Looking for the Old School: Tell my group what to play

[ExploderWizard]

If you are looking for a game that feels old school how much current support are you looking for and what type of budget do you have?
One advantage of the clones is that you can use old edition support products with them that requires little conversion.

 

[Obryn]

I'll just chime in and say... if you want a game to feel like 1e, you're best off playing 1e. That's what I'm doing - 1e with liberal doses of OSRIC here and there. (For example, I like the OSRIC Thieving chart much better than the 1e PHB chart.)

I was jonesing to run Temple of Elemental Evil. For a while, I was working on a 3e conversion. Then I started thinking about a 4e conversion. I finally had an epiphany - if I wanted to run Temple, why not run it in its own system? 1e is still very playable, very entertaining, and the very soul of old-school gaming.

So far, so good. Well, 5/8 of the party did die last session, but still!

-O

 

[Aus_Snow]

Old school is what you play *AND* how you play it. Game system does have an effect on the feel of a session, a campaign, etc. Even those systems that largely 'get out of the way' - this too contributes to the feel of the campaign, most certainly. No, it's not everything. But neither is it nothing.

Anyway, re: C&C, I don't own it, have never played it, and have nothing else invested in it either, on any level. Right, with that disclaimer out of the way, well, it got EGG's 'vote', so to speak (in that he wrote some adventures for C&C, which are still available, if not other things as well). Not that that means you (or anyone else) 'should' play it, but it's something of an endorsement from he who was one of the creators of D&D in the first place, of course.

One of its strongest points, according to many DMs and players, is the ease with which you can use material from any edition of D&D (but in particular OD&D through to AD&D 2e [? - I think. . .]) and pretty much run with it, without a great deal of fuss.

Also, its 'other stuff' system is explicit and neat, rather than not entirely spelled out anywhere and messy, as per hm, maybe even all pre-3e editions of D&D.

Plus, a lot of the chunks of clutter and rules you'll probably just ignore or have to change in order to use at all, are apparently gone. 'Gone' in the sense that C&C is a descendent of AD&D, which is basically my impression.

 

[S'mon]

Another game I love is Labyrinth Lord, a free, very well done, faithful retro clone of Moldvay-Cook/Marsh Basic/Expert D&D. I'm about to start a Wilderlands classic Judges Guild modules campaign using it, complementing my Castles & Crusades Greyhawk classic TSR modules campaign.

 

[Korgoth]

If it was a short-term game, I'd highly suggest the D&D Rule's Cyclopedia.

A longer-term game would be Castles & Crusades.

Nostalgia aside, I see no reason to go back to AD&D 1e or 2e.

C&C is fine, but it ain't 1E. In C&C, like in 3E, a spellcaster's spells are more difficult to save against the higher level he is. That alone changes things significantly.

People sometimes say that wizards were all-powerful in old school D&D. Not if you have decent saves. They're way more powerful in C&C, where you would have trouble throwing a high level wizard against a lower level party.

 

[ExploderWizard]

C&C is fine, but it ain't 1E. In C&C, like in 3E, a spellcaster's spells are more difficult to save against the higher level he is. That alone changes things significantly.

Not exactly. In 3E it doesn't matter how high level you are, just the level of the spell (plus stat and other non-level mods) determines save difficulty. Thats always bugged me about 3E.

 

[Treebore]

C&C is fine, but it ain't 1E. In C&C, like in 3E, a spellcaster's spells are more difficult to save against the higher level he is. That alone changes things significantly.

People sometimes say that wizards were all-powerful in old school D&D. Not if you have decent saves. They're way more powerful in C&C, where you would have trouble throwing a high level wizard against a lower level party.

Your right, C&C ain't 1E and thank TLG for that! I don't want racial level limits, I don't want females limited to 18/50 Strength, I don't want AC's going from 10 to -10, I don't want saves versus an 18th level wizard being successful on a 4 or better.

What C&C is, is the simplicity of 1E play without all the wierd whonky rules and a way to resolves "skills" without a detailed system, it about when a 18th level wizard throws a fireball at your 8th level butt you are going to die, its about when that same 18th level wizard throws a fireball at your 18th level fighter butt you still say, "Awww crap!", its an AC system that starts at 10 and goes up from there, its about being so easy to convert anything I want from 1E to 4E (Yes, I am doing all that, currently running 4E Sellswords of Punjar too), and a whole lot more that not only makes C&C feel like 1E, but being everything 1E could have been.

Don't get me wrong, Labyrinth Lord, and all the other clones are good choices, but I chose C&C because not only is it a solid base system, but it also allows me to easily use any idea I like from any edition of D&D to make my C&C experience even better. So C&C allows me to easily have the best of all editions of D&D, so why would I settle for anything else when I can have all of the best, with ease?

Plus I still get to easily convert and use any module I have from any edition, from Basic, to 1E, and as I have already mentioned I even ran the 4E Sellswords of Punjar using C&C, with NO conversion notes! Conversion is so easy, that once you get it, you can look at the monsters and NPC's and know what needs to be changed and how, with no notes! With 3E I do start using some conversion notations on about 12th level and higher creatures.

So in a nutshell I use C&C because for the last 3 years I have been discovering more and more that C&C allows me to assemble my perfect game system by taking its core, and adding what I like best from all the rest, and it works. Very, very well. The fact that it allows me to use my HUGE module collection from any edition of D&D, and even Paladium, GURPS, Labyrinth Lord, OSRIC (I love me some SHROOOMS!!), and any other D&D based game is a HUGE bonus to me as well.

The only thing that sucks about C&C is that it expands my spending horizons. If I played 1E I would not bother buying new modules from 4E, or from OSRIC, LL, and the others. Unfortunately if they look good, I buy them, because it works with C&C! So thats the bad part, it makes it harder to control your spending.

 

[Treebore]

C&C is fine, but it ain't 1E. In C&C, like in 3E, a spellcaster's spells are more difficult to save against the higher level he is. That alone changes things significantly.

Not exactly. In 3E it doesn't matter how high level you are, just the level of the spell (plus stat and other non-level mods) determines save difficulty. Thats always bugged me about 3E.

You and Korgoth do realize that saves scale with level, right? In C&C? So when your 15th level, and your getting hit by a 15th level spell, your odds are identical to when you were first level saving versus the first level spell. The only differences will be caused by magic items or spells you have on you.

So when that 15th level Finger of Death comes in you get to add your level to your save, cancelling out the CL15 of the wizard, so the save is not a 27 if PRime, but still a 12, just like ti was when you were first level.


So if you have a DM stupid enough to attack you with a 12th level wizard and your 7th lower or level, you are in all liklihood a dead PC. Since even your Prime save will be no better than a 17 rather than a 12, because the GM hit you with a spellcaster 5 or more levels higher than you.

With exceptional luck on your rolls you could still survive, but it is unlikely.

Now a high DEX attribute bonus can lower that 17 to a 14, and magic could lower that even more, so thats good if your DEX is Prime, but if its non Prime your starting at a save of 23, not 17, so things get even uglier.

In other words, in C&C you will never be told, "Your getting hit by a spell." and hear the reply, "Don't worry, I can take it." You will now hear, "Ooh CRAP!" then watch your players bite their nails and sweat profusely until they find out if they save or not.

In C&C you keep spell casters rare, because they are the deadliest gun on the battlefield, just like they are supposed to be. So if you believe in panzy spellcasters who aren't meant to be feared, then you'll need to do some house ruling to make spellcasters into panzies again. When the players find out they are facing a cleric, druid, or spellcaser of any type, they will go on high alert. They will become worried. Even if they have a cleric, wizard and druid in their own party, because they might die before their own spellcasters can make the difference.

Let me put it this way, if you like the grittiness of something like Warhammer or the Midnight setting, C&C will give you a bit of that feeling when it comes to magic.

 

[ExploderWizard]

C&C is fine, but it ain't 1E. In C&C, like in 3E, a spellcaster's spells are more difficult to save against the higher level he is. That alone changes things significantly.




You and Korgoth do realize that saves scale with level, right? In C&C? So when your 15th level, and your getting hit by a 15th level spell, your odds are identical to when you were first level saving versus the first level spell. The only differences will be caused by magic items or spells you have on you.

I was speaking strictly about 3E. Korgoth had mistakenly implied that save difficulty in 3E scaled with caster level.

 

[Obryn]

What C&C is, is the simplicity of 1E play without all the wierd whonky rules and a way to resolves "skills" without a detailed system,

I know you're coming into this more as an evangelist than anything else, but ... I disagree with this point.

Part of the joys of both OD&D and 1e are exactly the things you're disregarding here, at least IMHO.

Skill systems? Out of combat resolution? Others will disagree, but I don't really want a system for those things, if I'm running oldschool. Want to search the room? Tell me what you're doing. Don't want to give me details? I'll roll some d6's. Want to jump the chasm? DM fiat based on strength, class, armor, etc with maybe a die roll thrown in. And so on.

And as for all the miscellaneous sub-systems, that's part of the charm, too, imho. The more subsystems you have, the more modular a system is. Don't like the unarmed combat system? Well, who does? Plug in something else. Want to add weapon specialization? Go ahead. Want to change up the thief skill chart? Done!

Even one strength you mentioned - using any supplement for any edition - can work just dandy in 1e. It's no harder to add a feat-type system or a skill-type system if that's what you're looking for.

I know that C&C gets a lot of love from its fans, but it kinda leaves me cold. I find the SIEGE engine overrated & unnecessary. I don't particularly care for its use as a saving throw mechanic, either. But, if you love it, you can drop it into a 1e game with just as much ease as the other way around.

I just found C&C to be a strange half-step of a game, which tries to straddle the line between old-school and new-school, and in the process became charmless.

IMHO, YMMV, etc.

-O