Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Clavis" data-source="post: 3920656" data-attributes="member: 31898">I wouldn't compare C&amp;C's art to 3rd edition's silly &quot;spiky bits, mismatched armor, and clothing made of belts&quot; look. Sure, C&amp;C's art isn't exactly like 1st edition's, but times (and artists) change. I love the old art; most of all it was fun. But it's not 1979 any more. That doesn't mean that we need to have the silly, excessive art of 3rd edition. But art, like a game, can progress while still being firmly linked to its history. IMHO 3rd edition's art (and rules) failed to do that; C&amp;C's art (and rules) succeed.&nbsp;I hope he's getting paid, just like anybody else who produces creative work that gets sold. Gary didn't found TSR because he wanted to give away his creative work! This is America, and there's absolutely nothing wrong with a mutually beneficial business relationship.C&amp;C is all about GM prerogative. In fact, it's far easier to GM (or CK, rather) C&amp;C than it was 1st edition AD&amp;D. I stopped DMing 1st Edition (for Vampire, and later Rules Cyclopedia D&amp;D) because I wanted a simpler, cleaner system. As for video game feel, I don't see it. 3rd Edition is video-gamey because the entire focus is on excessively increasing character abilities and absurdly large inventories of magical items. C&amp;C's light, streamlined rules free up&nbsp; the GM and players to focus on roleplaying. C&amp;C doesn't bear some sort of mystical &quot;taint&quot; because it's D20. I wish 3rd edition's implementation of D20 had turned out like C&amp;C's.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Clavis, post: 3920656, member: 31898"] I wouldn't compare C&C's art to 3rd edition's silly "spiky bits, mismatched armor, and clothing made of belts" look. Sure, C&C's art isn't exactly like 1st edition's, but times (and artists) change. I love the old art; most of all it was fun. But it's not 1979 any more. That doesn't mean that we need to have the silly, excessive art of 3rd edition. But art, like a game, can progress while still being firmly linked to its history. IMHO 3rd edition's art (and rules) failed to do that; C&C's art (and rules) succeed. I hope he's getting paid, just like anybody else who produces creative work that gets sold. Gary didn't found TSR because he wanted to give away his creative work! This is America, and there's absolutely nothing wrong with a mutually beneficial business relationship. C&C is all about GM prerogative. In fact, it's far easier to GM (or CK, rather) C&C than it was 1st edition AD&D. I stopped DMing 1st Edition (for Vampire, and later Rules Cyclopedia D&D) because I wanted a simpler, cleaner system. As for video game feel, I don't see it. 3rd Edition is video-gamey because the entire focus is on excessively increasing character abilities and absurdly large inventories of magical items. C&C's light, streamlined rules free up the GM and players to focus on roleplaying. C&C doesn't bear some sort of mystical "taint" because it's D20. I wish 3rd edition's implementation of D20 had turned out like C&C's. [/QUOTE]

Verification