Is there a need for a simplified D&D?

[MerricB]

However, 3E has migrated the concept of game balance from the DMs sole perogitive and moved it into the rules set.

You must have missed AD&D.

Do not play monsters. They will unbalance your game. Don't even think about it.

If you play with rules not in the rulebooks, you are not playing AD&D.

Cheers!

 

[Particle_Man]

Anyway - is there any other information about the Castles and Crusades thing besides "coming soon"? Any preview material?

There is a lot of info in these two links:

http://www.dragonsfoot.org/forums/viewtopic.php?t=7005&sid=d637d988e5277c025429965dd596cbbe

http://rpg.net/showthread.php?t=141440&page=1&pp=10

But what I find interesting is that there are actually two versions of C&C. There is the hardcover version coming out next month (the Player's book, to be followed by a monster book and a Castle Keeper's Guide (which, if I read it correctly, is not necessary for the game, but does list a bunch of optional rules, as well as advice, perhaps more of an "Unearthed Arcana" than a "DMG")). Levels are detailed to 12th, but can go to 20th (I assume there are tables for spells, descriptions of higher level spells, etc.).

But there is also a Boxed Set that is a simplified version of the Hardcover stuff that isn't out yet. The Boxed Set has only 4 classes (not 13) and only 4 races (not 7) and less spells, items, monsters, and less descriptions of the spells (I think they are one line descriptions). I have ordered the Boxed Set and it will hopefully arrive next week and then I could tell you more. Levels only described to 10th.

Also, the Boxed Set I will be getting is the erratta'd version. Apparently, the Boxed Set that was released at GenCon had enough typos the TLG decided to redo thing.

So in effect, we have a hardcover version (Sorta like Advanced?), a Basic version that needed some tightening up (Holmes?) and a Basic version that has tightened things up (Moldvay?).

But note: The "basic" boxed set drops right into the "advanced" hardcover set -- the hardcover set justs gives some more options, and more detailed descriptions. Or so I believe.

I think one of the big deals about C&C is that the six attribute scores are all meant to be important, so each governs certain saves. Also, while there are no detailed skills with skill points, the attribute checks are meant to cover this, with a twist. Some attributes are considered "primes" and some are not. This is partly a function of class and partly a function of player choice, and seems to reflect the "training" a character would do. Thus a cleric with primes in wis. and dex. would be good at wis. and dex. rolls (and saves), and thus assumed to be skilled at wis. and dex. type skill stuff (without detailing wis. and dex. skills.).

That probably sounded more complicated than it really is. The idea is that instead of having separate skills, you just would be better at anything the DM judged was related to dexterity. So you get a simpler rules system, with a lot more DM control (oh, it is not called a DM, but a Castle Keeper, to prevent any legal unpleasantness, I guess).

Oh, there are racial abilities and class abilities, but no feats as such.

Hope that helps.

And this is not saying that C&C is the holy grail or anything. But given that it is meant to be easy to add house rules to, and rules light in the bargain, I think that it would be a good deal. Heck, I have a house rule ready to add to character creation and I don't even have the boxed set yet.

And for the record, I love playing and DMing D&D 3.5E too. I just want to see if I might love using the C&C rules even more. And besides, the boxed set appeals to my nostalgic side.

 

[diaglo]

i was disappointed with C&C. it didn't go far enough for me.

 

[Grayhawk]

i was disappointed with C&C. it didn't go far enough for me.

Far enough with regards to the changes or the level advancement? (max 12th)

 

[diaglo]

Far enough with regards to the changes or the level advancement? (max 12th)

changes. they didn't go back far enough edition wise for my tastes.

yes, i signed the NDA... yes... i took part.

no... i didn't like the way it turned out overall.

 

[Grayhawk]

changes. they didn't go back far enough edition wise for my tastes.

yes, i signed the NDA... yes... i took part.

no... i didn't like the way it turned out overall.

I myself started playing with the red box Basic Set very briefly before switching to 1e (and later 2e and 3x), so I've no experience with OD&D.

Knowing that you are a big proponent of OD&D, can you give an example of something you prefer from that edition over C&C?

(It might be as intangible as 'flavor', but preferably a mechanical example.)

 

[buzz]

The Basic Game isn't designed to be a game that someone will buy and continue to play forever. It's a tool to get people to buy the main core books, after which they're expected to put the Basic game on their shelf and forget about it.

Which is pretty much the function Basic has served throughout it's eighteen-odd printings and three to four editions. Expert when through five printings and two editons, and Companion, Master, Immortal, and the RC basically went through one.

I've met a lot of gamers, and the only ones I've met who actually stuck with BECMI/RC are a handful of people on the 'Net. Useless anecdotal evidence, yes, but that's my experience. If anything, my friends and I were confused as heck by the two lines. Did "Expert" come before or after "Advanced"? We had no idea. Which was okay, becasue we were all playing AD&D.

The point of Basic is to introduce the game, not to split D&D between competing products.

 

[buzz]

ps. and Buzz, if you could would you take me off the Chicago Games day mailing list? We're not going to be able to make the one coming up and we're heading off to India in November so the chances of making another date is pretty slim...

Done.

Enjoy life in the motherland!

Cheers,
Half-Punjabi Buzz

 

[buzz]

I'm kind of disappointed with the way this thread is going. It started out so promising.

I probably had a big hand in that. My bad.

Anyway, I tend to agree with something that was posted earlier: what makes D&D complex is the magic. I've run high-level d20M games, and they were a piece o' cake. What gets burdensome in D&D is the dependence on magic items, magic effects, and adjudicating spells and special abilities. Every spell is essentially its own little rule; you stack a bunch of them together (in the form of items, monster abilities, buff spells, etc.), and things get complex. E.g., "What's your flat-footed incorporeal touch AC?" And figuring out the stats of a polymorphed creature is just... ouch.

If Simple D&D needs to do anything, it's not eliminating feats, skills, classes, and the like. It's simplifying magic.

 

[Aust Diamondew]

I'm kind of disappointed with the way this thread is going. It started out so promising.

It seems to me that we could debate the "why" of a D&D-lite forever. Some people like the extra complexity, the extra tactical options, and feel that it makes the game more fun. Some people feel that the extra options cause us to "lose sight of the forest for the trees" (whatever the forest may be: plot, story, etc.).

Both viewpoints are reasonably valid. However, I feel that debating the "how" of a D&D-lite system would be a lot more useful and produce a more interesting discussion, rather than endlessly wrangling about the "why".

Edit: Had the misfortune of coming in right after Remathilis' excellent post.

The threads title ask is there a need for D&D lite. It does not ask for the 'how'.


I don't think d&d should move in the direction of Clue or monopoly mostly becuase I do not paticuarly enjoy these games. I use to but that was before I had a computer and before I started playing d&d. Though I still enjoy a good game of chess.
I do think when introducing or teaching the game you should not try to overwhelm them by telling 'yeah if you want to learn the game here is the 300 page book go home and read it'. What you need to do is tell them to read over the combat section (while you are present so you can explain rules to them they don't get) and over the section of the nonmagic using class they intend to play (don't play a magic user till you've got the basics down).


As far as simplifying magic goes (which I agree causes endless complexity in middle to higher level games) I have as of late been running low magic item games. Spell casting is still the same though but newbs shouldn't be spell casters anyway or if you're a player who just doesn't like dealing with preparing spells (which can be rather tedious) I allow a spontaneous casting version of the cleric.