I'm thinking of going back to 2e!

[Fifth Element]

As gamers, we should be coming together with the intent of supporting the hobby. We should celebrate the fact that we have so many varieties of games to accomodate a variety of play style. Instead, it seems we have to come after one another in a contest of one-upmanship.

D&D is not better than C&C, and the reverse holds true as well. They're just different, as different as True20, Shadowrun, d6, or any other system is.

So rather than coming after one another, let's celebrate the fact that the OP has a variety of systems to choose from, and wish him well in choosing the right one for his group. I'm anxious to hear the results!

QFT!

I don't have a lot of hobbies (so I can't compare this to a wide variety of hobbies), but it seems to me that gamers tend to be a fractious lot. I really don't understand how backs can get up so quickly based on different ways to have fun.

 

[Quasqueton]

I don't have a lot of hobbies (so I can't compare this to a wide variety of hobbies), but it seems to me that gamers tend to be a fractious lot. I really don't understand how backs can get up so quickly based on different ways to have fun.

Because RPGs are actually an emotional hobby disguised as an intellectual hobby. What game we prefer is more based on emotional reasons, but we like to claim they are based on intellectual reasons. We like to convince others that our game preference is based on intelligence and indisputable logic, but it's really more an emotional attraction.

Quasqueton

 

[Flynn]

But I would not consider any version of D&D to be "able to play well using any genre e.g. high fantasy, space opera, wild west, etc." D&D, through all its editions has been pretty well really good only for high fantansy. Playing another genre requires the houseruling mentioned above.

And I wouldn't think any level-based system, like all D&D editions is "able to accommodate all sorts of character ideas, from the basic to the really wacko".

Quasqueton,

This may be considered off-topic, but if D&D were to encompass D20 Modern, then I'd say there's a much greater chance (not perfect, mind you, but much greater) that D&D could encompass most genres and accomodate many character concepts. D20 Modern is very generic, and provides a lot of that kind of opportunity. (Look at the D20 games that have been produced using D20 Modern as the foundation - Darwin's World, D20 Future, D20 Past, Grim Tales, etc.) That particular rules set is very versatile, to the point of lacking in flavor sometimes. (That is the curse of a generic approach - flavor tends to fall off because it has to in order for rules to be applied over a wider range of genres.)

If you don't count D20 Modern as D&D, then I definitely agree with your above statement. However, this is irrelevant to the discussion at hand, and I apologize for the distraction.

With Regards,
Flynn

 

[NilesB]

DarkSun - I loved this setting because it was so different. There exist several unofficial conversions, but they fail to capture the feel of the setting as presented in 2e.

I don't think it's as hard as it seems given the abject failures of earlier attempts. It would probably work better as a d20 fantasy game like Arcana Unearthed/Evolved or Iron Heroes than as a D&D setting.

Part of the reason it is so hard to capture the feel of the setting with 3e rules is that the setting was inherently unbalanced! The evil defilers gained experience twice as fast because defiling magic was easier to master. With 3e all classes gain XP at the same rate, eliminating the corrupting lure of defiling magic.

Give acanists some spell slots they can cast safely and some spell slots they have to defile to use. Add feats that improve preserver capability and that offer power for greater defiling.
This probably works better with some variation of spontaneous caster that a prepared caster.
<edit>Or make people prepare spells if they want to be a preserver, but they can cast anything they know spontaneously if they're willing to defile.

Reflects the corruption/redemption of spellcasters better than the old dual classing mechanic did.

In 2e Dark Sun all character had a psionic "wild talent". How would this work in 3e? Would all characters gain a free level of psion? A random psionic power? Would I have to redo the entire 3.5e psionics system?

Give everyone power points and powers known based on character level approximately as good as Paladin/Ranger spellcasting.

 

[Set]

QFT!
I don't have a lot of hobbies (so I can't compare this to a wide variety of hobbies), but it seems to me that gamers tend to be a fractious lot. I really don't understand how backs can get up so quickly based on different ways to have fun.

Get caught between a Red Sox fan and a Yankees fan arguing about why their respective teams suck and you'll long for the petty bickering we do about game systems. It think it's less a 'gamers are fractious' thing and more a 'people tend to defend things they care about' thing.

In my experience, certain game systems / settings seem to inspire a certain level of 'snobbery' and a type of fan that can be pretty venomous and / or condescending to other gamers (which is terribly ironic, since we're all the same sort of geek in the end. It's just perpetuating the insecure high-school foolishness that made football players heap derision on drama kids.).

'Better' is in the eye of the respective gamer. Munchkin and power-gamer and 'roll-player' and 'Drizz't fanboi' and grognard are the new equivalent of geek and nerd and loser and four-eyes... Some people feel that it strengthens their communities to crap all over other communities.

 

[Lanefan]

See, I find this mind boggling.

If you think AD&D1 is "streamlined and relatively simple to play", then I don't know how you can think D&D3 is not. D&D3 is more streamlined -- that was pretty much a big part of its design philosophy, and part of its reason to be created.

I disagree, in that 3e - in my own experience - seems more cumbersome in two important areas: char-gen and combat - with all other things being about equal. However...

AD&D1 was usually played pretty streamlined by house ruling out about half the rules in the book.

That's why I said "with work" it could be streamlined.

And I don't know how you can consider that D&D3 "has trouble" with being "easily adaptable via houseruling to anyone's gaming tastes" considering how many books full of essentially new house rules to fit someone's tastes are published by WotC and third parties. That D&D3's core mechanics, the d20 rules, support a whole bunch of gaming tastes is testament to its adaptability.

I say it has trouble being houseruled into adaptability mainly because to me it seems to have trouble being houseruled at all; see earlier discussions (from last winter) about knock-on effects for what I mean.

The reason is simple: in 1e (and 0e) one wasn't changing rules so much as generating them, and there was less need for concern about whether tweaking or adding rule X would screw up rules Y, Z, and A. In 3e, which tries to have a lot more rules for a lot more things, changing one rule can easily lead to butchering various others, making the process more effort than it's worth...and explaining why it takes professionals to do it.

But I would not consider any version of D&D to be "able to play well using any genre e.g. high fantasy, space opera, wild west, etc." D&D, through all its editions has been pretty well really good only for high fantansy. Playing another genre requires the houseruling mentioned above.

I was thinking of how the 3e D+D mechanics seem to have been able to fit into d20 Modern, Star Wars, and a bunch of other game genres. 1e never seemed to do this, or maybe it's just that nobody tried.

And I wouldn't think any level-based system, like all D&D editions is "able to accommodate all sorts of character ideas, from the basic to the really wacko".

3e is better at this than earlier editions...you can (if the DM lets you) play a Demon, or a Centaur, or a Half-Dragon, or a Human, and have it all work at least vaguely well using the level-equivalent mechanic. In 0-1-2e, once you got outside the core 7 races you were asking for headaches. Same goes for classes; it seems people are able to far more easily design new classes for 3e (just look at the ridiculous number of PrC's out there for example) than for 1e. So, I give the decided edge to 3e here, in ability to accommodate different character ideas.

Lane-"yes, I just complimented 3e"-fan

 

[Treebore]

I completely disagree. As I said, my experience, though anecdotal evidence, stretches across decades of time, a continent, and dozens of different gamers. If I'm experiencing this first-hand, it's not a myth (that it's a myth; my meaning was unclear as I tried to be clever). Re-read what I wrote above - I hear character build discussions in addition to tales of character exploits. If anything is being intentionally ignored, it's that aspect. I simply don't think gamers are that different today. That's from my own experience.

Well, then using your very same evidence of proof, my experiences don't support yours any more than yours do mine. Plus I have also been playing for 20+ years, played from one end of the US to the other, and back again, and even noticed it at last years GenCon.


I also agree that the OP will do fine and have great fun with 2E. The only reason he should consider using C&C's SIEGE engine is to make it easier for him to use 3E monsters, etc... in his 2E game. Like I do. Because other than my using the SIEGE engine and classes of C&C I use 2E as my main gaming resource. With 1E modules being second, and my pulling house rules and monsters from 3E being third.

So I would say my "C&C game" is primarily a C&C/2E hybrid, with a heavy use of 1E mods, and a half dozen or so rules lifted from 3E, and using monsters, spells, magic items, etc... as desired from 3E as well.

If he is not interested in keeping his books for both systems easily viable with each other, than there is no reason to look at C&C.

My main reason for looking at C&C in the first place, after burn out, was my hopes of making my hundreds of old D&D edition books and modules easily useable again, with the 150+ 3E D&D books staying useable as well. C&C helped me achieve those goals.

So the OP should only look at C&C if those goals sound desireable to him.

Plus the C&C Quickstart PDF should be available as a free download at trolllord.com any day now. That will give anyone a good idea as to whether or not they should look into C&C even more.