Troll Lord Games

Unified mechanic, unified mechanic, UNIFIED MECHANIC!
We hear that all the time, that the unified mechanic of modern times has made gaming so much easier, better, bestest evar, etc. But really, did the lack of the unified make AD&D so awful and/or difficult?

I think we may tell ourselves that now, but looking back...nah. It wasn't difficult or frustrating. For me at least.

Saving throws? Not hard, it was written on your sheet.

Attribute checks and skills checks (2nd Edition) were one and the same.

Yeah, the thief skills were different than other skills but it did allow for great customization.

My 2nd Edition games run just as fast as my C&C games, so it's not like the differences bog it down.

Most of us, I reckon, mastered the rules as kids....so not exactly rocket science.

Don't mind me, I'm going through my monthly struggle of C&C over AD&D.

Yeah, it was harder. You actually had to use your brain to figure things out - a novel concept these days!!
_________________
Eulaliaaa!!! Give those rapscallions blood and vinegar, wot?!

Be sure to check out Jim's artwork for sale:
http://jimhollowayart.com/id5.html

C&C is not exactly wholly, unified either. It's all good.

-O
_________________
> Omote's Advanced C&C stuff <
Duke Omote Landwehr, Holy Order of the FPQ ~ Prince of the Castles & Crusades Society

Well to say AD&D did not have a unified mechanic is not entirely accurate. The unified mechanic was this: GM determines a chance for X to happen, you roll dice and see if you made the roll.

Every non-combat task in AD&D was something like "roll this die, get that or less". The GM could make it up entirely on the spot (and the better GM's were capable of doing this). Whether a 1 in 6, or a 35% chance or a 3 in 10.

I liked the differentiated mechanics because it gave each action a unique feel. Compare "oh no, another jammed door, better get my lucky six-sider out" to "oh no, something something something, let's roll a d20... AGAIN."

Plus AD&D didn't have to bother with fiddly modifiers, something a modern unified mechanic cannot avoid. Universal mechanics take more time to compute, wash out all tasks till they feel indistinguishable (disassociated mechanics), and do not promote the GM to be the ruler of the game.

Now that's about all the negative things I can say about universal mechanics. They have some relatively good things about them (rules-interpretation power is divested to players and GM more equally, everyone is on the same page etc), but I tend to like the old-school way of doing things. Maybe just because I'm a GM.

Galadrin wrote:
Well to say AD&D did not have a unified mechanic is not entirely accurate. The unified mechanic was this: GM determines a chance for X to happen, you roll dice and see if you made the roll.

Exactly. Arguably, that is what the whole probability curve discussion at the beginning of the DMG is about.
_________________
It is a joyful thing indeed to hold intimate converse with a man after ones own heart, chatting without reserve about things of interest or the fleeting topics of the world; but such, alas, are few and far between.

Yoshida Kenko (1283-1350)

No, it was not so hard to run AD&D 1e and 2e by the book. It was just bloody annoying to have to either write certain things on a character sheet, or to constantly refer to certain tables in the book. And, of course, if I were to houserule things to become more to my liking, I'd eventually end up with C&C.

Deogolf wrote:
Yeah, it was harder. You actually had to use your brain to figure things out - a novel concept these days!!

Well, personally, I have better things to do with my brain while running a game than struggle with the rule system. I always found that looking everything up in a table really slowed things down and distracted me from the tasks that I considered to be more important, like role-playing my NPC's, coming up with creative and amusing responses to the PC's actions and staying one step ahead of the players when they go off on an unexpected tangent.

A unified system, like the SIEGE mechanic lets the rule system fade into the background since I don't have to think about it, and lets me concentrate on running the game. While everyone's experiences may be different and some folks really don't mind the older systems, my games, at least, have become a lot more fun and immersive with a streamlined mechanic.

Coming from a primarily 2nd Edition background, what constant looking at tables?

I've run a lot of 2nd Edition over the years and the game never gets bogged down due to table browsing. At most I might glance at my REF1 DM Screen (Ahhh, I love that screen) to jar my memory but that is about it.

I'm not exaggerating when I say a 2nd Edition game runs just as fast as a C&C one. 2nd Edition is slower in the Character Creation process, sure. But even there not by much.

I also think 2nd edition is a "slower" game then C&C. I have played 2E extensively, but not in quite a few years. However, tables like the effect of thieving percentages based on armor worn is not exctly a unifed mechanic by "modern FRPG standards." Also, the examples of the attribute bonuses not being standardized could make for a slower game experience. I seem to recall getting into some rules debates about the effects of some spells (or something like this) in the PHB versus what was described in the DMG, but it has been so long that I can't remember specifics.

I like the 2E game a great deal, but in my opinion the rules themselves are not as "streamlined" as C&C.

-O
_________________
> Omote's Advanced C&C stuff <
Duke Omote Landwehr, Holy Order of the FPQ ~ Prince of the Castles & Crusades Society

Taranthyll wrote:
Well, personally, I have better things to do with my brain while running a game than struggle with the rule system. I always found that looking everything up in a table really slowed things down and distracted me from the tasks that I considered to be more important, like role-playing my NPC's, coming up with creative and amusing responses to the PC's actions and staying one step ahead of the players when they go off on an unexpected tangent.

A unified system, like the SIEGE mechanic lets the rule system fade into the background since I don't have to think about it, and lets me concentrate on running the game. While everyone's experiences may be different and some folks really don't mind the older systems, my games, at least, have become a lot more fun and immersive with a streamlined mechanic.

Well, actually, I was being a bit of a smartass when I wrote that. If one plays a game long enough, it runs smoothly. We always wrote down our "to hit", "saves", and "turning" tables on our sheet. Took 10 seconds at that was that, really nothing to it. I think it's all relative to what system you are familiar with. I played with a couple of guys that could tell you off the top of their heads what certain numbers were because they played it so much. We never let any of that slow us down. If we bogged down, it's because we were farting around, talking about other things, not because we didn't know the system or something was taking too long to look up.
_________________
Eulaliaaa!!! Give those rapscallions blood and vinegar, wot?!

Be sure to check out Jim's artwork for sale:
http://jimhollowayart.com/id5.html

DangerDwarf wrote:
Coming from a primarily 2nd Edition background, what constant looking at tables?

These folks are talking about pre Thac0, squire. Which, for me, was much easier than looking up charts. ^_^
_________________
"We'll go out through the kitchen!" Tanis Half-Elven

Peter Bradley

Yeah, I remember the tables. I played Red Box before I did 1st Edition though. Red Box had us write our To Hits down so it seemed logical to do it for 1st Edition.

10 year old GENIUS I tells ya!

DangerDwarf wrote:
Coming from a primarily 2nd Edition background, what constant looking at tables?

I've run a lot of 2nd Edition over the years and the game never gets bogged down due to table browsing. At most I might glance at my REF1 DM Screen (Ahhh, I love that screen) to jar my memory but that is about it.

I'm not exaggerating when I say a 2nd Edition game runs just as fast as a C&C one. 2nd Edition is slower in the Character Creation process, sure. But even there not by much.

If your AD&D games run smoothly then all the power to you. I'm just saying that I find running games a lot easier with the unified mechanic. This sort of thing is entirely subjective and a matter of personal preference. Personally, I prefer the elegant simplicity of the SIEGE engine and I'd never go back to AD&D, but to each their own.

Taranthyll wrote:
This sort of thing is entirely subjective and a matter of personal preference.

100% agreement there. One of the reasons we have so many RPG's out there. It is all a matter of personal preference.

If C&C were to step a little more in it's own direction, I'd probably quit having these little internal debates every month. I've got some hopes for the CKG.

Of all the systems that I have tried over these long years for a D&D/AD&D type game, IMO think that C&C is the best fit. A unified and easy adaptable mechanic, without a lot of charts and tables to hunt through.

Win-Win in my book.
_________________
Lord Aladar

Warden of the Welk Wood

Baron of the Castles & Crusades Society

The Poster formerly known as Alwyn

Senior Gamer - Member of the Senior RPG Tour

"NEMO ME IMPUNE LACESSIT - At least not in Yu Gi Oh"
http://www.cncsociety.org/

One thing though, is that the Siege engine is already built into AD&D. C&C just reversed it and added primes.

You get the exact same effects in an attribute checks of 2nd Edition as you do a Siege check in C&C. Only difference is in 2nd Edition your target number is the attribute itself instead of a Prime. The Siege engine just inverted the process.

DangerDwarf wrote:
One thing though, is that the Siege engine is already built into AD&D. C&C just reversed it and added primes.

You get the exact same effects in an attribute checks of 2nd Edition as you do a Siege check in C&C. Only difference is in 2nd Edition your target number is the attribute itself instead of a Prime. The Siege engine just inverted the process.

ORLY? Observe the following, chieftain: Not the way I use the SIEGE engine. I have a base 15 for any checks and add +5 for primes. This allows me to do opposed "roll over" checks against obstacles or creatures which neither AD&D or C&C support out of the box for whatever reason. And let me tell you, it is SUPERIAR IN EVARY WAYS!!!!1 You can belee dat. Over and out.

I find the unifed system of C&C works best when you have players that don't have the time or inclination to read the PHB. I've got two players in particular, one is brand new to RPGing, who are pretty much playing on the rules I've verbally managed to explain to them. So it is a lot easier to explain a siege engine check in a few minutes, than all the charts possible in the AD&D systems. But I do agree that if your players pour over the PHB of whatever system as much as the GM, so that explanation isn't really needed, I'd say AD&D 1e and 2e run about as smoothly as C&C. I think it really is dependent upon the players. C&C is best for me, when I've got players who want to play, but hate reading rules. While on the other hand in high school and college, my players loved reading rules, so our games also ran very smoothly, as they were willing to keep track of the charts on their own, taking some of that work off my shoulders.

Any one agree with that notion? that how smooth the game goes, depends upon the player's knowledge/interest in knowing the rules?
_________________
Sir Dachda McKinty,

Margrave and Knight of Portlandia
Castles & Crusades Society

Breakdaddy wrote:
ORLY? Observe the following, chieftain: Not the way I use the SIEGE engine. I have a base 15 for any checks and add +5 for primes. This allows me to do opposed "roll over" checks against obstacles or creatures which neither AD&D or C&C support out of the box for whatever reason. And let me tell you, it is SUPERIAR IN EVARY WAYS!!!!1 You can belee dat. Over and out.

Or in AD&D you can simply do opposed "roll under" checks against obstacles or creatures, and you don't even have to tweak the game engine to do it.

SUPERIAR +3!

BD roawks.

dachda wrote:
Any one agree with that notion? that how smooth the game goes, depends upon the player's knowledge/interest in knowing the rules?

Undoubtedly true.

And I don't think it is an issue of which game is "better", they both accomplish almost the exact same thing, just inverse in the process of how to get there. So, it is a matter of preference.

I do believe that C&C is less forgiving of beginner CK's though. It's fairly easy for the to farg up the Siege engine.

dachda wrote:
I find the unifed system of C&C works best when you have players that don't have the time or inclination to read the PHB. I've got two players in particular, one is brand new to RPGing, who are pretty much playing on the rules I've verbally managed to explain to them. So it is a lot easier to explain a siege engine check in a few minutes, than all the charts possible in the AD&D systems. But I do agree that if your players pour over the PHB of whatever system as much as the GM, so that explanation isn't really needed, I'd say AD&D 1e and 2e run about as smoothly as C&C. I think it really is dependent upon the players. C&C is best for me, when I've got players who want to play, but hate reading rules. While on the other hand in high school and college, my players loved reading rules, so our games also ran very smoothly, as they were willing to keep track of the charts on their own, taking some of that work off my shoulders.

Any one agree with that notion? that how smooth the game goes, depends upon the player's knowledge/interest in knowing the rules?

Interestingly... I would say the reverse can also be true. Many of my players are not interested in more than the most superficial aspects of the rules, which means I do 90% of the math in my head and they only ever see the dice and the outcome. With players who are interested in the detail of the rules, questions get fielded about how we're handling X, Y or Z aspect of the game. If we're all in accordance, all well and good, if not...

I see that as a fundamental difference between D20/3e/4e and B/AD&D/C&C. The former are not condusive, in my opinion, to casual participation.
_________________
It is a joyful thing indeed to hold intimate converse with a man after ones own heart, chatting without reserve about things of interest or the fleeting topics of the world; but such, alas, are few and far between.

Yoshida Kenko (1283-1350)

Darn seesaww arguments ,ok i feel better now.

Pacing was the big problem with 2e charts. The less you have to look at rules/charts the better the depth of immersion in the game. Mostly unification of mechanic is good for new players. C&C is one of the easiest games to learn because of unified mechanics. Shur 2e charts weren't that hard after you played for years like most of us but starting out, yea. hmm this is a hidden anti nostalgia plot me thinks. You sir are a crafty dwarf . Most of this is just taste preference, look at Hackmaster,charts charts charts oh....and charts. It will drive ya to drink (I think thats in the rules too), but people love that game too. C&C is like a restored classic car, only with a modern engine. Vooom.
_________________
Awww Craap.

I am honestly confused about the references to 2nd Edition chart looking. Even a 2nd edition novice can run a game without having to open the books all the time with simple use of a DM screen.
And beware the talk of the anti-nostalgia agenda. You know too much and cars have already been dispatched to take you away for reprogramming.

DangerDwarf wrote:
BD roawks.

This.

DangerDwarf wrote:
And beware the talk of the anti-nostalgia agenda. You know too much and cars have already been dispatched to take you away for reprogramming.

Can't get me now.
_________________
Awww Craap.

I don't know. I never thought 1e as difficult. Same with 2e and 3.x. I think it is in retrospect in each particular case in which I see how things are/were easier - 2e was a little easier to run than 1e, 3e (talking just 3e Core) was easier to run than 2e...I know, some of you are going to think I'm crazy but to me, the "simplified mechanic" made 3e a breeze to run (and was until it got weighed down with supplements, 3.5 came along, etc.)

And now, I think C&C is easier to run than all the previous systems. With the addition of the SIEGE for attribute checks/saves, the lack of feats and other sub-rule systems, the inclusion of the d20 mechanic, and the lack of books upon books of additional rules, C&C is head and shoulders above the previous (and current) editions of D&D. Still love those older editions, but C&C takes the cake in simplicity.

The charts I think of are those on pages 74 & 75 of the DMG and the saving throws. As easy as they were to memorize, we checked every time we attacked (or I remember it that way).

In one of our games back then, my brother threw a Vrock at our first level characters. We were only able to defeat it because suddenly three NPCs kicked down the dungeon wall and conveniently took the beats for us while we pounded the Vrock into pasta sauce. I was 8 or 9 at the time and this experience thoroughly blew my mind.

We still laugh today when we talk of those very early games.

Jungger wrote:
The charts I think of are those on pages 74 & 75 of the DMG and the saving throws. As easy as they were to memorize, we checked every time we attacked (or I remember it that way).

See, I always had a DM screen, so stopping to look stuff up wasn't an issue for us.

Jungger wrote:
three NPCs kicked down the dungeon wall

Hahah! Yeah, I remember games like that too when I was in elementary school. Good stuff.

I never played 2e, just 1e and 3.5.

that being said, I do think that C&C runs easier. 1e had a different chart or rule for nearly everything: AC-goes down, saves-goes up, ability checks-roll under, attack rolls-roll over, thief skills-%, open doors 1 in 6, etc., etc.

I can run a C&C game and never look at a chart. I know it's a SEIGE check. I know the players ability scores, which are prime, what level they are, and what the difficulty level is for the challenge base.

C&C allows you to do the same checks as AD&D and B/X D&D, it just allows you to do them quicker and easier.

ThrorII wrote:
C&C allows you to do the same checks as AD&D and B/X D&D, it just allows you to do them quicker and easier.

See, that's where I think we have fooled ourselves. It is neither quicker nor easier. Just different.

For example:


A pile of rocks dislodges from the ceiling, falling towards the PC:
DM: Make a Dex check

CK: Make a Dex check

Only difference? One is a high roll, other is a low roll.
A thief is sneaking up behind a mark:

DM: Roll to move silent.

CK: Roll to move silent.

Only difference? One is percentile one is d20.

It goes on and on. The only difference is the type of die rolled in most instances, and that does not make a game harder nor does it make it take longer.

Attack rolls?

One has one count of addition, the other one count of subtraction. No extra work there either.

Saves?

d20 vs. d20.

Siege mechanics let me do .

Well, ability checks let me do .

The systems are identical on what they allow and the ease and quickness with which you can accomplish the things. Primary difference, one is addition the other is subtraction.

I prefer AD&D because, as I've mentioned in the past, I've never been a fan of the "big numbers" that the ascending bonuses lead to. It boils down to a matter of taste. The ease of the systems is pretty much equal.