I got to playtest Castles and Crusades!

[The Mirrorball Man]

No, actually, those are typically referred to as "Basic" D&D or BECM D&D (for the Basic, Expert, Companion, and Master Sets)

You mean BECMI D&D, right?

 

[buzz]

How presumptious!

Previous articles and interviews I've read about projects you've done with, iirc, TLG mentioned that you tended to work in LA, and the publisher later did a conversion. Is this not true?

(And it's not a criticism. I had thought it was just your preferred way to work these days.)

If you saw any of my many posts on several websites about why I was not interested in doing my original castle-dungeons, you would know that I thought their spirit and soul would fit only with OAD&D or a system like it in those aspects as well as mechanics.

How presumptuous!

I haven't seen these posts. Also, I'm not a playtester, so I have no clue how the mechanics of C&C work, ergo, no idea that they fit your original castle-dungeons so well that you'd be working directly with the system.

 

[buzz]

I have never heard the term "BECM D&D" in my 18 yrs of gaming, but I have heard "Basic" D&D reffered to as "OD&D" almost exclusively for years. Even at some of the largest "Basic" D&D fansites on the web refer to it as "OD&D".

I've never seen "BECM D&D". Granted, I'd never seen "OAD&D" before this thread, either.

AFAIK:

• OD&D: Original, three-brown-booklets D&D
• BD&D: Basic, Expert, etc.
• AD&D: AD&D1e and AD&D2e (though I prefer using each specifically)
• D&D: General term, though becoming synonymous with 3.x, seeing as it's the first edition in 20-odd years that's actually just "D&D".

 

[NeuroZombie]

Pardon...

The reference was was to OAD&D, the first edition being the original.

Just FYI, OD&D is the original boxed set of three booklets and various supplements. What you refer to above as OD&D is revised D&D, a second edition

Cheers,
Gary

My Mistake, just making a note of what I was under the impression the various acronyms meant as read from many sources. The online sources must be wrong

 

[Col_Pladoh]

Previous articles and interviews I've read about projects you've done with, iirc, TLG mentioned that you tended to work in LA, and the publisher later did a conversion. Is this not true?

Howdy Buzz!

The references noted by you undoubtedly refer to my working with the D20 system. that i find oppressive and inhibiting tomy creative thinking.

While I do find the LA system the most inspiring for my new creative work, re-creating the castle-dungeons material done for OD&D and OAD&D can be properly done only with a game system that is similar to those used for the original work. that leaves both D20 and the LA game right out

Cheers,
Gary

 

[Col_Pladoh]

My Mistake, just making a note of what I was under the impression the various acronyms meant as read from many sources. The online sources must be wrong

Heh,

As if this is something found in a dictionary, eh? Fact is, though, that "orignal" can properly refer only to the first of something, so neither the boxed sets of D&D nor the second edition oof AD&D can be "O" when that letter designated "original." Makes no never-mind at all what any online source says to the contrary.

cheers,
Gary

 

[diaglo]

Once and For all OD&D is not 1e... OD&D is the basic set, the old red, blue, etc... boxed sets.....

not to dogpile you or anything...but...

OD&D(1974) is the only true game. All the other editions are just poor imitations to the real thing.

basic D&D ala Holmes is the revised 2ed...and later also 3ed.

 

[Fiffergrund]

I've read that first sentence over and over again, and I still have no idea what it's supposed to mean.

What I am being negative about is the (what I perceive to be) marketing-speak Fiffergrund is using.

I mean, how are the designers at, say, GR "detached" in comparison to Gary and the guys at TL? How is it that C&C "recognizes that gamers like to tinker and mold" any more than any other RPG ever published? Isn't something like HERO or FUDGE more of a "tinkerers" RPG than one modeled after the rigid race/class system of AD&D1e?

My my, have we all become so cynical? How about - gasp - the concept that I may have told the truth as I perceive it, instead of some manipulative marketing-speak?

It all has to do with implied permissions. This game is NOT a generic RPG, but it doesn't get in the way of folks who would like to shape it to their own ends.

Any game can put a sentence in the preface saying "change it however you like." What differentiates games is whether or not the overall design of each lends itself to easy modularity and "tinkering." HERO, FUDGE, 3E+ - all of them offer flexibility within the scope of the rules themselves - in other words, the designers saw fit to suggest to the players how to alter the game, as well as how to play it, because of the teetering monolith called "balance."

1) C&C assumes that each referee knows what's best for the balance of their individual game. (heh, a novel concept, nowadays, trusting the referee)

2) C&C's balance isn't going to decimated through removal or addition of systems, it will only be incrementally altered, depending on the nature of the change. More importantly, if the balance *is* altered, the game is transparent enough that the degree of the alteration will be readily apparent to the referee making the change.

While other games pay this notion lip service, very often, I've noticed, the rules aren't constructed to suit this philosophy.

Does this mean that C&C is the end-all-be-all? Not necessarily. People have their own preferences. All I can speak to is my own experience with it, and as a "D&D" game, it's hands-down the most liberating that I've played that still remains true to the philosophies of the original.

It doesn't make them any different.
It's just meaningless ad copy that is used when they don't have anything particular to the topic to rave about.
It's also a surprising change from Gygax's past rants on playing D&D 'his way or else'.

Geoff, it's not "meaningless ad copy." You're speaking from pure ignorance, unless you can read my mind.

As a matter of fact, I *do* have specific things I could "rave" about, but I am prevented from doing so by the NDA I signed. I resent the implication that I'm spouting forth empty platitudes for some sort of marketing ploy - I'm simply saying only what I'm allowed to say, which are my true impressions of the game.

 

[Melkor]

Well said Fiff -

As a player of 3rd Edition, and a big fan of 1st Edition....and yet another playtester of C&C, I can say that C&C has been very refreshing and downright fun to my gaming group, and a couple of my players are die-hard 3rd Edition addicts.

It has really become a labor of love for several of the playtesters involved, and it really shows in how the design has progressed. I personally feel that it is going to be an incredible finished product.

More when I have some extra time to post.

Cheers.

 

[buzz]

My my, have we all become so cynical? How about - gasp - the concept that I may have told the truth as I perceive it, instead of some manipulative marketing-speak?

No one is questioning that what you wrote might be the truth as you perceive it. Your original "what the game is about" read like marketing copy to me, though, as it's a big bunch of words promising everything yet avoiding saying aything comprehensible...

It all has to do with implied permissions. This game is NOT a generic RPG, but it doesn't get in the way of folks who would like to shape it to their own ends.

...like this. What do you mean by "implied permissions"? Permission from who to do what? And what does this have to do with generic rulesets? Are you saying there's something about C&C that lends itself to "tinkering" more than other games?

Any game can put a sentence in the preface saying "change it however you like." What differentiates games is whether or not the overall design of each lends itself to easy modularity and "tinkering."

So, there's something about C&C that lends itself to "tinkering" more than other games?

1) C&C assumes that each referee knows what's best for the balance of their individual game. (heh, a novel concept, nowadays, trusting the referee)

I can't think of any RPGs I've picked up in the last three years that don't make a point of this. I think GoO's entire product line is based on such assumptions.

2) C&C's balance isn't going to decimated through removal or addition of systems, it will only be incrementally altered, depending on the nature of the change. More importantly, if the balance *is* altered, the game is transparent enough that the degree of the alteration will be readily apparent to the referee making the change.

So, there's something about C&C that lends itself to "tinkering" more than other games?

All I can speak to is my own experience with it, and as a "D&D" game, it's hands-down the most liberating that I've played that still remains true to the philosophies of the original...

As a matter of fact, I *do* have specific things I could "rave" about, but I am prevented from doing so by the NDA I signed.

Well, I'll be happy to read some reviews of the game once people are no longer bound by the NDA, as it seems the NDA is preventing anything but the most obtuse discussion of this product. All I can gather now is that it's a dessert topping AND a floor wax.