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

[Treebore]

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

True, it scales with spell level, not caster level. I didn't like it much either. It was better than 1E and 2E, though. Games had to get into the epic range before I started seeing everyone saving on anything but a 1. Still, with all the immunities and high DR's versus various spells, over all it still felt worse than 1E and 2E.

 

[Treebore]

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

All your proving to me is you didn't play C&C enough to figure out how it works. What your talking about is in there. Not perfectly, but then again I didn't find it perfect in the boxed sets, or 1E, or even 2E, but I am liking how C&C does it better.

I played 1E for 5 years, mostly as a DM, I did 2E for 10+ years, 3e for nearly 5 years, and even 4E for alittle over 2 months. I have been running C&C for over 3 years now, regularly reading through all my old books and stealing rules, etc... so I am comparing C&C to the boxed sets, 1E, 2E, 3E, 4E, and others all the time.

Everything you bring up about skill checks, and what you like to see, is in C&C. Really, it is. They go about it a bit differently, but the end result feels very similar.


I am not an evangelist, I'm just someone who has found a game that plays perfectly for them. Good luck on finding yours.

 

[Falstaff]

Dragon Warriors

Dragon Warriors | Magnum Opus Press

 

[Philotomy Jurament]

I agree with everything you said in that last post, Obryn (especially about not wanting a skill system and ways to handle various actions). Not long after I became dissatisfied with 3e, I tried C&C and loved it...at first. After playing it while, I started running into things that didn't work like I wanted them to. My house rules made the game more and more like traditional D&D, and pretty soon I realized I'd be happier playing the real deal.

I find the SIEGE engine overrated & unnecessary. I don't particularly care for its use as a saving throw mechanic, either.

The SIEGE engine is one of the main defining elements of C&C. It's used almost everywhere. It's an almost "universal mechanic." It's also the main contributor to my eventual dissatisfaction with C&C, because it's shoehorned into areas where I think a different subsystem would work better (e.g. AD&D surprise vs. C&C surprise), it breaks down and lessens the importance of character class (e.g. saving throws in C&C vs. saving throws in TSR D&D), and I think it brings unwanted side-effects to the fore (e.g. surprise in C&C is a Wis-based check, which means your Cleric is typically the best ambush-detector in the party).

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.

C&C's position as the "middle road" between the editions is its great strength and its great weakness. Those who love it for that "middle way" quality find it perfect for their needs, but it takes fire from those who like WotC-style D&D for being too much like the old editions, and it takes fire from those who like TSR-style D&D for the modern elements that throw it off track from being truly like old school D&D. After I played it for a while, I found too many little things that all added up to it not feeling right to me. What I really wanted was old-school TSR D&D, and C&C was closer to that, but didn't quite get me there -- too many little differences (sometimes with larger-than-expected effects) that added up.

(I still had fun with C&C -- I'm not saying it's a bad game. But again, if you *really* want 1e feel, run 1e.)

 

[Obryn]

All your proving to me is you didn't play C&C enough to figure out how it works.

ooof. I don't like this line of argument from proponents of 3e or 4e, and like it with C&C just about the same amount.

I am not an evangelist, I'm just someone who has found a game that plays perfectly for them. Good luck on finding yours.

Eh? I have several games that play perfectly for me. 1e does oldschool D&D perfectly well. 4e does modern D&D perfectly well. WFRP does gritty. CoC does horror. Star Wars Saga does ... well, Star Wars. Why limit myself to one?

I am absolutely not saying that C&C is a bad system. I just don't find that it offers me anything that 1e, 3e, or 4e don't; and, more to the point, I don't think it's always the best answer for everyone looking to play an oldschool-style game.

-O

 

[Falstaff]

I bought the PHB and Monsters & Treasure for C&C and ran a session or two for a few of my gamer pals. We decided we thought it sucked and haven't returned to it since. YMMV, of course.

 

[jdrakeh]

I am not an evangelist, I'm just someone who has found a game that plays perfectly for them. Good luck on finding yours.

I'm sure you meant you've found a system that plays perfectly for you, right?

 

[JRRNeiklot]

I played C&C for a while. Hell, I was one of the earliest (not in house) playtesters. It's a good system. But the more we played it, the more little annoyances we found. Not that it was bad game design, just DIFFERENT from what we wanted. We wanted old school with some modern mechanics. Positive or negative ac - what a joke - one is addition, the other subtraction. Neither is more superior or easier than the other. Pick the method you like and run with it. I will say that negative 4 just sounds cooler than 24, though and Jack Bauer be damned!

Quote: "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!"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!"



An 18th level fighter with a 16 con averages 112 hit points. An 18th level wizard's fireball does on average 63 points of damage, save for half. That's a good chunk of his hp gone. With a 3rd level spell. 4 of those, if he saves, and he's dead. 2, if he does not. Not to mention his armor, weapons, etc, all need to make a save. I'd say that's pretty damn deadly.



We wanted 1es deadly spells and save or die poisons, level draining that just scared the hell out of you and sent level 13 rangers running for the hills at the sight of a 4hd wight. We wanted only 2 rangers in a party, 10 magic items for a paladin, quick combats where only the warriors got more than one attack. A simple straightforward - no you can't use two bastard swords - two weapon fighting system. We wanted 1 hp wizards, ethereal mummies and wandering prostitutes. We wanted combat handled by the rules and non combat adjucations winged on the fly. Sometimes we don't agree with the dm's decision, we don't argue, just call him a rat bastard and move on with the game.

C&C came close to this - damn close - but there was always something missing. We had to keep hammering the peg in to make it fit. Not hard mind you, just a tap here, a twist there, but there was always a corner sticking up to stub a toe on.

Bottom line, if you want old school D&D, PLAY Old school D&D.

But do give C&C a try, it does work for some folks, and I support TLG 100%, they are some of the nicest guys on the planet, and as Tree says, you can take a C&C adventure and play any edition of D&D up until 3.5. I don't see how in hell you'd make it work for 4e, but maybe that's possible, as well

 

[grodog]

Oh, we certainly do play a lot of CoC. We were looking for something of a fantasy clone of old school games that's currently supported. No doubt we can just crack out the old books, but we were looking for something "new" that felt "old".

I'd recommend that you just play AD&D (or OD&D) of course

If you're looking for clones, however, I'd go with OSRIC or Swords & Wizardry assuming that you're not using your AD&D 1e books for some reason. OSRIC has the most support among the retro-clones (8 modules from Expeditious Retreat Press, for example), but S&W has that OD&D vibe that may be sufficiently distinct from AD&D that it would feel like a bigger change of pace, perhaps.

 

[JeffB]

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

I agree. I've tried, VERY HARD to like C&C, but I have a tough time with it. I LOVE the idea of a universal mechanic, but the SIEGE engine is (IMO) wonky.

As for the OP, I'd reccomend Swords & Wizardry along with the Supp 1-3 PDFs for some variety/options

or

Basic Fantasy RPG (for the reasons mentioned previously in this post- takes some of the great things abou 3E and meshes them into the Moldvay/Cook/Marsh rules)