I'm thinking of going back to 2e!

[Treebore]

There are C&C classes for pretty much every AD&D class. In contrast, BFRP only has 4 classes. Yes there are differences between some C&C classes and their AD&D counterparts (e.g. C&C rangers and bards don't cast spells). But at least there are classes to work with!

To further illustrate that this poster "didn't get it", I have used the classes in 2E "as is" in my C&C, from 1E as well. Just calculate AC's under the C&C rules, all saves and class skill checks are modified by level, Rogues do all of their stuff as Prime, assign primes. All class powers are kept as written, even spellcasting.

C&C is ultra compatible with every edition of D&D. I have been pulling various rules, classes, spells, monsters, and magic items from every edition, depending on which version I like best.

 

[Fifth Element]

How compatible would something like Castle & Crusades be with 2e?

This would have been a much better title for your thread. The one you used paints it as yet another "3E isn't as good as you think it is" posts that are fairly common these days. That does not really appear to have been your intent, but the thread title suggests it.

Kind of like that old rec.games.frp.dnd post that was brought up. Just a bunch of personal-taste reasons why someone preferred an older version. While that posted professed not to think one version was better, he then went on to list a bunch of reasons why 2E was better (check out the language used - 2E promotes imagination, 3E sells miniatures, etc).

It even mentioned the "WalMart approach" to magic, for crying out loud.

 

[MoogleEmpMog]

While I strongly dislike C&C (largely because it is more like AD&D), it *would* be much easier to convert to than 3e - as others have said, all you really need to do for, say, NPCs is swap Thac0 and AC and assign some Primes.

For me, converting to a system I can stomach (*not* 3e D&D, btw; there's too much else better on the market, including closely related systems) is worth the extra trouble. Thus, if I were to do Dark Sun, I would take the time to convert the material to FATE/Spirit of the Century, Mutants & Masterminds or Star Wars Saga.

I can certainly understand becoming dissatisfied with D&D 3e, especially for the more out-there 2e settings like Ravenloft and Dark Sun - but that doesn't mean the only option is to use the old rules or a more polished facsimile thereof.

FATE/Spirit of the Century would be a quick rewrite, because the system is simple enough you can do most 'stat blocks' on the fly once you're familiar with it. It's essentially impossible to 'convert' D&D stats of any edition into it, however, and it requires a pretty significant break with the style of play of D&D. Of the 2e settings, I think it would be very good for Ravenloft and Spelljammer.

Mutants & Masterminds is a supers system loosely based on d20; like most supers systems, it's really a generic system with a built-in genre to get around. It's not very tactical and very fast to play, but conversion would be a monumental undertaking. Once the conversion was complete, however, it would be a beaut for Dark Sun, Spelljammer and Planescape.

Star Wars Saga is pretty much D&D 3e+++++. Most of the really troublesome aspects (wealth-by-level and its relation to CR, loooooong combats, long and fiddly character creation, immense escalation of power by high-level characters) are removed. It would be good for Spelljammer, and can handle any D&D setting by using 3.5 stats. A modified form of the Dark Side rules would work well for both Dark Sun (defilers) and Ravenloft (corruption by the Demiplane of Dread).

Castles & Crusades: Very AD&Dish system, but upgraded with some more sensible design choices (roll high on d20, class tweaks and a basic skill system). Fast. Not flexible. Conversion from 2e is almost automatic.

FATE/Spirit of the Century: Very light, fast (once you adjust to the different style of play) and flexible, both in character creation and in play. Not at all like D&D. Conversion is impossible, but recreation from concepts is trivially simple.

Mutants and Masterminds: Very fast in play, comparatively slow in character creation, very flexible. Good for settings with lots of oddball options. Conversion from either 2e or 3e would be long and difficult.

Star Wars Saga: Faster in play than 3e or high level AD&D, slower than M&M or FATE/SotC. Moderate character creation time. Moderately flexible (better than any version of D&D, less so than M&M or FATE/SotC). 2e conversion the same or slightly easier than for 3e D&D. Conversion from 3e about like converting 2e to C&C.

 

[Son_of_Thunder]

Ok...I have been thinking about this for some time now - I'm about ready to abandon 3e and go back to 2e. Ok...I've said the blasphemy, now let me explain my reasoning. I really like 3e, I think the rules are much better and more player friendly than 2e. However, 2e contained some of the best rpg supplements and campaign settings. Sure there was a lot of crap produced for 2e, but there was also quite a lot of good stuff too. The current WotC design philosophy for 3.5e seems to be focused on adding new prestige classes, spells, and feats. While there is nothing wrong with this per se, there is almost no focus on settings, stories, or unique characters.

I started thinking about 2e the other day after reading the old Ravenloft supplement Carnival. The book contained a lot of unique characters and adventure hooks. This was the first time in a long time that I was inspired to run something. Two of my favorite settings, Dark Sun and Ravenloft, were products of the 2e days, with rules written specifically for the 2e system. I found White Wolf's 3e conversion of Ravenloft unsatisfactory because it focused too much on the "core" domains and left out the twisted ideas that made the setting unique IMHO (eg - the Nightmare Lands and the Carnival). I have found no decent 3e conversion of Dark Sun; the athas.org conversion over-adheres to the 3e philosophy of "balance" which sacrifices the flavor of the setting, while the Dragon Magazine conversion tries to shoehorn every 3.5e concept into the setting.

I don't necessarily want to go back to the concept of Thac0 or racial level limits, yet 3e is so different that it's hard to convert all my old 2e supplements. How compatible would something like Castle & Crusades be with 2e? Well, barring a half-way compatible rules-light system, my next game might be 2e!

I say go back to 2e. It worked for me and my group. Even after six years of d20 going back to 2e was easy. With the core rules 2.0 and expansion disks I am ready to create years of fun. I agree with you on the emphasis of new rules over story and setting. I thought about C&C as well but since I already had 2e; We were playing a very fun game of 2e when 3e was released, it was simple to go back THAC0 and all. Do I house rule it, yup, but I did back then anyway.

Have fun!

 

[ColonelHardisson]

I would never even think of going back to 2e.

OK, first, I think absolutes are kinda silly. Of course if I ran across someone running a 2e (or earlier edition) game, and they were cool and the game looked fun, I’d play. Being hard-nosed about playing a game, which is essentially just a way for people to socialize, seems fairly antisocial. But bear with me. Absolutes seem to work better in getting a discussion going here on the internet.

That said, given my druthers, I’d rather not play 2e again. This is just a counterpoint post, not intended as a heated argument.

Anyway, when 3e was first being previewed, I realized I’d been tired of 2e for years for a variety of reasons. Some of these things were mentioned in the thread above, and I thought I’d get started by discussing them.

1. Class/race restrictions - I never understood these. Dwarves wielded magic in many legends and books, so why they couldn’t do so, or did so at great penalty, in D&D made no sense. Halfling paladins? Check out the “Scouring of the Shire” and see if Pippin didn’t give off that knightly air, clad in his Gondorian armor and wielding a sword as he made Sharkey’s men back down. Seems pretty paladin-y to me. Besides, if such restrictions make sense to you, simply follow a time-honored D&D tradition and house-rule them in. Simple enough. Anyway, the fact that 3e not only did away with them, but factored such race/class combos into many of its assumptions in subsequent supplements and adventures, was, and is, a big draw for me.

2. The miniatures issue is kind of a non-issue, in my opinion. Sure, 3e requires a bit more precision when it comes to combat, and it definitely helps make it clear to use some type of representation for the characters and monsters. But I recall that keeping track of combat in earlier editions could be very confusing, especially as the number of combatants increased. And while I realize that everyone else played with paragons of virtue or those with very good spatial visualization, I have had experience with gamers who seemed to never quite know where they were in a combat, or who were apparently under a blink or displacement effect everytime they were directly threatened in combat. So 3e helped clear up such discrepancies. And you don’t have to buy minis. Legendary film director Akira Kurosawa was said by his wife to use salt and pepper shakers to help visualize where he wanted characters to be in the frame when he was thinking about a new movie. If it was good enough for Kurosawa, it’s good enough for you.

3. A rule for everything – I just don’t see that 3e has a rule for everything. At least, not in the sense that there is a separate mechanic for every possible action. There is the basic core mechanic, with a variety of DCs set for different circumstances. But when it comes down to it, DM fiat still rules. I recall the “DM’s best friend” from the DMG, and the implications of it for the game overall.

That’s a few of the things about 3e that would keep me from playing 2e again if I had a choice.

 

[molonel]

Oh yay!

Another "Hey, hey! Goodbye!" thread.

 

[Imaro]

I say try Castles and Crusades...it sounds exactly like what you're looking for.

Castles & Crusades: Very AD&Dish system, but upgraded with some more sensible design choices (roll high on d20, class tweaks and a basic skill system). Fast. Not flexible. Conversion from 2e is almost automatic.

This just isn't true. The flexibility is in the hands of the GM. A few examples...

1.) You can change the challenge base to make a more heroic(lower it) or less heroic(increase it) game.

2.) Numerous versions of multiclassing rules are on the internet.

3.) There is a set of skill rules found on the Troll Lords site and in the Yggsburgh book.

4.) A netbook of new classes on Dragonsfoot.

5.) A netbook called Colin Sez with new races.

IMHO C&C starts simple and gives you the freedom to add as muc, or as little complexity as you want. The only reason I can see it for being labeled as "not flexible" is because

1.) You really feel you have to pay money for flexibility
2.) You don't want to or don't have time to use your, or others, creativity

Note: There are already conversions for Ravenloft & Planescape on the net for C&C.

 

[ColonelHardisson]

Oh yay!

Another "Hey, hey! Goodbye!" thread.

Someone should make a macro.

 

[ColonelHardisson]

I say try Castles and Crusades...it sounds exactly like what you're looking for.

I agree. I think C&C is a fine game, a good melding of d20 smoothness with older edition tropes. It could very well fit the bill for the original poster.

 

[molonel]

Someone should make a macro.

Or maybe a subforum?

But, if it were a macro, then they could also make a, "You should try C&C!" macro.

It would definitely save time.