Troll Lord Games

Arduin wrote:

Lord Dynel wrote: Right. But they didn't take it from Traveller.

How do you know that the designers didn't get their idea from Trav? I used it in my Arduin game in '80 after taking it from Trav. Also The C&C individual attr save uses all six attributes. 3.x doesn't thus, C&C doesn't use its saving throw system. Trav uses all attributes in checks.

I'd be fascinated to know your primary source of info. Please show us the docs you have especially since C&C uses a different system than 3.x...

GURPS uses all their attributes in checks. C&C doesn't resemble GURPS. "Sharing aspects" and "being the inspiration for" are totally different.

And..."the docs"? Please don't reduce yourself to the scores of lame critics that troll the internet. C'mon...you're better than that, man, I just know it!

I'm pretty sure there was a conversation with Steve - and he or someone else close to the source (serl, maybe?) would have come on and confirm or deny that for certain - that spoke to this. It could have been a convention conversation, or a forum discussion. But I seem to recall a discussion about how the plan was to kind of model the 3.0 saving throw system but expand it to all attributes since it made more sense for all situations to base saves off of all attributes. So no, no super secret documents that would prove anything beyond a shadow of a doubt.

Even without said confirmation, the system uses the OGL and the SRD. The system borrowed from the SRD because it could legally, and could still be tweaked by the Trolls to "make it their own." They couldn't ever borrow from Traveller, or use a Traveller-based (sub)system, because there were no "docs" (OGL) to allow them to.

Not me... I would not claim C&C has ever attempted, purposefully, to emulate d20 in any fashion except through use of the OGL to allow terms (which, arguably, is not even necessary.)

Where the development started and where it ended are interesting moments in history.

Well, maybe I'm crazy. It wouldn't be the first time I've been accused of such things!

I'll take a second and apologize to Arduin - I don't have any documentation other than a conversation/discussion I seem to remember. I'm sorry if I was a little snarky in my previous post, but people who jump onto discussions with the "pics or it didn't happen" drivel are really low-brow people in my opinion. Most everyone here are pretty good folks and I enjoy healthy conversations otherwise. So, if offended/insulted, I apologize.

In the end, C&C is different enough from both systems to probably be considered unique. Whether it's mostly derived from one game or another is just a matter of opinion.

Arduin wrote:

Snoring Rock wrote:Attribute Modifiers --- D20 3.x What page of the AD&D PHB is that found on?

Attribute modifiers start on pg. 9 of the 1st PHB. Etc., etc.

I can see from these questions that you are EXTREMELY unfamiliar with D&D prior to 3.x. Otherwise, you wouldn't need help with these basic questions. My advice would be to learn those editions well. They are very fun to play.

Why must you make personal attacks and become demeaning in your posts in this forum?

If you make a sincere effort, you can join the conversation and make a meaningful contribution if you just stay on topic and accept others views the way you would expect others to do for you. Shame on you!

Using a condescending tone telling me to read the 1e book, which you know I have, does not make your point. It does not make you sound smart. It just makes you look small. If you want to join in and talk about advantages, please do. If all you are here to do is call names and act childish, then please go over to some other forum. Please.

You can make a point and remain mature and pleasant. Everyone else seems to be able to do that.

I, as well as others on these forums, have played AD&D since before you did, while you did, and in some cases played much longer than you did. Not all of us made the change to 2e. And what the hell does that matter anyway? That has nothing to do with the influence of 3.x on C&C. I have in fact spent some time with Steve on the floor at GenCon over the last 7 years, we talk, he answers questions, and believe me, 3.x had a huge influence. Either he lied or there was a big influence as he stated.

I have played AD&D and yes I know the influence it had on C&C, and that was all good. The "unified attribute modifier mechanic" across all 6 attributes was indeed brought to C&C via 3.x. Arguing now that it came from Travellor just for the sake of appearing to be right, is lame. Everyone reading this, knows that isn’t the case.

Page 9 of the 1e PHB is the page with strength and the abilities it gives you in game. It has bonuses and penalties for high or low strength, which I agree is in fact an attribute modifier for rolls. But it ends on page 9. There is no “etc, etc” that you infer. That is where attribute modifiers end in 1e. I do not count spell bonuses. There are no “checks” in 1e. “Checks” for D&D came with 3.x officially (maybe 2e—I do not know, I never played 2e). The unified mechanic for all 6 came with 3.x.

Where the most influence comes from, really is not the point. But thinking about it, I noticed something in the spells…
There are 29 spells in the C&C PHB from letters A-C. Do not have time to count all of them or go through them. Of the 29 at least 10 (I stopped counting) are worded exactly as they are in the 3.5 D&D PHB or have had the context and mechanics taken directly from the 3.5 mechanics. 2 of them were special class abilities but changed into spells in C&C but still use the same text. 39% of the book (C&C PHB) is spells. A huge part of that is word for word spell descriptions from 3.x. Not a bad thing, just a thing.

I will point out a recent spell discussed on the forums called “silent image”. That is one of the spells copied word for word, exactly from the 3.5 PHB to C&C, but then at the end, the 1e PHB was consulted and the intent was added. I notice that the exact text from the 1e PHB is not used. I assume because it was not part of the OGL. Adding these two spells together left it confusing and easy to be abused. Once again begging for house rules. One can consult the 1e PHB to clarity or the 3.x PHB. Take your pick.

So if there was no influence on the C&C from 3.x how on earth did the words fall into place the way they did on the pages of PHB, making it appear that they came from 3.x? The answer is easy. The majority of the spells that are in C&C that are also in 3.x, are indeed direct copies. Not a bad thing, just a thing.

Last, there is a new printing of the M&T recently released. If you are tired of the 3.x-isms in the your older printing, I suggest purchasing the new one. Many of the 3.x-isms were removed. I know, I helped gather a great deal of the edits, along with Omote and others, so that Trav could fix them. The point is, I would say that 90% of the errors I found, were holdovers from 3.x. If there was no influence from 3.x , how did they get in the M&T?

No one here has said that C&C emulates or imitates 3.x. No one caught playing it or Pathfinder should be hated or called munchkins. C&C gave a home for gamers tired of the 3.x-isms to go. Was the intent to be like 3.x? No way! There are just as many ideas and original content from the original game, that it gives that old school feel. I think that is why most of us are here. I do not like paying 3.x. Its too much for me. But the unified and balanced mechanics are great. They were used in C&C. I look to the unified attributes, spell mechanics and text. Just because you do not like 3.x does not mean it did not influence an even better game. It is certainly not a good reason for name calling, immaturity, or a making condescending remarks.

Can we go back to the discussion C&C rules of taking advantages in the game and whether the penalties should apply?

In addition, by '88 TSR was putting D20 Ability checks rules into AD&D modules. AD&D 1st Ed's OP1 is a good example:

"Ability Checks. In an effort to simplify life for both players and GM's, and to give a character's abilities the importance they deserve, recent TSR products have made use of a mechanism for resolving actions called the Ability Check. When asked to make an ability check (e.g., a wisdom check, a Dexterity check, etc.) roll 1D20 against the character's appropriate ability score."

"D20" gaming existed before 3.0 came along. Just got repackaged and reworded...

So, you are saying that since C&C clearly did not use d20 or the 1e PHB for inspiration, it was instead taken from OP1 in 1988? Forgive us all for saying we do not buy that. The d20 isms in the M&T and in C&C in general, came from the extreme success the was 3.x, not some obscure module preface written during the decline of TSR.

Did some semblance of ability checks exist in some modules and even begin with old Judges Gulid material prior to WotC? Sure. Is that the origin of the use in C&C rules? No. The exact copies word for word of so many spells and a broad use of checks across all 6 abilities, stands as testimony that it is not a hold out from 1e PHB page 9.

Does that kill C&C? No. What the trolls did by taking the smooth insightful mechanics, and stripping away the feats and skills, inventing the siege engine, not found on page 9, and then adding in older 1e sensibilities, was great. Where it came from just does not matter in the eternal scheme if things. Not at all.

Snoring Rock wrote:So, you are saying that since C&C clearly did not use d20 or the 1e PHB for inspiration,

No. Reread EXACTLY what I wrote and that is what I said. Life is sometimes just that simple.