Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Dristram" data-source="post: 3928440" data-attributes="member: 1639">From perspectives, I find that big fans of AD&amp;D see a lot of 3e in C&amp;C.&nbsp; And gamers who grew up on 3e D&amp;D, don't see much 3e in C&amp;C.&nbsp; <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f600.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":D" title="Big grin&nbsp; &nbsp; :D"&nbsp; data-smilie="8"data-shortname=":D" />&nbsp;&nbsp; It really is all in the perspective.&nbsp; There is a lot in 3e that I liked, thus I dove into it hard and fast in the beginning.&nbsp; And when using primarily the core books and with a group of gamers who are playing the game primarily for the table role-playing and a big interest in the story created by taking a character on adventures, 3e is very much my kind of game.&nbsp; It's the change in focus to class manipulation akin to what I understand GURPs and HERO are good at, is what turned me off on 3e as a D&amp;D style RPG.&nbsp; With C&amp;C, it has the old school way of &quot;take this class as written and have fun creating a character around it.&quot;&nbsp; And classes as designed have an old school flair with the details like XP progression (AD&amp;D), HP progression (AD&amp;D), and Base Attack progression (OD&amp;D), shield AC protection (AD&amp;D), but with simple straight forward d20 related SIEGE system, which works akin to the d20 Skills system.&nbsp; When looking back at AD&amp;D, C&amp;C is actually a simpler game, akin to OD&amp;D.&nbsp; It's easier to grasp for new gamers because the various rolls are unified in their use inspired by 3e, but still simple and straight forward.It seems to me, because of what you've stated Valiant, that those GMs who love AD&amp;D and have formed their own roll styles to determine the various abstract situations of the game, will find the C&amp;C SIEGE engine intrusive and perhaps inferior to what they came up with.&nbsp; I can totally understand that.&nbsp; And if a gamer is totally happy with AD&amp;D as is, hearing that C&amp;C is another AD&amp;D would feel defensive as I did when 2nd Edition AD&amp;D came out.&nbsp; I refused to play 2e until pretty much forced to by 1995.I find no real arguement with you.&nbsp; It's all a matter of taste.&nbsp; I was unhappy ultimately with AD&amp;D and looked to 3e to make me happy again.&nbsp; In a way it did, but not completely.&nbsp; C&amp;C is what I wished 3e had been.&nbsp; It's a game I like better.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Dristram, post: 3928440, member: 1639"] From perspectives, I find that big fans of AD&D see a lot of 3e in C&C. And gamers who grew up on 3e D&D, don't see much 3e in C&C. :D It really is all in the perspective. There is a lot in 3e that I liked, thus I dove into it hard and fast in the beginning. And when using primarily the core books and with a group of gamers who are playing the game primarily for the table role-playing and a big interest in the story created by taking a character on adventures, 3e is very much my kind of game. It's the change in focus to class manipulation akin to what I understand GURPs and HERO are good at, is what turned me off on 3e as a D&D style RPG. With C&C, it has the old school way of "take this class as written and have fun creating a character around it." And classes as designed have an old school flair with the details like XP progression (AD&D), HP progression (AD&D), and Base Attack progression (OD&D), shield AC protection (AD&D), but with simple straight forward d20 related SIEGE system, which works akin to the d20 Skills system. When looking back at AD&D, C&C is actually a simpler game, akin to OD&D. It's easier to grasp for new gamers because the various rolls are unified in their use inspired by 3e, but still simple and straight forward. It seems to me, because of what you've stated Valiant, that those GMs who love AD&D and have formed their own roll styles to determine the various abstract situations of the game, will find the C&C SIEGE engine intrusive and perhaps inferior to what they came up with. I can totally understand that. And if a gamer is totally happy with AD&D as is, hearing that C&C is another AD&D would feel defensive as I did when 2nd Edition AD&D came out. I refused to play 2e until pretty much forced to by 1995. I find no real arguement with you. It's all a matter of taste. I was unhappy ultimately with AD&D and looked to 3e to make me happy again. In a way it did, but not completely. C&C is what I wished 3e had been. It's a game I like better. [/QUOTE]

Verification