Troll Lord Games

gideon_thorne wrote:
Well, this is the reason why I constantly suggest going into game shops and talking to the store owner about running demo's.

It costs the person doing the demo absolutely nothing but time. IF the players are happy, they will order the game from the store owner, which makes them happy.

Word of mouth is still the best advertizing.

And while I agree with you 110% myself, some people enjoy the prestige of being a demonstrator. Exile Game Studios, for example, has a really neat demo program for people who run Hollow Earth Expedition. If TLG even had a few printer friendly small posters/sign up sheets for their games and maybe had a print run of bumper stickers/t-shirts with maybe a drawing for demonstrators to win a limited edition book that could be an incentive to spur more people into getting the word out.
_________________
Deserve has nothing to do with it, if you think you're entitled. You're not.

--Stephen Chenault

Faithless is he that says farewell when the road darkens.

J. R. R. Tolkien

I've been trying to do this for years. I think I finally broke Steve at one point, but then... well, things. Its a good idea.

"C&C: The rules are light so you can go heavy on the imagination."

This is my favorite.
_________________
The Ruby Lord, Earl of the Society

Next Con I am attending: http://www.neoncon.com/

My House Rules: http://www.freeyabb.com/phpbb/viewtopic ... llordgames

C&C: True Multiplayer Gaming.
_________________
The Lord of Ravens
My blog

For what it's worth, I still use 1E. I'm mainly interested in C&C for Castle Zagyg.

Yamo wrote:
For what it's worth, I still use 1E. I'm mainly interested in C&C for Castle Zagyg.

I use 1E too. Oh. You mean as your principle rules set.
I actually thought about using 1E as my basic rules set and just change the mechanics over to the SIEGE system for resolution, but then I remembered how many pages of house rules I used to have for 1E (7 typed pages). So I decided to to try just doing it with C&C as the basis. So far I have been very, very satisfied. Plus I only have two, maybe 3 pages of house rules.

However I saw no problem with using classes and their EXP charts as written. Made me miss all my burned up Dragon magazines (house fire, 2003) all the more for all those variant classes contained within. Plus I pretty freely use and allow magic items and spells from 1E (and 2E for that matter).

So I still use 1E, just not as the principle mechanics.
_________________
The Ruby Lord, Earl of the Society

Next Con I am attending: http://www.neoncon.com/

My House Rules: http://www.freeyabb.com/phpbb/viewtopic ... llordgames

Treebore wrote:
I use 1E too. Oh. You mean as your principle rules set.
I actually thought about using 1E as my basic rules set and just change the mechanics over to the SIEGE system for resolution, but then I remembered how many pages of house rules I used to have for 1E (7 typed pages). So I decided to to try just doing it with C&C as the basis. So far I have been very, very satisfied. Plus I only have two, maybe 3 pages of house rules.

However I saw no problem with using classes and their EXP charts as written. Made me miss all my burned up Dragon magazines (house fire, 2003) all the more for all those variant classes contained within. Plus I pretty freely use and allow magic items and spells from 1E (and 2E for that matter).

So I still use 1E, just not as the principle mechanics.

I do something very similar and I use the 1e Greyhawk material for my setting, as is.
_________________
AD&D, Amish Dungeons & Dragons.

"Galstaff, ye are in a cornfield, when a moustachioed man approaches. What say ye?"

"I shun him."

-----

"Knowledge, logic, reason, and common sense serve better than a dozen rule books."

-- E. Gary Gygax

See, the thing is with TLG, we're perfectly fine with the fact that folks don't always dig our stuff. We're perfectly fine with the fact that people are going to stick with what they enjoy. Sure, we would like you to buy our stuff, but we're not going to think any less of anyone if they don't.

This is in stark contrast to many a forum post on various sites casting aspersions on anyone who deviates from the many incarnations of 'one true way-ism' that floats about out there.
_________________
"We'll go out through the kitchen!" Tanis Half-Elven

Peter Bradley

As for why I feel like I do:

Why?

1. It works and I'm used to it. I'm not used to the various tweaks and changes to the system that C&C uses. Unified resolution mechanics and other such modernistic fads are okay for other games, but not my D&D. I want a table for everything, thanks. I want descending AC. I want to save versus polymorph. I want magic-users and thieves. I want the original AD&D superbard. I want demihumans with class and level limits.

2. It's Gary's game, not an imitation or a variation on such. It's the Real Deal.

3. Thirty years of glorious history. Just flipping through a rulebook is an emotional experience. This is a game that has stood the test of time.

4. I like a lot of the rules, especially for combat. Segments, weapon speed factors, weapon vs armor adjustments, etc. There's a lot less strategy in terms of weapon and spell choice in C&C and other versions of D&D.

5. Pure sentiment: I simply love AD&D like I love no other RPG. Love is a rare and precious thing.

gideon_thorne wrote:
This is in stark contrast to many a forum post on various sites casting aspersions on anyone who deviates from the many incarnations of 'one true way-ism' that floats about out there.

You mean like "What's the deal with all the 1E fans..."?

Yamo wrote:
You mean like "What's the deal with all the 1E fans..."?

Wasn't me who posted it.

And its a fair question, seeking clarification of a puzzling mindset.

Why is it that some people feel the need to heap insult upon insult to anyone who doesn't share their sense of fun? What with all the silliness of 3-tard, and now 4-tard and C-tard and so forth thats been a blight on the minds of sensible people. I surely can't figure that one out myself. ^_~`
_________________
"We'll go out through the kitchen!" Tanis Half-Elven

Peter Bradley

gideon_thorne wrote:
And its a fair question, seeking clarification of a puzzling mindset.

I guess I don't quite see it that way. I perceive an attitude of barely-veiled contempt for AD&D fans. Note especially the "haven't come over to C&C yet" language, which seems to portray abandonment of AD&D as an inevitability that some "slow types" just haven't caught into yet.

Granted, it's a little more apparent in the words of the poster who wrote:

"For grognard ultra-purists, any change to the 'holy writ' of classic D&D is unacceptable, and punishable by death and scorn, in that order."

I guess I'm just saying that C&C also seems to have its own strident "one-true-way" proponents.

I posted the following over on enworld and I think it bears repeating here:

Quote:
I would like to give kudos to the intent of the 4e designers...

The OP mentioned the comparison to C&C (which is my preferred system), and in one big respect, at least at what is beginning to emerge, there is an apt comparison here.

D&D 4e is attempting a hybridization between "old school" gamist philosophies (the adaptability and less rule-specific mechanics) and the "new school" desires for what the OP refers to in character builds, powers, options etc. (which also focuses away from the traditional archetypes of classes and races to a broader spectrum).

Like C&C, this hybrid approach will likely please some, antagonize others (as it clearly has on these boards). Still, I am not being flip when I say kudos... it takes a bit of risk to go this way, and quite honestly I am somewhat impressed that the larger corporate entity backed what is not as sure a course with the design (of course that may be granting Hasbro execs with more understanding of RPGs than is reality). The fact that TPKs are occurring in playtesting is, for me, a sign that some portions of the game are more like OD&D, B/X, etc.

As I said, I already found my niche with C&C. I've never begrudged those who tried it and didn't like it because a.) It was still too much like d20 in universal mechanics or b.) it is "too" rules-lite --- each to his own niche, I say.

I also think the discussion about battle-maps and minis is very relevent - many on other threads have mentioned the question of "need." While one can make the argument that neither 3.x nor 4e "need" battlemats, from what I've seen the use of "squares" as primary movement indicator shows that 4e is certainly DESIGNED for it. Again, not my cup of tea as it fits more with the "new school" influence of the hybrid here, but for many this may end up being their particular niche.

Of course, the big question that comes up then is -- can we gamers be happy with our system as just a "niche," or are we wanting it to be an "industry standard?"

Since I already play in a niche system, the answer for me is easy.

Peter's point is well-taken. I think we end up driving away potential players of C&C when we call names. It's fun to gripe and vent, and I'm as guilty of complaining about different rules from my tastes as the next guy sometimes, but there should be a measure of respect for other gamers.

The title of the post essentially asks "why don't old school 1e devotees 'see the light' and convert to C&C?"

Answer 1: They haven't heard of C&C. Answer 2: C&C doesn't do for them what it does for me.

If it's answer one, then all we need to do is just keep sharing our positive experiences with C&C without trying to denegrate any other tastes.

If it's answer two, then tip a cap and say "alrighty by me." This is not a plea for a "kum bay yah" touchy feely board (I think I'd puke) - just that we can say "what I don't like about system x, y or z is this" and debate it without getting personal or snarky.

I own a set of 3.0 books. I came back to FRPG with 3.0, so despite the fact that I moved to a system (C&C!) which is far closer to what I want doesn't denegrate the fact that 3.0 played an important and beneficial part in my gaming life. So when some use terms like TETSNBN, 3-tard, etc., I'm not really on board with that.

I give kudos because I've come to think that what the designers of 4e are doing, whether I like the system or not, is a legitimate attempt at a "new" bridging of philosophy... just not the bridge I want to take.

_________________
John "Sir Seskis" Wright

Ilshara: Lands of Exile:
http://johnwright281.tripod.com/

High Squire of the C&C Society
www.cncsociety.org

Yamo wrote:
I guess I don't quite see it that way. I perceive an attitude of barely-veiled contempt for AD&D fans. Note especially the "haven't come over to C&C yet" language, which seems to portray abandonment of AD&D as an inevitability that some "slow types" just haven't caught into yet.

Granted, it's a little more apparent in the words of the poster who wrote:

"For grognard ultra-purists, any change to the 'holy writ' of classic D&D is unacceptable, and punishable by death and scorn, in that order."

I guess I'm just saying that C&C also seems to have its own strident "one-true-way" proponents.

Well, I happen to know the original poster is a solid fan of AD&D, so I didn't automatically assume the worst. Which is another all too common failing of the internetz and the lack of face to face miscommunication it engineers.

Any game is going to be abandoned, eventually, when there is no longer support for it. How many Atari players do you still see out there? Its going to be the same for AD&D when all the books wear out from being passed from household to household and collection to collection.

Who still practices toxopholy for instance? If no one knows what that is, its clearly because many people have abandoned it...^_~`

Any hobby has its vehement proponents. Even the original wargamers were upset by the 'upstart who turned pure wargaming into some silly role playing game'. ^_~`

The point being, asking a legit question is not nearly as heinous as some of the behavior I, myself, have been subject too.
_________________
"We'll go out through the kitchen!" Tanis Half-Elven

Peter Bradley

And a post-script to my above -

Of course, these are TLG boards, so the one legitimate argument for not spending undue amount of time on discussion on systems that aren't the focus of TLG.

But the Trolls have, and continue, to publish some d20 material (Cult of Yex path) and may choose in the future to put out something in support of 4e, so I think some board discussion on the impact of gaming industry moves is still appropriate.
_________________
John "Sir Seskis" Wright

Ilshara: Lands of Exile:
http://johnwright281.tripod.com/

High Squire of the C&C Society
www.cncsociety.org

Yamo wrote:
I guess I don't quite see it that way. I perceive an attitude of barely-veiled contempt for AD&D fans. Note especially the "haven't come over to C&C yet" language, which seems to portray abandonment of AD&D as an inevitability that some "slow types" just haven't caught into yet.

Granted, it's a little more apparent in the words of the poster who wrote:

"For grognard ultra-purists, any change to the 'holy writ' of classic D&D is unacceptable, and punishable by death and scorn, in that order."

I guess I'm just saying that C&C also seems to have its own strident "one-true-way" proponents.

I think there are sensitivities and insecurities on both sides. The problem is that there are sides to begin with. I could play original AD&D if there were gamers near me. I prefer C&C because it "saved" me from 3e burnout. My players at the time would not switch to 1e because 2 of the 3 of them began gaming with 3e.

To call anyone else's game wrong or whatever is childish. At the same time, to say that AD&D is Gary's game misses the fact that OD&D was Gary's game, LA is Gary's last game, and DJ was also one of Gary's games. What's more, he had planned on revising AD&D, per his Dragon article, and I don't doubt that his revised AD&D would have caused less fractionalization of the hobby than TSR's Gygax-less 2e did because time shows he had a better history of producing gaming resources than the 2e designers did.

To close, if you look at slimy's posts here, he always posts titles that are incendiary at first glance. He delivers them with tongue firmly in his cheek.
_________________
AD&D, Amish Dungeons & Dragons.

"Galstaff, ye are in a cornfield, when a moustachioed man approaches. What say ye?"

"I shun him."

-----

"Knowledge, logic, reason, and common sense serve better than a dozen rule books."

-- E. Gary Gygax

gideon_thorne wrote:
How many Atari players do you still see out there? Its going to be the same for AD&D when all the books wear out from being passed from household to household and collection to collection.

With the advent of PDFs, I don't see that ever happening.

And I still play old Atari games. Although nowadays I use emulator programs to do it, which is probably a good analogy to the PDF thing.

A great game is a great game forever, after all. I don't see AD&D players going extinct ever. Not unlike chess players.

Yamo wrote:
With the advent of PDFs, I don't see that ever happening.

Not everyone likes pdf's. Me included.

Quote:
And I still play old Atari games. Although nowadays I use emulator programs to do it, which is probably a good analogy to the PDF thing.

Not everyone is going to know about 'emulator' programs, either. The point being, the system is not being supported outside of extraordinary effort for the benefit of a very very small niche.

Quote:
A great game is a great game forever, after all. I don't see AD&D players going extinct ever. Not unlike chess players.

The practitioners of toxopholy didn't go extinct either. But how many people would recognize the word?

Change and evolution is inevitable, and tends to go in all sorts of directions. But I figure there's enough room in the world for folks of all tastes. ^_^
_________________
"We'll go out through the kitchen!" Tanis Half-Elven

Peter Bradley

Well said, Zudrek (better than I said it anyway).

Someone could indeed ask why I prefer C&C to LA (I have both, have played both, like both differently).

My answer would be I am partial (personally) to class-based RPGs. That simple.

I can argue why the Siege mechanic works well for me, while discussing the issues to look out for when using it (or ANY game mechanic - they can all "break" in an RPG whether they were employed in the 70s or now).

I was never a major 1e player - I was one who found (personally) the wonkiness of all the different tables and percentages to be confusing, so when I did play it was B/X, and then into my own "version" of AD&D which was a houseruled down simplistic version. When I played 3.0, I also "streamlined" the rules to make what I wanted, until I discovered C&C which was pretty close to what I had been aiming for both times.

I think we just let our personal love for something get in the way. I know I love C&C, so yeah, I can sometimes go "man, why isn't everyone else playing this great system?"

Those who are devoted to OD&D, AD&D 1e, etc. are faced with an even tougher feeling of rejection because there just isn't major published support, and the "name" is still being used but over a game that is remarkably different than what they love. It's like an ex-wife seeing the new wife with the name of her husband, (especially when the new wife is the young blonde trophy 2nd wife!), living in the house, etc. It hurts.

P.S. If I have offended any blondes or 2nd wives with this I offer my humblest apologies with my tongue firmly in cheek.
_________________
John "Sir Seskis" Wright

Ilshara: Lands of Exile:
http://johnwright281.tripod.com/

High Squire of the C&C Society
www.cncsociety.org

Yamo wrote:
2. It's Gary's game, not an imitation or a variation on such. It's the Real Deal.

"When you build your game you will tailor it to suit your personal tastes. In the heat of play, it will slowly evolve into a compound of your personality and those of your better participants, a superior alloy. And, as long as your campaign remains viable, it will continue a slow process of change and growth." G Gygax

AD&D DMG page 7.

In short, Gary himself recognized that the game belonged to everyone. "Im just a gamer like everyone else" he often pointed out.
_________________
"We'll go out through the kitchen!" Tanis Half-Elven

Peter Bradley

gideon_thorne wrote:
The practitioners of toxopholy didn't go extinct either. But how many people would recognize the word?

If the Olympics gave out medals for AD&D play, I'd be even less worried.

gideon_thorne wrote:
In the heat of play, it will slowly evolve into a compound of your personality and those of your better participants, a superior alloy.

A superior alloy due to being based on the finest steel in the first place.

Yamo wrote:
A superior alloy due to being based on the finest steel in the first place.

Which can be used to promote C&C as well since it was done with Gary's consent and final approval.

Subjectively people stick with what they enjoy from personal preference, logically is another story.
_________________
"We'll go out through the kitchen!" Tanis Half-Elven

Peter Bradley

Well, since everyone's given their two coppers I suppose I'll drop mine in...

I was one of the first posters on dragonsfoot.org back in 2001 and was a supporter of 1E vs. 3X. Still am to a degree. I didn't like the 3X's paradyme, which seemed to me a combination of GURPS and computer games. Which is fine if you like that, but I don't.

Then a year or two later TLG came on DF and said they were trying to build a game to market that would be a homage to the old game and get as close to it without violating any copyrights as possible. They wanted input from the grogs over there and asked us to come over to help with design. So I did, and so did a lot of others.

The problems that inevitably developed in regards to the final C&C were essentially that most of the grogs from DF felt that C&C wasn't "1E" enough. Ironically, many 1E fans complained that it was too much like B/X and 3X while many B/Ex fans said it was too much like 1E and 3X.
As I understood it, the rules system was to be (as noted above) a homage and similar to 1E; but its own game. It was also modular so you could house rule it to your heart's content. Finally, it was to allow ease of import so that players of OOP A/D&D could use C&C stuff with their game with very little conversion. or use OOP A/D&D stuff with C&C.

IMO, I think they succeeded. But what I found (and still find) exasperating is how some of the grogs pick the most irrelevant minutea and say that because of it C&C can't convert to OOP A/D&D. For instance, "C&C gives most Wizards an extra 1st level spell so that encounter with a Wizard with Magic Missile and Charm Person is utterly useless in a 1E/B-Ex setting!"
As noted earlier, I think it boils down to people preferring their OOP system of choice; and that's fine. I can accept the debate of "Its what I know", "I don't want a new rules set" or even "Sentimentality". Heck I still play 1E frequently myself for similar reasons...though I play C&C as well.

But the first major arguments I heard when C&C came out was due to "typos". The game sucks because of typos? C'mon! Take a look at the Dragon mags from the 1E days with all the errata from the MM, PHB and DMG! Just as many (if not more) than C&C. Now granted, in today's computerized world there is less justification for typos...but the C&C ones were minor and certainly didn't effect play of the game. Neither did the 1E typos, but they seem to be forgiven while C&C's is derided and declared "unplayable".

Ok, that's probably enough (and more than most wanted to know!). Kudos if you're still reading this!

As for other comments:

1. To me, this thread (other than SKT's !@#$ bait and switch header!) was based on the surmise that 1E players might not have come over to C&C because they might not be aware of how similar the systems are. This is a fair comment, though I'd say that on DF it would be easy for them to go to the DF C&C forum and ask. If they don't they've already made up their minds and they shouldn't be "preached to". But its a fair question and I didn't notice any hostility to AD&D.

In fact, Julian's post didn't seem to be a comment on the game but on some of its more virulent defenders. Which is probably a whole other topic really.
2. I also agree about needing a Demo program. I'd been talking to TLG about such a program, with "Troll Bucks" given to demo-ers redeemable for TLG product, or Demo coordinators getting a % discount on product, etc. But Steve's been busy and is only now catching up with himself.
My wife Liz (Indigo Rose...if you remember her you get a cookie!) is now in charge of design and layout of Crusader magazine and is working with Steve and Jim Ward on setting up a new format layout to (hopefully) make Crusader issues come out a LOT faster. When she's done with that I'll ask her to see if she could make up a small poster design to have as a DL on the troll site for those wishing to put up posters for demos.

Of course, if someone wanted to donate an art piece for this (HINT PETER!) it would be even better!
FINALLY finished,

Mike
_________________
Always remember, as a first principle of all D&D: playing BtB is not now, never was and never will be old school.- Tim Kask, Dragonsfoot

BTW, I don't think 1E will ever disappear as a played system...but a "in print" game is very important in getting new RPGers into the hobby.

I imagine that C&C will bring new players in, and after they play C&C for a while will hear about its similarity to OOP A/D&D and perhaps decide to give those "Old" systems a look. They even might prefer them to C&C. Which (IMO) is great too!
_________________
Always remember, as a first principle of all D&D: playing BtB is not now, never was and never will be old school.- Tim Kask, Dragonsfoot

Hey Mike, I remember Indigo- where's my cookie? Tell her congradulations on the Crusader job.

I don't think 1E will be going away anytime soon. Remember that the PHB and DMG were printed in vast quantities "back in the day" and are remarkably durable books.

The buy in for 1e'rs is pretty low, you can have the complete game system for under $20. Ebay insures that almost anyone who wants a copy can get one.

Now will most gamers pick up 1E as there 1st choice? Doubtful. But many willl be introduced the old fashioned way of mentoring.

All told, if resales were counted I'd bet that 1E is probably still in the top 10 of purchased products.

Now with the attrition of another 10 or so years on the books, maybe they will start to disappear. But alot can happen as well. Maybe Wizards will reinvigorate the game with a "Classics" line, or allow Lulu type printing of the pdf's...who knows? I'm not a genius as Jon Favreau might say.

But I imagine many people will be happily playing AD&D for quite some time.

To me C&C's genius was creating a game that had the backwards compatability to AD&D and Basic as well as allowing me to use the few 3.ish stuff that I like.

Morty
_________________
A Room Zoom Zoom. A Room Zoom Zoom. Gilly Gilly Gilly Gilly Ot Zat Za Come open the magic door with me, With your imagination there's so much we can see. There is a doorway that leads to a place. I'll find my way by the smile on your face.

gideon_thorne wrote:
"When you build your game you will tailor it to suit your personal tastes. In the heat of play, it will slowly evolve into a compound of your personality and those of your better participants, a superior alloy. And, as long as your campaign remains viable, it will continue a slow process of change and growth." G Gygax AD&D DMG page 7.

Peter, did you type that quote in or did you just cut and paste from the pdf?
I'm just kidding. I think you are correct about folks wanting to play a game that is currently being supported.

There will always people who will go to great lengths to play the games they love - like oop games. But if the industry is really going to reach the two to three generations younger than the average old school gamer, then they must make and support new games.
_________________


John Adams

Coleston the Cavalier wrote:
Peter, did you type that quote in or did you just cut and paste from the pdf?

*smiles and points to the DMG nearby on the shelf*. ^_~`
_________________
"We'll go out through the kitchen!" Tanis Half-Elven

Peter Bradley

Treebore wrote:
I actually thought about using 1E as my basic rules set and just change the mechanics over to the SIEGE system for resolution, but then I remembered how many pages of house rules I used to have for 1E (7 typed pages).

Man, Tree, 7 typed pages of house rules??? What the hell did you need 7 pages of house rules for with 1E? What all did you need house rules for anyway?
For our group's current Caverns of Thracia campaign, my house rules barely surpassed 1 page, and most of that was dealing with the critical hit and bad miss table from Dragon magazine.

tacojohn4547

tacojohn4547 wrote:
Man, Tree, 7 typed pages of house rules??? What the hell did you need 7 pages of house rules for with 1E? What all did you need house rules for anyway?
For our group's current Caverns of Thracia campaign, my house rules barely surpassed 1 page, and most of that was dealing with the critical hit and bad miss table from Dragon magazine.

tacojohn4547

*impish grin* AD&D is no more than 500 + pages of house rules for OD&D....
_________________
"We'll go out through the kitchen!" Tanis Half-Elven

Peter Bradley