Troll Lord Games

Obviously C&C has been called the "Rosetta Stone" of OSR games. And, I was just recently reading a review of Sword&Wizardy - which said S&W was the "Rosetta Stone" of OSR games.

Can someone point me to a good comparison of C&C and S&W?

thanks!

Swords & Wizardry copied that statement from TLG! *shakes fist at heavens* I'm sorry, I have never seen a comparison between the two. But that does not mean one doesn't exist.

~O

Anyone who says Swords and Wizardry is the "Rosetta Stone" of D&D has never played C&C. I've played and own both. S&W isn't even close to being a Rosetta Stone for the editions of D&D like C&C is. S&W can work fairly well as a Rosetta Stone for 1e AD&D, 2E AD&D and the Rules Cyclopedia, but C&C still works the best/easiest, and S&W doesn't work anywhere as close to easily for being a Rosetta Stone for bringing in 3E to 5E material, to the point I don't agree with calling it such for those editions in comparison to C&C.

Don't get me wrong, I like S&W for what it is, even the 20 something year olds in my face to face group like it enough to have ran it themselves and to have bought physical copies of it, but S&W is not even in the same "class" as C&C for being the Rosetta Stone of ALL of D&D.

Yeah! What he said!!!

~O

Omote wrote:Yeah! What he said!!!

~O

To play Devil's Advocate, saving throws in S&W do scale better with early editions of D&D than C&C does. I don't really care, though. I hate the "Rosetta Stone" label. It just leads to arguments. S&W White Box is fantastic as a 0E substitute. I'm not as keen on Core or Complete (I'd rather just play 1E). C&C is its own game and I love it. At low- to mid-levels, it's like 1E only better/improved more or less across the board.

Buttmonkey wrote:

Omote wrote:Yeah! What he said!!!

~O

To play Devil's Advocate, saving throws in S&W do scale better with early editions of D&D than C&C does. I don't really care, though. I hate the "Rosetta Stone" label. It just leads to arguments. S&W White Box is fantastic as a 0E substitute. I'm not as keen on Core or Complete (I'd rather just play 1E). C&C is its own game and I love it. At low- to mid-levels, it's like 1E only better/improved more or less across the board.

I did say, and Omote obviously agrees, that S&W does a pretty good job of being some kind of Rosetta Stone when it comes to the first couple of editions of D&D. Just C&C does a far better job of it, especially for the later editions. IE 3E and later...

If you want to play C&C, play C&C. It's not meant to be a substitute for any of the other games, it neither improves nor supplants another game by necessity, though some have an opinion that it does. It also, by its inherent make-up, does not serve as a universal form of any other set of games. C&C is different enough from any other game; as buttmonkey said, C&C is its own game and I love it.

You've seen how easy it is for me to pull anything in from any edition of D&D, and use it in my C&C games. You've seen for yourself how easily you can convert 3E material to C&C. So yes, C&C is the best, or closest thing, or however you want to look at it, Rosetta Stone for D&D type RPG's. Personally I also include Paladium Fantasy, GURPS, etc... all within the purview of using C&C as a "Rosetta Stone" for. So while certain RPG's bill themselves as "universal" RPG's, C&C is the closest thing to being a "universal RPG translator" I am aware of being on the market. Its certainly a far better Rosetta Stone for D&D, especially all of D&D, than Swords and Wizardry is.

Treebore wrote:You've seen how easy it is for me to pull anything in from any edition of D&D, and use it in my C&C games. You've seen for yourself how easily you can convert 3E material to C&C.

I'm not going to disagree with this, not one bit. But at the same time, I can do an easy conversion with any of the other games. I can take a C&C module and easily convert it to AD&D. I can take a D&D module and easily convert it to AD&D, and so on. It's all about the same amount of work involved, which is minimal either way you slice it.

Thanks for all the replies...though I really don't know why I asked the question here.

Could probably get less "bias" about Hillary Clinton at the Republican National Convention.


(Just got my hardcover of the core books and 2 monster books - but haven't had the chance to start a "deep dive" into C&C yet - have had the PDF's for some time but got distracted by other games - circling back around to C&C again - hoping to possibly GM something in 2016)

I've never played S&W, only many DnD editions and CnC... so this opinion is limited.. but why does anyone want to translate these games into Ionian Greek, priestly hieroglyphics, and every day demotic script? Do people really need that kind of realism????

capmarvel wrote:Thanks for all the replies...though I really don't know why I asked the question here.

Could probably get less "bias" about Hillary Clinton at the Republican National Convention.


(Just got my hardcover of the core books and 2 monster books - but haven't had the chance to start a "deep dive" into C&C yet - have had the PDF's for some time but got distracted by other games - circling back around to C&C again - hoping to possibly GM something in 2016)

Biased? Its called being informed, because we actually own and play both RPG's in question. Around here we investigate, and find out for ourselves, not believe what we are told to think. Well, thats how I approach things.

Treebore wrote:

capmarvel wrote:Thanks for all the replies...though I really don't know why I asked the question here.

Could probably get less "bias" about Hillary Clinton at the Republican National Convention.


(Just got my hardcover of the core books and 2 monster books - but haven't had the chance to start a "deep dive" into C&C yet - have had the PDF's for some time but got distracted by other games - circling back around to C&C again - hoping to possibly GM something in 2016)

Biased? Its called being informed, because we actually own and play both RPG's in question. Around here we investigate, and find out for ourselves, not believe what we are told to think. Well, thats how I approach things.

Tree, you're getting a little intense here. This kind of post can scare off newcomers.

My diffuse tension with humor spell failed to take affect...

Games of probability rely on math. Up to a 100% (probability of 1 -- certainty). C&C like all its brothers and sisters use a simple equation (expressed differently for various tasks) to determine success or failure, through application of dice. C&C chooses to reduce the variables and uses one system repeatedly.

At least on a reductionist sort of take.

Whether that captures a certain "tone" or "feel" is a matter of how one views it. C&C, like its more simplistic cousins, wants the DM to take the reins and let the dice fall when they may... a decidedly different approach than some other philosophies which want rolls for a variety of minutiae.

Now, how that directly transfers to a comparison... both games are roughly the same, numerically. The approach to the same conclusion is different.

Buttmonkey wrote:

Treebore wrote:

capmarvel wrote:Thanks for all the replies...though I really don't know why I asked the question here.

Could probably get less "bias" about Hillary Clinton at the Republican National Convention.


(Just got my hardcover of the core books and 2 monster books - but haven't had the chance to start a "deep dive" into C&C yet - have had the PDF's for some time but got distracted by other games - circling back around to C&C again - hoping to possibly GM something in 2016)

Biased? Its called being informed, because we actually own and play both RPG's in question. Around here we investigate, and find out for ourselves, not believe what we are told to think. Well, thats how I approach things.

Tree, you're getting a little intense here. This kind of post can scare off newcomers.

Really? I thought it was the kind of posts that include name calling and other insults that scared off people, not pointing out that I am not being biased, since I own and run or play both RPG's in question. Sure, you can argue that I am biased because I prefer C&C, but I own both because I like both. So if I am being biased, I am being far less so than someone who doesn't own and use both while posting such an opinion about these two RPG's. Last I understood, I am allowed to stick up for myself, as long as I don't get insulting, etc...

OK folks, I don't want anyone to get any coal this year... Santa is watching!! capmarvel put four "very happy" faces.. so I assume (giving him the benefit of the doubt here) he's "kidding".. but even if he's trying to be light in his tone but serious he's right on the CnC forum one must assume our opinion is skewed. makes sense.

Similarly Treebore did defend himself nobly if not a bit forcefully.

We should all be thick enough skinned here to take this, but new folks should be granted some room to get used to us.. been there, done that. My "welcome" by Arduin was rather "direct", but Traveller came to my rescue... that all said.. we should welcome the new, debate with them all, but in the end, try to all work together to share the love we have for this game. The game itself will likely do the conversion. The folks here can help it along or delay the inevitable... sure CnC is NOT for everyone, but for many it fills things up nicely.

So are you saying I needed to put 5 smiley faces to make it clear I was joking around? Here's the missing one:

Diving into the PHB now with occasional glances at CKG and the monster books.

My impression of C&C has always been it is a "clean" system if that makes sense...though I could perhaps see why some may see it as "boring" as it doesn't have the mad art of DCC or all the confusing (to my mind) character options of D&D. I do think the SIEGE ENGINE is nice but takes too many reads to get for a new reader - needs a clearer write up with more examples right up front in each book.

Anyway, continuing to read on...

And, I just recommended C&C to someone I met on a B/X D&D forum.