Old School Campaigns

[Aus_Snow]

I though of incorporating 3.5 prestige classes into the campiagn, but unsure if to make them actual classes or device a method similar to proto prestige classes. I am leaning to the latter.

Why not. A bit like the AD&D Bard, then. I think it's a great idea.

As for old school campaigns, I knwo the DMing and playing style contibutes to the ols schoolness but how about storylines? 3.5 sources and fluff are good but unsure whether I should incorporate them.

Again, can't see any good reason why not. There are some great 'old school' 3e sources from companies like Necromancer Games and Goodman Games, in particular. But even some of the more standard fare could be fine, IMO. An adventure here and there, that kind of thing.

 

[Deuce Traveler]

I'm always a little jealous of the people in these type of threads. I've never played any version of the game prior to 2e (which I miss very dearly some days) and have always been curious about how previous versions of the game actually played given all the things you hear.

The game moves quicker in a lot of ways, but there isn't as much flexibility and tweaks for your character (demi-humans suffering the most). Usually a good BECMI game replaces that with a lot of political intrigue and estate development in order to make the player feel that their character is developing. And those published adventures had their own unique tweaks. Crashed spaceships on a frontier, castles coated in crimson, death-dealing light, and so on. Also, because there are fewer rules, the DM can just throw some item in easier such as a laser rifle or mutant giant squirrel that can be whipped up in a few minutes.

I'll also tout CnC for a quicker game than 3e or 4e, but again your character options are more limited.

 

[Edgewood]

I'm starting up a 1st Edition AD&D homebrew campaign on Open RPG. The homebrew is my own campaign world of Morvia that I have been running for the past 18 years. It's nice to get back to the granddaddy that started it all for me way back in 1983. I'm really looking forward to running this one.

 

[Treebore]

I'll also tout CnC for a quicker game than 3e or 4e, but again your character options are more limited.

Your character classes are limited, but your character actions are as unlimited as what the player wants to try and the game master allows. Doesn't seem like much, but when you actually play the game it becomes HUGE.

3E and 4E limits you to what is on your lists of feats or powers, in C&C you can roll to do anything that is not a class specific power/ability. So if you want to "Power Attack" or "Swim" or "Holy Strike" or "Jump" or "Cleave" or "Tumble" or "Valiant Strike" you don't need to refer to a list, you just tell the game master what you would like to do, then the CK determines the base TN and an appropriate challenge level, and you roll to see if you succeed.

At least that is how it goes in my game, and why I prefer C&C over all the others.

Which is also why I consider C&C "old school", its simple, gets the job done, and lets me use any element from any edition I wish. The best of all worlds, new or old.

 

[bagger245]

I DMed C&C for a mini campaign before my current B/XD&D. One thing I see as
a drawback for the SIEGE engine is the handling of target number. The higher level
your players are, the higher target number you have to set, other wise most
of the actions are easliy accomplished. I know there's a debate over this in Troll Lord
forum, but I am just stating my preference of B/X over C&C. Mind you, I almost swore
I would forever play C&C and make it my system of choice. It remains the definite
'bridge' between AD&D to 3.5.

 

[Treebore]

I DMed C&C for a mini campaign before my current B/XD&D. One thing I see as
a drawback for the SIEGE engine is the handling of target number. The higher level
your players are, the higher target number you have to set, other wise most
of the actions are easliy accomplished. I know there's a debate over this in Troll Lord
forum, but I am just stating my preference of B/X over C&C. Mind you, I almost swore
I would forever play C&C and make it my system of choice. It remains the definite
'bridge' between AD&D to 3.5.

All I can tell you is how I handle this issue. IF its a 500 pound boulder that needs to be rolled over, then its CL 2 no matter what the level. However, as things level up it is then adjusted by the level of whomever put the obstacle in your way. Which to me makes sense, they have learned lots of neat little tricks to make things less difficult and would make someone capable of beating that CL adjustment up to bypass it with no check needed.

As for a 10th level character, or someone with Strength as Prime, they know a lot more tricks for overcoming that obstacle, so that 500 lbs boulder is going to be a much easier obstacle to figure out a way to over come it. If
they have a Girdle of Hill Giant Strength its a completely moot point and not even enough of a challenge to require a roll.

As a way to illustrate, a 1st level fighter is probably very likely to over come the challenge of the boulder and just get as best a grip as he can on it and lift/push it over. A 10th level fighter is much more likely to find a strong piece of wood about 8 feet in length and a small rock to use as a fulcrum point and easily roll the boulder over or aside. Now if the level one fighter thinks to use the strong stick and stone fulcrum the CK gives a +10 bonus to their check.
Failure on such a check probably means the stick broke or the fulcrum stone rolled out from under the stick, or some other similar "problem", and a retry with a flatter stone or stronger stick would be possible.

So I see the issue as a problem of how the CK fails or succeeds in adjudicating the challenge, not a problem with the system.

 

[S'mon]

Comparing C&C to LL (which is basically Moldvay/Cook B/X D&D), I'm currently running both. I don't find that C&C's Primes system is worth the added complexity compared to B/X d20-roll-under-stat, although I appreciate Treebore's point that the Challenge Level system gives a lot of complexity in what PCs can attempt. I also appreciate B/X'-LL's greater simplicity in terms of race classes, and lower-powered spellcasters; C&C casters start with lots of spells, and they are hard to save against at all levels. B/X casters start with 1 spell, and saves are a lot easier - eg 1st level Halfling in my new LL game begins with a Poison/Death save at 1st level of 8+.

 

[Treebore]

B/X casters start with 1 spell, and saves are a lot easier - eg 1st level Halfling in my new LL game begins with a Poison/Death save at 1st level of 8+.

Yep, which is exactly why I prefer C&C's save system. My campaigns often last into the higher levels, even beyond level 20, including in 1E and 2E years. One thing that drove me nuts was that the mage could be an 18th level Arch Mage and that level one halfling would still save on an 8 or better against the Charm spell. In C&C he fails, period. Not only that but 18th level characters will still fear spells being thrown at them, even if they have a Cloak of Protection +5, because they will still have a 35 to 65% chance of failing, rather than only a 5%.

Conversely, against a 1st level mage they will only fail versus that Charm Person spell 5% of the time, IE a Natural 1. Not even then if you do C&C by the book and don't have crit fumbles or successes.

So I like that C&C keeps the game challenging and scary even at such high levels, rather than a super powered cake walk. Against "appropriate" level challenges.

 

[Angel Tarragon]

Playing Swords & Wizardy Core (OD&D retro-clone) City State Campaign

Is this available online?

 

[S'mon]

Yep, which is exactly why I prefer C&C's save system. My campaigns often last into the higher levels, even beyond level 20, including in 1E and 2E years. One thing that drove me nuts was that the mage could be an 18th level Arch Mage and that level one halfling would still save on an 8 or better against the Charm spell. In C&C he fails, period. Not only that but 18th level characters will still fear spells being thrown at them, even if they have a Cloak of Protection +5, because they will still have a 35 to 65% chance of failing, rather than only a 5%.

Conversely, against a 1st level mage they will only fail versus that Charm Person spell 5% of the time, IE a Natural 1. Not even then if you do C&C by the book and don't have crit fumbles or successes.

So I like that C&C keeps the game challenging and scary even at such high levels, rather than a super powered cake walk. Against "appropriate" level challenges.

Yeah, obviously your mileage varies, but Halflings saving Archmage's charm has an appropriately Tolkienesque feel for me. The Archmage can always use an appropriately high level spell - he can fireball the halfling for 18d6, or use a Power Word, etc. I certainly don't think that save-on-a-1 makes for a super-powered cakewalk (I ran 1e to 118th level in 1 PC's case, he died occasionally and was certainly challenged), IME it merely helps prevent spellcasters dominating the game.