Troll Lord Games

I don't mean in the Gary Gygax specific context, but the entire culture D&D context.

4e is a different game than prior editions; whereas Pathfinder and C&C use the spirit and the rules of earlier editions. The final form of Pathfinder remains in question; but if it all works out all one will need to run 30+ years of D&D is Pathfinder and C&C. I know there are other options, but I find that idea comforting. (Plus if someone found the books in your house and you were in the RPG closet you could pull wool over their eyes, lol).
_________________
Someone send me some dice!

Though I understand what you mean, I don't think I can agree with that statement.

Pathfinder may end up being a great expression and refined version of 3.x but I do see 3rd Edition as a far enough change from AD&D for me to find that statement difficult.

And yes... I do know a few concepts toyed with in late 2nd Edition (Black Revised Options Books) were some of the foundation to concepts brought about in 3rd.

You see, back when I played AD&D, I had zero issues using material from D&D (BECMI stuff) and 1st and 2nd edition AD&D. I used everything as I saw fit.

C&C in my mind would be the 'ultimate AD&D' in my mind since it keeps that tradition going.

But that's just my opinion.

M
_________________
"You face Death itself in the form of... 1d4 Tarrasques!"

Partner to Brave Halfling Publishing
http://www.arcanacreations.com

papercut wrote:
I don't mean in the Gary Gygax specific context, but the entire culture D&D context.

4e is a different game than prior editions; whereas Pathfinder and C&C use the spirit and the rules of earlier editions. The final form of Pathfinder remains in question; but if it all works out all one will need to run 30+ years of D&D is Pathfinder and C&C. I know there are other options, but I find that idea comforting. (Plus if someone found the books in your house and you were in the RPG closet you could pull wool over their eyes, lol).

Well, that's one way of looking at it.
I think that C&C, the first cousin of AD&D (and to a lesser extent, BD&D), does the job well as a "reenvisioned" version of AD&D - the "real" 3rd edition, if you will.

Even though I think Pathfinder is the heir-apparent of 3.x, and it will do a passable job of filling the 3.x gap, I think we can go more basal. To me, I think C&C plus the d20 SRD covers the last 30 years of 3.x/AD&D. Throw in Labyrinth Lord and BFRPG, and you get all 34+ years of D&D. Now if you're talking about using non-TSR/WotC sources for emulation, then yeah, Pathfinder would be passable for 3.x...though they both (3.x and Pathfinder) are derivations of the d20 SRD.

Just my two cents.

I too think C&C is the "Ultimate D&D", simply because I use what I like from 3E, 2E, 1E, and OD&D all under one rules system.

However, if I leaned strongly towards 3e, instead of minimally like I do, I could see myself thinking like you do about Pathfinder.
_________________
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

And to add a little something different, I do not think Pathfinder is going to be a more refined v3.5. The amount of things that Paizo is changing in Pathfinder versus straight v3.5 is fairly considerable.

For C&C, I think of it not so much as an evolution of the D&D game, but a mix of of the best ideas ever presented for the D&D game.

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

I personally love C&C, it is my game of choice. My pals are pretty pumped about Pathfinder though, my friend is going to be running a Skype game soon so I'll have some first hand experience as a player with the system.

I never played 3e enough to really experience the problems (stopped right around the 3.5 release) that everyone talks about. Based on their track record and testing approach I have confidence that Paizo can knock out some of the dents and give the 3e engine a tuneup. I find it admirable that they are using the top talent (sans the Trolls) of 3e and an informed public to refine/rebuild it. It will be one endpoint/waypoint from the seminal innovation of E.G.G.

I am looking forward to the CKG and C&C Basic even more though (another endpoint/waypoint).

Cheers
_________________
Someone send me some dice!

i am new to these forums, but i have limited experience with d20 and it was not much to my liking, but i discovered that over time. at first, i really enjoyed it, and i played it exclusively for almost 5 years. it gave several options, felt like a different game, yet familiar at the same time because it had all the same trappings: words, names, creatures, et cetera. however, as i played and got more accustomed to the minutia, i found i was a very different gamer than i had been before. where once i had just sat down, rolled some dice, and played, i was now flipping through books (several of them at that) and then calculating how i could get to this or that and how best to "cheat the system." i was appalled at myself. castles and crusades, for me, takes me back to that first game. i know it. i feel it. it might have some different rules, but its the same thing, as i once read:

plus a change, plus c'est le mme chose.

my hope for castles and crusades is that supplemental material remains minimal and continues the existing trend of "mad lib" gaming i have rediscovered.
_________________
the voynich manuscript is a mysterious illustrated book written in an indecipherable text. it is thought to have been written between 1450 and 1520. the author, script and language of the manuscript remain unknown.

I don't see much in Pathfinder that is reminiscent of AD&D. It seems to me to be a very different game, both in terms of mechanics and feel. If I were an outsider, unfamiliar with the evolution of the D&D brand, and given copies of AD&D and Pathfinder, I doubt I would ever realize that the latter was related to the former in any way.

Omote wrote:
And to add a little something different, I do not think Pathfinder is going to be a more refined v3.5. The amount of things that Paizo is changing in Pathfinder versus straight v3.5 is fairly considerable.

-O

I was pretty excited about the Pathfinder RPG, but lurking at the Paizo forums has kinda dulled that a bit. The beta release (of which I have a copy), is evidently replete with problem issues and reading about them makes my head spin. "The devil you know is better than the devil you don't know", as they say, and reading about Pathfinder Beta pushes me BACK toward regular 3.5.

C&C is superior in many ways to any official "D" incarnation, however, IMHO.

FASAfan wrote:
I was pretty excited about the Pathfinder RPG, but lurking at the Paizo forums has kinda dulled that a bit. The beta release (of which I have a copy), is evidently replete with problem issues and reading about them makes my head spin. "The devil you know is better than the devil you don't know", as they say, and reading about Pathfinder Beta pushes me BACK toward regular 3.5.

C&C is superior in many ways to any official "D" incarnation, however, IMHO.

In Paizo's defense, they have made it a fully "playtestable" system - if there's something concerning you, let your voice be heard!
But I agree with your last statement...C&C is the way to go!