Its been mentioned many times that Castles & Crusades is a modern RPG with an old school feel. "Modern" also seems to be linked to d20 systems. I know its good marketing to say something is modern and progressive and all that, but what does it really mean in practice? Other than slicker graphics and writing, and the attempt at more standardized rules by the WoTC folks, I don't see what is supposed to be modern about "modern games". I mean even using a d20 or percentile dice goes back to the early days. So what makes Castles & Crusades or any other RPG modern and how does one tell a modern game from an antiquated one?
_________________
We thought we were crazy, but we had a great time. - Dave Arneson
Modern RPG
-
DangerDwarf
- Maukling
- Posts: 5284
- Joined: Sat May 27, 2006 7:00 am
- Location: East Texas
Re: Modern RPG
Aldarron wrote:
So what makes Castles & Crusades or any other RPG modern and how does one tell a modern game from an antiquated one?
The presence of current and official product support.
-
Coleston the Cavalier
- Unkbartig
- Posts: 880
- Joined: Mon May 01, 2006 7:00 am
- Location: Herrin, IL
- Contact:
*Huge Stereotypes Follow!*
I'm certainly not expert on such things, but I think one of the common differences between "Old-school" and "new school" gaming goes something like this:
In Old-School gaming, the characters have very few abilities/powers and a great deal is left up to the player to figure out what to do and how their character is going to do it. The game system itself usually only has a few, clearly defined mechanics set up to determine the success or failure of the characters, so much is left open to the mechanics and/or interpretation of the Game Master. This is "Role-playing" in an Old-School sense.
In "New School" gaming, characters tend to be very powerful with many abilities/powers and most the gaming revolves around using the many existing system mechanics to determine the success and failure of the characters. This is "Roll-playing" in a new school sense.
But for me, I find C&C is a perfect mix of both - you can role-play as you want and the Siege Engine provides a simple, universal mechanic that can be used to determine success or failure in all kinds of situations.
But if you would rather let the dice direct much more of the game, one can also use the Siege Engine a great deal.
Anyway, that's just the simple way I see it.
_________________
John Adams
I'm certainly not expert on such things, but I think one of the common differences between "Old-school" and "new school" gaming goes something like this:
In Old-School gaming, the characters have very few abilities/powers and a great deal is left up to the player to figure out what to do and how their character is going to do it. The game system itself usually only has a few, clearly defined mechanics set up to determine the success or failure of the characters, so much is left open to the mechanics and/or interpretation of the Game Master. This is "Role-playing" in an Old-School sense.
In "New School" gaming, characters tend to be very powerful with many abilities/powers and most the gaming revolves around using the many existing system mechanics to determine the success and failure of the characters. This is "Roll-playing" in a new school sense.
But for me, I find C&C is a perfect mix of both - you can role-play as you want and the Siege Engine provides a simple, universal mechanic that can be used to determine success or failure in all kinds of situations.
But if you would rather let the dice direct much more of the game, one can also use the Siege Engine a great deal.
Anyway, that's just the simple way I see it.
_________________
John Adams
Coleston pretty much hit it... Though I'd point out that "Universal Systems" are Old School as well. Pacesetter's line of games (Chill, Star Ace, etc.) all had a "Universal Table" that performed much the same thing as the Siege Engine; though on a chart rather than intuitively.
Put simply, Old School relied on the GM while New School seems to mistrust the GM because he can't do "it" RIGHT (whatever that means)...
_________________
Always remember, as a first principle of all D&D: playing BtB is not now, never was and never will be old school.- Tim Kask, Dragonsfoot
Put simply, Old School relied on the GM while New School seems to mistrust the GM because he can't do "it" RIGHT (whatever that means)...
_________________
Always remember, as a first principle of all D&D: playing BtB is not now, never was and never will be old school.- Tim Kask, Dragonsfoot
I think it was defined in the WOTC/D&D world, or at least I believe they coined the phrase. I think its defining element is an ascending AC. I don't see anything modern about them. Every single thing I have seen in "modern" games I have seen over the last 20+ years, just in different combinations or formats or both. So in my opinion claims of being "Modern" are largely false claims to promote their advertising.
Only C&C's SIEGE system is truly different than anything I have personally seen. Since I have checked out very few RPG's over the years (Probably less than 2 dozen) the SIEGE engine may have a close cousin, but I didn't see it.
So by my standards C&C is the only game that can claim being "modern" because they are the only ones to create something that is completely new to me, and to be sleek, flexible, adaptable, like a new and "modern" car.
Then again I thought "Aces and Eights" was pretty new and original, but others have told me that at least the "Shot Clock" has been done before.
So "modern" in my opinion, is in the eye of the beholder. If its new and original to you, then you probably consider it "modern". If its things you have seen before, just repackaged in a new way to make it appear "original", then its not modern.
_________________
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
Only C&C's SIEGE system is truly different than anything I have personally seen. Since I have checked out very few RPG's over the years (Probably less than 2 dozen) the SIEGE engine may have a close cousin, but I didn't see it.
So by my standards C&C is the only game that can claim being "modern" because they are the only ones to create something that is completely new to me, and to be sleek, flexible, adaptable, like a new and "modern" car.
Then again I thought "Aces and Eights" was pretty new and original, but others have told me that at least the "Shot Clock" has been done before.
So "modern" in my opinion, is in the eye of the beholder. If its new and original to you, then you probably consider it "modern". If its things you have seen before, just repackaged in a new way to make it appear "original", then its not modern.
_________________
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
Since its 20,000 I suggest "Captain Nemo" as his title. Beyond the obvious connection, he is one who sails on his own terms and ignores those he doesn't agree with...confident in his journey and goals.
Sounds obvious to me! -Gm Michael
Grand Knight Commander of the Society.
Sounds obvious to me! -Gm Michael
Grand Knight Commander of the Society.
To me, and I'm FAR from an expert:
Old school vs 'new' school tends to refer to how complete a rules set it -- 'New' implies a system where the rules cover most anything that could be done, while 'old' school leaves more to the game master.
Of course, by this definition, AD&D is at least close to 'new' school (no feats, but lots of rules....), while Basic or Original D&D would be 'Old' school. 3.x is new school, C&C old school.
When I think of 'Modern' rulesets, such as C&C, I think of more streamlined & consistent rulesets. Fewer lookup tables, consistent rules such as SIEGE to handle items not in the rules, higher values tends to be better, no to hit AC 0, ....
So, while AD&D might be 'new' school in terms of the number of rules, not 'modern' by this definitions. And I'm sure that the AD&D folks are lining up to lynch me for saying it is 'new' school....
Maybe 'new' school requires a bunch of feats or something....
Of course, I'm sure all the above are gross oversimplifications, and as as said, I'm far from an expert....
Old school vs 'new' school tends to refer to how complete a rules set it -- 'New' implies a system where the rules cover most anything that could be done, while 'old' school leaves more to the game master.
Of course, by this definition, AD&D is at least close to 'new' school (no feats, but lots of rules....), while Basic or Original D&D would be 'Old' school. 3.x is new school, C&C old school.
When I think of 'Modern' rulesets, such as C&C, I think of more streamlined & consistent rulesets. Fewer lookup tables, consistent rules such as SIEGE to handle items not in the rules, higher values tends to be better, no to hit AC 0, ....
So, while AD&D might be 'new' school in terms of the number of rules, not 'modern' by this definitions. And I'm sure that the AD&D folks are lining up to lynch me for saying it is 'new' school....
Maybe 'new' school requires a bunch of feats or something....
Of course, I'm sure all the above are gross oversimplifications, and as as said, I'm far from an expert....
Old School - Old Bastages who forgot that they mostly teamed up with a Paladin and a Necro to steal everything not nailed down and Role/Roll played kicking goblins in the teeth with a plated boot. If'N it aint got da rules in one thin(least the players ones) book it aint gonna get played.
New School- Young Snappers who do not care/realize that Grandpa has been doing the same stuff for the last thirty years. They look at the huge thick 10,000 rules and grin thinking of all the powers and skills they can now use to team up with the Pally and Necrodude and kick Goblins in the Teeth.
Old School/New School its all still just teaming up with friends and kicking Goblins in the Teeth.
_________________
Baron Golden, Knights of the Tin Palace (GameOgre)
Subscriber to Crusader Magazine!
http://www.cncsociety.org
New School- Young Snappers who do not care/realize that Grandpa has been doing the same stuff for the last thirty years. They look at the huge thick 10,000 rules and grin thinking of all the powers and skills they can now use to team up with the Pally and Necrodude and kick Goblins in the Teeth.
Old School/New School its all still just teaming up with friends and kicking Goblins in the Teeth.
_________________
Baron Golden, Knights of the Tin Palace (GameOgre)
Subscriber to Crusader Magazine!
http://www.cncsociety.org
-
DangerDwarf
- Maukling
- Posts: 5284
- Joined: Sat May 27, 2006 7:00 am
- Location: East Texas
Treebore wrote:
I think it was defined in the WOTC/D&D world, or at least I believe they coined the phrase. I think its defining element is an ascending AC. I don't see anything modern about them. Every single thing I have seen in "modern" games I have seen over the last 20+ years, just in different combinations or formats or both. So in my opinion claims of being "Modern" are largely false claims to promote their advertising.
Only C&C's SIEGE system is truly different than anything I have personally seen. Since I have checked out very few RPG's over the years (Probably less than 2 dozen) the SIEGE engine may have a close cousin, but I didn't see it.
So by my standards C&C is the only game that can claim being "modern" because they are the only ones to create something that is completely new to me, and to be sleek, flexible, adaptable, like a new and "modern" car.
Then again I thought "Aces and Eights" was pretty new and original, but others have told me that at least the "Shot Clock" has been done before.
So "modern" in my opinion, is in the eye of the beholder. If its new and original to you, then you probably consider it "modern". If its things you have seen before, just repackaged in a new way to make it appear "original", then its not modern.
Actually, it was the SIEGE system that really sold me on C&C. I started off with the Moldvay basic and it always seemed to me that the ability stats were meant to be very important. I thought all would be revealed in 1e but that wasn't quite so, all the stats seemed to do was give a character a couple modifyers here and there. In the mid 80's I was given a copy of Holmes basic and in the sample adventure there are NPC's who are listed with complete ability stats and not much else. That made me think that originally the stats must have been a lot more relevant to the play of the game. The SIEGE engine is very good way to actually make those stats matter. In a sense, I see the SEIGE engine as being a very "old school" mechanic, or perhaps a modern reworking of an old system.
_________________
We thought we were crazy, but we had a great time. - Dave Arneson
-
Lord Dynel
- Maukling
- Posts: 5843
- Joined: Tue Jun 17, 2008 7:00 am
I think the shift from the "DM/GM/CK is the center of the universe" and all things go through him/her to "the players are the center of the universe" and without them there is no game/empowering the player is part to do with it. That is a strong theme with the arrival of 3rd Edition and d20. That's what it seems to me.
_________________
LD's C&C creations - the witch, a half-ogre, skill and 0-level rules
_________________
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.
LD's C&C creations - CL Checker, a witch class, the half-ogre, skills, and 0-level rules
Troll Lord wrote:Lord D: you understand where I"m coming from.
-
CharlieRock
- Lore Drake
- Posts: 1946
- Joined: Sun Sep 24, 2006 7:00 am
Re: Modern RPG
DangerDwarf wrote:
The presence of current and official product support.
eyup
_________________
The Rock says ...
Know your roll!
-
ghostSmacker
- Skobbit
- Posts: 15
- Joined: Thu Feb 12, 2009 8:00 am
I think in the past many RPG's were highly derivative of what had gone before or merely iterative with cosmetic or quirky 'improvements'. Fan bases tended to be fanatical and prone to canonical extremism, and designers tended to be over cautious in changing anything even when systems were fundamentally flawed.
I think the concept of a 'modern' RPG is valid and I can see fundamental differences in the products I buy today compared to those of yesteryear.
I think modern designers are more willing to take a step back and re-evaluate what worked and what didn't, and look at the overall game experience as a whole, and change content and mechanics accordingly, especially as the demography of the hobby changes.
It doesn't necessarily mean they get it right, but I think there has been a shift in design approach/school/camp/philosophy that dictates what will ultimately end up in the rules beyond what fans expect and what was there historically.
The intro to the PHB makes it clear that there was a specific design goal in mind for C&C, and that goal wasn't simply mimicking the halcyon days of the 70's and 80's. The fact that AC and hit points fitted the intended goal of a fun, flexible, rules light game doesn't detract from the modern approach the designers took, nor automatically dictate that the system is 'old school'.
I think the concept of a 'modern' RPG is valid and I can see fundamental differences in the products I buy today compared to those of yesteryear.
I think modern designers are more willing to take a step back and re-evaluate what worked and what didn't, and look at the overall game experience as a whole, and change content and mechanics accordingly, especially as the demography of the hobby changes.
It doesn't necessarily mean they get it right, but I think there has been a shift in design approach/school/camp/philosophy that dictates what will ultimately end up in the rules beyond what fans expect and what was there historically.
The intro to the PHB makes it clear that there was a specific design goal in mind for C&C, and that goal wasn't simply mimicking the halcyon days of the 70's and 80's. The fact that AC and hit points fitted the intended goal of a fun, flexible, rules light game doesn't detract from the modern approach the designers took, nor automatically dictate that the system is 'old school'.