Troll Lord Games

This is the result of the What Does Old School Gaming Mean to You? thread. I saw that old school was getting tossed around to describe games, but I wasnt sure what exactly that meant. Some people meant it as a compliment to a game and others saw it as a criticism. So I asked, and I received. I took the answers from the thread and grouped them into categories along with pros and cons.

During the discussion we decided to term these qualities as Classic play. Classic play is made up of the qualities inherent of the games from the days of yore. These qualities are defined and structured. When a game has enough of these qualities, the game is said to have an old-school feel. How many qualities it takes for that feel is subject to the individual. However, for a game to be old-school, it must have at least one of the Classic qualities.

This is not an attempt to drain our old-school memories of the magic they hold for us with bland nomenclature. The wonder of those games are real. They were created when people gathered, shared, and rode on the wave of adventure by the means of their collective imagination. The purpose of this is to identify those qualities that help ride that wave. We can then address them directly and apply them to our current games in an effort to recreate those same wondrous moments.

I list the groups and give a small explanation. The pros and cons for Classic and Non-classic are the extreme cases. There are shades of gray between their success as well as the application. D20 is a good example of this: it is both class and skill based. What one must consider is on which side of the fence it leans. In a later post, I will measure 3ed Dungeons and Dragons, Castles and Crusades, and Goodman Games Dungeon Crawl Classics against these to see if they are Classic play or Non-classic. In the meantime, please pass these through the test to see how your games (past and present) compare. Let me know what you find.
Rules Light vs. Rule Intensive

This is the area of rules and their inherent value: a little vs. a lot. The rule light game may have lots of rules, but it understands them to be only guidelines for the group to use. The rules intensive game depends on the rules to maintain structure. To maximize on both styles, they both require a thorough understanding. For rules light, it must be an understanding of the style and tone in the campaign. If you have a clear picture of what characters can do, such as is it realistic or heroic, it will help in being consistent with the game. For rule intensive games, it helps to have a strong understanding of the rules for the player and GM. They can then consider the options available and be engaged at choosing which the best one is.
Rules Light Classic

Pro: Infinite Options

Con: Inconsistent Ruling
Rule Intensive Non-classic

Pro: Defined Rulings and Modifiers

Con: Limited Options
Versus Play vs. Balanced Play

This is whether the GM actively tries to add conflict and directly challenge the players or if he uses a formula such as encounter level, points, damage class, etc. The danger of versus play is when the GM uses the trust placed in him and designs impossible goals only for his enjoyment. In balanced play, the danger is stifled creativity that results in boredom for the GM. Instead of being interested and engaged at each encounter, he just carries out an equation.
Versus Play Classic

Pro: Player AND Game-Master Interest

Con: One-Sided Danger (Killer DM)
Balanced Play Non-classic

Pro: Measured Odds

Con: Bored GM Risk
Class Based vs. Skill Based

This is how the players design their characters: do they choose an archetype with preset abilities or build their character up from a list of skills and abilities? While class based is undoubtedly the fastest and easiest, it does have limitations in fulfilling the players vision. However, an open mind and imagination, coupled with a rules light approach from above can easily circumvent this. The con of skill based is the longer character generation. Also, with a skill based system there is also usually a structure that tries to maintain a sense of balance which may not allow the player to fulfill his vision either.
Class Based Classic

Pro: Quick and Easy

Con: Limited Customization
Skill Based Non-classic

Pro: Customization

Con: Longer Character Generation
Slow Class Progression vs. Fast Class Progression

Im not sure if this is an element of classic style gaming. Ive seen other games run the gamut in terms of progression from slow (or even none) to fast. In any case, each has pros and cons. It certainly was an element of the original RPG, so I listed it. The con for classic is if the player does not recognize the immediate reward of a successful adventure and is waiting for the extra ability that comes in leveling up. For faster progression, the danger is when the character abilities take precedence over player imagination.
Slow Progression Classic

Pro: Player Input > Character

Con: Limited Reward
Fast Progression Non-classic

Pro: Faster Reward

Con: Character > Player Input
Isolated vs. Linked

(Im not too fond of this groupings title. If anyone can think up something better, let me know.)

Isolated is that quality where encounters seem to occur separately from everything else taking place. This is a definite quality of classic gaming: the dungeon-crawl or random encounter. The dungeon (which is not necessarily a dungeon: it can also be a series of encounters in the wilderness) is a string of encounters isolated from another that sometimes defy logic. For example, how do the creatures survive in a closed environment for years or even centuries? However, the goals of each encounter are usually simple to identify. It also makes the encounter easy to design. This winning combination has been copied to adventure video games with good success. Non-classic games typically shy away from the device and prefer linked encounters that demonstrate clear logic and usually more planning. Along with the planning comes the threat of railroading.
Isolated Classic

Pro: Easily Defined Goals

Con: Suspended Logic
Linked Non-classic

Pro: Continuity

Con: Longer Planning and railroading

Some interesting breakdowns here - many of which I agree would be the tendencies of what some people see as the distinctions.

Me personally, I have had what I consider "classic" games to involve both free-form locations with little narrative and stories that tend to follow a linear path... which would cross what you describe as classic and non-classic.

For me, the distinction is pretty much based on the slower progression differences, the rules-lite approach, and a focus on "who" characters are rather than "what" they can do.

But of course, that's just my interpretaton of what is "classic" and I in no way claim it as some form of definition for others.
John
_________________
John "Sir Seskis" Wright

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

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

Thank you for commenting, John.

You are absolutely right: many classic games ran with freeform locations and linear paths. This is what I meant by the shades of gray in the 4th paragraph. However, I don't think one can deny the role of the dungeon in the classic game, even if they don't use it for their own games.

These are the classic qualities, but an "old-school" game doesn't need all of them to get the feel. That's why I make the distinction between old-school as a feeling and classic as a quality. You identify your games with the rules light and slower class progression qualities. That information can be useful to someone thinking of joining your game. He knows C&C has the old school feel but instead is looking to explore the class based and isolated feel of a dungeon crawl. You are both right in choosing C&C and you now each have a better idea of what to expect from the other.

I don't think your perspective is contrary to what I propose.

I agree with everything written.

I guess another question that needs to be addressed is how you define something as rules intensive.

I mean, does it mean quantity of rules or complexity of rules? Take for example, 3rd D&D which is considered by a lot of people non-classical. It has a lot of rules, but they are much much more efficient than some border line classical games like AD&D. AD&D 2nd ed. is probably the fine line between classical and non-classical. AD&D is extremely rules heavy, in the sense that it had rules and options for just about anything but some may consider that classic gaming.

I'm just bringing it up because having just recently read the red, blue and green box sets again. I almost forgot how complicated it can get. By the definition of "rules intensive" relating to complexity, 3rd ed. in my humble opinion would be defined as classical relative to AD&D 2nd. But it isn't. Also if style and tone is more important, I'm not sure if that has anything to do with the game rules. You can play an old school .. oops classical game with 3rd ed if you wanted, based on style and tone alone.

Also I think that rules light vs rules intensive, is solely based on the DM him/herself. I know I'm a chronic rules light DM and someone else is a chronic rules intensive DM. Using the same ruleset, say 3rd ed. The game can range from classical to non-classical within the same game.
_________________
Big Iron Vault Your friendly neighbourhood gaming magazine. Check out our new webcomic, The Heindrich Project!

That's an excellent point, Angelius and something we all should discuss.

I think the answer lies in the core mechanic: the absolute minimum you need to know to play the game. A lot of those 1ed rules were really superfluous, IMO. 3ed -- to its credit -- does a lot in streamlining those rules, but requires a thorough understanding of the ones printed. The SIEGE engine is the best of both worlds. It is streamlined and requires little to run it.

What do you think?

BeZurKur wrote:
What do you think?

I think I agree with every word you said. 3rd edition, for all it did wrong to the game we love(d), was very smart to simplify all mechanics into one core mechanic. AD&D may be simpler to play in spirit, but (when playing by the book) it had a lot of mechanics all to itself. While this isn't a HUGE deal as I do believe different mechanics MIGHT need different options, simplifying and streamlining is always a better option when making a rules-lite game.

I used 3.0, and I will say it was much easier to "grasp" and learn to use than earlier AD&D. When it was just the initial core book (1st 3.0 PHB), I could play it with what I saw as classic feel simply by lowering my xp awards and streamlining or ignoring any rules that complicated my games. It was the sudden onslaught of all the additional supplements, d20 feats books, and finally 3.5 that just made it too "rules-intensive," as I got tired of answering players "but it says here in this book I can do this."

Which goes back to why I was elated to discover C&C.
Joihn
_________________
John "Sir Seskis" Wright

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

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

seskis281 wrote:
as I got tired of answering players "but it says here in this book I can do this."

Which goes back to why I was elated to discover C&C.
Joihn

Exactly! Like I've said before, the CK is the final judge, and not just the guy who answers the door and pays for the pizza, as is the case in 3rd edition!

I believe strongly that when people say "rules-light", what they really mean is the attitude of the game, DM and players.

If the attitude is, well there are rules but if it doesn't help my plot of if it hinders my plot then I'm going to ignore it. That's a classical view.

So what I'm trying to say, and I hope it comes out right is that I dont think that rules define the line between classical vs non-classical. It's more what people do with the rules that make classical "rules-lite" versus non-classical "rules-intensive."
_________________
Big Iron Vault Your friendly neighbourhood gaming magazine. Check out our new webcomic, The Heindrich Project!

So "light" is not a reference to the amount of rules but to their value. This is intriguing. It would explain my first tendency to describe it as the core mechanic, since everything I said was superfluous gets shifted to optional.

I agree that attitude is the #1 factor in play style. Sadly, I don't find this to be the case with 3.5 D&D.

Want to toss Skills? Feats? AOA's? Good luck, they're all so tightly intertwined into the class balance, tossing one of them would throw everything out of whack. What good is a Rogue without Skills, a Fighter without Feats? A wizard would be a powerhouse without having to worry about AOA's. Even something as simple as not using mini's & a battle board in 3.5 can be tough to do when the tactical warfare comes out.

I'm an extremely casual player and will always run games with this attitude. But with 3.5, I can't pick and choose my rules without causing instability to the overall system. If this was the case with 3.5, I'd still be playing it, no question.

BeZurKur wrote:
So "light" is not a reference to the amount of rules but to their value.

I think that value might be too strong a word. It's not necessary the value of the rules but rather the ability to know when to use them and when not to. Again, I don't think in terms of this rules-lite and rules-intensive definition of classical gaming, that the actual rules themselves are necessary a property of the definition of classical gaming.
_________________
Big Iron Vault Your friendly neighbourhood gaming magazine. Check out our new webcomic, The Heindrich Project!

I was just thinking if 3.5 can be rules light by design of the groups wishes when Meepo posted his observation. Awesome! I made some minor changes to the rules light vs rule intensive section. They're subtle but important. I think it gets across what we're discussing.

EDIT: Whoops, I might have made the change too soon! Opinions?

I think the attitude a game is played with is the key. Does the GM require a roll for every use of the skills on the character sheet, or does the GM look at skill levels and narate scenes accordingly, for instance.

The main difference between the good play of bygone years and the frustration of later games (some of them) for me has to do with suspension of disbelief; the ever sought quality of any fantasy, in any medium. I find it less frequently now than in my youth. I think that is more my own adult cynisism than any lack of game quality, but I find that cynisism adds up a lot faster around a table than does suspension, so that if you get a bunch of old hands, it's that much harder to come up with the amount and level of magic required to make the story go off.

meepo wrote:
I agree that attitude is the #1 factor in play style. Sadly, I don't find this to be the case with 3.5 D&D.

Want to toss Skills? Feats? AOA's? Good luck, they're all so tightly intertwined into the class balance, tossing one of them would throw everything out of whack. What good is a Rogue without Skills, a Fighter without Feats? A wizard would be a powerhouse without having to worry about AOA's. Even something as simple as not using mini's & a battle board in 3.5 can be tough to do when the tactical warfare comes out.

I'm an extremely casual player and will always run games with this attitude. But with 3.5, I can't pick and choose my rules without causing instability to the overall system. If this was the case with 3.5, I'd still be playing it, no question.

Attitude, and the inability of 3E to be simplified (easily anyways) are the two main keys in my opinion.

Hi guys, just played a 6 hour session of 3rd ed. And I have to say that I forgot how many rolls you need to make a session!

But is it the systems fault? I don't think it is all the system's doing, the DM is more rulesy than I am. Combine this with the fact that 3rd ed, doesn't exactly dissuade you from rolling a lot made it a non-classical experience for me and the rest of the group. (We normally play C&C but we had a 3rd ed DM, game master for us today.)

In conclusion, it solidifies my personal opinion that although the system's rules plays a role in how you define the system as classical or not. Ultimately, it is the DM and the players that define it.

You can say that 3rd ed games tend to be non-classical but to define all 3rd ed games to be non-classical is likely untrue.

(I'm talking about the rule-lite and rule-intensive properties.)
_________________
Big Iron Vault Your friendly neighbourhood gaming magazine. Check out our new webcomic, The Heindrich Project!

I'd like to say I ran my first group of newbies through my intro C&C game tonight. It took one hour to role characters and explain the system, as well as to have them read a short primer on the setting. They all remarked - "that's it... it usually takes us two to three hours..." The guy playing a wizard asked what schools he had to choose from, and nearly jumped for joy when I said - none... you can pick from any wizards spells.

He also began digging the spell list and differences there immediately.

So we began - in my unique tavern where the group participated in the bouncing of a half-orc from the Northsider inn...

And then they made their way to the Homestead north of the city that they had been hired to help. We had two and a half hours of very good gaming... with only one battle (some Giant rats that had nested in the hay cellar of the barn.)

As much fun as they were having, I was able to send a genuine chill through them when the rather taciturn farmhand mentione the Farmer Roth's daughter was a problem... the Wizard asked "that 16 year old girl? she seems sweet." And the farmhand replied "Not the live one..."

We ended as they were setting for bed - although the group got banished to staying in the barn because the large Elven fighter exhibited too much attention towards the living daughter Mirabel.

The group so far:

A Gnome rogue (played by my wife)

Elvish twins (one smart and a rogue, one not so bright and the fighter)

The human Wizard who thinks he's a player with the ladies.

And my NPC cleric (hey they needed one), a pipe-smoking female human who is having to find interesting ways to fend off the Wizard's attentions... her threat of cursing certain body parts with green slime worked well for awhile.

The next session they'll be off to explore the ruined keep and dungeons in the woods west of the homestead that are causing all the problems in the area. Sort of my homage to B2, except more underground... Kobolds, Orcs, Goblins... a few undead yet to be awakened.

And a lingering evil that the party won't realize is really there till they start having pretty horrific dreams and visions.

All in all a good start and everyone was digging the C&C format - of course, these are some of my theatre people so they want the roleplay and had always just done there own stripped down version of 3.x.

I'd call it a pretty "classic" game tonight.

John
_________________
John "Sir Seskis" Wright

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

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

Excellent John, it sounded like you guys had a ton of fun.

Now the pressing question is how you got your wife to RPG with you! The closest my fiance got was suprising me one day on a visit, when I was CKing. And her first words were, "Wow you guys are SOOOooo geeky!"

Needless to say, I think she needs some work to turn to the dark side.
_________________
Big Iron Vault Your friendly neighbourhood gaming magazine. Check out our new webcomic, The Heindrich Project!

angelius wrote:
Excellent John, it sounded like you guys had a ton of fun.

Now the pressing question is how you got your wife to RPG with you! The closest my fiance got was suprising me one day on a visit, when I was CKing. And her first words were, "Wow you guys are SOOOooo geeky!"

Needless to say, I think she needs some work to turn to the dark side.

My wife liked to say she could "get her geek" on before we met. She'd never played D&D, but she had roleplayed Masquerade in college. So she gamed with us when schedule permitted (she's a middle school teacher) in Louisiana, and joined in this one.

Her Gnome is Felix, who likes "shiny things" and keeps his "stash" in a sack tied around... well, private parts so it's harder for others to get at. He also has a thing for Dwarven women.... likes the beards I think.

John
_________________
John "Sir Seskis" Wright

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

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

Looks like tonight was a good night for gaming. I just finished a four hour run of C&C, the Rising Knight adventure. This is our 5th session and they just made it to the ruin of Baleon Nakt. The first sessions were a lot of role-play to find the info to get there -- with some combat to spice things up. Despite C&C's quick and easy combats, I only manage one per session. I include them to give everyone something to look forward to -- the non-combat types as well as the combat ones. Tonight we kicked off the good ol' dungeon crawl so the babarian will see his share of action. It was blast with a good classic feel.

You're right, Angelius, you can manage a classic feel with 3ed if you concentrate on the classic elements. It would mean, however, disregarding 3ed strength which is it's rule intensive consistency.

That was not a typo: I did say 3ed strength is its rule intensive approach. If I want to run a heavy tactical/miniature RPG (and I do like miniatures) I'd pick d20 over C&C. It's about using the right tool for the job. Yeah, I could use C&C and devise a list of house-rules, or just pick d20. The same is true for converse: I can play a rules light game by ignoring the rules of 3ed, but it would be easier to play a game designed to be rules-lite. Tomorrow I'm going to get to analyzing 3ed with the Classic vs. Non-classic approach and see if anything turns up.

Sounds like the beginnings to a damn fine game.

...........................................Omote

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

I agree with you Berz...

I would also pick 3rd ed over C&C for tactical combat too.

But its up to the players and DM to decide what they want. I don't mind the lack of consistency nor do I miss the tactical options of 3rd ed.

Quick combat resolution isn't a negative in my books. Tonight we spent like an hour fighting 2 zombies. It would have been done in 20-30 min MAX if I was DMing. I prefer to get the story moving in good time.

Pacing is so important to me and my players we have major ADHD.
_________________
Big Iron Vault Your friendly neighbourhood gaming magazine. Check out our new webcomic, The Heindrich Project!

I'd have to agree on many of the points brought up so far in this thread.

Right now, the gaming we are doing with the group I'm part of consists of C&C and D&D 3.5

The D&D game was one that was started before hand so we definintely plan to continue. As for the C&C game, when the guy who was running the D&D campaign went on vacation for a couple of weeks, I gladly stepped in and we ended up playing a 4 session run of C&C.

At this point, players are split on what they are prefering... not in terms of story but in terms of mechanics. It seems to ultimately come down to the question of tactical wargaming or not.

Another interesting point I'd like to bring up is something that occured this past weekend. A couple of old friends and myself recently got together... we used to game together going back 15 years or so... One person stuck with AD&D when 3.0 came out... the other switched but hated many aspects to it. I decided to introduce them to C&C a bit.

Overall, the conversation resulted in a large critique and analysis of the 3.x system. Then we started making the AD&D vs C&C comparisons... It was an interesting evening! Net result is one friend is warming up to C&C and the other... the one who has stuck with AD&D may be willing to try it but not quite ready to adopt it. He is however very interested to hear of the support and I believe thinking of ways to use some of the C&C and Castle Zagyg material for his AD&D campaign.

Now if only out schedules could mesh better and actually do some gaming like we used to 10 - 15 years ago!

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

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

Omote wrote:
Sounds like the beginnings to a damn fine game.

Thanks, Omote. We're having a blast.

moriarty777 wrote:
Now if only out schedules could mesh better and actually do some gaming like we used to 10 - 15 years ago!

Scheduling: the bane of the mature gamer.

angelius wrote:
Quick combat resolution isn't a negative in my books. Tonight we spent like an hour fighting 2 zombies. It would have been done in 20-30 min MAX if I was DMing. I prefer to get the story moving in good time.

That's always key: the story. A change in my style of gaming since I was younger is that I want more substance in the game. We need a reason for the fight, and exploring a dungeon just because it's there doesn't suffice. This can be an area where the classic dungeon crawl quality is not enough for me not alone, not anymore. When I was younger, saving the princess from the dragon in the last room was just an excuse for the dungeon; now it is the sole purpose to head into the dark.

Anyhow, I said before I was going to compare C&C, 3ed D&D, and Goodman Games Dungeon Crawl Classics with the classic qualities to see how they measure up. So, here goes. Just one small clarification: for purposes of this discussion, the classic qualities are defined. We can question those definitions and rearrange them, but they are not opinions. The purpose of this is to establish agreed terminology. What IS opinion is when these qualities succeed in giving that old-school feel. It will require different qualities for different people and for some maybe all of them.
C&C
Rules Light vs. Rule Intensive

C&C falls heavily among the rules light argument. Not only those the base core-book repeatedly stress that it offers only guidelines and encourages imaginative solutions versus established rules, but it is also streamlined and easy in the SIEGE mechanic.

C&C: Rules Light
Versus Play vs. Balanced Play

There are no preset balancing dials or charts in C&C. Even if the CK rather not play versus style, he is engaged in making things interesting for the players instead of relying on a formula. The rules, as a result, encourage Versus Play.

C&C: Versus Play
Class Based vs. Skill Based

This one is a no brainer: C&C is entirely Class Based. I dont own Castle Zagyg, so I cant comment on that, but even so, any rules there are optional and outside the core book.

C&C: Class Based
Slow Class Progression vs. Fast Class Progression

Again, this is an easy choice. If fact, there has been some criticisms that class progression is even slower in C&C than in the original game.

C&C: Slow Class Progression
Isolated vs. Linked

This is not a measure of the rules, but for the adventures made for it. A CK may run either type. However, if we go by the modules published by Troll Lord Games, we see the isolated dungeons and random encounter charts. If we go by that, C&C is Isolated.

C&C: Isolated

Based off the classic qualities, I think it is safe to say that C&C is old-school for anyones tastes. If theres any disagreement, then there is some other classic quality Im missing.
3ed D&D
Rules Light vs. Rule Intensive

I think we can safely say that 3ed is rule intensive. The game practically requires the use of miniatures or counters to keep track of position and facilitate the governing of rules such as Attacks of Opportunities. Their supplements are full of crunch and even their campaign settings fulfill the obligatory crunch level.

D&D: Rule Intensive
Versus Play vs. Balanced Play

3ed uses Encounter Levels to balance monsters and is very careful to keep all the classes balanced among each other. It is clear 3ed uses Balanced Play.

D&D: Balanced Play
Class Based vs. Skill Based

Classes are a staple of the old-school feel. If WotC was going to call the game Dungeons and Dragons, they knew they had to keep classes. However, they also introduced a detailed skill system plus a feat mechanic. 3ed falls into a gray area here. It is neither entirely Class nor Skill based and lands in the middle.

D&D: Class and Skill Based Split
Slow Class Progression vs. Fast Class Progression

The DMG 3.5 suggests that players go up a level every 4 sessions. The system has an Epic Level book for characters beyond 20th level. We can safely label 3ed.

D&D: Fast Class Progression
Isolated vs. Linked

Like in the case of C&C, this is not a measure of the rules, but for the adventures made for it. A DM may run either type. I dont have enough data on this. I suspect that with all the material out there, adventures run the gamut, but thats only speculation.

D&D: Jury still out.

Based off four of the five qualities, 3ed strongly leans to non-classic. This is not to say a DM cannot run a D&D game with an old school feel, but hell have to shift the focus to the qualities that enhance the classic style or simply change how the game operates. For example, a DM can ignore the rules in the books and make it rules light. However, that would certainly deviate from how it is intended.
Goodman Games Dungeon Crawl Classics (DCC)
Rules Light vs. Rule Intensive

This is determined by the system.

DCC: Rule Intensive
Versus Play vs. Balanced Play

The DCC try hard to have that classic quality, but ultimately they still fall back to the balanced play of 3ed.

DCC: Balanced Play
Class Based vs. Skill Based

This is determined by the system.

DCC: Class Based and Skill Based Split
Slow Class Progression vs. Fast Class Progression

This is determined by the system.

DCC: Fast Class Progression
Isolated vs. Linked

Goodman Games excels in this category. They know what they have to work with and capitalize on every bit. They use the art, look, layout, and structure to appeal to every bit of nostalgia and feel. Overall, I think they are successful, and judging by their growing product line, Im pretty sure they are.

DCC: Isolated

Ive always felt Goodman Games fell short of the old school feel at least for me. Looking at the quality list, I can see why. However, I know many DMs who feel they are successful in the feel as well. This proves that we all hold different qualities as essential to the old-school feel.

Here is one last observation between Classic and Non-classic styles. The Classic style seems more rooted in the imagination and attempts to simulate the feeling of what it is like to be that character. Non-classic styles seem more concerned with the game and how to use the rules. I believe classic games require more from all the players (GM included) in the way of imagination. Because it requires more it can feel more rewarding when successful. Non-classic game that appeal to the rules and winning sensibilities of the players require less, thus are more accessible. This is not a criticism of either style; it is just an observation.

I only have two points of disagreement with you.

3E is not carefully balanced. If it was they wouldn't have to keep weakening the spell lists to allow the non-spellcasters to "catch up".

Or nerf wildshape and polymorphing spells/powers.

I like a good percentage of the Goodman DCC's. I don't like all of them, but their percentage with me has been high enough that I own 22 or more of them. I like 15 or so of them. That is besides the two they have done for C&C.

I like both Goodman C&C DCC's, even though I have a few irritations with Chris' Palace of Shadows, we are still having a lot of fun going through it.

Chris, in case you read this, my biggest problem was with how the lead in to the tower was presented/explained. It needed to be in one place and better explained. It wasn't until they finished level 5 that I realized I had totally botched the "entry room". Then I had to stop the game for 5 or so minutes while I figured out how it was supposed to be handled. Then I waved my wand to fix everything and we moved on.

Thanks, Treebore. I'm working on a webpage (not up yet) and am looking for content to put up. I think this will go as an article, so I appreciate all comments to make it fleshed out, complete, and accurate.

Treebore wrote:
3E is not carefully balanced. If it was they wouldn't have to keep weakening the spell lists to allow the non-spellcasters to "catch up".

Or nerf wildshape and polymorphing spells/powers.

Good point. Tell me what you think if instead of carefully balanced, I replace it with, "WotC actively pursues balance, making changes and tuning the game to be as balanced as possible."

As for the DCC, you are right that I am comparing the ones for 3ed. However, I do need to point out that this list of qualities is not a measure of excellance. It is not to say that if you fall in classic side, it is good, and if you fall in the non-classic side, it is bad. (Maybe I should rename the list to a list of Properties.) The observation that the DCC's still leaned toward non-classic is a reflection of the system it used -- although it still does better than the system alone -- and not of it's level of excellance.

If they did give you that old-school feel, I'm very interested in knowing through what properties from the list or from any I missed.

Wow, the C&C forums have taken a page from The Forge. Neat.