Troll Lord Games

With my group, C&C is our primary game but we play multiple systems. Most of the time it is no big deal, we'll pull out Rifts, SR3, 4e and other systems and give them a go for a bit then return to our C&C game. Mainly it's no big deal because each of those other games we play have different rules and/or play styles than C&C so they aren't competing with C&C, just giving us something different for a bit.

As the group's CK though, I'm usually slow to pull out AD&D (either edition) for the group. Why? because the feel and play style is similar enough to compete with our C&C game and has had the habit of pushing our C&C game to the background for longer periods of time than any other game.

Sure, the rational mind can say that C&C with BtH and ascending AC is more intuitive but in actuality, the group has decades of experience with AD&D making the rules there just as intuitive due to the many, many years of playing. So the "ease" of the C&C system is a moot point because AD&D is just as easy when you've been playing it since you were a kid.

I don't really have a point in all of this, just rambling out loud I suppose because after our TPK in Umeshti the group is wanting to roll up some 1st Edition characters for our next game and I'm just wondering if it will end up keeping C&C in the background for our group for awhile.

Guess we'll see.

I guess it all depends on the gaming group. For me, though I like AD&D1e, I have a lot of players who did most of their gaming during the d20 boom. So C&C is a nice meeting ground for us.
_________________
RPG Blog 2: Gamer resources, news, reviews, and commentary, from the Old School to Small Press. Updated regularly!

If your 1e game is going too long, just slaughter all the PCs.

zacharythefirst wrote:
I guess it all depends on the gaming group. For me, though I like AD&D1e, I have a lot of players who did most of their gaming during the d20 boom. So C&C is a nice meeting ground for us.

Yeah, in our current group only me and my wife have any d20 experience. If it were different, this probably wouldn't be the case at the moment.

Heck, even my son (who is 8) spends more time reading through my BECMI books than he does my C&C or 4e books. I think Elmore's art grabbed him.

Relaxo wrote:
If your 1e game is going too long, just slaughter all the PCs.

Alright guys, you finally reach the massive cavern at the middle of the volcano and stumble across 5 ancient red dragons playing poker. Initiative.

There is nothing wrong or bad about playing First Edition AD&D. If the players know the rules, all the better.
_________________
If it matters, leave a message at the beep.
Serl's Corner

My only real concern for any of it is that should we play some AD&D there will be additional wear and tear on my old books. I got rid of most of my "play" copies and largely have pretty ones now. I want them to stay pretty.

DangerDwarf wrote:
Alright guys, you finally reach the massive cavern at the middle of the volcano and stumble across 5 ancient red dragons playing poker. Initiative.

I would have the characters invited to join the poker game instead, then break open a fresh pack of cards and hand out a few gold...er... poker chips. The winner gets the Dragons Horde!

THEN I WOULD ROLL INITIATIVE!

Ah, pretty untouched and unspoiled AD&D books is a blessing. Yeah. Make them buy you new ones.
_________________
If it matters, leave a message at the beep.
Serl's Corner

Everyone in my group started with, at the latest, 2nd edition, but I don't know if we'd go back. I see nothing against the older editions, but at this point I think it would be a whole re-learning process (certainly would be for me). Actually, I'm a bit envious you and your group can bounce between editions with such ease. I think if I started playing 1st ed. at this point, I'd find myself thinking repeatedly "this would be easier in C&C." Ha, I certainly think that a lot when I DM my 3.5 game these days.
_________________
Lord Frost

Baron of the Pitt
Castles & Crusades Society
The Dungeoneering Dad

I think what makes it easy for us is none of our group ever left AD&D during the 3e era so we're not "going back" to it. If we do go 1st Edition I'll have to brush up a little bit (my biggest familiarity is 2nd Edition) but the systems are similar enough it's not a problem.

Our C&C games don't run any faster than our AD&D ones so thats no biggie there either.

If we do go 1st Edition I think I'll take Serl's advice and inform them to bring their own books. Or if they prefer, I've got a buttload of PHB's for 2nd Edition.

8 to 10 thousand orcs crest the hill....

roll for initiative.

GM: "Does anyone know the plural form of 'tarrasque?'"
_________________
Lord Frost

Baron of the Pitt
Castles & Crusades Society
The Dungeoneering Dad

Relaxo wrote:
8 to 10 thousand orcs crest the hill....

roll for initiative.

One plucky drow ranger would be more than a match for that.

To throw in my two cents...

I can't go back to AD&D. Not that it's impossible mind you, but I wouldn't find it enjoyable.

Right now I'm running Swords & Wizardry which does cut into my C&C time but I do know that I can't forever ignore the call of the crusade. I'm having fun moulding and shaping the 0E clone to my liking and often keeping Castles & Crusades in the back of my mind as a sort of influence or template.

It may seem strange tinkering with a 0E clone while I could be playing C&C but it's part of my old school reawakening and I'm compiling a lot of bits that will straight up work with Castles & Crusades making my eventual return that much sweeter.

It's long boring day, I'm here... so I guess I'll add my own ramblings about D&D & C&C in general....

If anyone cares is another story....
I myself just can't satisfy my hunger... C&C or AD&D.
I've often looked at my AD&D books and wondered how much fun would I have with them. I still play 2e with some friends in a long running campaign, but for some reason I can't get use to THAC0, even though we've been playing the same campaign and same characters for almost 7 years now. I kinda miss the days when I had to look up the results on the DMs Screen. However... I've been spoiled with the ease of use of 3.5 D20 attack rolls and ascending AC. My problem with 3.5 is that it is so different from AD&D in that it required to many rules for varying situations. I like the freedom to rule without an 'official rule' and I like the ability to choose when to use minis and when not to.

Here are my likes...

- I like simplicity in creating characters : C&C offers this

- I like 'easy math' when doing attacks and skill checks : D20 offers this

- I like the 2e weapon speeds and varying initiative rolls each round : Only AD&D / 2e offers this

- I like the same progression in levels for all classes : 3.5 only offers this

Here are my dislikes...

- I hate an encyclopedia of rules : The reason why I no longer play 3.5

- I hate vague or missing aspects of a game system (Multi Classing as an example) : The biggest problem I have with C&C - I have my own house rule however.

- I hate THAC0!

Why can't I have the perfect system?
A while back I experimented with a cross between C&C and 3.5 by dropping all Feats, Dropping all 3.5 Classes in favor of C&C but adopting the 3.5 Experience system. I used the 3.5 Saves and dropped the Skills. Instead I used SIEGE. It seemed perfect, although not really perfected. We didn't get to play to long and not because it wasn't working, but for other reasons having nothing to do with the rules, more to do with the group.

I'm done rambling... I'll go slouch into my chair at work and wait for the day to end....

Has anyone run a published C&C module (TLG or otherwise) using AD&D/ClD&D rulesets?
_________________
The Rock says ...

Know your roll!

DangerDwarf wrote:
Our C&C games don't run any faster than our AD&D ones so thats no biggie there either.

You must be talking about 2nd edition. If your 1st edition games run the same speed as C&C you must not be playing AD&D combat by the book.
_________________
Rusty

Dude, I have personally input weapon speed factors into C&C without issue. You can easily do this and even use the 2nd edition initiative system in its entirety if you like. Personally, I toyed with a stripped down version of 3.5e before I started on C&C, but had limited success. I'd rather houserule/change C&C than try stripping down a much more complex system.

I think that the game has a very similar feel to AD&D. To me that's good. I left AD&D and after a while, I missed it. That went away, a little, but it was always there. I went on to love d20, but always felt it missed the feel of the earlier editions.

With C&C I get the best of both worlds. Some of the great ideas that d20 spawned, the feel of the old game, and the SIEGE mechanic tying it all together. Couldn't ask for more, personally.
_________________
LD's C&C creations - the witch, a half-ogre, skill and 0-level rules

Troll Lord wrote:
Lord D: you understand where I"m coming from.

Jynx wrote:
Why can't I have the perfect system?

Create it. Take your favorite system and add what you feel is needed to it until you get what you want. It's what I did in putting together my own perfect system, one that covers all the basics yet still allows for a lot of latitude.
_________________
NOTE TO ALL: If you don't like something I've said, PM me and tell me to my face, then give me a chance to set things right before you call a moderator.
My small homage to E.G.G.

Traveller wrote:
Create it. Take your favorite system and add what you feel is needed to it until you get what you want. It's what I did in putting together my own perfect system, one that covers all the basics yet still allows for a lot of latitude.

Yep, that is what I am doing with C&C.
_________________
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:
Yep, that is what I am doing with C&C.

+1
_________________
LD's C&C creations - the witch, a half-ogre, skill and 0-level rules

Troll Lord wrote:
Lord D: you understand where I"m coming from.

Traveller wrote:
Create it. Take your favorite system and add what you feel is needed to it until you get what you want. It's what I did in putting together my own perfect system, one that covers all the basics yet still allows for a lot of latitude.

I know! That's what I've been doing with C&C but I've reserved any major changes until I can see what the CKG offers! However, I can't help but feel it's almost pointless to get any more books from any publisher since I pretty much ignore the rules and what I need to know is in my head already. But being a C&C Fan-boy, I'll support them trolls!
Hmmmm... I've yet to actually run a pure C&C game.... hmmmmmmm

Well at least not with a real group, only a one shot with my Girlfriend.

I just got back from supper at a restaurant for my brothers Birthday (Sorry Mort! Couldn't make it to yours...) and the whole time I was there my mind was on classic AD&D. It's funny how I tend to drift in that direction every now and then. I guess it's old age creeping up on me and I somehow yern for the good ol times!

Lord Dynel wrote:
I think that the game has a very similar feel to AD&D. To me that's good.

I think the D&D feel of C&C is both a blessing and a curse.

A blessing because it shows those who moved from D&D to d20 that classical gaming can be done with modern rules and still capture the feel that got us all started. Plus show folks who never played the classical games what it is all about under a modern rule set.

A curse, because those who never bought into d20 are still rocking along with their classical gaming and don't need C&C to get that feel.

Over the past few years of me running C&C for various groups I've noticed a few things. d20 players are harder to get into the right mind set for more classical gaming but (in my experience anyways) generally stick with C&C longer.

The AD&D'ers I get to play C&C like it for awhile but its close enough in feel to AD&D that they eventually return to the game they never moved away from.

Dagger wrote:
If your 1st edition games run the same speed as C&C you must not be playing AD&D combat by the book.

1st Edition DMG:
Read how and why the system is as it is, follow the parameters, and then cut portions as needed to maintain excitement.

Playing it completely by the book.

I started with 1e and played all of them. I wanted to return to 1e for how simple it was and my players wanted something a little more complex for charcters creation so this was the middle ground. I am running 1e adventures with c&c rules. I will see how it goes.

DangerDwarf wrote:
1st Edition DMG:
Read how and why the system is as it is, follow the parameters, and then cut portions as needed to maintain excitement.

Playing it completely by the book.

I think THAT is what's been fading out of successive editions and newer games in general... that "Make it up as you go and that's OK" mentality. That permission to use your imagination, even for rules.

BTW: 7 - 9000 bugbears with +5 unholy avenger longswords crest the hill.... roll for initiative.

DangerDwarf wrote:
I think the D&D feel of C&C is both a blessing and a curse.

A blessing because it shows those who moved from D&D to d20 that classical gaming can be done with modern rules and still capture the feel that got us all started. Plus show folks who never played the classical games what it is all about under a modern rule set.

A curse, because those who never bought into d20 are still rocking along with their classical gaming and don't need C&C to get that feel.

Over the past few years of me running C&C for various groups I've noticed a few things. d20 players are harder to get into the right mind set for more classical gaming but (in my experience anyways) generally stick with C&C longer.

The AD&D'ers I get to play C&C like it for awhile but its close enough in feel to AD&D that they eventually return to the game they never moved away from.

Well, yeah...that only makes sense, DD. That's kind of like the PF/3.5 discussions I've had and seen - I like the idea of PF and I'll probably buy it, but I'm not moving my games from 3.5 to PF. They're too close, plus I've never "missed out" on 3.5 - I have all that material.

People who play 1e probably aren't going to be switching at this point anyway. If they've played this long, why change now? I see your point, though, but I don't think C&C is going to attract long-time AD&D players. At best, it will attract those who played AD&D a long time ago, and want to get back into a gmae that has the feel of AD&D with a play almost as similar.
_________________
LD's C&C creations - the witch, a half-ogre, skill and 0-level rules

Troll Lord wrote:
Lord D: you understand where I"m coming from.

Yeah, it's just the nature of the beast there. I love C&C and I never stepped away from 2nd Edition and occasionally go through the struggle of 2nd Edition vs. C&C for what system we'll be running. They're are so close in feel that it boils down to a preference of how it gets the job done mechanically.

I'm not a huge fan of the big numbers (adding 13 to hit is crazy to me, thats more than half the die you are rolling) that the ascending nature of BtH and AC lends itself to, so AD&D wins out there. But, C&C is an in print system with lots of goodies and wins out there.

Aaaaaah the struggle!