I'm thinking of going back to 2e!

[Brennin Magalus]

I predict a full fourth edition will hit the shelves by 2006.

Thus speaketh the prophet.

 

[Flynn]

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.

I am not mentioning this because I want to get in on this whole issue, but I do think I need to clarify something: 2nd Edition had a skill system, in the form of Non-Weapon Proficiencies. It was built into the system, so you might not want that listed as an improvement in C&C's favor.

I still think there's nothing wrong with shadow, the OP, using 2nd Edition instead of C&C. It covers the bases, it has zero conversions required (so it's better than "almost automatic"), and he's already familiar with it, so no learning curve (which a new system would require, even one where conversion is "almost automatic").

Is there a reason why he shouldn't do what he was originally considering in the post that kicked off this thread, and use 2nd Edition?

Just Curious,
Flynn

 

[SavageRobby]

I still think there's nothing wrong with shadow, the OP, using 2nd Edition instead of C&C. It covers the bases, it has zero conversions required (so it's better than "almost automatic"), and he's already familiar with it, so no learning curve (which a new system would require, even one where conversion is "almost automatic").

Is there a reason why he shouldn't do what he was originally considering in the post that kicked off this thread, and use 2nd Edition?

This might answer both your questions.

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!

As for this....

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.

I'll just say that I totally and utterly disagree with the statement. There are clear design differences between the editions that change the focus and feel, which changed not only how the game is played but how it is referenced and discussed. The notion that the age of the player has anything to do with it is ridiculous, as is the casual write off of other people's experiences being the product simply of reading message boards. I think some people make silly assertions like that simply to strengthen an already weak argument.

You know, there is nothing wrong with the difference between editions. Some folks prefer the older style, some folks prefer the newer style. Play what you like.

 

[Imaro]

I am not mentioning this because I want to get in on this whole issue, but I do think I need to clarify something: 2nd Edition had a skill system, in the form of Non-Weapon Proficiencies. It was built into the system, so you might not want that listed as an improvement in C&C's favor.

Just so you know, those weren't my words they were Moogle's

I still think there's nothing wrong with shadow, the OP, using 2nd Edition instead of C&C. It covers the bases, it has zero conversions required (so it's better than "almost automatic"), and he's already familiar with it, so no learning curve (which a new system would require, even one where conversion is "almost automatic").

Is there a reason why he shouldn't do what he was originally considering in the post that kicked off this thread, and use 2nd Edition?

Just Curious,
Flynn

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... The current WotC design philosophy for 3.5e seems to be focused on adding new prestige classes, spells, and feats...



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![/B]

Note: Emphasis mine, especially

Well, barring a half-way compatible rules-light system, my next game might be 2e

It doesn't appear, IMHO, that the AD&D rules set is his first choice, if he can find an easier and more consistent rules set that is light and compatible. I'm sorry but this does sound like C&C would be perfect.

 

[Felon]

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.

Well, it's true that 3e, with its extreme emphasis on the "encounter format" has come full circle in that its adventures treat NPC's the same way that 1e did, not as interesting people to interact with, just guys who you can kill and loot.

But hey, you can keep the system and still use old setting material. I am eventually going to run Dead Gods--a wonderfully flavorful adventure--and I don't see any reason I can't do it in 3e.

 

[Philotomy Jurament]

1.) I don't think it's as clear cut as you make it seem. C&C is lower in granularity, but...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?

Personally, I find that a less granular system like C&C offers greater flexibility for reasons like this. I don't think "doesn't have specific rules to cover such-and-such circumstance" means less flexibility, it just means fewer fiddly bits. I see "flexibility" as being able to use the system to cover a wide range of possibilities with a minimum of fuss. I find it easier to be "flexible" with a system like C&C or OD&D than with a system like 3.5 or Rolemaster. YMMV, as always.

This whole thing boils down to gaming style and preference, anyway. I tend to prefer gaming with a lighter, less granular system. Some may find that hard to accept -- witness comments about nostalgia, rose-tinted ray-bans, et cetera (i.e. "if you could just see *clearly* you'd see your preference is wrong/colored-by-mistaken-feelings/impressions/memories/etc) -- but hey, I like what I like.

 

[MoogleEmpMog]

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.

Your position snipped, because I want to emphasize this line.

Which is to say - yes. Absolutely, positively, indubitably YES. This encapsulates my position perfectly.

Everything else - supplements, houserules, GM fiat, (non-systemic) player fiat, whatever a group decides to incorporate beyond the core rules of the game - is not part of the game FOR PURPOSES OF EVALUATING THE SYSTEM.

Since all of those optional elements are either tweaks, additions or outright rewrites of major aspects of the system - none of which are likely to be the same in a different group -, it is ONLY productive to evaluate a system in light of what it provides (or does not provide).

It's like the "different and incompatible ways" thread about AD&D 1e. That game was so widely and heavily houseruled, supplemented and adjusted on the fly, it's almost impossible for many people who played it extensively to reconcile their experiences of the game. It would be impossible to "evaluate" every individual variation of AD&D 1e, of which there were probably almost as many as there were AD&D 1e Dungeon Masters. It would be useless (or nearly so) to offer an evaluation of any one variation of AD&D 1e to someone interested in trying a new system, because they would only be playing that specific variation if the group they ended up joining already played it.

Thus, in evaluating AD&D 1e, one can only productively say "this is the material in the core rulebooks for AD&D 1e, and my evaluation thereof."

Similarly, when I evaluate C&C, SWS, M&M or FATE/SotC, I base that evaluation purely on the rules printed in the game's core book or books, because that is the baseline a new buyer of the game will be judging it on.

 

[ColonelHardisson]

We used to described the character by what he accomplished and cool things that happened in the game.

I still hear people do this as much as they ever did, and I started playing in 1979. The main difference now is that in addition to such descriptions, people also talk about the nuances of their character builds, because character creation and advancement is so much more detailed than before. Believe me, had the game been as detailed back then as it is now when it comes to characters, we'd have been discussing that stuff just as vigorously. As it is, I sure heard a lot of detailed discussion of characters created using homebrew variants back then, and ways that characters could be min/maxed. Passing this off as a recent phenomenon is a myth.

 

[Imaro]

Your position snipped, because I want to emphasize this line.

Which is to say - yes. Absolutely, positively, indubitably YES. This encapsulates my position perfectly.

Everything else - supplements, houserules, GM fiat, (non-systemic) player fiat, whatever a group decides to incorporate beyond the core rules of the game - is not part of the game FOR PURPOSES OF EVALUATING THE SYSTEM.

Since all of those optional elements are either tweaks, additions or outright rewrites of major aspects of the system - none of which are likely to be the same in a different group -, it is ONLY productive to evaluate a system in light of what it provides (or does not provide).

It's like the "different and incompatible ways" thread about AD&D 1e. That game was so widely and heavily houseruled, supplemented and adjusted on the fly, it's almost impossible for many people who played it extensively to reconcile their experiences of the game. It would be impossible to "evaluate" every individual variation of AD&D 1e, of which there were probably almost as many as there were AD&D 1e Dungeon Masters. It would be useless (or nearly so) to offer an evaluation of any one variation of AD&D 1e to someone interested in trying a new system, because they would only be playing that specific variation if the group they ended up joining already played it.

Thus, in evaluating AD&D 1e, one can only productively say "this is the material in the core rulebooks for AD&D 1e, and my evaluation thereof."

Similarly, when I evaluate C&C, SWS, M&M or FATE/SotC, I base that evaluation purely on the rules printed in the game's core book or books, because that is the baseline a new buyer of the game will be judging it on.

This is utterly wrong...eratta is a type of support, but according to your stance, even this isn't part of the game. I could even see the point with my quote(taken out of context) if you were talking about support that costs, and even then I wouldn't agree. Support is often a big factor for many gamers when choosing their games, otherwise why do companies produce supplemental books? C&C really doesn't need a skil system, or multiclassing to be flexible. Here's another example...

Human Fighter in D&D has 12 or even 16 skill points to put into skills. If he puts his ranks in his class skills first he ends up with something along the lines of Climb(4)...Ride(4)...Jump(4)...Swim(4)

The same Human Fighter in C&C gets an automatic Str Prime...this gives a (6+level) bonus to his roll for any action governed by Str (Climb, Jump, and Swim). So he can already do as much as the average fighter in D&D...now he can pick two more primes from his abilities. I'm sorry this is more "flexible" than having x amount of points to distribute amongst Y skills. Now the flexibility angle does break down without the ability to multi-class, but it's balanced out by each class actually having a wider range of abilities from primes. The flexibility lies in playing an archetype...as a real archetype, but being able to customize that archetype within it's designated niche. Of course with the FREE multi-classing rules there's even more freedom for those who want it.

You've totally ignored every point I made in my previous post and instead chose to focus on something that is largely irrelevant to the discussion of flexibility. Let me say this, refering to my bastard sword example above, Things being heavily and minutely defined...does not necessarily translate to flexibility. The fighter in the above example is more flexible than the one who has to pay a feat, or devote points to use a bastard sword.

 

[Treebore]

Your position snipped, because I want to emphasize this line.

Which is to say - yes. Absolutely, positively, indubitably YES. This encapsulates my position perfectly.

Everything else - supplements, houserules, GM fiat, (non-systemic) player fiat, whatever a group decides to incorporate beyond the core rules of the game - is not part of the game FOR PURPOSES OF EVALUATING THE SYSTEM.

Since all of those optional elements are either tweaks, additions or outright rewrites of major aspects of the system - none of which are likely to be the same in a different group -, it is ONLY productive to evaluate a system in light of what it provides (or does not provide).

It's like the "different and incompatible ways" thread about AD&D 1e. That game was so widely and heavily houseruled, supplemented and adjusted on the fly, it's almost impossible for many people who played it extensively to reconcile their experiences of the game. It would be impossible to "evaluate" every individual variation of AD&D 1e, of which there were probably almost as many as there were AD&D 1e Dungeon Masters. It would be useless (or nearly so) to offer an evaluation of any one variation of AD&D 1e to someone interested in trying a new system, because they would only be playing that specific variation if the group they ended up joining already played it.

Thus, in evaluating AD&D 1e, one can only productively say "this is the material in the core rulebooks for AD&D 1e, and my evaluation thereof."

Similarly, when I evaluate C&C, SWS, M&M or FATE/SotC, I base that evaluation purely on the rules printed in the game's core book or books, because that is the baseline a new buyer of the game will be judging it on.

Sorry, but every RPG is jusdged by the sum total of its parts. 3E, 2E, Rolemaster, RIFTS, every system that has ever had a lot of "rules supplements" has always been judgec by all the rules books available for it.

You might judge systems by their core books, maybe some others, but there is a large number of others who cite the "plethora of rules supplements" as being the problem with many a system, old or new.