Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Valiant" data-source="post: 3934563" data-attributes="member: 54792">I was never one to buy into the concept that AD&amp;D or OD&amp;D was incomplete, certainly not &quot;broken&quot; or having to be improved threw house rules, as you pointed out these variations between DMs were minimal (more a reflection of the ownership aspect of the DMs world then anything else), infact, so little difference occurs between tables that you can easily tell OD&amp;D from other systems (regardless of DM house rules) when watched (its core mechanics require that).OD&amp;D is a complete and destinct game,&nbsp; the number of rules you have (ie. not covering every situation) has nothing to do with that (as I'm sure you know, there is alot more to determining if a game is complete then the number of rules or situations covered.&nbsp; All thats needed to play D&amp;D or any FRPG is a way to determine who goes first, who hits who, who saves and how you advance.&nbsp; Keep those things core and your set.&nbsp; C&amp;C doesn't do that, it allows for (and encourages) importing core rules from other systems.&nbsp; It essentially allows for each table to invent its own game, so much so that its no longer C&amp;C.&nbsp; Anyhow, I never argued that C&amp;C is incomplete (if you play BTB its a complete system) once again, my points: 1. its not different enough from generic D20 to stand out&nbsp;&nbsp; and 2. its suggestion to heavily house rule the game to your liking (ie. play it as 3E if you like, or as 1E) makes it even less identifiable when viewed.&nbsp; Its intended purpose as being the &quot;adaptable alternative&quot; made it so flexible that the core game can easily be lost (where one table is not even playing the same game as the next, the way 3E or 1E are played with only slight differences in house rules).&nbsp; Now, that doesn't mean its not the perfect system for guys like Treebore (as a tool to make his own house game work) it only means the core system is intentionally secondary.&nbsp; Phil -Also, I don't agree that C&amp;C falls into the &quot;incomplete and demands house rules&quot; category.&nbsp; I think it is a complete and standalone system; it doesn't require house-rules. -To repeat, its not incomplete if you only consider the rule book, what I said was that it lacks a strong identity of its own (mostly generic D20 light) with its core system being secondary to house imports (ie 3E players bringing in feats etc.).&nbsp; Treebore said it best: &quot;Castles and Crusades does have an identity, the one the individual CK gives it when they make the game their own&quot;.&nbsp;&nbsp; The game is generic D20 given identity, flesh and uniqueness by the individual CK (not by the game itself as we see in 3E or AD&amp;D), its identity isn't based on the presentation of the game itself, but rather whats made of it.&nbsp; Essentially what you have with C&amp;C are games so different (from imports and house rules) from table to table they can't be considered the same game anymore (and this is by design).&nbsp; I call C&amp;C 3E light because I think thats the market the trolls were going after (the biggest for sure), and who its core rules were most useful to for that adaptation....a system that allows for taking skills and feats and what ever other bloat you like from 3E and making it work fast.&nbsp; Remember, to many 3E/3.5 is unplayable due to its complexity, for those C&amp;C is the perfect fit). I see nothing particularly &quot;old school&quot; (Gygaxian D&amp;D) about it.&nbsp; Infact you'd have to completely dump its D20 core system (its core mechanic).</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Valiant, post: 3934563, member: 54792"] I was never one to buy into the concept that AD&D or OD&D was incomplete, certainly not "broken" or having to be improved threw house rules, as you pointed out these variations between DMs were minimal (more a reflection of the ownership aspect of the DMs world then anything else), infact, so little difference occurs between tables that you can easily tell OD&D from other systems (regardless of DM house rules) when watched (its core mechanics require that). OD&D is a complete and destinct game, the number of rules you have (ie. not covering every situation) has nothing to do with that (as I'm sure you know, there is alot more to determining if a game is complete then the number of rules or situations covered. All thats needed to play D&D or any FRPG is a way to determine who goes first, who hits who, who saves and how you advance. Keep those things core and your set. C&C doesn't do that, it allows for (and encourages) importing core rules from other systems. It essentially allows for each table to invent its own game, so much so that its no longer C&C. Anyhow, I never argued that C&C is incomplete (if you play BTB its a complete system) once again, my points: 1. its not different enough from generic D20 to stand out and 2. its suggestion to heavily house rule the game to your liking (ie. play it as 3E if you like, or as 1E) makes it even less identifiable when viewed. Its intended purpose as being the "adaptable alternative" made it so flexible that the core game can easily be lost (where one table is not even playing the same game as the next, the way 3E or 1E are played with only slight differences in house rules). Now, that doesn't mean its not the perfect system for guys like Treebore (as a tool to make his own house game work) it only means the core system is intentionally secondary. Phil -Also, I don't agree that C&C falls into the "incomplete and demands house rules" category. I think it is a complete and standalone system; it doesn't require house-rules. - To repeat, its not incomplete if you only consider the rule book, what I said was that it lacks a strong identity of its own (mostly generic D20 light) with its core system being secondary to house imports (ie 3E players bringing in feats etc.). Treebore said it best: "Castles and Crusades does have an identity, the one the individual CK gives it when they make the game their own". The game is generic D20 given identity, flesh and uniqueness by the individual CK (not by the game itself as we see in 3E or AD&D), its identity isn't based on the presentation of the game itself, but rather whats made of it. Essentially what you have with C&C are games so different (from imports and house rules) from table to table they can't be considered the same game anymore (and this is by design). I call C&C 3E light because I think thats the market the trolls were going after (the biggest for sure), and who its core rules were most useful to for that adaptation....a system that allows for taking skills and feats and what ever other bloat you like from 3E and making it work fast. Remember, to many 3E/3.5 is unplayable due to its complexity, for those C&C is the perfect fit). I see nothing particularly "old school" (Gygaxian D&D) about it. Infact you'd have to completely dump its D20 core system (its core mechanic). [/QUOTE]

Verification