Trading in OSRIC and S&W for C&C

[Treebore]

I simply don't like 4E enough to recommend it to people with RPG tastes similar to mine. If they like using mini's, if they seem to like having every possible thing their PC can do well defined for them, then I'll recommend 4E, its a good game for people who like that.

Personally I like simple, I like the broad horizons of personal choice, I like not having to worry about precisely how many 5 foot squares I can and cannot move, I like not having to chose between 40 different powers to have by 10th level, no matter what class I play. 4E is simple way too complicated for what I want out of an RPG, its also why I quit 3E.

I have fully re embraced the RPG philosophy of "simple and gets the job done."

Now that does not mean I will not play complex games, or even run them, but it does mean most of the time I will only be involved in games I consider "simple", and occasionally I'll run or play something complex, like Aces and Eights, Shadowrun, L5R, Mutants and Masterminds, etc... but even then 4E would still be very low on my list, but not completely off of it.

Does that mean I hate 4E? Nope, but people certainly seem to want to interpret it that way. 4E is simply way down on my list of games I am willing and eager to play, let alone run. It certainly isn't on my list of "never play again". In fact, I cannot currently think of any RPG I have played before I would never play again, especially short term. For long term games, yeah, there are games I would not sign on for.
_________________
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

[concobar]

Treebore wrote:
I have fully re embraced the RPG philosophy of "simple and gets the job done."

we can agree on this.

[Naleax]

Treebore wrote:
I hope you signed up for my C&C game at Random Con in Phoenix next month!

I'm sorry Treebore, I did not. I'm blaming the wife, she is going to an old friends wedding and I'll be entertaining our two year old son that weekend.

ThrorII wrote:
Naelex, I'm really, really, really glad to know we're going C&C. OSRIC was a fun exploration, but after running our game for nearly a year in C&C, I am dying to actually play it.

You'll find game prep and in-game rulings a breeze.

That's what i love about C&C that i loved about older editions of D&D. Creating custom stuff was easy and something could be inserted into the game with the minimal of effort.

Orpheus wrote:
I planned on picking up a copy of S&W and try it out when he's five or six (he's two-and-a-half and he can already count to twenty, so....), but I really think that C&C would be perfect for that age. Also, the modularity of the system would allow me to throw in more and more complexity, to a point, if I feel that he's ready.

S&W is a great game because of it's simplicity and leaving most rulings to the DM, but so is C&C. If C&C basic comes out then that would be my first choice for introducing new players to fantasy roleplaying.

concobar wrote:
I think I may be the only 4E advocate on the boards which is odd since I play LL pretty much to the exclusion of all other systems of late. Of the games mentioned by the OP I will agree that C&C is superior to S&W or Osric/AD&D but I have a sort of soft spot for the old B/E version of D&D and LL captures that completely.

I guess what I am saying is LL is not necessarily better rules wise than C&C but it does have the advantage of appealing to my nostalgia and that is a powerful thing.

LL is an awesome game, B/X D&D is what i started with and LL captures it nicely. I especially like the Advanced Edition Companion, which broadens that game considerably.

I played 4E at GenCon 2008 RPGA open tournament. It was a blast but very very cumbersome, of the four five people at the table we kept forgetting abilities. It reminded me of playing battletech. It seemed to me that it was geared heavily towards a miniature tactical game than a roleplaying game. We had 3 or four encounters in 4 hours of play. I would play it again but not as a roleplaying game. More as a miniature combat game. When you only have four hours to play every other week i want to spend a good deal of that time roleplaying some and not running through encounters.

concobar wrote:
we can agree on this.

Amen to that brothers!

[Lucifer_Draconus]

[quote="Naleax"][quote="Treebore"]

I played 4E at GenCon 2008 RPGA open tournament. It was a blast but very very cumbersome, of the four five people at the table we kept forgetting abilities. It reminded me of playing battletech. It seemed to me that it was geared heavily towards a miniature tactical game than a roleplaying game. We had 3 or four encounters in 4 hours of play. I would play it again but not as a roleplaying game. More as a miniature combat game. When you only have four hours to play every other week i want to spend a good deal of that time roleplaying some and not running through encounters.

[quote="concobar"][quote="Treebore"]

My brother loves 4e for this reason. He loves miniture games like Warmachine & Malifaux. He believes 4e gives him more options than even 3.5..I don't see it myself.

I like C&C, like many of the others have stated. I can port anything from other editions I want with little tweaking if I want to do so. But it's not necessary. But if I want all the extra options I'll gladly play Rolemaster2 instead.
_________________
Let me wet my blade with your blood.

RIP Gary Gygax you will be missed.

[Orpheus]

I played 4E at GenCon 2008 RPGA open tournament. It was a blast but very very cumbersome, of the four five people at the table we kept forgetting abilities. It reminded me of playing battletech. It seemed to me that it was geared heavily towards a miniature tactical game than a roleplaying game. We had 3 or four encounters in 4 hours of play. I would play it again but not as a roleplaying game. More as a miniature combat game. When you only have four hours to play every other week i want to spend a good deal of that time roleplaying some and not running through encounters.

Treebore wrote:
My brother loves 4e for this reason. He loves miniture games like Warmachine & Malifaux. He believes 4e gives him more options than even 3.5..I don't see it myself.

I like C&C, like many of the others have stated. I can port anything from other editions I want with little tweaking if I want to do so. But it's not necessary. But if I want all the extra options I'll gladly play Rolemaster2 instead.

Well, I would be just fine if 4th Edition had been engineered without miniatures in mind. In fact, in our last session I ran a few encounters without instantly whipping out the battlemat, just so the guys wouldn't go immediately into "combat" mode. It worked fairly well and kept them from seeing the grid and then rolling initiative preparing to "Clear Castle Caldwell."

The ting that I found attractive about 4E were the powers. I like the fact that I can vary the strength of my attacks and not just roll-to-hit. If there were a lighter version of 4E (although, I do think that it is fairly light, as is), I would be all for it. Something kind of like a C&C version of 4E.

The mini's are cool, but not a big draw for me.

In the end, I do find much more enjoyment in running C&C, but I was pretty happy with 4E as a system.

The adventures, for the most part, suck huge amounts of ass though.

[smathis]

Orpheus wrote:
If there were a lighter version of 4E (although, I do think that it is fairly light, as is), I would be all for it. Something kind of like a C&C version of 4E.

I'm in the same boat. There are a number of things I like about 4e. I think the designers made some significant improvements to 3e (which I didn't like at all).

But after a year plus running/playing 4e and trying to mod it to suit my tastes, I realized that it would just be easier to port what I like about 4e over to C&C than vice-versa. Which is what I was trying to do.

There's a lot I like about 4e. But there's a lot I don't. And I agree with others who've said it feels more like a tacminis game. I think it does. Which is fine. But I have to be in a different mindset to play a tacmini game than an rpg.

Frex... our current 4e group pretty much cycles through the following routine: DM draws a map, we have an encounter, DM draws a map, we have an encounter. You could probably fit the total amount of non-tactical encounter play we've done in the last year into one three-hour session.

So a couple of sessions ago, the DM draws this map. Has the opponents in position and then tells us that these are bandits and they want us to pay them money to pass. Being a bit of an old-schooler myself, I ask "How much?" The DM (of the new-school persuasion) didn't see this coming and blurts out "100 gold". Which I then happily pay. Because I had over 100 gp at my disposal. And that exchange was the entire extent of roleplaying for that 5 hour session.

And there were actually players who were not only surprised at my actions but frustrated because we didn't get to fight that encounter.

Pretty much, I decided that what this 4e stuff does isn't the same as what I've been doing since 1981. 4e can be fun. I still play it regularly. But I'm not interested in running it (anymore). And I'm not interested in trying to make it do something it's not designed to do -- which in my opinion, includes immersive roleplaying.

[Joe]

We could role play a game of Battleship if we tried hard enough.

That still does not make Battleship a role playing game.
_________________
'Nosce te Ipsum' -Delphic Maxim

'Follow your bliss.' -Joseph Campbell

[Frost]

Orpheus wrote:
Then you will definitely want to play C&C as opposed to OSRIC/AD&D, as all of those subsystems and the descending armor class just gets even more confusing, beer after beer.

C&C: The RPG for Drunks.

Or The PBRPG?

"PBRPG."
_________________
Lord Frost

Baron of the Pitt
Castles & Crusades Society
The Dungeoneering Dad

[Orpheus]

Joe wrote:
We could role play a game of Battleship if we tried hard enough.

That still does not make Battleship a role playing game.

Well, why not?

[ThrorII]

Joe wrote:
We could role play a game of Battleship if we tried hard enough.

That still does not make Battleship a role playing game.

Player 1: "Arg, Matey, batten down thar hatches and let fly the cannons...B4"

Player 2: "Blast, ya bilge rat, ya hit me broadside"

[zacharythefirst]

I just mentioned this as part of a similar conversation on another message board:

One of the really nice things about C&C, S&W, LL, the AEC, and all the rest--the fact that they are largely compatible or easy to convert. That means I can run Castles & Crusades, you run Swords & Wizardry, your cousin runs Labyrinth Lord, and our buddy runs a homebrew mix utilizing bits from all of the and the Rules Cyclopedia, and we can still talk shop pretty easily.
_________________
RPG Blog 2: Gamer resources, news, reviews, and commentary, from the Old School to Small Press. Updated regularly!

[CharlieRock]

Hi, and welcome to the Crusade!
_________________
The Rock says ...

Know your roll!