I'm thinking of going back to 2e!

[Imaro]

Meaning the system ISN'T flexible. It may be easily modded, but it cannot handle a wide range of concepts out of the box.

In other words, like AD&D, but with fewer supplements and a smoother core mechanic. That may be fine for you, but I absolutely despise this model. I've never seen a game I COULDN'T houserule; I've seen plenty I NEEDED to houserule (C&C would be one such), and a handful I didn't feel any DESIRE to houserule.

The last being the cream of the crop, design wise.

So...you're saying C&C is broken straight out the box? I guess we'll have to disagree on that one. The SIEGE mechanic works fine without "needing" to be houseruled. Now if you want your particular game to abide by different rules, that suit you, well then that's a different story. As far as a game you have no "desire" to houserule...well isn't that just a particular opinion as far as what you like? I think alot of people would disagree with what you personally desire being the epitome of game design...but, to each his own.

Which is true of essentially any game.

So you agree that C&C is just as flexible as any other game when it comes to this. Great.

Which each individual GM will or will not allow to taste. The ones I've seen are not at all satisfactory to me, but I'll admit to not having looked at them for some time; they may have gotten better.

Isn't this true of anything in any roleplaying game? Agaiin you cite your opinion on the multi-class rules, how does this in any way tie into the flexibility argument. Some people say the same thing about PrC's in D&D...that doesn't invalidate the fact that they make the game more flexible.

Which each individual GM will or will not allow to taste. And, in general, will lead to LESS rather than MORE flexibility by shoehorning characters into narrower niches.

Again, that's anything in an rpg. So being able to choose skills that lie outside your Primes and class abilities, makes your choices narrower... I thought it helped facilitate creating and differentiating the character you want to play. Silly me...I guess.

Which each individual GM will or will not allow to taste. Also, 'new classes' doesn't sound terribly flexible in comparison to 'name a trait of your character, which then becomes one of your stats.'

Again...nevermind I've repeated it enough times already. Do new classes add flexibility or not? They do, plain and simple. Class systems are inherently less flexible than point systems...I mean if you want to get down to the end point...just play a totally free form game, now that's flexibility. My argument was never that C&C was more flexible than A or B, but to say it isn't flexible is disingenuous.

Which each individual GM will or will not allow to taste. Also, 'new races' doesn't sound terribly flexible in comparison to 'racial abilities are purchased from the same point pool as all other abilities, allowing you to dedicate as much or as little of your concept to your innate powers as you like.'

...see my above argument.

Because paying for, say, the Mutants and Masterminds or Spirit of the Century core book is *much* more expensive than paying for the Castles and Crusades core book? Man, what? Heck, FATE is *free,* and a perfectly usable version of the SotC rules (though SotC is definitely improved over it).

Yeah, it is...you can get the C&C PHB off amazon for $13.57...M&M=$26.37 & Spirit of the Century=(not available on amazon)$30. So, Yeah it is at least 50% cheaper.

I'll give you Fate...but what about printing, binding etc.

Because there's certainly no creativity involved in, oh, I don't know, using a system where character attributes are essentially freeform (FATE) or in which they are chosen to taste from a reasonably balanced point system (M&M)?

Once again I never argued about the creativity of other games, I was talking about your argument that C&C is not flexible. Reread my post.

I guess the latter doesn't count because the character options were professionally published (which renders them bereft of creativity, apparently), but the former?

No, but, exactly like I said your paying for them right. Or, if not, creating them yourself...just like you could do for C&C

Again, for the OP, C&C is almost certainly the simplest solution, because it's compatible with the wealth of 2e material out of the box. I can't tolerate the AD&Dishness of C&C (as opposed to the Dark Sun-ishness, the Ravenloft-ishness, etc.), but it's certainly the easiest way to use 2e material with an improved system.

We agree...

It just annoys me to no end to hear a system that is explicitly inflexible, created in part as a reaction to the flexibility of D&D 3e, touted as flexible because "you can houserule it." Well, obviously - ANY system is infinitely* flexible by those standards, which makes those standards useless for establishing comparative flexibility.

Uhm, no...I think a fair measure is how easily or not options can be added or taken away from a game. By your logic Point Buy systems are the end all and be all of game design. The fact that D&D is the most popular game kind of squashes that notion.

Again, where do I talk about "comparative" flexibility...I didn't even comment on other games vs. C&C. You like what you like...point buys. But comparing point buys to class based systems is apples and oranges...each one's design goals are different. However a class based system can have flexibility, it may not be what you personally like, but that doesn't change the fact that it's there.

* Or flexible to the limits of a hypothetical human GM's thought, which caps it at the outer limits of human comprehension.

And this is exactly what every rpg is. You just gotta be willing to take it there.

 

[Belen]

The OP makes sense. I would not mind returning to 2e myself. The rules were not as strong, but gameplay was more fun. I played in Henry's 1e game last gameday and it was a huge wakeup call. The combat was dynamic, the spells were fun, and I had a blast.

In 3e, it is so easy to get lost in the mechanics and the options. Hell, you can hear the difference these days. People describe their characters by class, level, feat selection. We used to described the character by what he accomplished and cool things that happened in the game.

 

[SavageRobby]

In 3e, it is so easy to get lost in the mechanics and the options. Hell, you can hear the difference these days. People describe their characters by class, level, feat selection. We used to described the character by what he accomplished and cool things that happened in the game.

There is another thread going about "what is old school?" (I guess there always is), but I think this sums up what I perceive the difference to be between new school and old school D&D very nicely.

 

[RFisher]

The evil defilers gained experience twice as fast because defiling magic was easier to master.

It is beginning to sound (er...read) to me like you've already given this enough thought that you could do a decent conversion to any system.

The problem here is not that 3e rules fail to work with the setting, but rather the time it would take to convert everything.

So, in both cases, I'd say stick with 2e. It isn't that bad. Leave out the optional stuff you don't want to bother with. Turn on the options you like. Then house-rule a bit, & I'm sure you'll have something you & your group can stand.

C&C is basically just someone else's house rules. (Though someone with enough passion to be a partner in his own RPG company.) You're likely to hate just as much as you like about it. Or have half the trouble with it that you're having with 3e. Everything you've written makes me think it'd just be easier to start with 2e & add your own house rules to that.

But getting C&C in order to mine it for 2e house rules wouldn't be a bad idea.

 

[Dragonhelm]

With this I agree 110% - as much as I do enjoy 3.5, and appreciate how "tight" the ruleset is, the holy altar of ultimate balance approach seems to stifle a lot in the way of flavor.

Heck, WotC regularly get crucified over the multiclassing limits of Monks and Paladins...how dare they have rules that exist for flavor reasons, instead of the cold, hard Vulcan logic of game balance!

I think WotC kind of missed the point here. Balance is all fine and good and a definite part of game design, but it should never outweigh the experience of adventuring in a fantasy world. That's what D&D is all about, or should be, IMO. I focus on story, characters, and setting.

What has come about in gaming with 3e is what I call the "culture of balance." Gamers ask all the time if X or Y is balanced. I sometimes think what they really want to know is if the item in question is fun.

And I have to agree with this point too...

In 3e, it is so easy to get lost in the mechanics and the options. Hell, you can hear the difference these days. People describe their characters by class, level, feat selection. We used to described the character by what he accomplished and cool things that happened in the game.

Exactly. And that's not to say that character builds are wrong somehow, just that there has been an evolution among gamers.

This is not to say that all d20 games are all about balance. Personally (and I'm extremely biased here), I think the Dragonlance RPG material produced by Margaret Weis Productions has been among the best that d20 has to offer. Yes, there are rules items and balance is an issue. But the books are about so much more, to where characters and setting drive the game. Dragonlance is a shining example of what d20 games can be like.

In my mind, the "perfect" D&D system is one that has the flavor of AD&D (2e in particular), the modularity of 3e, and the rules-light feel of C&C. It would be an amalgam of the best that D&D has to offer, from the ultra-cool dungeons of 1e, the settings of 2e, the rules options of 3e (though maybe toned down a bit), and a definitive focus on adventure and characters.

Okay, enough rambling from me...

 

[danzig138]

There is another thread going about "what is old school?" (I guess there always is), but I think this sums up what I perceive the difference to be between new school and old school D&D very nicely.

Except it's a load that Belen and others throw out periodically. I think it's neat how the glasses are so very rosy. In earlier editions, people didn't talk about what cool things their characters did instead of what they had. It's not like with 3E, people suddenly shifted focus. Before 3E, people bragged about their character's stats and gear as much as they do now. People now talk about the cool things their characters do just like they did then. It really hasn't changed. What has changed is the ease with which numbers of gamers can talk about these things with each other. I think some people look online and see rules discussions, and start thinking that's all the young whupper-snapper players talk about (because they aren't as cool as the older players - and that is the implication), but they don't actually bother to look for any other type of discussion, because then, they might not be cooler than the newgen.

 

[MoogleEmpMog]

So...you're saying C&C is broken straight out the box? I guess we'll have to disagree on that one. The SIEGE mechanic works fine without "needing" to be houseruled. Now if you want your particular game to abide by different rules, that suit you, well then that's a different story. As far as a game you have no "desire" to houserule...well isn't that just a particular opinion as far as what you like? I think alot of people would disagree with what you personally desire being the epitome of game design...but, to each his own.

For my purposes, it's not usable out of the box (because I don't like high/epic fantasy in the D&D mold). IMO, it's not usable out of the box for Dark Sun, Spelljammer or Planescape, either. Ravenloft, probably yes. To be fair, I've never tried using 2e races and classes "straight" with C&C.

Certainly a game I have no desire to houserule is subjective. Wouldn't say otherwise.

So you agree that C&C is just as flexible as any other game when it comes to this. Great.

Um... yeah?

Isn't this true of anything in any roleplaying game? Agaiin you cite your opinion on the multi-class rules, how does this in any way tie into the flexibility argument. Some people say the same thing about PrC's in D&D...that doesn't invalidate the fact that they make the game more flexible.

It certainly isn't true of anything in any roleplaying game in any gaming group. I have played with very few groups who, for example, sat down to play D&D 3.5 but did not allow the material in the 3.5 core books. The same is true for pretty much every non-generic system I've ever played; aside from short campaigns with a limited scope, every or very nearly every option in the game's core rules were made available.

Again, that's anything in an rpg. So being able to choose skills that lie outside your Primes and class abilities, makes your choices narrower... I thought it helped facilitate creating and differentiating the character you want to play. Silly me...I guess.

Oh, it's skills outside primes? My mistake. I was thinking a D&D-ish skill system *instead* of the SIEGE Engine, since that was the houserule I'd seen in the past.

Again...nevermind I've repeated it enough times already. Do new classes add flexibility or not? They do, plain and simple. Class systems are inherently less flexible than point systems...I mean if you want to get down to the end point...just play a totally free form game, now that's flexibility. My argument was never that C&C was more flexible than A or B, but to say it isn't flexible is disingenuous.

New classes add flexibility, yes.

However, classes out of the core book are much, much more likely to be disallowed than classes in the core book, IMX - to the extent that banning the latter, outside perhaps of a particular subsystem ("no spellcasters"), would generally mean people would pass on the banning GM's game.

I'll address the issue of relative vs. absolute flexibility below.

...see my above argument.

OK...

Yeah, it is...you can get the C&C PHB off amazon for $13.57...M&M=$26.37 & Spirit of the Century=(not available on amazon)$30. So, Yeah it is at least 50% cheaper.

I'll give you Fate...but what about printing, binding etc.

Fair enough.

Although I would just run FATE off my laptop were I to use it in its free form.

Once again I never argued about the creativity of other games, I was talking about your argument that C&C is not flexible. Reread my post.

Yet you were responding to a comparative analysis of four games (C&C, M&M, FATE/SotC and SWS). It's really only useful to talk about flexibility in a relative sense. It's not a binary on/off switch where one system "is" and another "is not" - it's a matter of one (say, M&M) being significantly MORE flexible than another (say, C&C).

No, but, exactly like I said your paying for them right. Or, if not, creating them yourself...just like you could do for C&C

In one case you're paying for them in the core book (Mutants and Masterminds). I don't consider that 'paying for options.' I consider that 'paying for a complete system.'

In the other case you're given a simple framework to create them for yourself, and they all work the same way (Spirit of the Century).

It's completely different from designing them from scratch (C&C) or buying additional books for them (D&D).

I suppose you could say that, with M&M, you'd need Ultimate Power and the Mastermind's Manual to match the flexibility of SotC, and possibly even the flexibility of D&D + all optional books.

We agree...

Kupo.

Uhm, no...I think a fair measure is how easily or not options can be added or taken away from a game. By your logic Point Buy systems are the end all and be all of game design. The fact that D&D is the most popular game kind of squashes that notion.

If popular = good, the fact that the current edition D&D is the most popular game also squashes any notions of C&C's virtues. Neither of us appear to think that, and the OP apparently doesn't, either.

Ease of houseruling IS a fair measure, I suppose. I don't find C&C especially easy to houserule compared to, say, M&M or Spirit of the Century. Indeed, FATE is one of the most modular systems around. I'll give you that C&C is probably easier to houserule than D&D 3e, and I haven't worked with Star Wars Saga enough to decide how it sits on that scale.

Again, where do I talk about "comparative" flexibility...I didn't even comment on other games vs. C&C.

See above.

If you're not talking about comparative flexibility, you're not talking about anything relevant, other than the fact you like C&C.

You like what you like...point buys. But comparing point buys to class based systems is apples and oranges...each one's design goals are different. However a class based system can have flexibility, it may not be what you personally like, but that doesn't change the fact that it's there.

A class system can indeed have flexibility. In fact, for crunchier RPGs, I actually prefer a class system, which is why I'm more likely to use Star Wars Saga as a default rulesset rather than Mutants and Masterminds.

Nor is flexibility necessarily something I would always look for in a system. If C&C's default model was something I wanted to game - Howardian Sword and Sorcery, say, or Final Fantasy 12's Ivalice, or Steampunk Western - I would be fine with its relative lack of flexibility. Since it defaults to D&Dish high/epic fantasy, I'm not going to like it.

In any case, flexibility within a class system can be defined in at least three ways:

1. Flexibility within a class. C&C is comparatively lower in this category than D&D 3e, which is lower in turn than d20 Modern and SWS. This includes both the C&C core book and what I've seen of custom classes.
2. Flexibility to move between classes. Out of the box, C&C does not have this at all.
3. Flexibility to create new classes that will work within the rules. C&C, D&D 3e and SWS all lack a system for this (for D&D 3e, BESM d20 and Buy The Numbers both represent attempts to create such). Arguably, C&C's somewhat simpler classes are more flexible in this sense, because there are fewer variables to account for by feel/fiat.

And this is exactly what every rpg is. You just gotta be willing to take it there.

Except that this renders all systems essentially irrelevant.

Which, IMX, is manifestly not the case. C&C plays very different from (3e) D&D, both play very different from M&M, and they all play radically different from SotC.

Given sufficient time, you could reduce all of these games to the same mechanics and playstyle - but why would you buy ANY of them if you wanted to do that? It would almost certainly be faster and easier to design a system from scratch to specifically fit your needs than it would be to, say, rework D&D until it looked like SotC, or the inverse.

 

[Belen]

Except it's a load that Belen and others throw out periodically. I think it's neat how the glasses are so very rosy. In earlier editions, people didn't talk about what cool things their characters did instead of what they had. It's not like with 3E, people suddenly shifted focus. Before 3E, people bragged about their character's stats and gear as much as they do now. People now talk about the cool things their characters do just like they did then. It really hasn't changed. What has changed is the ease with which numbers of gamers can talk about these things with each other. I think some people look online and see rules discussions, and start thinking that's all the young whupper-snapper players talk about (because they aren't as cool as the older players - and that is the implication), but they don't actually bother to look for any other type of discussion, because then, they might not be cooler than the newgen.

Bull. There is a clear difference in culture and feel for the game. I admit that people would brag about their 18/00, but the stats were much less of a focus. People were much more inclinded to talk about the adventures and the character interaction. I find that now we have a lot more discussion about the elf paladin with feats shining dawn etc.

And this comes from more than a messageboard. I was an active WOTC Delegate for two years running demos for D&D. I set up a monthly DM Council Dinner at my FLGS and I run a number of one shots at stores.

Rules discussion when discussing 3e is very prevalent. People discuss cool feats, spells, and rules. There is rarely a discussion about the actual games that is not couched within the rules.

IME, people really get lost in the mechanics of character building. They are looking for their next feat, new spell, or prestige class. I, myself, have been a victim of the culture. It was not until I actually played 1e at the gameday that I saw that something had been missing in my personal gaming experience. Ombat was really different. In battle, I did not look at the number of squares and try to calculate the best position on the map. Instead, I tended to roleplay more and describe my actions. I was also free to come up with more cinematic maneuvers.

3e is still a very good game with a strong set of rules, but it lacks the flavor and imagination that I saw in that 1e game. In 3e, I spend so much time thinking about the rules and how to use them to my benefit, that other things have gotten lost. This is especially true when you have a limited amount of gaming time.

 

[Flynn]

Okay, I have to ask... how did a conversation about shadow's desire to return to 2nd Edition boil down to another battle over the merits and flaws of C&C, "Old Style" gaming, and the pitfalls of 3E?

Perhaps we might consider moving back to the topic at hand, unless, of course, shadow has gotten what he needs from this thread....

Focus, Please,
Flynn

 

[Imaro]

For my purposes, it's not usable out of the box (because I don't like high/epic fantasy in the D&D mold). IMO, it's not usable out of the box for Dark Sun, Spelljammer or Planescape, either. Ravenloft, probably yes. To be fair, I've never tried using 2e races and classes "straight" with C&C.

Certainly a game I have no desire to houserule is subjective. Wouldn't say otherwise.

So you don't like it's "genre conventons" and use this as a basis for it "needing" houserules...IMHO this is like saying I bought Star Wars and it needs house rules, because I'm not a fan of space fantasy, pulpy swashbuckling adventure...???

Well it is Castles and Crusades...not AD&D 2e, those worlds, including Ravenloft, were made specifically for the AD&D rules set, so anything else will definitely require some conversion...the question is how much/and how close will it be to the original feel? I think C&C probably is one of the lowest if not the lowest of almost any d20 variant for AD&D conversion, especially if you own the original material. The funny thing is each of these settings put their own spin on AD&D rules, so you could technically claim that AD&D "out of the box" doesn't do them either.

It certainly isn't true of anything in any roleplaying game in any gaming group. I have played with very few groups who, for example, sat down to play D&D 3.5 but did not allow the material in the 3.5 core books. The same is true for pretty much every non-generic system I've ever played; aside from short campaigns with a limited scope, every or very nearly every option in the game's core rules were made available.

Well I see enogh threads about removing AoO to say that at least a small portion of gamers might be removing them(as well as acompanying feats, etc.). However it's still in the hands of the GM and players.

Oh, it's skills outside primes? My mistake. I was thinking a D&D-ish skill system *instead* of the SIEGE Engine, since that was the houserule I'd seen in the past.

Yeah, it's the Class Options & Skills download on the troll site, and also includes Multi-classing and Dual-classing rules written by Gary Gygax. The skills are broken down into 3 categories...General Skills, Prime Skills, and Non-prime Skills, which determine their XP point cost to buy. It allows for specializaton( if you want to be better at specific things within your primes), broadening( If you want to be better at specific things outside your primes), and allows a tweaking of the archetypes to fit more in line wth your concept.

New classes add flexibility, yes.

However, classes out of the core book are much, much more likely to be disallowed than classes in the core book, IMX - to the extent that banning the latter, outside perhaps of a particular subsystem ("no spellcasters"), would generally mean people would pass on the banning GM's game.

This is an inflexible GM, not a flexibility problem with the game. It's an argument that can be used for any class-based system with supplements to expand options.

Yet you were responding to a comparative analysis of four games (C&C, M&M, FATE/SotC and SWS). It's really only useful to talk about flexibility in a relative sense. It's not a binary on/off switch where one system "is" and another "is not" - it's a matter of one (say, M&M) being significantly MORE flexible than another (say, C&C).

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 is what I was responding to...It isn't comparing anything, it's a blanket statement. Now you've clarified that you we're comparing it to the other systems in your post, but you never stated that originally.

In one case you're paying for them in the core book (Mutants and Masterminds). I don't consider that 'paying for options.' I consider that 'paying for a complete system.'

In the other case you're given a simple framework to create them for yourself, and they all work the same way (Spirit of the Century).

It's completely different from designing them from scratch (C&C) or buying additional books for them (D&D).

I suppose you could say that, with M&M, you'd need Ultimate Power and the Mastermind's Manual to match the flexibility of SotC, and possibly even the flexibility of D&D + all optional books.

What exactly is it that you can't do, conducive to it's genre, with a simple check in C&C. It's a universal mechanic and works the same way each time. Is it granularity that you're talking about? If so I could see that, but as far as it not being flexible enough to accomodate it's genre I don't see it, and I've already listed options to increase granularity in the game...for those who want it.

If popular = good, the fact that the current edition D&D is the most popular game also squashes any notions of C&C's virtues. Neither of us appear to think that, and the OP apparently doesn't, either.

No, but it does argue the fact that there is at least a moderate size of the gaming population that finds the advantages/flaws of class-based systems are more in line with what they want out of a play experience than the advantages/flaws of a purely point-based game. Thus naming point based systems as the epitome of game design, is a purely subjective claim.

Ease of houseruling IS a fair measure, I suppose. I don't find C&C especially easy to houserule compared to, say, M&M or Spirit of the Century. Indeed, FATE is one of the most modular systems around. I'll give you that C&C is probably easier to houserule than D&D 3e, and I haven't worked with Star Wars Saga enough to decide how it sits on that scale.

Again subjective, but I think it still beats SWS as far as houseruling and being able to determine what most of the effects of your houserule will be. Castles and Crusades has less "rules density"(variables, special cases, intricacies, rule mastery, etc) than most games, and that IMHO is what makes it easier to houserule. YMMV of course

If you're not talking about comparative flexibility, you're not talking about anything relevant, other than the fact you like C&C.

I agree, but I don't think the discussion is relevant if you're comparing a point-based system to a class-based system, they have differing design goals and their "flexibility" has to be examined within the context of the differing objectives. Otherwise it's like saying OJ is sweeter than grapefruit juice. This is definitely true, but for comparison purposes, if the person is trying to get the sweetest brand of grapefruit juice it's pointless. The OP was looking for something to emulate AD&D so that he could run the settings with as little work as possible, I don't think either M&M or SotC with all their "flexibility" will be simpler to use than C&C. So for his purposes C&C is the most flexible choice.

A class system can indeed have flexibility. In fact, for crunchier RPGs, I actually prefer a class system, which is why I'm more likely to use Star Wars Saga as a default rulesset rather than Mutants and Masterminds.

Nor is flexibility necessarily something I would always look for in a system. If C&C's default model was something I wanted to game - Howardian Sword and Sorcery, say, or Final Fantasy 12's Ivalice, or Steampunk Western - I would be fine with its relative lack of flexibility. Since it defaults to D&Dish high/epic fantasy, I'm not going to like it.

So once again your problem is with it's genre..."D&Dish high/epic fantasy". I actually think high/epic fantasy is more suited to stricter archetypes as classes. It reinforces the feel, and with multi-classing rules you can cover most character concepts that are common of that genre.

In any case, flexibility within a class system can be defined in at least three ways:

1. Flexibility within a class. C&C is comparatively lower in this category than D&D 3e, which is lower in turn than d20 Modern and SWS. This includes both the C&C core book and what I've seen of custom classes.
2. Flexibility to move between classes. Out of the box, C&C does not have this at all.
3. Flexibility to create new classes that will work within the rules. C&C, D&D 3e and SWS all lack a system for this (for D&D 3e, BESM d20 and Buy The Numbers both represent attempts to create such). Arguably, C&C's somewhat simpler classes are more flexible in this sense, because there are fewer variables to account for by feel/fiat.

1.) I don't think it's as clear cut as you make it seem. C&C is lower in granularity, but not sure about flexibility. You choose primes and they make you good at a wide range of "skills"(that's a pretty flexible fighter as opposed to a D&D fighter who will have maybe 2 to 3 skills.), you're good at everything your class is suppose to be good at (no rules mastery necessary, no available feat necessary) and you can introduce skills to differentiate more granular abilities if you want.

I'm not certain we're talking about flexibility here, I'll give an example...In D&D a Bastard sword is an "exotic weapon" and my fighter must have a feat to use it proficiently in one hand. While in C&C my fighter can do this without the need for a feat, if I want him to. Which option allows for more flexibility...What about if I don't have a feat available?

2.) Yeah, yeah "out of the box" but rules for it are available in supplements and for free so it's kind of moot.

3.) I agree, though this is suppose to be covered in the Castle Keepers Guide...I have to concede for now on this point.

Except that this renders all systems essentially irrelevant.

Which, IMX, is manifestly not the case. C&C plays very different from (3e) D&D, both play very different from M&M, and they all play radically different from SotC.

Given sufficient time, you could reduce all of these games to the same mechanics and playstyle - but why would you buy ANY of them if you wanted to do that? It would almost certainly be faster and easier to design a system from scratch to specifically fit your needs than it would be to, say, rework D&D until it looked like SotC, or the inverse.

Yes some systems will be closer to what you want, and easier to mold into it than others. My point though was that all your arguments seem to be that unless it's in the core rulebooks, it's not part of the game...and that's just not how rpg's have worked, at least not in my experience. The game is what I want it to be, buying a system that's more in line with my desires helps me achieve this, that's why I buy or play certain systems, but the rules themselves don't limit what becomes part of my game...only I do that.