Classic D&D...

[S'mon]

For real streamlining, I just use all monster HD for their attack bonus, so there's actually nothing to convert from the printed page.

I like ascending AC and monster hd = attack bonus; I use this for my B/X game as well as for C&C.

 

[Grimstaff]

I do enjoy the Moldvay/Cook B/X sets, so much flavor in such a little package!

RC, well, seemed a little overstuffed in my opinion, but that may have more to do with not being a high-level-campaign kinda guy. RC seems to add more and more optional rules as you get higher level, and it just seems counter-intuitive to me. Shouldn't story get more important at higher levels? I give a similar gripe to 3.5, though.

Anyway, its hard to give up d20-style AC's, so I'd probably houserule that and get rid of thac0, or just use the old B/X combat charts. Maybe I tend to relate the word "thac0", with 2E, which I relate with getting disgusted and quitting gaming...?

Another small gripe I have with Basic D&D is that its impossible for thieves to do anything competantly until they're about 6th-8th level.

Castles and Crusades definitely fulfills my old-school cravings, though, and works well with my 1E DMG and MM, as well as with Basic modules and DCCs.

 

[Ralif Redhammer]

Awesome! Classic D&D is such a beautiful system and product. I keep meaning to break it out and attempt to take a campaign from Basic to Immortal.

I recently was gifted with the Dwarves of Rockhome sourcebook, and was happily surprised to see a Dwarf-Cleric class.

I can see wanting a Noble class, but out curiosity, why Scientist?

4. In order to allow all of the roles that exist in my campaign to be fulfilled, I've only had to add two human classes (noble and scientist). I've had to add a great deal more demi-human classes to cover all the races that exist in my campaign,

 

[Philotomy Jurament]

Has anybody else had a similar experience with going back and playing by the "auld school" rules?

Yes. I went "old school" a while back, and it reminded me what I like best in RPGs and revitalized my gaming. Right now I'm running three C&C games, but I've also recently run B/X and played BECMI. I'd like to run a game using Holmes with Meepo's expanded rules (takes the levels beyond 3rd -- more info here).

For those who like the B/X, BECMI, and the Rules Cyclopedia, but don't like the old-school AC system, you might want to check out Basic Fantasy.

 

[Crothian]

Ah, the only true D&D!!

I'd love to get a group to play it but just no time.

 

[Wik]

I kind of want to runa "retro" D&D game using 3.5 rules. Some of the tweaks I've made help recreate the "Feel" of the older editions, while keeping the d20 system I love:

1) All of the non-human races available as PCs (elves, dwarves, halflings, and half-orcs... jury's still out on gnomes) have to take levels in their racial paragon class - for every level in one class they take, they have to take one level in their paragon class (from UA). So, while the humans might be 4th level fighters, the dwarves would be 2nd level fighters/2nd level dwarven paragons.

2) Restrict the feat and spell selection, more or less using PHB (with a few spells crossed off the list) and a few feats culled from other sources.

3) Say goodbye to most of the special maneuvres, five foot steps, and attacks of opportunity, and find a mechanic (using a d20 and a relevant ability score) to replace most of 'em.

 

[Korgoth]

Has anybody else had a similar experience with going back and playing by the "auld school" rules?

Yes. I was ready to give up on D&D, actually. I just wasn't getting enough fun out of 3E and was finding it a drag. Then I "rediscovered" old school D&D and the thriving online old school community, and with it my gaming roots.

I think that Classic D&D "lets D&D be D&D". It is very light on rules, very flexible, easy to run and achieves the result that one wants out of D&D. I even like the race-as-class mechanic, which I think reinforces both the classic fantasy archetypes and the humanocentric nature of the world.

To me, Classic is D&D. I love it!

 

[Xyanthon]

I was always more of a 1e AD&D guy back in the day. I did have the BEMCI rules when I was younger but prefered the look and feel of the advenced game. However, my tastes have shifted and I like the approach of the BECMI, RC, and OD&D (1974) quite a bit. If I could find time and interested others, I'd love to play in a RC game (or any of the others I mentioned for that matter).

 

[robberbaron]

I played/DMed White Box for 4 years, AD&D 1e for 23 years and 3.5 for 4 (didn't do too much 2e, maybe a year or so, but I didn't see it as much of an improvement) and hanker after the simplicity of the old days. I didn't particularly like THAC0 as looking the roll up on a table/doing the math just slows everything down a little. Takes the edge off the combat.

My 3.5 campaign is pretty much Core with no PrCs and I think only 2 PCs have multiclassed to date.
I have a lot of other books on pdf which I use for inspiration but I haven't found anything in them that I'm happy about including, mainly because I think they would just overcomplicate things and, if you let one twinkbook in, you open the door to all the broken/bizarre/ridiculous cr*p that's out there.

Very much doubt I'd go back to 1e but I still have the books, look upon them fondly and try to keep my game as simple as I can, as an homage. It helps that my 3.5 game is in the same world as my 1e one, just a bit further on.

 

[S'mon]

Another small gripe I have with Basic D&D is that its impossible for thieves to do anything competantly until they're about 6th-8th level.

I agree with this; I've just divided the %s by 5 and add them to a d20 DEX or INT roll - I use full stat roll-under, but you could equally use a C&C-style system in B/X - d20 + stat mod + Thief level, beat a certain difficulty number to succeed; say 10 for a fairly easy task; 15 is probably right for a typical difficult task.