is one reason it's trivial to use Classic/1E/2E material with C&amp;C, while using 3E material is &quot;not hard, but not trivial.&quot;&nbsp; I like C&amp;C, and am running 2 campaigns that use C&amp;C.&nbsp; However, I'm also running a Holmes/OD&amp;D(1974) campaign, and I'm having just as much fun with that -- and it's *really* old-school (e.g. all weapons do 1d6 damage, thieves don't have a special ability to find traps, no skill system at all, et cetera).&nbsp; My next campaign will either use Holmes/OD&amp;D, again (it's been a real blast), or I may use 1E.&nbsp; I've been reading through OSRIC, lately, and it's whetting my appetite for 1E.&nbsp; (I think OSRIC's presentation of the combat rules are really good, by the way.)</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Philotomy Jurament, post: 3658086, member: 20854"] The biggest thing I took from 3E and applied to older editions isn't a rule or subsystem, but rather the concept of "behind the curtain," or "why are the rules this way?" For whatever reason, 3E made me much more aware of game design (I think the Internet had a lot to do with this, actually). When I started asking the question "why are the rules this way" about older editions, I quickly realized that many things I had previously dismissed as weird or silly or broken made sense in the context of the system's design and "philosophy." I also realized that the older approach often suited me better than the newer approaches. C&C strikes me as a middle ground. Nevertheless, I think it's more "old school" than "new school," which is one reason it's trivial to use Classic/1E/2E material with C&C, while using 3E material is "not hard, but not trivial." I like C&C, and am running 2 campaigns that use C&C. However, I'm also running a Holmes/OD&D(1974) campaign, and I'm having just as much fun with that -- and it's *really* old-school (e.g. all weapons do 1d6 damage, thieves don't have a special ability to find traps, no skill system at all, et cetera). My next campaign will either use Holmes/OD&D, again (it's been a real blast), or I may use 1E. I've been reading through OSRIC, lately, and it's whetting my appetite for 1E. (I think OSRIC's presentation of the combat rules are really good, by the way.) [/QUOTE]

Verification