Mike Mearls discovers C&C (sort of)

[Frost]

I know that the Troll Lord has seen this (going by this Twitter account), but thought I'd share with the rest of you: link

[alcyone]

Attribute Checks have been around for a while; don't recall if they were mentioned explicitly in other editions because I don't have them handy, but Rules Cyclopedia suggests rolling under an attribute with a D20. When I started playing with Basic D&D it seemed intuitive to do that but don't recall if there was a rule for it in place; we did it all of the time; I've even done it in C&C when my head has been cloudy.

[Frost]

Right, they sure have and I've used them in previous versions of D&D too. They were the basic go-to when their wasn't a rule for a particular action. However, C&C was the first system that I saw that unequivocally embraced their use. They were in previous versions of D&D, but in kind of a hamfisted way with all the other checks (e.g., separate saving throws, skills/proficiencies, etc.)

[Sir Ironside]

Mr. Mearls and I seem to be far apart when it comes to in game situations like, becoming a King or other such role-playing scenarios. Where he wants mechanics, seemingly, for everything that happens "in game" I see no reason to include mechanics for everything. Role-playing is more fun, more effective (IMO) and better suited for these kinds of situations. Sure, some mechanics would be needed (Like if you are a boorish lout, or have the intelligence of a monkey) to help determine your influence of gaining that objective. The stats/mechanics should be in the background or a side-effect of actually gaining your objective.

I have, however, always been annoyed that a character of lets say 10 intelligence as opposed to a character with a 17 intelligence are capable of solving puzzles at a equal or greater value when you use players rather than characters to solve puzzles. I can certainly see why players do these things, but for me it takes away from just why we play rpg's.

There seems to be a train of thought that playing stupid characters gets in the way of puzzles and can be boring for that player, as he seemingly has to step aside and let the smarter characters do their thing. Playing stupid characters is an art and can be just as involved, by doing stupid things that may make it harder to solve (Because of their actions.) or easier (Because they might unwittingly stumble across something useful.) Either case the dumb character is just as involved, and in many cases enhance the enjoyment.

I once had a player that embraced his stupidity and it resulted in some hilarious and dramatic moments in the game.

Two quick examples. One was the dumb character in question was told, by the "bad" guy, that some of his party was responsible for killing an NPC that he liked. He didn't have the ability to recognize the deception of the "bad" guy and upon meeting his party got enraged and tried to attack the group. Hilarity ensued until the group could convince the dumb character that he was lied to.

The same game. One of the characters had limited oxygen and a failing space suit and tried to spacewalk from the hulk of a destroyed ship to their ship. The only character around that could open the hatch was the dumb character and he couldn't figure it out and it was too late when he finally did. Thus leading to the tragic end of the character which caused a in game result of the dumb character blaming himself and being depressed that affected his future actions and thoughts till he came to terms of what happened.

[redwullf]

Mr. Mearls and I seem to be far apart when it comes to in game situations like, becoming a King or other such role-playing scenarios. Where he wants mechanics, seemingly, for everything that happens "in game" I see no reason to include mechanics for everything. Role-playing is more fun, more effective (IMO) and better suited for these kinds of situations. Sure, some mechanics would be needed (Like if you are a boorish lout, or have the intelligence of a monkey) to help determine your influence of gaining that objective. The stats/mechanics should be in the background or a side-effect of actually gaining your objective.

I have, however, always been annoyed that a character of lets say 10 intelligence as opposed to a character with a 17 intelligence are capable of solving puzzles at a equal or greater value when you use players rather than characters to solve puzzles. I can certainly see why players do these things, but for me it takes away from just why we play rpg's.

There seems to be a train of thought that playing stupid characters gets in the way of puzzles and can be boring for that player, as he seemingly has to step aside and let the smarter characters do their thing. Playing stupid characters is an art and can be just as involved, by doing stupid things that may make it harder to solve (Because of their actions.) or easier (Because they might unwittingly stumble across something useful.) Either case the dumb character is just as involved, and in many cases enhance the enjoyment.

I once had a player that embraced his stupidity and it resulted in some hilarious and dramatic moments in the game.

Two quick examples. One was the dumb character in question was told, by the "bad" guy, that some of his party was responsible for killing an NPC that he liked. He didn't have the ability to recognize the deception of the "bad" guy and upon meeting his party got enraged and tried to attack the group. Hilarity ensued until the group could convince the dumb character that he was lied to.

The same game. One of the characters had limited oxygen and a failing space suit and tried to spacewalk from the hulk of a destroyed ship to their ship. The only character around that could open the hatch was the dumb character and he couldn't figure it out and it was too late when he finally did. Thus leading to the tragic end of the character which caused a in game result of the dumb character blaming himself and being depressed that affected his future actions and thoughts till he came to terms of what happened.

+1

In our current campaign, our Cleric has a 9 Int. The player loves to role play this aspect of his character, often in entertaining ways. Good players will PLAY their attributes. They don't need no stinkin' checks for them.

[Traveller]

Wizards of the Coast is like its parent: bland and unimaginative.

Mearls is the poster child for the company.

Result: A game that is bland and unimaginative written by people who are bland and unimaginative.

[dutch206]

Next week, Mr. Mearls plans to annouce that he has discovered this nifty new gadget he calls...the wheel.

[Sir Ironside]

In our current campaign, our Cleric has a 9 Int. The player loves to role play this aspect of his character, often in entertaining ways. Good players will PLAY their attributes. They don't need no stinkin' checks for them.

I find that some players have a difficult time with playing to their stats (Not just charisma or intelligence.) because it is a little hard to totally disconnect from the real world (Which results in the player bleeding into the made-up world.) the culture of wanting to win by being cool and take exception when the GM tells them they can't do that based on stats.

That is why I make it clear, before character generation that whatever stat they take there is an expectation that they play to those stats, have a discussion on just how the stat should be played and that I as a the GM may over-rule an in game action if I feel it is beyond that characters stat. Having this discussion, up-front makes the game run smoother down the line.

I also make it clear that I'll rule on what the player knows and what the character knows and may disregard an action due to the fact they don't know what just happened. Very occasionally I might run a mini-adventure for one character, away from the rest of the group to rid myself of having to adjudicate the player vs. character knowledge. In all honesty I only do this for dramatic scenarios that I want to surprise the players as much as the characters. Otherwise I let them sit-in so they can follow along, which in most cases is fun even though they do nothing and it is easier, in the future if the character in question wants to tell the rest of the group what happened. Rather than going over it again, it is just a had-wave thing with the GM saying, "You all now know what happened." of course if the character telling the story wants to leave somethings out or even lie a little I expect the rest to play to just what was told to them.

[redwullf]

I find that some players have a difficult time with playing to their stats (Not just charisma or intelligence.) because it is a little hard to totally disconnect from the real world (Which results in the player bleeding into the made-up world.) the culture of wanting to win by being cool and take exception when the GM tells them they can't do that based on stats.

That is why I make it clear, before character generation that whatever stat they take there is an expectation that they play to those stats, have a discussion on just how the stat should be played and that I as a the GM may over-rule an in game action if I feel it is beyond that characters stat. Having this discussion, up-front makes the game run smoother down the line.

I also make it clear that I'll rule on what the player knows and what the character knows and may disregard an action due to the fact they don't know what just happened. Very occasionally I might run a mini-adventure for one character, away from the rest of the group to rid myself of having to adjudicate the player vs. character knowledge. In all honesty I only do this for dramatic scenarios that I want to surprise the players as much as the characters. Otherwise I let them sit-in so they can follow along, which in most cases is fun even though they do nothing and it is easier, in the future if the character in question wants to tell the rest of the group what happened. Rather than going over it again, it is just a had-wave thing with the GM saying, "You all now know what happened." of course if the character telling the story wants to leave somethings out or even lie a little I expect the rest to play to just what was told to them.

Couldn't agree more. I spend a lot of time setting similar expectations for my players up front. Some are better at "role playing" than others, though, and reminders to "adjust to their characters" are common in my campaign.

[Rikitiki]

Reminds me of a player whose half-orc character had an INT of 5 and made himself the squire to our Paladin. Wonderfully role-played: when told to feed the warhorse, he just kept feeding it, not knowing any better, and the paladin ended up with a sick and bloated horse. We nick-named him the 'Rainbow Knight' after some of these incidents since he turned so many colours from his anger and exasperation.

Yeah, low-INT/WIS characters well role-played are a gas!

[tylermo]

4.5...we can rebuild it. Well, you know the rest. haha

[finarvyn]

Interesting to see that game design (like many other things in life) seems to go around in circles and if you wait long enough you find you're back where you started.

I know that after OD&D in the early 1970's, there were several games out there that added layers and layers of complexity -- skills and hit location charts and whatnot -- and this was way before WotC bloated rules with 3E. As D&D slowly evolved they took bits and pieces from Dragon Magazine and supplement books and everywhere they could find those pieces adn built a game that grew more and more complex from OD&D to AD&D to 2E and 3E and finally 4E. Each new edition (in my opinion) made for more player options and more DM headaches. While I found parts of each edition cool, I also found that running later editions became a chore with NPC details and monster statblocks.

C&C reversed the trend by rolling back the clock. It may or may not have been the first D&D-type game to do this, but I think it did it best as it combined AD&D feel with the best of 3E mechanics.

Now some of the WotC guys are looking at 4E and thinking about ways to de-evolve their version to do some of the things that many of us have been doing all along. I'll be interested in seeing what they come up with, and whether they finally start to take the burden back off of the DM again or not. This will probably determine for me how much enthusiasm I have for 5E D&D.

Just my two coppers.

[redwullf]

Interesting to see that game design (like many other things in life) seems to go around in circles and if you wait long enough you find you're back where you started.

I know that after OD&D in the early 1970's, there were several games out there that added layers and layers of complexity -- skills and hit location charts and whatnot -- and this was way before WotC bloated rules with 3E. As D&D slowly evolved they took bits and pieces from Dragon Magazine and supplement books and everywhere they could find those pieces adn built a game that grew more and more complex from OD&D to AD&D to 2E and 3E and finally 4E. Each new edition (in my opinion) made for more player options and more DM headaches. While I found parts of each edition cool, I also found that running later editions became a chore with NPC details and monster statblocks.

C&C reversed the trend by rolling back the clock. It may or may not have been the first D&D-type game to do this, but I think it did it best as it combined AD&D feel with the best of 3E mechanics.

Now some of the WotC guys are looking at 4E and thinking about ways to de-evolve their version to do some of the things that many of us have been doing all along. I'll be interested in seeing what they come up with, and whether they finally start to take the burden back off of the DM again or not. This will probably determine for me how much enthusiasm I have for 5E D&D.

Just my two coppers.

Indeed.

But, is there real evidence that WoTC would "de-"volve D&D and make it more rules light again? With their desire to bring the video-game generation into the table-top RPG fold, it's hard for me to see that happening. If anything, the mechanics will likely become more wonky and "video-game-like," wouldn't you think? My (brief) exploration suggests that this is the case with 4e. It's got "global cool down" mechanics much like you would find in, say, World of Warcraft.

My 2 coppers probably aren't worth as much as your 2 coppers, but I'm throwing them in anyway.

[Go0gleplex]

From the tone of the articles Mearls has been doing, it's almost like they are feeling out the fanbase for what improvements/changes they want to see in the game. Probably because WotC realizes that they screwed the pooch so badly that any future edition, unless carefully planned, is going to explode in their face in a singularly spectacular fashion. Frankly, I don't see them being able to recover from their botched job of things at all, nor can I see them avoiding at least some splatter back when they release 5e. People have sunk a ton of cash into 4e and are going to be less than pleased to find they've been left on the limb of a dead tree.

While it might be that they will end up emulating C&C and other retro-clones in mechanics, I doubt it will help them much since they have lost the momentum that has been keeping them going at the head of the pack all these years. If anything, they could very well do nothing more than give the OSR stuff an increase in legitimacy and thereby fuel the growth of those companies producing them. In any event, 5e is inevitable. If WotC and Hasbro want to save the brand value, they'll have to do something that will attempt to be more palatable to their target player base.

[redwullf]

From the tone of the articles Mearls has been doing, it's almost like they are feeling out the fanbase for what improvements/changes they want to see in the game. Probably because WotC realizes that they screwed the pooch so badly that any future edition, unless carefully planned, is going to explode in their face in a singularly spectacular fashion. Frankly, I don't see them being able to recover from their botched job of things at all, nor can I see them avoiding at least some splatter back when they release 5e. People have sunk a ton of cash into 4e and are going to be less than pleased to find they've been left on the limb of a dead tree.

While it might be that they will end up emulating C&C and other retro-clones in mechanics, I doubt it will help them much since they have lost the momentum that has been keeping them going at the head of the pack all these years. If anything, they could very well do nothing more than give the OSR stuff an increase in legitimacy and thereby fuel the growth of those companies producing them. In any event, 5e is inevitable. If WotC and Hasbro want to save the brand value, they'll have to do something that will attempt to be more palatable to their target player base.

There's an interesting discussion on the topic at Pen & Paper Games.

I guess, at the end of the day, I occasionally still mourn the demise of TSR. It was an institution central to my formative years and, though I initially had faith that WoTC would strive to keep the "spirit" of the game alive, the D&D brand as old farts like me remember it seems to have simply run away from us. But, that's OK. The wonkier the game gets, the more fuel is added to the "old school" movement, and products like C&C / OSRIC / LL gain a little more traction. I'm OK with that, and I'm glad those of us who still prefer role playing to roll playing have incredible options to choose from. But, it still saddens me to see the brand, Dungeons & Dragons, the original RPG that I grew up with and loved, become so far removed from its roots.

[concobar]

Indeed.

But, is there real evidence that WoTC would "de-"volve D&D and make it more rules light again?

Essentials.

With their desire to bring the video-game generation into the table-top RPG fold, it's hard for me to see that happening.

Essentials

If anything, the mechanics will likely become more wonky and "video-game-like," wouldn't you think?

No and it is my honest opinion that 4e is no more video game like than was 3e or pretty much any version of D&D with the possible exception of basic. further essentials is absolutely an attempt to lure more 3e players to 4e and at least in my small corner of florida it is working.

My (brief) exploration suggests that this is the case with 4e. It's got "global cool down" mechanics much like you would find in, say, World of Warcraft.

If you are meaning at will encounter and daily powers than that global cool down you are speaking of has been in every version of D&D since the beginning, see mages and clerics. The rules for limited resource powers were clarified and made uniform but are not new to 4e. 3e has powers that were x times per day.. same thing.

My 2 coppers probably aren't worth as much as your 2 coppers, but I'm throwing them in anyway.

Depends what the market on two coppers is. If a party of tomb rai... er I mean adventurers just dumped a thousand gold into the towns economy then... hard to say.

[finarvyn]

My 2 coppers probably aren't worth as much as your 2 coppers, but I'm throwing them in anyway.

I doubt that since I don't have any secret info, either.

I think that 4E in theory was supposed to move things toward a simpler game than 3E, and Essentials was supposed to be another move in that direction. Three saving throws is simpler than AD&D's six or seven. Many folks find ascending AC to be simpler than descending. (Of course, many do not.) 4E's use of power cards was an attempt to put rules in a useful format for fast access. 4E had simpler monster statblocks than 3E.

The problem as I see it is that they swung so far from the primary source material that little tweaks don't bring it far enough back. This means that the old school group isn't happy. Of course, some of them won't be happy until they actually see "AD&D" on the rulebook again.

[concobar]

^^
So true.

[redwullf]

Indeed.

But, is there real evidence that WoTC would "de-"volve D&D and make it more rules light again?

Essentials.

With their desire to bring the video-game generation into the table-top RPG fold, it's hard for me to see that happening.

Essentials

If anything, the mechanics will likely become more wonky and "video-game-like," wouldn't you think?

No and it is my honest opinion that 4e is no more video game like than was 3e or pretty much any version of D&D with the possible exception of basic. further essentials is absolutely an attempt to lure more 3e players to 4e and at least in my small corner of florida it is working.

My (brief) exploration suggests that this is the case with 4e. It's got "global cool down" mechanics much like you would find in, say, World of Warcraft.

If you are meaning at will encounter and daily powers than that global cool down you are speaking of has been in every version of D&D since the beginning, see mages and clerics. The rules for limited resource powers were clarified and made uniform but are not new to 4e. 3e has powers that were x times per day.. same thing.

My 2 coppers probably aren't worth as much as your 2 coppers, but I'm throwing them in anyway.

Depends what the market on two coppers is. If a party of tomb rai... er I mean adventurers just dumped a thousand gold into the towns economy then... hard to say.

So, "Essentials." I know very little about it, but I get a sense that it is a simplified method of entering D&D, perhaps like the revised D&D Basic set was from AD&D? I know the Red Box was a significant departure from AD&D, so I'm not sure the similarity really holds up...but from what (very little) I understand, it's breaking out the game in a way similar to what was done in '77-78 (and '81). Is that a remotely fair assessment?

[Go0gleplex]

http://www.wizards.com/DnD/Article.aspx ... e/20100706

My understanding is that it's just a stripped down version of 4e. The idea is for folks to get hooked on essentials and then go to full blown 4e to expand out of the narrow little box of choices they give you to start IMO. In theory, an effective marketing strategy, but doomed to failure in the long term.

If they go to essentials as the primary line, and drop or reduce support for 4e, they'll suffer a backlash from folks feeling a bit betrayed, though the cheaper offering might bring in new blood. They'll also be doing nothing to redress their player base losses to the "retro-clone" movement, if, as I predict, essentials spikes quickly due to those thinking it may be more than it really is. Really, even with essentials released, WotC is stuck in their spiral of slow decay IMO.

[concobar]

Essentials is not a stripped down version of 4e at all but rather a different philosophy on character design. All essentials characters can be played along with any 4e character in any 4e game. The difference is that essentials does not use the same power selection mechanics as the base 4e PHB do and instead follows a level progression system that will be very familiar to players of earlier editions.

As it turns out many of the essentials classes are very fun to play and arguably more effective the non-essentials versions. a great example of this is the Slayer (fighter) where a base 4e character gets to choose two or three at wills one encounter and one daily power the Slayer gets to choose two stances and one encounter strike. stances last until ended so basically achieve the same effect in a more simplified way. some argue that essentials characters have less options but i have not really seen any such thing. Essentials characters remind me of 3e or ad&d characters in play. Easy to figure out and easy to play.

The community on the wotc boards has been very much fractured by the release of essentials which many people wrongly assume is 4.5 edition despite the fact that no base game mechanics have been changed.

As far as the spiral of slow decay. D&D is still the 600 pound gorilla in the RPG room. PF came close to challenging D&D for top spot but has since fallen behind in terms of units sold. I think many people who voted with their money by buying PF are starting to come to the realization that they really did not like 3e and that PF is just more 3e repackaged. I guess it is fair to say that Pathfinder is itself a retro-clone game at this point.

If I have any complaint about 4e it would be that the initial marketing of the game was silly.

4e is not a wow clone and actually has much less in common with mmo/wow than does 3e BUT if i had not played 4e for quite a while now and went only on how the game was originally marketed I would believe 4e was a PnP version of WoW.

[serleran]

One can argue 2nd edition, during some of its "reign," was very dependent on the attribute check. Many other games, often those reliant on "skills" are similar. Shadowrun, for example, has a sort of attribute check -- however, these games do not tend to call for one for the most simple of things, like "can I detect the thief is lying?" except under specific (i.e., opposed magic) conditions. d20 seemed to have changed this, giving the player an out in the "innuendo," "sense motive," and similar skills, therefore taking what should be a role playing experience and transforming it to a die roll -- either has its advantages and both have things that "suck" about them.

Oh well. As long as new games continue the trend of less telling, more doing, then I think it does not really matter who is the wheelmaster.

[concobar]

Mike Mearls should read L5R 4th edition. best RPG ever IMO.
system is awesome
setting is awesome
just everything about the game is awesome!

[REHowardfanatic]

Hello all. First time poster, long time gamer ( ).
For my coppers' worth I'll say this: I thought 4th edition was an improvement over 3.x. It was more direct and colorful and the default setting was terrific. No offense to Greyhawk diehards, but I never cared for it. The fixes to the planes and the gods visited upon the setting in 4th edition was terrific. I loved the art, too- a vast improvement over 3.x art, in my opinion, though Pathfinder's art is even better (Pathfinder has probably the best art I've seen).
Mechanically, I loved the long-overdue fix to D&D's crappy magic system. I'd hated that mess for, lo, these 27 years. It just never captured the magic I read in my books and comics. The 4th edition At Will/Encounter/Daily system didn't either, but at least it was clean. Though, why, oh why, did they make every character in the game a spellcaster? Crom! I also liked the slimmed down character creation, feat, and skill rules.
Mechanically, I didn't like only 2 things about 4th edition: the over-complex Skill Challenge system and the absolute reliance on miniatures. I like RPGs, not miniature games. Just my personal preference.
Mechanically, I guess 4th edition is fine. I mean, let's face it- all games have their ups and downs and we are all welcome to modify and ignore the rules as we wish, though 3.x and 4th edition fight house ruling with a tenacity I have never witnessed.
My gripe with the 4th edition game is the same gripe I had with 3.x, Exalted, and Earthdawn: I like Sword and Sorcery fantasy, and those games are absolutely incapable of capturing the feel of such. I like magic to be in the hands of a few and I like a stark seperation between spellcasters and everyone else. I just don't like high fantasy where everyone in the world is slinging magic and spells around. Give me Camelot or Hyboria any time.
That's why I love Castles and Crusades. The only folks casting spells are spellcasters. Everyone else simply relies on steel and skill. That is something I had wanted in my fantasy RPG for 25 or so years.
So if money is a voting, then I will vote for Castles and Crusades. Let the rest of the gaming community argue and steam over 3.x and 4. Those games are beautiful, yes, but art isn't everything.
Sorry to be long winded.

[redwullf]

Essentials is not a stripped down version of 4e at all but rather a different philosophy on character design. All essentials characters can be played along with any 4e character in any 4e game. The difference is that essentials does not use the same power selection mechanics as the base 4e PHB do and instead follows a level progression system that will be very familiar to players of earlier editions.

As it turns out many of the essentials classes are very fun to play and arguably more effective the non-essentials versions. a great example of this is the Slayer (fighter) where a base 4e character gets to choose two or three at wills one encounter and one daily power the Slayer gets to choose two stances and one encounter strike. stances last until ended so basically achieve the same effect in a more simplified way. some argue that essentials characters have less options but i have not really seen any such thing. Essentials characters remind me of 3e or ad&d characters in play. Easy to figure out and easy to play.

The community on the wotc boards has been very much fractured by the release of essentials which many people wrongly assume is 4.5 edition despite the fact that no base game mechanics have been changed.

Thanks for the added clarification of what "Essentials" is.

As far as the spiral of slow decay. D&D is still the 600 pound gorilla in the RPG room. PF came close to challenging D&D for top spot but has since fallen behind in terms of units sold. I think many people who voted with their money by buying PF are starting to come to the realization that they really did not like 3e and that PF is just more 3e repackaged. I guess it is fair to say that Pathfinder is itself a retro-clone game at this point.

That describes me adequately. I reignited my role playing about 8 months ago with a big group after years and years of absence, starting with D&D3.0, rapidly moving to 3.5, then also rapidly moving to Pathfinder. At first, Pathfinder seemed exceedingly cool. Mind you, up to that point, we hadn't minded 3e and thought it was a decent system. Pathfinder seemed to crank it up a notch in favor of the players with their "something at every level" philosophy.

Now, having GMed a PF campaign for nearly 6 months, I find myself longingly looking at the C&C books and wishing there was a way to convince my players to make the switch (they won't, they're too invested in their ultrapowerful PF characters). I'm committed to switching to C&C with the big group when their characters finally "retire" which, in PF, pretty much happens after level 20. Though I still think 3e is a "good" system, and PF is an improvement on it, I have come to resent them in many ways as a GM. C&C really brings the experience back to where it's supposed to be, with the GM being able to make adjudications without fear of immediate and swift rules-lawyering from the players, and with players needing to roll play rather than pondering their long, long lists of powers and abilities.

If I have any complaint about 4e it would be that the initial marketing of the game was silly.

4e is not a wow clone and actually has much less in common with mmo/wow than does 3e BUT if i had not played 4e for quite a while now and went only on how the game was originally marketed I would believe 4e was a PnP version of WoW.

Right, and that's been my impression from "the word on the street" and not from any actual experience playing it.

[redwullf]

Hello all. First time poster, long time gamer ( ).
For my coppers' worth I'll say this: I thought 4th edition was an improvement over 3.x. It was more direct and colorful and the default setting was terrific. No offense to Greyhawk diehards, but I never cared for it. The fixes to the planes and the gods visited upon the setting in 4th edition was terrific. I loved the art, too- a vast improvement over 3.x art, in my opinion, though Pathfinder's art is even better (Pathfinder has probably the best art I've seen).
Mechanically, I loved the long-overdue fix to D&D's crappy magic system. I'd hated that mess for, lo, these 27 years. It just never captured the magic I read in my books and comics. The 4th edition At Will/Encounter/Daily system didn't either, but at least it was clean. Though, why, oh why, did they make every character in the game a spellcaster? Crom! I also liked the slimmed down character creation, feat, and skill rules.
Mechanically, I didn't like only 2 things about 4th edition: the over-complex Skill Challenge system and the absolute reliance on miniatures. I like RPGs, not miniature games. Just my personal preference.
Mechanically, I guess 4th edition is fine. I mean, let's face it- all games have their ups and downs and we are all welcome to modify and ignore the rules as we wish, though 3.x and 4th edition fight house ruling with a tenacity I have never witnessed.
My gripe with the 4th edition game is the same gripe I had with 3.x, Exalted, and Earthdawn: I like Sword and Sorcery fantasy, and those games are absolutely incapable of capturing the feel of such. I like magic to be in the hands of a few and I like a stark seperation between spellcasters and everyone else. I just don't like high fantasy where everyone in the world is slinging magic and spells around. Give me Camelot or Hyboria any time.
That's why I love Castles and Crusades. The only folks casting spells are spellcasters. Everyone else simply relies on steel and skill. That is something I had wanted in my fantasy RPG for 25 or so years.
So if money is a voting, then I will vote for Castles and Crusades. Let the rest of the gaming community argue and steam over 3.x and 4. Those games are beautiful, yes, but art isn't everything.
Sorry to be long winded.

First, welcome!

Second, I'll echo your vote for C&C. The Siege Engine is the only Skill/Feat system required, in my humble opinion.

[finarvyn]

I'll echo your vote for C&C. The Siege Engine is the only Skill/Feat system required, in my humble opinion.

Agreed. It's amazing how many folks want to build in additional layers of complexity. For my group, the SIEGE engine works just fine!

[REHowardfanatic]

I have always liked to customize my RPGs heavily, using my own world and adding in rules as I need them. C&C allows me to do that with the same brilliant ease that Gygax's AD&D did. High praise from me!

[REHowardfanatic]

Oh and I can say this for C&C as well: I sat down and created the following heroes: Conan, Red Sonja, Kull, Bran Mak Morn, Cormac Mac Art, Solomon Kane, King Arthur, Sir Launcelot, Merlin, and various members of their supporting cast, and I have never been able to do that. Never.
Kudos to the Troll Lords team and even more kudos to whoever came up with the class and a half system, by FAR the best multi-class system I have ever seen.

[finarvyn]

Feel free to post those characters. It'd be fun to see what you came up with!