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

[Treebore]

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

Obviously. I did say I was one of "those" people who found it to be perfect for "them". So your powers of comprehension are indeed intact. I am not singular in my enjoyment either, I play with dozens who feel very similar. So thats why I implied I was part of a group of "those people", because we are a group.

Plus Philotomy is right. you have to like surprise being a d20 check instead of a d10 check and that a Ranger may not be practically impossible to surprise to prefer C&C over 1E. I always hated how hard it was for a Ranger to get surprised, to the point where if the group had a Ranger in it I didn't even bother rolling anymore. So yeah, I am happy that C&C made surprise a bit fairer than 1E and that even Rangers can be surprised on a somewhat regular basis.

Is the d10 a better surprise mechanic? I don't think so. I prefer a system where your level of skill comes into play, as well as how "wise" you may be to detect ambushes/surprise. So Philotomy obviously prefers the d10 stuff of 1E, I don't.

Philotomy also likes subsystems, percentile for this, d10 for that, d6 for this, I don't. I like one universal system. Easier for me, easier for my players.

C&C is all about preferences, so you can house rule it to fit those preferences, or you can go onto another system. C&C fits my preferences best, and allows me to use any of my modules easier than any other edition of D&D, so obviously I am happiest with C&C. Is it for everyone? Nope. Neither is any other edition of D&D. So thats why we all search for the best fit. C&C is mine.

 

[Philotomy Jurament]

...you have to like surprise being a d20 check instead of a d10 check and that a Ranger may not be practically impossible to surprise to prefer C&C over 1E. I always hated how hard it was for a Ranger to get surprised, to the point where if the group had a Ranger in it I didn't even bother rolling anymore. So yeah, I am happy that C&C made surprise a bit fairer than 1E and that even Rangers can be surprised on a somewhat regular basis.

Actually it's a d6 in 1e. A Ranger has a 1:6 chance (16.7%) of being surprised in a standard encounter situation, compared to the normal 2:6 (33% chance). Circumstances can modify the surprise chances, of course.

Surprise in 1e is less granular than in skill-based approaches. Concealment or invisibility might add 1:6, and silence might add 1:6. Thus, a Ranger facing an invisible and silent enemy might be surprised 3:6, while the standard chances in such a situation are 4:6.

Is the d10 a better surprise mechanic? I don't think so.

One thing I like about the 1e surprise mechanic is that the single surprise roll tells you whether you're surprised and also how long you're surprised (allowing for multiple surprise segments).

I also like that the surprise system in 1e reinforces the class system. Rangers are stealthy and perceptive. Thieves can use move silently or hide in shadows to increase their chance of surprise. Et cetera.

Philotomy also likes subsystems, percentile for this, d10 for that, d6 for this, I don't. I like one universal system. Easier for me, easier for my players.

I think universal systems are something of an overrated "silver bullet," and tend to get used in places where a different approach would work better (which is what causes the "weird side effect" issue.) I don't think a handful of subsystems is significantly harder -- most of these subsystems are pretty simple. I'd rather have a handful of simple subsystems that are tailored to model their areas of concern, rather than a universal approach that doesn't model the individual areas of concern as well, or that causes unwanted side-effects in how the system works.

My complaint against C&C boils down the differences that the use of the SIEGE engine introduces -- it makes C&C model things differently than I like, and it makes C&C play and feel different from what I want. For example, if C&C used a d20 for surprise, but modeled surprise like 1e, I wouldn't have any problem with that. Similarly, my complaint against the SIEGE engine for saving throws is that it completely changes the way saving throws are modeled, making character class irrelevant and attributes/primes important. In a class-based game, and in D&D in particular, I like for the systems to reinforce and support the class.

I think C&C works best if you approach it as its own D&D-ish game that does things differently (not just the dice used, but the way things work underneath). That's cool, it's just not what I wanted; I was looking for old-school D&D. C&C was a step closer (compared to 3e), but the more I played it, the more I realized it wasn't quite what I was after.

 

[RFisher]

We’ve played classic Traveller recently. Why? It was the first RPG I played on a regular basis. I was amazed by how it seemed that many of the features being sought in the free & “indie” games I was interested in were in cT. I’d never had a chance to run it myself, and everyone in my group had never had a chance to play it.

We’ve played classic D&D (B/X) recently. Why? It was the first RPG I ever bought. I’d always had a lot of respect for it even after I’d “moved on”. Disillusionment with 3e, however, sent me to seeking why anyone would be playing the older editions. Slowly, I came to appreciate almost everything in B/X over the alternatives from other editions. When the group asked me to run some D&D, I asked if B/X was OK, & they agreed.

We’ve played Marvel Super Heroes a lot. (If that counts as “old school”.) Why? It’s the favorite system of one of the other guys in the group.

I’d venture to say that when we play 3e, there’s a lot of “old school” in our approach.

 

[S'mon]

Re C&C spot checks - I don't see why Clerics shouldn't be perceptive. The C&C Cleric needs a lot more XP than the pre-3e Cleric, and they have fewer and weaker spells than in 1e, there's no harm in them being good sentries. They can't sneak around so they're not great scouts. Where did this idea that Clerics were blind as bats come from? The stat is called Wisdom, not Willpower or Faith. Perception is reasonably part of it.

In any case, most smart C&C players take Wisdom as a Prime (4/5 PCs in my current C&C game have WIS Prime - the 2 Rangers and Rogue need it for class abilities, plus the Wizard. The Fighter went STR DEX CON). The attribute mod is not a big deal in C&C, and Rogues will typically be a level above Clerics, so the Cleric won't necessarily be the best spotter anyway. And C&C Rangers have such a huge suite of powers, including the uber Combat Marauder, they don't need a monopoly on spot checks.

Re saving throws - I don't like looking up saving throw tables, and C&C's use of attribute checks as saves is a godsend for me. YMMV.

 

[S'mon]

Anyway, there are so many cool free Old School systems & emulators now - OSRIC, Basic Fantasy RPG, Labyrinth Lord, Swords & Wizardry - download them & see which ones fit your style best. And look at C&C. Then you'll know.

 

[tylerthehobo]

Posting Links to the freebies you mentioned here:
Swords & Wizardry:Untitled

Basic Fantasy: Basic Fantasy Role-Playing Game

Labyrinth Lord: Labyrinth Lord [ll001] - It's Free! : Your Games Now, Publisher Co-Op

OSRIC: OSRIC

 

[Philotomy Jurament]

Re C&C spot checks - I don't see why Clerics shouldn't be perceptive. The C&C Cleric needs a lot more XP than the pre-3e Cleric, and they have fewer and weaker spells than in 1e, there's no harm in them being good sentries. They can't sneak around so they're not great scouts. Where did this idea that Clerics were blind as bats come from? The stat is called Wisdom, not Willpower or Faith. Perception is reasonably part of it.

I never said Clerics should be blind as bats or obtuse. Sure, maybe a cleric's Wis helps him with perception. And maybe a magic user's intelligence helps him with perception. And maybe a ranger's training helps him with perception. Heck, maybe a Fighter's wisdom helps him in combat. Et cetera.

My point is that I like class-based systems to use and reinforce the archetypes. And I don't consider "very perceptive/ambush-detector" to be part of the "cleric" archetype in the same way that it's part of the ranger or thief archetype. Intentionally or not, C&C makes "tends to be very perceptive" a built-in feature of the cleric class.

[Incidentally, I think it's good that C&C upped the XP requirements for the cleric, because even 1st level C&C clerics kick major ass. With their armor and hit points, they're solid in combat. They're among the best at avoiding surprise and also good at general perception (because of their high Wis which will invariably be Prime). They can turn undead. At first level, they can cast spells like the first level cure light wounds. Not only that, they can also cast spells like the first level sound burst, which does 1d8 damage (no save) to all creatures in a 20 ft diameter circle centered up to 50 feet away, also stunning those creatures if they fail their save. (No magic user? No "big gun" sleep spell? No worries, mate, I can nuke those goblins with a spell that makes those pointy-hat 1st level wizards green with envy!)]

The attribute mod is not a big deal in C&C, and Rogues will typically be a level above Clerics, so the Cleric won't necessarily be the best spotter anyway.

By-the-book, I don't think level is added to surprise checks (e.g. see the "EXAMPLE OF PLAY" at the end of the C&C PH -- Suryc and Bjorn aren't adding their level when they make surprise checks). However, let's assume that you're house-ruling this and adding level in some or all cases. For the sake of argument, let's say the Rogue is Wis Prime. As you say, the Rogue is typically going to be a level higher than the Cleric, so he'll get a +1 bonus that the Cleric won't enjoy. However, it's also true that the Cleric will typically have a higher Wis attribute bonus -- maybe a +1 higher than the Rogue, maybe more. It's true that attribute mods aren't as significant as Prime/Not-Prime, but the small attribute mod is likely to cancel out the small level mod.

The fact is that Clerics in C&C tend to be good at perception because they're always Wis Prime, and they tend to have high Wis stats on top of that. It's not necessarily bad or wrong, it's just not how I like Clerics (i.e. all clerics as a class or archetype) to be modeled.

Re saving throws - I don't like looking up saving throw tables, and C&C's use of attribute checks as saves is a godsend for me. YMMV.

If you write your saving throw target number on your character sheet, there's no need to look up anything. It's no more difficult that looking at the character sheet for the appropriate ability mod.

Again, my complaint against C&C saving throws isn't that the system is necessarily bad or wrong, but that it completely throws out the importance of your character class, and it models the saving throw much more like a "resistance roll" heavily based on the stat. That's just not the way I like saving throws to work. I like class to be the most important factor in saving throws, and I don't like them to scale perfectly in tandem with the threat level. It's not *wrong*, it's just a completely different approach from traditional old-school saving throws, which I prefer.

 

[S'mon]

Again, my complaint against C&C saving throws isn't that the system is necessarily bad or wrong, but that it completely throws out the importance of your character class, and it models the saving throw much more like a "resistance roll" heavily based on the stat.

Re adding level to spot checks - I add level to pretty much all checks unless it's clearly outside the character's area of expertise. The game seems to leave it pretty much to GM's discretion.

Re saves - I guess it's because I'm running online games, but also whenever I roll a save for an NPC or monster I much prefer not to have to look up a table.
Because every class has a compulsory Prime and there are obvious Primes that link to class abilities, saves continue to vary a lot by class. Eg Rangers will be STR-DEX-WIS, Rogues will have DEX WIS and likely INT.

 

[S'mon]

I think C&C Sound Burst is overpowered - in my previous campaign I banned it, but I'm trying to use the RAW for my current Greyhawk C&C chat game.

Re archetypes - the only reason you think "Being perceptive isn't a Cleric archetype" is because OD&D--1e established the archetypes and didn't have perceptive clerics. But Thieves weren't any better at spotting either, not until 3e. In 1e Rangers were the only perceptive class; they lose that distinction in C&C (though they almost always will have WIS Prime) but C&C Rangers have a huge suite of powers and definitely don't need that distinction to be balanced against other classes.

Edit: Of course the way to restore the approach you like in C&C is to give the perceptive classes (Ranger, Rogue) their level as a mod to spot rolls, and not give it to the Cleric. By 4th level they should be outshining the Cleric.

 

[Philotomy Jurament]

I think C&C Sound Burst is overpowered...

Yeah, me too. Not only do I think it's overpowered for its level, but I also think it's more of a magic-user spell than a cleric spell. I didn't notice it in there until my players started using it, but I got rid of it as quickly as I could.

Re archetypes - the only reason you think "Being perceptive isn't a Cleric archetype" is because OD&D--1e established the archetypes and didn't have perceptive clerics.

Yep -- exactly. I was looking for the "old school" archetypes. That's one of the reasons I tried C&C to begin with: it seemed to offer what I wanted in an "in print" game that had a buzz.

Basically, I want the qualities of the archetype to precede and affect the system (or subsystem) design. In C&C, the SIEGE engine sometimes causes the universally applied system design to precede and affect the qualities of the archetype.

But Thieves weren't any better at spotting either, not until 3e.

True. I was lumping thieves in because of the way their class skills can affect the surprise chances in OD&D and 1e -- but that's stealth, not perception. (They do get better in hear noise, though, so you might call them a "perceptive class" in that way.)

In 1e Rangers were the only perceptive class; they lose that distinction in C&C (though they almost always will have WIS Prime) but C&C Rangers have a huge suite of powers and definitely don't need that distinction to be balanced against other classes.

Yeah, the C&C ranger is potent, and could probably be toned down a bit. That said, though, I'm not as worried about balance as I am about modeling the class or archetype. I'd apply balance through the XP advancement chart (i.e. slower for more powerful classes).

Edit: Of course the way to restore the approach you like in C&C is to give the perceptive classes (Ranger, Rogue) their level as a mod to spot rolls, and not give it to the Cleric. By 4th level they should be outshining the Cleric.

I considered that, but I want the 1st level Ranger to outshine the 1st level Cleric (and probably the 4th level Cleric, too). The problem is that I prefer for class to be very important (e.g. I think the fact that a Ranger is a Ranger should trump the Cleric's Wisdom, as far as ambush detection), and C&C's mechanics dilute class importance in a variety of ways. I also have a problem with the surprise probabilities, themselves, apart from the way surprise works with the classes. Again, it just didn't model surprise like I wanted it to. I ended up house-ruling surprise, completely, and dropped in a %-based system (essentially the B/X D&D system using d% instead of d6). These days I'm using a very 1e-ish surprise subsystem with my OD&D game.

Really, that's a good example of my "C&C experience" over time. I started off liking it a lot, and was very enthusiastic. Over time, I found things I didn't like, and started modifying them to be more like "old school D&D." I gutted surprise, I replaced the saving throw system, I edited the spell lists, I found myself relying on the SIEGE engine less-and-less for handling non-combat actions, I changed the movement in combat rules, et cetera. Sometimes I'm really dense, but eventually even I realized that what I really wanted was old school D&D, and that I should quit trying to hammer on C&C, reinventing the wheel, and just play the older systems.