[C&C] Not nostalgia - Different folkloric basis than 3E

[Lizard]

I, personally, don't think it's a matter of blame, just that 3E provides a certain "feel" resulting from these wide-ranging options - making the story a story of transformation rather than a story of rising to the top of an archetypal ... um, type. C&C's a story about rising to the top of a heap. In 3E, there aren't heaps. Characters are highly individualized. Same fun, but there's a different character to your "greatness" when you succeed and a different character to your striving when you're still climbing in power.

This strikes me a fair assessment.

 

[Mythmere1]

The nostalgia factor here has less to do with C&C and more to do with assigning to AD&D a focus and flavour it never had.

This again is one of my very points, that C&C is not about nostalgia. It's about (in addition to the effects of lighter rules, faster prep time, etc) fostering a particular type of personal development story that's different from 3E and also different from the mode of play that was admittedlty common in early D&D - which sort of play would be more supported by 3E.

I cannot see any evidence in the rules that the intent of the game was to play 'normal guys with experience'. (I might note that Unearthed Arcana pretty much stakes that concept to the ground with its multitude of stat generation systems...) AD&D was a major 'power up' as compared to classic Brown/White box D&D (which didn't even allow 1st level clerics spells at all!)

I just have to disagree, here, and point out that I don't mean normal in the sense of starting out like a peasant - I mean normal in the sense of having a skill set that's common to the other powerful individuals in the setting. They stand out less for their varied abilities or personal attributes, and more for being pre-eminent in a particular archetype.

Sure, it's gone up still further since then, with todays Wizards casting mountains of 1st level spells compared to the old one-shot wonders of 1e, but it's simply continuing the progression begun way-back-when.

I don't think the issue is whether casters have more spells or everybody has more hit points across the board. It's that many wizards might become archmages with the ability to blast pure spellpower, or arcane tricksters with the ability to use thieving skills at a distance, and also that the wizard is designed to be able to kill monsters with the flavor of a tarrasque or the flavor of a dragon who can crush any opposition in the world. Part of it also stems from the number of encounters you have on the course of level progression using the standard rules of the two systems, too. You have fought more battles in C&C when you reach 10th level, for example. This really does affect the feel of the game. A tenth level C&C character has a bloodier past and probably more game time than a 10th level 3E character.

 

[Mythmere1]

This strikes me a fair assessment.

That's really the main thrust of my argument. The games suggest a particular type of context. The GM can alter this, but each game has a slight bias toward one type of story and another.

I had a 30th level magic user who killed Orcus several times. Go figure.

 

[Breakdaddy]

I differ slightly on the take, because I think munchkinism, super-powered characters, hack n slash, etc. are a totally valid way of playing if they are your cup of tea.

I agree completely. I am casting this type of gaming in a negative light for the sake of argument, not as a touchstone to the only valid way to play the game.

 

[Treebore]

I'm sorry, but the one truth about any game is the level of munchkinism/powergaming/rules breakage is always in control of the DM. Doing the powergaming/munchkining/etc... is fine by me too. Just don't blame a game system for a DM's lack of ability to control the power level of his or her game.

I have DMed and played every system I have previously mentioned and the power level was totally in my control, and I kept having plenty of people sitting at my table to game. I even kept RIFTS in control, and Synnibar. Did a lot of house ruling, but I made it happen.

Plus there is a great rule in the first edition DMG that every DM should remember, no matter what game they are running.

If anyone reading this has their 1E DMG handy, or still has this rule memorized, I would appreciate you quoting it for me. Essentially Gygax tells us that no matter what the rules say, we, the DM, are the final arbiter of anything that happens within the game, with an eye towards ensuring that the end result is an enjoyable game played by all. No rule supercedes the judgement of the DM, especially if the DM is ruling against the rule for the sake of running a better game.

Even C&C's "simplicity" will not prevent Munchkining or powergaming, only the DM will ever be able to do that. Assuming that powergaming and munchkining isn't the DM and his players brand of gaming to begin with.

That has never changed, and it never will. I believe today it is called rule "0".

 

[Mythmere1]

Treebore: if you have GMed Rifts without munchkinism, I must bow to you and say that you are the great one.

I am not worthy
I am not worthy

 

[Ankh-Morpork Guard]

Well said, Treebore.

 

[Breakdaddy]

Treebore: if you have GMed Rifts without munchkinism, I must bow to you and say that you are the great one.

Without a doubt. Rifts seems to have been made from the ground up as a powergamers dream. I love Rifts for its setting and feel, but the few games that I ran of Rifts went south fast regardless of my level of arbitration and house ruling. So here is another tip of the hat to Treebore!

 

[TerraDave]

WotC creates games that focus on the wish-fulfillment of "I wish I had super powers." No criticism is implied - other, older, RPGs have focused on the same aspect of wish fulfillment and have been great games. .

And one of those games was called Dungeons and Dragons

There's nothing wrong with it. But D&D originally focused on a different sort of heroism - a hero who isn't particularly unusual in terms of anything but his experience. I think this is the source of the grognard's disdain for weird races and unusual character classes. The grognard senses that the underlying folkloric dynamic - the structure of the story - has changed from the AD&D model of the experienced but relatively average shlep to a model in which the character gains inherent powers far beyond and far different from the norm.
.

Yes, and this explains exceptional strength...or as Lizard pointed out the UA system to buff the stats on your charecter. One funny thing Col. Pladoh mentioned in his Q&A threads is how he stopped using the "3d6 in order" system because people would just roll (and reject the charecter), and roll, and roll until they got the stats they wanted...D&D was never really about the average shlep. And while I realise you need at least a few levels of fighter to be a "superhero", is a 1st level AD&D paladin an "average shlep" or the 1st level barbarian, or the high con high strength fighter, or the AD&D elf fighter/magic user?

And speaking of which, AD&D has a highly customizable charecter class that can (by mid level) destroy small armies and does just about any thing a "super hero" can do and can be a big source of slower play and DM headaches...but he should be a human single classed magic user so he doesn't have to worry about level caps.

 

[Treebore]

I didn't stop the powergaming, that is what RIFTs is all about, I just kept it "balanced", so the game remained a challenge, not a runaway powerspike. When it got to be too much to handle I ended the campaign and we either started over or switched to something else. Which happened around 12th level, so it was cool and we had fun.