Old skool is new again

Dristram · Post by **Dristram** » Fri May 25, 2007 6:08 am

I haven't been able to check these forums in a while and so while perusing them I noticed something interesting. Questions are being asked about C&C rules which are old skool D&D.

Examples:

- Ogres do 1d10 damage with a slam attack or damage as a weapon.

- There are no small or large versions of weapons.

- Robbing 500,000 gp from a bank will level you to 10th (that is if you allow skipping levels)

This is the way it was in D&D and no one had problems. But after 3e, these things are now confusing.

I find that interesting.

Prince of Happiness · Post by **Prince of Happiness** » Fri May 25, 2007 2:55 pm

What bugs me is that in 3E, they automatically ensure the level and amount of magic items you "should" have in your own campaign. Stupid, stupid wealth guidelines. No wonder there's a slew of posts on other boards about how to run a "low-magic" campaign because 3E has indoctrinated a slew of players to expect X amount of treasure by X level and hell to pay if you don't give it to them, because you've just "nerfed" their characters.

Old school? It's the DM/CK's call about what amount of magic and treasure they want to allow in their own campaign.

Inkpot · Post by **Inkpot** » Fri May 25, 2007 3:54 pm

I once had a player complain that "In D&D, I can get to level 12 in 3 game sessions".

If that isn't the single greatest endorsement for C&C, I don't know what is.
Ink
_________________
Check out Inkpot's C&C Downloads: http://www.cncplayer.net/inkpot/index.htm

C&C: Blissfully devoid of gestalt neko-hin rogue/fighter/mages!!

serleran · Post by **serleran** » Fri May 25, 2007 5:13 pm

You may be dealing with people who have no experience with pre-d20 games. They may also have no experience with any other game, or only pre-d20 in forms of computer games like Baldur's Gate. The sad fact is that d20 has warped the sensibility of game logic.

aethelulf22 · Post by **aethelulf22** » Fri May 25, 2007 5:22 pm

Call me a grumpy old man but it's a sign of the times...kids expect instant gratification they have no concept of having to work towards something or, indeed, the pleasure of getting something you have worked towards!

Lurker · Post by **Lurker** » Fri May 25, 2007 5:25 pm

Quote:
Call me a grumpy old man but it's a sign of the times...kids expect instant gratification they have no concept of having to work towards something or, indeed, the pleasure of getting something you have worked towards!

Rogo on that one!
_________________
"And so I am become a knight of the Kingdom of Dreams and Shadows!" - Mark Twain

Forgive all spelling errors.

Knight Errant & Humble C&C Society Contributor
C&C Society

Tank · Post by **Tank** » Fri May 25, 2007 5:37 pm

Prince of Happiness wrote:
Stupid, stupid wealth guidelines. No wonder there's a slew of posts on other boards about how to run a "low-magic" campaign because 3E has indoctrinated a slew of players to expect X amount of treasure by X level and hell to pay if you don't give it to them, because you've just "nerfed" their characters.

Just reading about players like that makes my blood pressure rise.

Treebore · Post by **Treebore** » Fri May 25, 2007 5:52 pm

I agree that it is all based in peoples desire for quick gratification.

It takes a different mindset to enjoy a long build up that takes hours, err, weeks or months to reach gratification. A whole new appreciation for the play comes as a result. It feels much more like your playing out a novel series rather than a novella.

So generally speaking, it requires a matured mind set to appreciate the difference.

I say generally because even kids are capable of learning that it can be a lot of fun taking a long amount of time to reach 10th level. They learn how to have fun by playing their "character" rather than their "power level". That its even better when you play the character in combination with the power level.

The people stuck on 3E insist that they role play as well as roll play. They just don't get the difference of playing for 10 minutes for each level versus hours. The quality is a whole new level.

Plus its much more fun when everything is conveyed simplistically rather than in a overly detailed fashion. Especially for the game master.

Now there are game masters out their who enjoy the complex pain of detailed systems, such as 3E, Role Master, et al. However, I can't help but believe I would find a lot of leather if I were to search their bedrooms.

So once again it really comes down to a matter of taste. People can be taught to improve/change/vary their tastes. They just have to be able to perceive the benefits of the "new taste" as being fun.

Using my kids as an example. They were indoctrinated into RPG's via the d20 system. They loved it. When I insisted on trying C&C they were very reluctant. In fact, if I weren't their father, they would have quit playing after about 4th level.

About 7th and 8th level of play they finally "got it". They understand the difference of having a rich character history versus a long feat chain. They much prefer the rich character history over the long feat chain. To the point where they don't want to play 3E ever again. They will, if its the only game around. Otherwise they want to stick with C&C.

Why? They like having characters that are cool characters. Not in the sense of level or feat chains, but in terms of what the character has accomplished. What the character has done with their lives.

In other words they much prefer having a well defined character from a novel rather than from a console game.

Maybe my kids get it because they are avid readers. I doubt it though. I think it has to do with how people imagine their character to be. If the way they imagine their character is more in line with a well defined novel character; rather than a character with this, that, and those powers and abilities, they will prefer a RPG like C&C as long as the CK also facilitates such imagery.

Scurvy_Platypus · Post by **Scurvy_Platypus** » Fri May 25, 2007 6:11 pm

And some people wonder why C&C is dismissed as being nothing more than nostalgia gaming...

I don't know about anyone else here, but I happen to remember plenty of grognards bitching about how this "rpg" stuff was just polluting and ruining wargames. I'm a fan of C&C and use it, but sheesh... I kinda expected folks would be able to avoid this kind of edition-war stuff.

Sure, D&D 3.x has a bunch of stuff about it that it doesn't really need. But on the other hand, some of that stuff was handy for plenty of folks. And while there's an awful lot of focus on rules, it's also resulted in people that can think pretty critically about rules and balance, which wasn't too common from "back in the day".

That CR system that 3.x has? Sure, it's got a number of issues. But people did figure out more consistent systems for figuring out what the "real CR" is, and even made it freely available. Heck, it's even something that can be hijacked into C&C for those folks that would like a bit more of a guideline as to building encounters.

While the operating assumptions of 3.x are clearly not the operative assumptions for someone that's a fan of C&C, at least those assumptions are pretty explicitly spelled out. It makes it easier for folks that want to tweak things to adjust things the way they want. Shift the wealth suggestions here, alter the XP awarded there... there's a bunch of handles for people to grab and tweak.

I really love the simplicity of C&C, and certainly won't ever be giving up my RC. But I wish folks weren't quite so quick to simply toss out everything, and claim that C&C is better because it's more "like it used to be" and you simply have to be more "mature", or bring up that stupid roll/role playing thing.

C&C rocks for what it does, and should be able to exist for that alone. It shouldn't have to rock because it's different than 3.x. Or from a different perspective, do you like Dark Sun because it rocks, or do you like it just because it isn't Forgotten Realms?

Sorry if it seems kinda rantish, I just wish people could move on to the awesome that is the new girlfriend and enjoy it (C&C), instead of always telling her just how much his old girlfriend cheated on him and made him miserable (D&D). I get that D&D broke your heart and is still sleeping with your best friend. Take C&C out and do stuff with her that your old girl wouldn't even consider.

I'll uhhhh... yeah... I'll go ahead and stop right there.

serleran · Post by **serleran** » Fri May 25, 2007 6:25 pm

I only said what I said because it is true. d20 is focused on "balance," in every conceivable way. This is warped logic because some things just are not equivalent. People who have experienced this notion of "balance at the cost of everything" strive for it, which is where a lot of these questions come from: "an ogre only does 1d10 damage? Don't they have an 18 Strength? Shouldn't they do 1d10+3 like everything else with an 18 Strength?" Pre-d20 games ignored this concept of balance, in most cases, and simply said: this si what it does -- change it if you don't like it. The reverse is true, to a point, but it throws off the precious balance, making it less likely to just modify one thing. Its not "bashing" but pointing out a completely different design philosophy.

Tank · Post by **Tank** » Fri May 25, 2007 6:39 pm

Scurvy_Platypus wrote:
While the operating assumptions of 3.x are clearly not the operative assumptions for someone that's a fan of C&C, at least those assumptions are pretty explicitly spelled out. It makes it easier for folks that want to tweak things to adjust things the way they want. Shift the wealth suggestions here, alter the XP awarded there... there's a bunch of handles for people to grab and tweak.

I'd agree with you that this kind of shifting and tweaking can make D&D into a more playable system, but the problem that a lot of us have found with 3.x D&D is that its fan-base is not quite as open to these sorts of house-rules as we'd like. As a frequent visitor of the WotC boards, I've seen plenty of threads that spare no four-letter words in detailing how the poster's DM does not follow "the rules" with regard to experience or treasure. Or heaven forbid, the DM doesn't want to allow some class, feat, or prestige class and is thereby denying the player his right to create a "character concept." It seems that a vocal percentage of 3.x players behave as though the ultimate authority on the rules is the sum total of all the books (and errata) and not their DM.

Serleran refers to a "different design philosophy," indicating that monsters function in a realm outside of the rules governing the players. In this same sense, C&C strives to return ultimate authority over rules adjudication to the CK and goes so far as to explicitly base rules on the CK's judgement in a certain situation.

Treebore · Post by **Treebore** » Fri May 25, 2007 6:57 pm

Scurvy_Platypus wrote:
And some people wonder why C&C is dismissed as being nothing more than nostalgia gaming...

I don't know about anyone else here, but I happen to remember plenty of grognards bitching about how this "rpg" stuff was just polluting and ruining wargames. I'm a fan of C&C and use it, but sheesh... I kinda expected folks would be able to avoid this kind of edition-war stuff.

Sure, D&D 3.x has a bunch of stuff about it that it doesn't really need. But on the other hand, some of that stuff was handy for plenty of folks. And while there's an awful lot of focus on rules, it's also resulted in people that can think pretty critically about rules and balance, which wasn't too common from "back in the day".

That CR system that 3.x has? Sure, it's got a number of issues. But people did figure out more consistent systems for figuring out what the "real CR" is, and even made it freely available. Heck, it's even something that can be hijacked into C&C for those folks that would like a bit more of a guideline as to building encounters.

While the operating assumptions of 3.x are clearly not the operative assumptions for someone that's a fan of C&C, at least those assumptions are pretty explicitly spelled out. It makes it easier for folks that want to tweak things to adjust things the way they want. Shift the wealth suggestions here, alter the XP awarded there... there's a bunch of handles for people to grab and tweak.

I really love the simplicity of C&C, and certainly won't ever be giving up my RC. But I wish folks weren't quite so quick to simply toss out everything, and claim that C&C is better because it's more "like it used to be" and you simply have to be more "mature", or bring up that stupid roll/role playing thing.

C&C rocks for what it does, and should be able to exist for that alone. It shouldn't have to rock because it's different than 3.x. Or from a different perspective, do you like Dark Sun because it rocks, or do you like it just because it isn't Forgotten Realms?

Sorry if it seems kinda rantish, I just wish people could move on to the awesome that is the new girlfriend and enjoy it (C&C), instead of always telling her just how much his old girlfriend cheated on him and made him miserable (D&D). I get that D&D broke your heart and is still sleeping with your best friend. Take C&C out and do stuff with her that your old girl wouldn't even consider.

I'll uhhhh... yeah... I'll go ahead and stop right there.

Scurvy,

I played/DMed 3E for almost 5 years. So I didn't come to a quick judgement about 3E. Plus I wasdn't "edition warring", I was giving my opinion on why people might prefer 3E, etc... instead of C&C.

Its all about tastes/preferences. Nothing worth "warring" over.

DangerDwarf · Post by **DangerDwarf** » Fri May 25, 2007 7:05 pm

Treebore wrote:
Its all about tastes/preferences. Nothing worth "warring" over.

Oh. Then I guess I should have my borg ninja death squad stand down.

Treebore · Post by **Treebore** » Fri May 25, 2007 7:08 pm

DangerDwarf wrote:
Oh. Then I guess I should have my borg ninja death squad stand down.

anglefish · Post by **anglefish** » Fri May 25, 2007 7:57 pm

Dristram wrote:
- Robbing 500,000 gp from a bank will level you to 10th (that is if you allow skipping levels)

This is the way it was in D&D and no one had problems. But after 3e, these things are now confusing.

I find that interesting.

Well, if "nobody" are people who left DnD for over a decade for other games.

Playing devil's advocate, "nobody" had a problem with level advancment even if meant you had a legion of 15th level fighters after a long war in old skool (that is if you took level advancement too literal). Now suddenly 3.x "levels so fast you have 20th level commoners in no time" (again, if you take level advancement too literal).

I've played in old school games that gave XP by the thousands so we'd be high level in a year so we could reach an epic conclusion before the GM moved out of state.

I also had a GM who did the math before playing his first game and cut XP by 1/6th so he could still run 6th level games two years after the first character was rolled.

Obviously, neither game was by the book and "nobody" minded. And when you get down to it, the real definition of the right "speed" of advancement is personal to each GM's sweet spot.

I found it facinating that the same arguements I used in XXX vs. DnD arguments pre-Internet are now being used by the old skool crowd against 3.x .

Sorry if I'm sending mixed signals, but I spent years trying to play other games and genres and always have an uphill battle for it. Now I've got a more flexible, light system that still can't get people to play.

DangerDwarf · Post by **DangerDwarf** » Fri May 25, 2007 8:01 pm

anglefish wrote:
Now I've got a more flexible, light system that still can't get people to play.

Have you tried doing so at gunpoint yet?

I find that once the Stockholm Syndrome sets in, most hostages make excellent RP'ers.

gideon_thorne · Post by **gideon_thorne** » Fri May 25, 2007 8:09 pm

*smiles* Funny thing about games of this nature, no matter how complex or simple the rules, someone is going to find that a system doesnt suit.

Everyone, and I mean everyone, wants 'their' thing to be published on the market and for everyone else to want to play it. Hence the success of rpgs as a social tool.

If everyone is playing the same thing, then individuals dont seem so odd in their hobby.

Hence so many debates on so many web fora about what is 'the perfect rpg'. ^_~`
_________________
"We'll go out through the kitchen!" Tanis Half-Elven

Peter Bradley

concobar · Post by **concobar** » Fri May 25, 2007 11:16 pm

anglefish wrote:
Now I've got a more flexible, light system that still can't get people to play.

Move to florida. I have had to turn half a dozen people away as I dont think I could handle more than eight players at a time.

edit to add

I really really do not like 3.x. of every game system I have ever played including traveller, merp, rifts, recon, deadlands, CDnD, ADnD1st and 2nd, Gamma world (about four editions of this one) and many others my old brain has forgotten or blocked out I can honestly say 3.x is among the very very worst.

Lurker · Post by **Lurker** » Fri May 25, 2007 11:34 pm

Quote:
Move to florida. I have had to turn half a dozen people away as I dont think I could handle more than eight players at a time.

What part of Fl? I'm headed that way & after the move & a trip across the pond I'll be looking for a group.

Quote:
edit to add

I really really do not like 3.x. of every game system I have ever played including traveller, merp, rifts, recon, deadlands, CDnD, ADnD1st and 2nd, Gamma world (about four editions of this one) and many others my old brain has forgotten or blocked out I can honestly say 3.x is among the very very worst.

I can't say it better myself! WAY to rules heavy!
_________________
"And so I am become a knight of the Kingdom of Dreams and Shadows!" - Mark Twain

Forgive all spelling errors.

Knight Errant & Humble C&C Society Contributor
C&C Society

Scurvy_Platypus · Post by **Scurvy_Platypus** » Sat May 26, 2007 2:54 am

serleran wrote:
Pre-d20 games ignored this concept of balance, in most cases, and simply said: this si what it does -- change it if you don't like it. The reverse is true, to a point, but it throws off the precious balance, making it less likely to just modify one thing. Its not "bashing" but pointing out a completely different design philosophy.

I didn't really take what you were saying as bashing. Well, except maybe the part where you say, "The sad fact is that d20 has warped the sensibility of game logic."

Treebore wrote:
Plus I wasdn't "edition warring", I was giving my opinion on why people might prefer 3E, etc... instead of C&C.

Its all about tastes/preferences. Nothing worth "warring" over.

Hmmm. I really like reading your posts and all, but it just kinda bugged me when you start talking about stuff like "maturity", the fact that it's automatically more fun if it's a simpler system, and so forth.

If you like simpler stuff, that's groovy. As a matter of fact, I'm generally right there myself. I just think it really does a diservice to slam on something like d20 when A) It's still the most popular system there is, and B) It's got plenty of stuff that's stealable for C&C. I know I'm not the only person that judges a game in part based on how its fans act. And simply slamming on d20 and talking about how you just have to be into pain in order to like it, isn't exactly going to be winning converts. It's just going to draw in the disaffected, who are already looking for a reason to jump ship anyway.

Tank wrote:
I'd agree with you that this kind of shifting and tweaking can make D&D into a more playable system, but the problem that a lot of us have found with 3.x D&D is that its fan-base is not quite as open to these sorts of house-rules as we'd like. As a frequent visitor of the WotC boards, I've seen plenty of threads that spare no four-letter words in detailing how the poster's DM does not follow "the rules" with regard to experience or treasure. Or heaven forbid, the DM doesn't want to allow some class, feat, or prestige class and is thereby denying the player his right to create a "character concept." It seems that a vocal percentage of 3.x players behave as though the ultimate authority on the rules is the sum total of all the books (and errata) and not their DM.

Serleran refers to a "different design philosophy," indicating that monsters function in a realm outside of the rules governing the players. In this same sense, C&C strives to return ultimate authority over rules adjudication to the CK and goes so far as to explicitly base rules on the CK's judgement in a certain situation.

*shrug*

I get what you're saying, but I'll disagree with you at least partially. Folks into C&C are open to houseruling, but it only goes so far. For example, a bit ago there was a thread on rpg.net about classes in C&C. Asking what the favorite and least favorite classes were, and why.

I admitted that all the classes in C&C are kinda boring to me, and mentioned an article on the WotC board that addresses that sort of thing. And a couple of fans of C&C showed up to let me know how I should just go off and play a different game if I don't like the design philosophy of C&C, instead of borrowing ideas from d20.

Just about every gaming book (not all of them true, but a vast majority of them) have a line in there that essentially says, "If something in here doesn't work for you, change it." Even the D&D books say that. But there's a large portion of players that believe that if it's in the book, it's there for a reason, and shouldn't be changed. C&C isn't somehow immune to the one-true-wayism and "RAW" crowd, it just happens to have a much smaller group of people playing it, and doesn't have 7 years worth of posts on various forums to help reinforce that sort of thing. But there certainly does seem to be an element present anyway. IMO, YMMV, and whatever other disclaimer you'd care to add.

gideon_thorne wrote:
*smiles* Funny thing about games of this nature, no matter how complex or simple the rules, someone is going to find that a system doesnt suit.

Everyone, and I mean everyone, wants 'their' thing to be published on the market and for everyone else to want to play it. Hence the success of rpgs as a social tool.

If everyone is playing the same thing, then individuals dont seem so odd in their hobby.

Hence so many debates on so many web fora about what is 'the perfect rpg'. ^_~`

Heh. I've got several "perfect" rpgs. They're all perfect in the sense that they're close to the tools that I want for different jobs, and friendly to houseruling/kit-bashing to take them the rest of the way I want to go. C&C works for me to cover a _huge_ swath of stuff.

I dunno if I'd really want to be working in the industry though. I like that I can put out (or not) stuff that I've done, and I don't really have to worry about it making anyone else happy, other than myself and my group. Given how popular my ideas are that's a good thing, as it'd be a pretty poor living I'd be making if I was hoping to get paid for it.
I know it's foolish, I just wish folks weren't so factionalized. It seems like a waste when there's so much potential awesome. I'll go back to lurking now, and take my crazy notions with me back into the sweet and placid pools of Lurkerdom.

Cheers folks.

SavageRobby · Post by **SavageRobby** » Sat May 26, 2007 2:02 pm

Scurvy_Platypus wrote:
I know it's foolish, I just wish folks weren't so factionalized.

I find this phenomenon absolutely fascinating. Even here, well meaning folks move from "I like game X" to "I don't like game Y" to "people that play game Y are inferior for Z reasons". I think most of the time people don't mean to be offensive about it, even if they are.

For me, C&C is a great middle ground. I moved from 3x to Savage Worlds a few years ago after struggling running 3x for 2 years. At first read, I really liked what 3x had to offer; the core books have some great ideas, and taking individually many of its rules and systems are really elegant - but when melded all together it just becomes over-heavy.

Savage Worlds is exactly the opposite. I love it. As a GM, its almost accounting free; very little bookwork, but still has a nice depth of gameplay. In fact, for our group its probably deeper overall than 3x, partially because of the system (I'll forever use some form of Hindrances in any game I run, and I'm working on porting SW's Hindrances to C&C even now), but a lot because, as a GM, I can focus more on the game and the story, and less on the rules.

But I don't like the SW magic system for fantasy. A lot of people do, and the powers/trappings works for them, but I like having more variety in spells, more surprises, more options, etc. Plus, I'm really looking for a more old-school feel. (It was fun moving away from HP and AC, but some part of me wants that back. I can't explain it nor really motivated to try to.) But some of the ... irregularities in AD&D still drive me bonkers. So, C&C is perfect. And I do like the SIEGE engine.

I'm not abandoning SW. I'll still use it for most games. But I'm loving C&C at the moment, and I'm going to run that for awhile. Hopefully, a long while. But I can tell you that I won't be going to be 3x as a GM ever, and hopefully as a player. It obviously works for a lot of folks, but it doesn't work for me - and not from a lack of trying.

And I'll tell you my personal feelings about game balance. Who cares? Game balance is only important in games where people are playing against each. If players are playing their characters, not gaming the system or finding ways to abuse the system (and in reverse, the GM isn't trying to kill his players), then finely tuned balance is, for the most part, immaterial.

I don't care about CR or EL or any of that. If the encounter is tough, run away. Or die. That happens. As a GM, some of my encounters might kill you, some might be terribly easy. Rarely will an encounter take down 20% of your resources (my personal pet peeve). I simply don't want to play a game where I have to worry about that.

erc1971 · Post by **erc1971** » Sat May 26, 2007 3:04 pm

serleran wrote:
You may be dealing with people who have no experience with pre-d20 games. They may also have no experience with any other game, or only pre-d20 in forms of computer games like Baldur's Gate. The sad fact is that d20 has warped the sensibility of game logic.

I was chatting with nelzie the other day (he is part of the gaming group I am in). We are both very worried about the future - all due to D&D 3-point-munchkin.

In a few years, we will go to get together a new gaming group, and everyone we talk to will say things like...

"Dude, I want to play a half-succubus, half-dragon paladin/warblade who is so cool, that when he poses to show off his muscles, a 60' fireball shoots out of his ass!" (this is 100% possible in D&D right now, such a shame - well, maybe not the half-succubus part, but the rest certainly is)

With D&D ruining the minds of RPG newcomers, us old school people are going to find it harder and harder to find sensible people to game with.

Eric

Treebore · Post by **Treebore** » Sat May 26, 2007 4:50 pm

Scurvy_Platypus wrote:
I didn't really take what you were saying as bashing. Well, except maybe the part where you say, "The sad fact is that d20 has warped the sensibility of game logic."

Hmmm. I really like reading your posts and all, but it just kinda bugged me when you start talking about stuff like "maturity", the fact that it's automatically more fun if it's a simpler system, and so forth.

If you like simpler stuff, that's groovy. As a matter of fact, I'm generally right there myself. I just think it really does a diservice to slam on something like d20 when A) It's still the most popular system there is, and B) It's got plenty of stuff that's stealable for C&C. I know I'm not the only person that judges a game in part based on how its fans act. And simply slamming on d20 and talking about how you just have to be into pain in order to like it, isn't exactly going to be winning converts. It's just going to draw in the disaffected, who are already looking for a reason to jump ship anyway.

*shrug*

I get what you're saying, but I'll disagree with you at least partially. Folks into C&C are open to houseruling, but it only goes so far. For example, a bit ago there was a thread on rpg.net about classes in C&C. Asking what the favorite and least favorite classes were, and why.

I admitted that all the classes in C&C are kinda boring to me, and mentioned an article on the WotC board that addresses that sort of thing. And a couple of fans of C&C showed up to let me know how I should just go off and play a different game if I don't like the design philosophy of C&C, instead of borrowing ideas from d20.

Just about every gaming book (not all of them true, but a vast majority of them) have a line in there that essentially says, "If something in here doesn't work for you, change it." Even the D&D books say that. But there's a large portion of players that believe that if it's in the book, it's there for a reason, and shouldn't be changed. C&C isn't somehow immune to the one-true-wayism and "RAW" crowd, it just happens to have a much smaller group of people playing it, and doesn't have 7 years worth of posts on various forums to help reinforce that sort of thing. But there certainly does seem to be an element present anyway. IMO, YMMV, and whatever other disclaimer you'd care to add.

Heh. I've got several "perfect" rpgs. They're all perfect in the sense that they're close to the tools that I want for different jobs, and friendly to houseruling/kit-bashing to take them the rest of the way I want to go. C&C works for me to cover a _huge_ swath of stuff.

I dunno if I'd really want to be working in the industry though. I like that I can put out (or not) stuff that I've done, and I don't really have to worry about it making anyone else happy, other than myself and my group. Given how popular my ideas are that's a good thing, as it'd be a pretty poor living I'd be making if I was hoping to get paid for it.
I know it's foolish, I just wish folks weren't so factionalized. It seems like a waste when there's so much potential awesome. I'll go back to lurking now, and take my crazy notions with me back into the sweet and placid pools of Lurkerdom.

Cheers folks.

Your probably right on the "maturity" issue. I use that word because that is how I look at it. 3E, to me, smacks of power gaming monty haulism, which has always been typical of younger gamers in every edition of D&D. Heck, I even like to "revert" upon occassion.

So I look at peoples fascination with "all the cool toys" 3E gives them as being comparable to younger RPG gamers who had characters who told their gods what to do.

Plus when I say "younger" I am not refering to just age, I am also using that as to how new they are to RPG's, period. I saw plenty of people in their 30's in Norfolk Virginia back in 1985 and 1986 who played seriously monte haul/powergaming characters, but had only been playing RPG's for a year or three.

Plus I also realize that there is no "rule" about how people play D&D at what stage. In 1985 and 1986 I was just starting to really get into playing. Now I may not have played characters that told their gods what to do, but we did play characters that had tons of magic items and a relic or 3.

So I use "maturity" in the context that I have seen a somewhat uniform progression of the RPG gamer as to how they like to play their game.

We typically like to have lots of toys and gizmo's early in our gaming career. Eventually we get rid of these extra toys and gizmo's (or at least get over the fixation) and go for a "simpler game" that isn't about how cool and powerful the characters inventory makes them. It becomes more about how cool the campaign was and what the character did to effect the campaign world and leave his mark in the annals of the game masters campaign history books.

So that progression is what I am referring to when I use the word "maturity" in reference to RPG's.

I also understand that this doesn't apply to everyone. There are people who "never grow up", there are people who are "more mature than their years", etc... So I realize this applies to the progression of gamer as well as how people progress through life. Not everyone fits a mold.

So I agree that people may get offended when I say "maturity", but hopefully when I explain why I use it and what meaning I have behind it, they can accept that useage. Maybe I should put my explanation of "maturity" with regards to RPG' in my sig area of my posts.

concobar · Post by **concobar** » Sat May 26, 2007 6:47 pm

Lurker wrote:
What part of Fl? I'm headed that way & after the move & a trip across the pond I'll be looking for a group.

I can't say it better myself! WAY to rules heavy!

Kissimmee area south side of Orlando. we have a number of good local game stores and an over abundance of people looking to get a game going. If you happen to be in the area check out coloseum of comics in orlando or kissimmee. there is always gaming going on there. In east orlando we have sci fi city where there are games running every weekend.

Julian Grimm · Post by **Julian Grimm** » Sat May 26, 2007 9:28 pm

I just wish people would quit using 'old school'. I like classic better and it doesn't represent a hard nosed faction of roleplayers that delight in attacking anyone who deviates from the supposed 'norm' they have set up.

Though I may be a bit disillusioned with the term since the events of the last year and a half.
_________________
The Lord of Ravens
My blog

yell0w_lantern · Post by **yell0w_lantern** » Sun May 27, 2007 2:07 pm

Personally, I never played 1st or 2nd edition of AD&D. I tried DMing OD&D once. So for me, it's not really the nostalgia of the "old school" game. Plus it isn't having carried tons of books to play 3.X - I'm an old Rifts veteran we were hauling 20 books at a time when AD&D was still 2nd edition. I've played MERP, GURPS, half of the Palladium games out there, DC Heroes, Champions, Shadowrun, Paranoia, Mech Warrior and Battlelords of the 23rd Century. And you know what? D&D 3.X is the only game system I've tried where I have felt overwhelmed by all the rule nuances - and I've got a doctoral degree!

I'm hanging on to some of my 3.X stuff like Legends of Excalibur, Legends of the Samurai and most of my Green Ronin stuff but mainly for the background information (which is top-notch). I'm also hanging on to the monster books since I can still use them with C&C but I'm not sure if I'll ever have the desire to actually play that complex a game again because it just isn't that relaxing for me.

Treebore · Post by **Treebore** » Sun May 27, 2007 6:46 pm

Very true. 3E feels the most complex and overwhelming of any rules set I have ever played. That includes GURPS and RIFT's. And Rolemaster.

Which is kind of irritating, because at its core 3E seems pretty darn simple.

Julian Grimm · Post by **Julian Grimm** » Sun May 27, 2007 7:09 pm

3e had alot of promise. It was after Peter Adkinson left that the game took a sour turn. I was quite impressed with core 3e, the class splats and the first few supplements (Dieties and Demigods, Manual of the Planes) and woth the fact they did seem to want to cover Greyhawk in teh cores in kind of a Shadowrun Sixth world way. After that the game took a nosedive and I was rather unimpressed with the results.
_________________
The Lord of Ravens
My blog

Omote · Post by **Omote** » Tue May 29, 2007 3:09 pm

erc1971 wrote:
With D&D ruining the minds of RPG newcomers, us old school people are going to find it harder and harder to find sensible people to game with.

Exactly. This mentality has even affected the "old-school" players in my group. The idea that v3.5 roleplaying is the most balanced version of the game is insane to me, and this is one of the arguments with some of my more stubborn players.
*3rd edtion blows*

.....................................................Omote

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

Jyrdan Fairblade · Post by **Jyrdan Fairblade** » Tue May 29, 2007 3:27 pm

Ugh! I hate those rules - one of the reasons why I never switched to 3.5.

Do we really need to quibble over whether a small-sized longsword is still a longsword, or is a shortsword?

As for the complexity of 3e, I don't know that it's THE most complex system I've ever played (I'd say Traveller: The New Era holds that distinction), but it's certainly one of the most complex relational systems I've played. That is to say, the problem isn't so much the complexity, but the fact that so much is linked together that it's difficult to house-rule stuff out or in without far-reaching effects.

But I think part of it is also the mentality - Core and RAW is much more of a big deal now. Prior, there were lots of little variations from group to group - we expected it to a certain degree.

Just look a Sage Advice; back in the day, I remember some really amazingly creative questions being asked, like "what would happen if you stuck a dragon in a portable hole with a dozen vorpal blades and cast Mordenkainen's Disjunction on it?"

Now all I see is "Do the effects of a ring of nosepicking stack with the sinus infection feat for a ranger?"

Dristram wrote:
Examples:

- There are no small or large versions of weapons.

Troll Lord Games

Old skool is new again

Old skool is new again

Re: Old skool is new again

Re: Old skool is new again

Re: Old skool is new again

Re: Old skool is new again

Re: Old skool is new again