The first split?

[Mark Hall]

Thing is. This would not be the first split, as it were. There are folks who stick with our first white box collectors set, and don't play with the hard back books. They like the short list of classes.

Oh, heck, I fragmented from the "mainstream" C&C community when the 1st printing PH went into 2nd print. You can't mess with perfection and the 1st print was exactly the rulebook I wanted, typos and all.

Band-wagoners who jumped onboard late ... I have no time for any of you!

I go more old school than thou. I still play with Play-test Version 1. Sometimes, I might break out Play-test Version 2. Rarely, maybe, Version 3 or 3.18... just to remind myself what some people even mean when they say "SIEGE."

Pffft. Newcomers. I captured the half-formed thoughts of the designers during the first days, and play using only THAT. Sure, occasionally they mandate that trolls kill everyone who drives an Audi, but we got rid of those LONG ago.

[serleran]

Not Audi. Volkswagen. Or at least that annoying Jetta.

[Traveller]

I simply shrugged and houseruled all Illusionist healing spells out and added my own replacement spells, since I liked the rest of the system so much.

Zarathustra, you proved my statement about the game jumping the shark. Up until the 4th printing the idea has always been that it's easier to add stuff in than it is to take stuff out, and the rules reflected this. The main reason if I recall correctly was to limit "it's in the book so why can't I have it" complaints from players. Now you're being forced to take out Illusionist healing because you don't like it, which opens you up to complaints from your players asking why they can't have healing spells for their Illusionists.

My other issue with Illusionist healing is that it muddies the archetype, making Clerics less relevant. The Illusionist healing should have been placed in the CKG, or else made available as $1 PDF in order to keep with the concept of "it's easier to add stuff in than it is to take stuff out".

The other "jumping the shark" moment with the game was when the two core books of the PHB and M&T were expanded to four with the CKG and OG&M. I bitched about this last year so I won't go into great detail, but I believe it to be a marketing misstep that could have easily been avoided. So Pete is also right in that there have been many splits in the fanbase, since I just described two of them with the 4th print PHB and the core book expansion.

[Rikitiki]

Hey, serle, I drive a Volkswagen!! But, heh-heh, am not
offended by that remark since it ain't a Jetta.

Yep, I'm old school - my VW truck is a '62.

[Go0gleplex]

I'd never consider the CKG and OG&M as core books. They have been, and are, touted as simply optional material.

[Sir Osis of Liver]

Dang it...let's not re-hash this whole, "What does 'Core' mean?" argument again. WotC screwed things up royally by introducing those two words in that combination into the gaming lexicon. I don't think those words were ever associated with AD&D, even when all the insanity started coming in late in 2/e.

[Go0gleplex]

Dang it...let's not re-hash this whole, "What does 'Core' mean?" argument again. WotC screwed things up royally by introducing those two words in that combination into the gaming lexicon. I don't think those words were ever associated with AD&D, even when all the insanity started coming in late in 2/e.

But I like a good hash, especially with a bit of maple syrup added in for a little sweetness.

[Rigon]

I'd never consider the CKG and OG&M as core books. They have been, and are, touted as simply optional material.

Agreed. Especially since I've been playing/running C&C now for over 5 years w/o the CKG and, while I have OG&M, I never use it.

R-

[Sir Osis of Liver]

But I like a good hash, especially with a bit of maple syrup added in for a little sweetness.

I don't need to know anything about those habits!

Seriously, though, this is one of those issues that has come up strictly on the basis of semantics. The Trolls have been most emphatic about the fact that the CKG and OG&M do not constitute required material to play the game. As I see it, the four books simply constitute everything it takes to get the maximal experience from the game. The only things that are required to play the game, however, are the PHB and M&T. While there would be no C&C without WotC and, more to the point, their licensing, they really screwed things up with their use of the word, "Core."

[Go0gleplex]

But I like a good hash, especially with a bit of maple syrup added in for a little sweetness.

I don't need to know anything about those habits!

Seriously, though, this is one of those issues that has come up strictly on the basis of semantics. The Trolls have been most emphatic about the fact that the CKG and OG&M do not constitute required material to play the game. As I see it, the four books simply constitute everything it takes to get the maximal experience from the game. The only things that are required to play the game, however, are the PHB and M&T. While there would be no C&C without WotC and, more to the point, their licensing, they really screwed things up with their use of the word, "Core."

Could leave that at "really screwed things up" in regards to WotC.

[Sir Osis of Liver]

Could leave that at "really screwed things up" in regards to WotC.

Yeah, I could've, but I've been told that I need to be more diplomatic. I thought about making it a New Year's resolution, but I decided that, as Garfield put it on the poster I had in my dorm room in college, "Tact is for weenies."

Again, seriously, while I despise what WotC did with the D&D brand, without that and their licensing, I wouldn't be here. Always look on the bright side of life [whistles].

[Traveller]

...they [WotC] really screwed things up with their use of the word, "Core."

I agree with this.

[treant_on_fire]

Why all the hate towards 3.x? If we should be hating any edition, it should be the 4th!

But anyways, while I haven't played C&C yet, I love the system already and got myself the books. I'll be running a game as CK soon. However, I also happen to love 3.5. I like both systems for very different reasons. For example, I like steaks and I love pie. I'll certainly not have both at the same time in my plate, but it doesn't stop me from eating both.

Hmmmm, pie....

Wait, where was I?

Oh yeah. Let's not forget the OGL. You know, that little thing they did that made C&C possible, or at the very least, a lot easier to create under its current form.

C&C, in a way, is the proof that after the OGL was made, that was it. As long as the game runs with HD, levels, etc, people can make their own types of D&D books no matter what the official edition is at.

Something interesting is that at this point, there are many versions of D&D beyond the editions. You have C&C, Pathfinder, True 20 (I checked both out and liked them, but they were too similar to normal d20 in the end for me to pick them up)... And they'll keep coming, be sure of that.

What you call a split, I call diversity. No gaming group is the same.

I for one, love that with 3.5 I can be playing a mage hunter with all the crunchy bits that come with it. I also can't wait to run a C&C game that won't require the use of figurines all the time and won't take me hours to prepare and where we can do pretty much anything we'd want to without having to worry about skill ranks for each level, etc.

To get back a little more on track about what the OP was saying (since he was talking only of C&C and not other games), no matter what print you're using, it doesn't change the fact that you can still play all the same modules. So, you know, in the end what does it matter? If you already own the version you like the most, or if you were able to house-rule your book into something that better suits you... That's all! Don't worry about what other gaming groups are using as rules!

Remember, in the end, no matter what system you're using, it all comes down to nerds sharing stories about the characters they created and the stuff that happened to them. :p

[Sir Osis of Liver]

I don't hate 3.x. I think, in some ways, it did some good things.

My biggest problem with it, as I've said around here many times in the past, is that I felt like when WotC got their hands on the D&D brand, they were bound and determined to make it into Magic: the RPG. Almost immediately, they introduced their own line of D&D minis under the Chainmail line. Ral Partha was going away, and Reaper had largely taken hold of the unpainted metal minis market, so WotC's first foray here didn't last very long. Then, along come the pre-painted plastics that they could blind-package and sell like Magic cards. Combine that with the immediate need to re-tool the rules as soon as they buy the brand to give us 3e, with all its crunchy goodness. But, of course, it was unbalanced. So it wasn't even 3 years, to the best of my recollection, and they were announcing 3.5 instead of simply posting official errata. After all, there's no money to be had by posting errata. Then, we had just enough time to get the 3.5 materials, along with all the splat that came with it, that they decide, "Sorry! 3.5 is no longer where it's at! We have to introduce YET ANOTHER complete revision of the rules!" Between the minis, all the books, the complete revisions that meant that they wouldn't support the old stuff anymore, and if you wanted to play anything at the cons, you had to get the new stuff...I had it with WotC. There were good things with 3.x, but the game sessions became so laborious because the DM would do something, some player would say, "Wait a minute, the rules say you can't do that, but my player can do this..." followed by the avalanche of me-too-ism that invariably followed. Spending an entire session trying to get through one combat, making sure that you line up the minis just right, accounting for AoOs correctly, and God forbid you decide to try a grapple.... 4e is the ultimate extension of that. It was difficult at best to try playing 3.x without minis. It's virtually impossible to play 4e without minis. If I want to push minis around a board, I'll learn the finer points of chess.

Bottom line, the game got away from the relatively minimalistic "Products of your imagination" days in favor of trying to turn everybody into rules lawyers. That's not fun to me. They took a great game and wiped their rear ends with it. About the only thing, as I see it, that they got right was the OGL. All the work to get the old guard creative talent dissociated from the game blew up in their faces. So many of the folks from the good old days came to places like TLG and revitalized the hobby. EGG...Arneson's Blackmoor...JMW...the list goes on. Those guys were able to breathe new life into their work under the OGL, and those products (CZ, Blackmoor 3.5, OG&M etc.) remains some of the best contemporary stuff I've encountered, even if some of it's becoming dated due to the loss of the authors.

[treant_on_fire]

I don't hate 3.x. I think, in some ways, it did some good things.

My biggest problem with it, as I've said around here many times in the past, is that I felt like when WotC got their hands on the D&D brand, they were bound and determined to make it into Magic: the RPG. Almost immediately, they introduced their own line of D&D minis under the Chainmail line. Ral Partha was going away, and Reaper had largely taken hold of the unpainted metal minis market, so WotC's first foray here didn't last very long. Then, along come the pre-painted plastics that they could blind-package and sell like Magic cards. Combine that with the immediate need to re-tool the rules as soon as they buy the brand to give us 3e, with all its crunchy goodness. But, of course, it was unbalanced. So it wasn't even 3 years, to the best of my recollection, and they were announcing 3.5 instead of simply posting official errata. After all, there's no money to be had by posting errata. Then, we had just enough time to get the 3.5 materials, along with all the splat that came with it, that they decide, "Sorry! 3.5 is no longer where it's at! We have to introduce YET ANOTHER complete revision of the rules!" Between the minis, all the books, the complete revisions that meant that they wouldn't support the old stuff anymore, and if you wanted to play anything at the cons, you had to get the new stuff...I had it with WotC. There were good things with 3.x, but the game sessions became so laborious because the DM would do something, some player would say, "Wait a minute, the rules say you can't do that, but my player can do this..." followed by the avalanche of me-too-ism that invariably followed. Spending an entire session trying to get through one combat, making sure that you line up the minis just right, accounting for AoOs correctly, and God forbid you decide to try a grapple.... 4e is the ultimate extension of that. It was difficult at best to try playing 3.x without minis. It's virtually impossible to play 4e without minis. If I want to push minis around a board, I'll learn the finer points of chess.

Bottom line, the game got away from the relatively minimalistic "Products of your imagination" days in favor of trying to turn everybody into rules lawyers. That's not fun to me. They took a great game and wiped their rear ends with it. About the only thing, as I see it, that they got right was the OGL. All the work to get the old guard creative talent dissociated from the game blew up in their faces. So many of the folks from the good old days came to places like TLG and revitalized the hobby. EGG...Arneson's Blackmoor...JMW...the list goes on. Those guys were able to breathe new life into their work under the OGL, and those products (CZ, Blackmoor 3.5, OG&M etc.) remains some of the best contemporary stuff I've encountered, even if some of it's becoming dated due to the loss of the authors.

You offer some good points... However, I'll defend 3.5 against some of them (mind you, not all of them).

For Wizards to come out with their own version made a lot of sense for a company to do so when they acquire something, especially since the previous edition had been around for some time now. I am here being fair to the fact that a company is a company.

When they came up with 3.5, they offered free PDFs on their web site to update your 3.0 books without having to buy the new ones. So those who re-bought the books did so because they wanted to. If they had wanted to keep their money, they could simply have printed the updates and voila.

Miniatures? Heck, nothing impedes you from using pens and a sheet of paper, draw a map and use coins instead of figurines. The game is playable without having to spend on miniatures if you so wish.

Whether you like having to use a map or not is another topic altogether.

The move to 4th edition... Way too soon. And even I can't defend how 'gimmicky' they've made it. HOWEVER... Thanks to the OGL, all the books you could ever want for 3.X ARE out there to be found on eBay if you haven't already bought those that interested you. Other companies continue with their variations of the d20 rules such as True 20 and Pathfinder. Even if not through Wizards themselves, you won't miss anything for your 3.X games.

Taking it back to C&C (Because heck, that's what this forum is supposed to be about :p )...

C&C doesn't throw books of Feats, Prestige Classes, Kits or whatever at you. Therefore, you can use any printed version of it just fine with whatever future modules will come out without any problem at all. Ditto for game settings, etc. Therefore, why care if you don't like the new version of this or that class? Keep using the one in your book. The beauty of it is that TLG will continue to support C&C and it is so rules-light you can continue playing with whatever printed version you have without any tweaks. It will all fit no problem.

[Treebore]

There was, and is, a lot of things I like about 3E. There are even some pretty good ideas in 4E. I just don't want to play either anymore. I take those great ideas and put them into my C&C game, and get my perfect RPG.

[Sir Osis of Liver]

There was, and is, a lot of things I like about 3E. There are even some pretty good ideas in 4E. I just don't want to play either anymore. I take those great ideas and put them into my C&C game, and get my perfect RPG.

Harrumph!

[zarathustra]

Why all the hate towards 3.x? If we should be hating any edition, it should be the 4th!

I'm really not sure how this became about 3e or any other edition. I deliberately avoided judgemental statements about ANY edition in the OP and skimming back over the posts I hardly see a mention of 3e.

To get back a little more on track about what the OP was saying (since he was talking only of C&C and not other games), no matter what print you're using, it doesn't change the fact that you can still play all the same modules. So, you know, in the end what does it matter? If you already own the version you like the most, or if you were able to house-rule your book into something that better suits you... That's all! Don't worry about what other gaming groups are using as rules!

Remember, in the end, no matter what system you're using, it all comes down to nerds sharing stories about the characters they created and the stuff that happened to them. :p

Yes my concern was whether modules etc would start to see a steady creep in of CKG rules which might alienate those who do not use it, or that section of it etc.

I don't care what other people play at all but I DO care if releases continue to be of interest/full/easy use to me.

I believe the Trolls have clearly stated what will or won't happen on that matter.

[Mark Hall]

My problem with 3e is that it is too particularized. Everything is statted out, much less if left to GM discretion. Can the wizard sneak? We've got a skill for that. Does my fighter know anything about orcs? We've got a skill for that. Can I knock him down? Do you have X feat?

Competence was jettisoned in favor of particularization; building a character was about building the stats, IME... finessing the system to make it do what you want.