d20 SRD versus 1st edition to settle 'rules gaps'

slimykuotoan · Post by **slimykuotoan** » Sat Jan 30, 2010 4:45 pm

Seems like many people turn to the d20 SRD to fill in gaps in C&C rules.

I for one would rather turn to AD&D whenever possible, feeling like d20 shouldn't have automatic authority over my games.

Just a preference

I got so sick of things like: deflection bonuses don't stack with such and such a bonus, and etcetera, that was so inherent in the rules glut that 3.5 was for me.

Any thoughts?
_________________
Society Member
http://www.cncsociety.org/

serleran · Post by **serleran** » Sat Jan 30, 2010 4:52 pm

I prefer to look at the rules that C&C does offer, compare that with the intent of the game as espoused within its pages and foreword, and then look at how I want my game to play.... and then I think of other ways to handle whatever "gap" there might be. If that means looking at another game, then so be it -- it does not mean the way I want to implement the idea is the same.
_________________
If it matters, leave a message at the beep.
Serl's Corner

DangerDwarf · Post by **DangerDwarf** » Sat Jan 30, 2010 5:00 pm

As a long time AD&Der, I seem to use AD&Disms when filling the occasional gap. Sometimes I fall into AD&Disms unconsciously and my players point it out to me.

I'm not familiar enough with d20, nor do I keep the SRD bookmarked; so I can't say I go that route.

Steerpike · Post by **Steerpike** » Sat Jan 30, 2010 5:14 pm

I tend toward the AD&D rules as well, though I also keep the Hypertext SRD in my bookmarks
_________________
"There are two kinds of people in the world: those with guns, and those who dig." - The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly

Traveller · Post by **Traveller** » Sat Jan 30, 2010 5:47 pm

C&C is based off the SRD, so it makes sense to use the SRD to craft rules to fill in gaps. Of course a healthy bit of common sense also needs to be applied, so I envision how the rule might look in OD&D and write that way if possible.
_________________
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.

Julian Grimm · Post by **Julian Grimm** » Sat Jan 30, 2010 6:27 pm

I do both. In my personal games I usually refer back to AD&D2e for things I need expansion on. When writing something for public consumption I usually refer to the SRD and work from there.

The reasoning is just a CYA rule. Since pre-D20 is not open to use I prefer not to cross an IP gray area and get myself or anyone else in trouble.
_________________
The Lord of Ravens
My blog

Treebore · Post by **Treebore** » Sat Jan 30, 2010 8:07 pm

It depends. 1E didn't have deflection bonus', natural armor, or any guide lines for stacking such bonus', 3E does.

3E also defines a lot of terms like shaken, stirred, on the rocks, over easy, etc... 1E does not.

Plus the 3E SRD makes it easy because its simply copy/paste and its in my house rules document, for 1e I would actually have to type it out.

So for me 3E is superior in what it covers and is easiest to use because of the SRD making it a simple copy/paste and maybe edit a bit.

However there are definite things I like to go to prior editions for, but again not 1E. Like I prefer the power scale of monsters in 2E, monsters were too whimpy in 1E, and are largely equally too whimpy in C&C, with notable exceptions like the Dragons and the Beholder (Prysmal Eye) is down right eeeevvvilll!! For most magic items and spells I prefer C&C, but I often find myself going back to 1E for specific spells, items, potion immiscability (sp?), magic items and occasionally even for monsters, but most often for inspiration.
_________________
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

Julian Grimm · Post by **Julian Grimm** » Sat Jan 30, 2010 8:34 pm

On spells I used to want to default back to AD&D but I found that the SRD spells fit C&C better and needed less alterations than the AD&D spells. Of course, this is more taste as I loved how casters felt in 3e over how they felt in AD&D.
_________________
The Lord of Ravens
My blog

Treebore · Post by **Treebore** » Sat Jan 30, 2010 8:48 pm

Julian Grimm wrote:
On spells I used to want to default back to AD&D but I found that the SRD spells fit C&C better and needed less alterations than the AD&D spells. Of course, this is more taste as I loved how casters felt in 3e over how they felt in AD&D.

Yeah, my only real problem with 3E spells is the elimination of save or die spells.

Plus Time Stop in C&C is bad ass! It stops the whole world!
_________________
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

Julian Grimm · Post by **Julian Grimm** » Sat Jan 30, 2010 8:58 pm

I have to admit, I'm not so keen on save or die. I know the importance of it but, like level drains, I think there are other ways to go about it and make the game better. Again a taste issue that not everyone will agree on.
_________________
The Lord of Ravens
My blog

Treebore · Post by **Treebore** » Sat Jan 30, 2010 9:01 pm

Julian Grimm wrote:
I have to admit, I'm not so keen on save or die. I know the importance of it but, like level drains, I think there are other ways to go about it and make the game better. Again a taste issue that not everyone will agree on.

The reason I do not have a problem with it is there are plenty of spells to protect against the "save or die", Death Ward being one of the most obvious.

Since I am fair enough to not use such spells against them until they are able to have such spells at their command to protect themselves, if they aren't using them, too bad.

As for level drain, yeah, I have a house rule for that.
_________________
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

Rigon · Post by **Rigon** » Sun Jan 31, 2010 4:51 pm

I tend to use common sense first, 2e guidelines second and then the SRD last. But I'll listen to any good reasons why things should work a different way.

R-
_________________
Rigon o' the Lakelands, Baron of The Castles & Crusades Society
The Book of the Mind

clavis123 · Post by **clavis123** » Sun Jan 31, 2010 5:24 pm

Personally, I tend to fill in the "gaps" (things like hirelings, mass combat, sailing, building structures, etc.) with the D&D Rules Cyclopedia rather than either 1st Edition AD&D or the SRD. It seems to me that the fast pace and freewheeling nature of Classic D&D means its sub-systems seem to mesh better with C&C. Also, the RC has guidelines for almost everything in one book, which makes it like the Swiss Army Knife of game rulebooks.
_________________
The Engine of Oracles: Creations For Gaming
http://engineoforacles.wordpress.com/

anglefish · Post by **anglefish** » Sun Jan 31, 2010 5:33 pm

We use both. Spell durations from 1e and combat fiddly bits from SRD.

Treebore · Post by **Treebore** » Sun Jan 31, 2010 9:55 pm

clavis123 wrote:
Personally, I tend to fill in the "gaps" (things like hirelings, mass combat, sailing, building structures, etc.) with the D&D Rules Cyclopedia rather than either 1st Edition AD&D or the SRD. It seems to me that the fast pace and freewheeling nature of Classic D&D means its sub-systems seem to mesh better with C&C. Also, the RC has guidelines for almost everything in one book, which makes it like the Swiss Army Knife of game rulebooks.

Lately I have been using both the RC and pieces of Unearthed Arcana for domain building and gaining henchmen/men at arms.
_________________
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

anonymous · Post by **anonymous** » Mon Feb 01, 2010 12:38 pm

Aren't the gaps the whole point? If you look to rulebooks to fill them in, you may as well choose GURPS or RuneQuest.

Aneoth of Ironwood · Post by **Aneoth of Ironwood** » Mon Feb 01, 2010 1:36 pm

The D&D Rules Cyclopedia ROCKS!

I use C&C (with house rules) and use D&D and AD&D for filling gaps.

I own a number of D20 Adventures.

But I have never actually played any 3.x Edition (And never even thought about buying any 4th Edition) and though I have never used any of those D20 adventures (not as they were meant to be played.... using 3.x rules)

I have used several D20 adventures for C&C and AD&D.

Omote · Post by **Omote** » Mon Feb 01, 2010 4:38 pm

Tenser's Floating Disk wrote:
Aren't the gaps the whole point? If you look to rulebooks to fill them in, you may as well choose GURPS or RuneQuest.

That was my thought. The gaps are there for a purpose, sort of. When every mechanical aspect of the game is questioned and answered with a ton of rules you get the mess that 3e was. At that point the games becomes about covering rules, and not playing the game.

We started playing D&D with Mentzer Basic D&D, and by FAR that game did not cover anywhere near the rules C&C does. We got through it and never did we complain that the game was incomplete.

With C&C, when you play the game cetain ruling situations will come up. As you experience the game you get the sense of other codified rules that will cover the questions you might have later. Experience IN PLAYING C&C will answer your questions. And if it doesn't clearly do so, ask you CK. That's what they are there for.

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

Julian Grimm · Post by **Julian Grimm** » Mon Feb 01, 2010 4:54 pm

I'm not saying the game is fully incomplete but there are things that I feel should have been in there or that I want. Some examples are equipment descriptions, what I feel are incomplete spell lists and specialist wizards. These are things I have returned to 3.X or AD&D for.

Of course, I have to say we prefer playing C&C as sort of a lite d20 rather than playing closer to AD&D. I know, this coming from a guy who used to say that C&C was it's own game but, I have my preferences. *shrug*
_________________
The Lord of Ravens
My blog

Omote · Post by **Omote** » Mon Feb 01, 2010 5:23 pm

Everybody has their preferences, and that is not a fault at all. However, through 4 printings now it's pretty safe to say that TLG has made the C&C game the way they wanted (for the most part). Now, it's time for us to implement the rules systems we like and just play the game.

Just play. Just play.

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

Frost · Post by **Frost** » Mon Feb 01, 2010 6:01 pm

Julian Grimm wrote:
Of course, I have to say we prefer playing C&C as sort of a lite d20 rather than playing closer to AD&D.

Same here. I see C&C as more of a 3rd edition Lite than anything (and I think that is a good thing).

To answer the original post, my house rules are based on the 3e rules that I like (initiative, etc.). By and large, there isn't much about C&C I want to modify (granted, I haven't been able to play it much yet).
_________________
Lord Frost

Baron of the Pitt
Castles & Crusades Society
The Dungeoneering Dad

Traveller · Post by **Traveller** » Mon Feb 01, 2010 6:10 pm

Just to clarify my original post, the technique I described referred to the errata process. My house rules are a different story.
_________________
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.

Treebore · Post by **Treebore** » Mon Feb 01, 2010 7:11 pm

It depends on the "gap", like I saw not defining armor stacking as broken, I do not want someone putting on armor, shield, bracers, rings, cloaks, amulets of natural armor and then casting Protection From Evil, Divine Armor, Enhance Dexterity, etc... and having a AC of 50+, so I defined and limited the stacking so getting into the 30's is about it.

Same thing with Polymorphing, so I house ruled it, and it is largely the same as 3E, but for the record I had this house rule about 10 years before they did it in 3E. Which also keeps the Druid's Wildshape from getting too crazy as well.

I also changed up Teleport a bit so it isn't quit as big a headache as it is "by the book", but it will still be a headache , just not as bad of one.

So my filling in the "gaps"" is fixing things I know are broken from the many high level games I have ran over the decades. People like being Superman, but that is only fun for so long, its much more fun being Batman or Daredevil, where its still a challenge, for the long run.
_________________
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

Lord Dynel · Post by **Lord Dynel** » Tue Feb 02, 2010 3:45 am

I'm definitely in the camp of , "the 'gaps' are there for a reason," as I tend to think that a given situation isn't going to handle itself the same way, every time. That's one thing that was taught with 3rd Edition and it has been a hard thing to "unlearn" with my players. Every task, everything, has a DC associated with it. Beat that DC and "poof!" you're golden. I know a DM could throw that out, or adjust it as needed (which I did, often) but also comes the days of player entitlement, and that hit my group, hard. But seeing how they all come from the "bygone days" (I say with sarcasm ) of rule adjudication, they seem to have adapted well.

All that said, there are some times when an established answer or ruling needs to occur and stand. I tend to look at older editions first, and in this order: 1st Edition, 2nd Edition, then Basic. Sometimes, if I'm in the "C&C feels a lot more like 2nd Edition today" moods, the first two choices flip. If I'm not satisified with an adjudication, I will reference 3rd. When all else fails, I rule it how I see fit.
_________________
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.

Wulfgarn · Post by **Wulfgarn** » Tue Feb 02, 2010 5:51 am

I came into C&C by accident- My forst Hard Covers were a gift from Steve at Gen Con

I hated the game due to its lack of fiddly charactor tailoring and a lack of choice over all.

I have found the books irratating as hell... Drives me really bloody nuts alot of the time.

But what I found was a groupof Great guys that love to rp... Ihave made Some of themost solid friendships on these boards - its why I kept playing the game.

I have come to understand some of the reasons why the game is as it is, but there are still thingd missing and well - Never mind.

I enjoy being able to make my own house rules and tailor the game to suit me.

Alot of the rules trouble we find could - in most instances be reduced to a seige check - but for someof us - we like a more defined parameter.

I have fallen back on alot of 3e xxxx rules critters as well as 1e stuff and even stuff from games Like Lejendary Adventures and Hackmaster for inspiration and in an attempt to craft a game That I enjoy-

Thing is there are not many games that allow forthat level of flexibility - and so though I hate alot about it I realize that it is a core that I can draw fromand create great games.

Hells bells it is growing onme....

its why nearly all my rpg money has goneinto the troll lords coffers.

Martin