Recapturing 1st Edition Feelings

[Akrasia]

but DND, whatever incarnation, is not simple or easy by the rules. I know that some groups made it that way, and power to them. I know that my group was a bunch o' rules lawyers, so we played by the rules, for 1E and 2E and it wasn't an easy game. And I have introduced a dozen or so people to DND. 3E is by far the easiest.

A simple and easy "rules lite" version of D&D did indeed exist: The Basic/Expert version of the D&D game in the 1980s (whether the Moldvay/Cook editions, or the Mentzer editions).

I read the Moldvay basic rules, and started playing the same day!

Or try Buffy, Angel or the Unisystem, all of which really emphasize the drama and storytelling and are very good, simple rule systems.

Unisystem is indeed very good.


Not to plug Castles and Crusades yet again, but I think C&C greatly resembles the old B/X system, but is far more flexible and streamlined. It also resembles Unisystem in some respects.

 

[Akrasia]

Particle_Man, I was under the impression that Castles and Crusades introduces elements from the 1st Edition such as 5 Saving Throws etc. I'm really in favour of keeping d20 mechanics but wonder whether tweaking things will do the job. I'm still planning on picking up a copy of Castles and Crusades to see if it recaptures the 'magic'.

C&C keeps the "d20 mechanic" for the resolution of all contests/tasks.

It introduces 6 saving throws -- one for each ability score. This is the only area where C&C is arguably "more complex" than 3.x. The rationale was to ensure that every ability score played an important role for every character.

If you prefer the 3.x W/F/R saving throw system, you could easily substitute it. That is the nice thing about C&C -- it is easy to tweak the system to your liking.

 

[Soul]

I'm not sure miniatures/battlemats slow things down. I've used them predominately through multiple editions,and various games. I'm probably an exception to the rule however, as I don't understand people's issues with AoOs, and I don't feel they slow much down if at all. I do heavly agree on stacking effects though. I can see a slow down to a degree with battlemats if you look at from the perspective of people generaly are more active when they are invovled, as opposed to "I run up and attack it, I rolled an 18." etc.. mentality. Thats just me though.

 

[GravyFingerz]

Same here, except I'll be using lots of B/X/RC D&D stuff as well!

The thing I like about C&C is that it captures the "old school" feel of B/X D&D or 1E AD&D, while using the d20 mechanic, and making it very easy for different groups to add rules as they see fit (skills, psionics, new classes, etc.).

Brother let me hear an amen!

 

[Maliki]

I agree with JRRNeiklot, I liked the 3.0 when it came out but the more I DMed with it the less I liked using the rules. There was just to many things too add up and remember, It took the fun out of gaming. I was just about to hang up the dice, when I heard of Castle and Crusades. I really like what I've seen in the boxed set, and it seems like it will be easier to put the things I liked about 3rd edition back into the game, thento try to take out what I didn't like.

 

[Remathilis]

Hmmm....

There seems to be a common theme: "D&D is best when its fast and loose." By that, I mean when the DM made the judgement calls, the rules didn't matter a whole lot (can I jump on the table and hit the orc? Sure.) and realism could be forsaken for good game plan (like four dwarves standing toe-to-toe with a fire giant).

The Question is, CAN 3e be played fast and loose, ignoring elements and keeping things moving smoothly without destroying 3e's balance and tatical combat?

 

[Altalazar]

I really have fun memories of 1E as well, and some of it is related to how things were played, but now I have fond memories of 2E and 3E as well.

But I much prefer the 3E mechanics - I almost think the fun of 1E can be recaptured more in the type of adventures than in pure mechanics. I think it is more about the style of play than anything else. Perhaps with a dose of nostalgia.

 

[Blue_Kryptonite]

The Question is, CAN 3e be played fast and loose, ignoring elements and keeping things moving smoothly without destroying 3e's balance and tatical combat?

Yes and no. We use 3.5 (or any other rules set) as a sort of flavour or skin. Like a pretty faceplate you snap over your cellphone. When its cooler for the story to use the rules, you use them, otherwise, its the best comic book, movie, or tv style story flow that rules the day, with the dice as suggestions and no miniatures to be seen that aren't in wrappers marked "Hershey".

But tactical it ain't, and the Balance is quesitonable. If it were balanced, as far as my group is concerned, it would be a darn boring movie.

 

[Lord Vangarel]

JRRNeiklot, that reminded me very much of the old Master Set Rules and I would be looking for something very similar I imagine.

Personally I would guess that sometimes I would like a game where I don't have to worry about added complications. OD&Dd20 would be the closest I could come in simple terms to defining it. Combat was faster because we didn't worry too much about working things out we just got on with it but then combat rounds did last for 1 minute!

This is not to say that I wouldn't still play 3rd Edition or other games just that sometimes it would be nice to pick up a single book, roll some dice for stats, pick a class and go.

In my simple game, higher level combat wouldn't take 3 hours to resolve and I wouldn't have to spend hours thinking of all the options npc's and monsters needed to be balanced with the party. The players that spend hours reading the rules wouldn't be able to tweak their characters to the point of perfection, and I wouldn't hear comments like "That feat isn't worth having because of X" or "I'm 1st level and have already planned 3 variations of the character to 20th level with different feats, skills, and prestige classes". Also fast becoming my least favorite comment in a session "They/You just nerfed XYC" meaning the ability/skill/spell can no longer be used according to how they interpret the rules not the guy who is running the game!

 

[WizarDru]

In my simple game, higher level combat wouldn't take 3 hours to resolve and I wouldn't have to spend hours thinking of all the options npc's and monsters needed to be balanced with the party. The players that spend hours reading the rules wouldn't be able to tweak their characters to the point of perfection, and I wouldn't hear comments like "That feat isn't worth having because of X" or "I'm 1st level and have already planned 3 variations of the character to 20th level with different feats, skills, and prestige classes". Also fast becoming my least favorite comment in a session "They/You just nerfed XYC" meaning the ability/skill/spell can no longer be used according to how they interpret the rules not the guy who is running the game!

Two quick notes: One: High level combat does not have to take a long time to run. It CAN, but it doesn't have to. I've run a battle with 6 19-21st level characters engaged in battle with 300 githyanki warriors, 50 half-dragon githyanki warriors, six CR20 undead, eight CR16 spellcasters and two CR19 monsters.....and the battle took a little more than 30 minutes, from start to finish. Our first real 'boss' battle took place at 5th level, with 6 PCs and just Nightscale (of Forge of Fury fame), and that battle took EIGHT hours (although these days it wouldn't take nearly so long).

Two: Some folks like those aspects of the game and playstyle (i.e the tweaking, the tacticals, the number crunching).

Someone mentioned above that he saw a common thread that 'playing fast and loose' was the common thread. Personally, I think the common thread is 'having a good DM and group'. My group switched to 3.5, and while they aren't all thrilled with some of the changes, the fact is that the game hasn't changed significantly. In fact, my games are just as fun as they were in Basic D&D, AD&D, Runequest and GURPS. The people were the common thread, not the ruleset. However, don't take that to mean that I think that playing 'fast and loose' is bad. Quite the opposite. Use the rules when they facilitate the game, ignore them or use common sense when they don't.