I am planning on running for the first time in a bit some DnD and the DCC stuff is great as is the boxed set. In fact it is the boxed set that got me jazzed to run.
I am a huge fan of CnC and an happy with those rules but I once again feel the pull to run DnD and am looking forward to next weekend when I run. I will try and tell you guys what happened, I am planning on running the module out of the boxed set, but will be changing some things. (Not 0 level but 1st level and fully equipped, sorry just can't run them as 0-level characters)
Thanks Goodman Games for your CnC and DnD stuff!
Returnning to DnD, THANKS
Moderators: DJ LaBoss, finarvyn, Harley Stroh
-
Treebore
- Cold-Blooded Diabolist
- Posts: 419
- Joined: Tue Aug 22, 2006 6:50 pm
- Location: Elfrida, Arizona
I think you caught a bad bug. I was so burned out with 3E I don't see myself ever returning to DM it. Play? Sure. DM? Never. I have found much better things to do with the free time I now have.
I'm glad that you weren't as burned out as I was/am. The DCC's are definitely a lot of fun, no matter how you run them.
I'm glad that you weren't as burned out as I was/am. The DCC's are definitely a lot of fun, no matter how you run them.
Castles and Crusades is my game of choice!
I have to admit, 3.0 really burned me out on d20 in general. I haven't really played or run it in a while. Recently, some people from my old 3e FR campaign have mentioned wanting to play again, so I pulled out the never-really-used 3.5 books and started looking them over.
Couldn't do it.
It's just too much book-keeping and complexity for my taste. Setting up a campaign and adventures was becoming a chore, not fun. That -my good people- is a bad sign. Back in my gaming youth (the early 80's salad days of TSR), I had nothing but time for RPGs. Now with a wife and two kids, I'm lucky to have my one evening a week to play a rules light game (Savage Worlds).
I'm not bashing 3.X, it's just not something that works for me and my situation.
When & if I get to fire up another game, I hope to use my DCCs set in Mystara (or possibly the Known Realms) and run them under C&C.
(PS- Truth be told, I'd be perfectly happy running Moldvay/Cook B/X. That's one of my faves, but C&C is a good balance of rules-light and detail for me.)
Couldn't do it.
It's just too much book-keeping and complexity for my taste. Setting up a campaign and adventures was becoming a chore, not fun. That -my good people- is a bad sign. Back in my gaming youth (the early 80's salad days of TSR), I had nothing but time for RPGs. Now with a wife and two kids, I'm lucky to have my one evening a week to play a rules light game (Savage Worlds).
I'm not bashing 3.X, it's just not something that works for me and my situation.
When & if I get to fire up another game, I hope to use my DCCs set in Mystara (or possibly the Known Realms) and run them under C&C.
(PS- Truth be told, I'd be perfectly happy running Moldvay/Cook B/X. That's one of my faves, but C&C is a good balance of rules-light and detail for me.)
I am really interested in this discussion. I've barely played and haven't DM-ed since 1992, so I'm a little out of the loop. A little. Just a bit. I completely skipped 2nd Ed.
I played a handful of 3.5 games at GENCON and I've played a few computerized versions of 3.5 like Neverwinter Nights 2 (currently kicking my butt) and that is my experience with it. It's seems incredibly easier than 1st Ed. to me, so I'm really curious what you mean when you say there is too much record keeping? I'm wanting to get back up to speed and DM 3.5, so I need to know the pros/cons. I see that the feats, skills, prestige classes, etc. are certainly more complex, but it seems like you figure that stuff out once and calculate all your modifiers up front and then... you roll. The hardest part of 1st Ed. was trying to figure how to reasonably determine if someone could climb the 100' rope without falling, or could he create armor, or could he out-swim an alligator, etc. Now there is a Climb skill and the 100' climb has it's own pre-determined DC rating. The character rolls, adds his modifier and you compare to the DC of the obstacle. That seems to simplify things IMHO.
I'm now starting in a 3.5 campaign through a local game store, so I hope to learn more about the mechanics that way.
I played a handful of 3.5 games at GENCON and I've played a few computerized versions of 3.5 like Neverwinter Nights 2 (currently kicking my butt) and that is my experience with it. It's seems incredibly easier than 1st Ed. to me, so I'm really curious what you mean when you say there is too much record keeping? I'm wanting to get back up to speed and DM 3.5, so I need to know the pros/cons. I see that the feats, skills, prestige classes, etc. are certainly more complex, but it seems like you figure that stuff out once and calculate all your modifiers up front and then... you roll. The hardest part of 1st Ed. was trying to figure how to reasonably determine if someone could climb the 100' rope without falling, or could he create armor, or could he out-swim an alligator, etc. Now there is a Climb skill and the 100' climb has it's own pre-determined DC rating. The character rolls, adds his modifier and you compare to the DC of the obstacle. That seems to simplify things IMHO.
I'm now starting in a 3.5 campaign through a local game store, so I hope to learn more about the mechanics that way.
Well, like most things, it's a question of what works for you.
I've been gaming now for, oh, a long freaking time. When 3e came out, I wasn't playing or running anything regularly. d20 got me "back in the game" in a sense. It does a wonderful job of trying to balance different things so that the playing field is fairly level. From the PC classes, to the spells, to feats, to skills, to magic items and their creations, to monsters and CRs, etc. etc. The unified mechanics also makes it much simpler in many respects than some older editions of D&D and other game systems as well.
Where does the trouble begin for me? Well, that balance means a LOT of codifying things. Carefully defining a class ability, or a feat, or a spell, etc. For a player, it's fairly straightforward. Know your character and his abilities, know the game's basic mechanics, and you're off! (Of course, that's true of most RPGs).
For a DM that tries to play it by the book(s), there is a LOT of this kind of thing to keep track of. You don't have to stat out every NPC, and you can just run the monsters right from the MM, that helps. But you also need to be aware of the in-game effects for HUNDREDS of spells and feats and skills. Think you've designed the perfect murder mystery? Whoops! Speak with Dead just revealed the murderer. Set up a dandy ambush? Darn, the rogue has plowed so many points into Spot and Tumble that he's unsurprisable and nigh-unhittable. Think the monster's got them on the ropes? Think again. Turns out the one PC's template makes him immune to the creature's special attack. I'm not even going to get into the endless at-table arguments about how a given rule works.
When I DM'd 3.X, I found myself spending more time doing things like statblocks and calculating CRs than writing the adventures. That <> fun for me, and as a father of 2 with a full-time job, my free time is limited.
Now, you can tone this down a fair deal by going "Core Books Only" and watching what loot you give PCs, but here's the tricky part. As soon as you start fiddling with things like availability of magic items, you run the risk of upending the whole tea cart. Fewer magic items mean spellcasters are unbalancedly powerful. Limit spells? Now no one in their right mind will play a wizard. Sure you can tweak this that and the other until you've regained equilibrium, but at what point are you still playing the same game?
I should also mention, to be fair, a lot of the reason I spent so much time poring over this stuff was that I wanted a particular feel to my games. I wanted a game that felt real, where combat was tense and dramatic. A world where you had to think about things like "What if the Watch finds out?" In D&D 3.X, the simple fact is that unless you want to design 18th level cops tricked out to the wazoo with feats and items, then in a very short time the PCs are going to be the hottest things in town. Now in a sense they should be. They're the heroes after all. But the DMG's explanation that "There's always someone more powerful." doesn't really cut it. If a local lord isn't a 20th level paladin himself, then him having one on retainer doesn't make a whole lot of sense. Powerful wizards have better things to do than chase down snot-nose mid-level PCs who torched an inn. You can make a world where all this can fit, but it's not the kind of world I care to play or run in.
Games like C&C (and others) fit this bill for me better than 3.x. I prefer to be able to get things up & running with less fuss and prep time. I also like a system where I can make changes or adjudicate on the fly without "breaking" some other part of the game.
I hope this doesn't come across as a slam against 3.X, it's not intended as such. WOTC's D&D overall is a carefully crafted game that has given many people hours of fun. That's a good thing. I have simply found -for my games- it's not the right tool for the job. IMHO, YMMV, etc. etc.
I've been gaming now for, oh, a long freaking time. When 3e came out, I wasn't playing or running anything regularly. d20 got me "back in the game" in a sense. It does a wonderful job of trying to balance different things so that the playing field is fairly level. From the PC classes, to the spells, to feats, to skills, to magic items and their creations, to monsters and CRs, etc. etc. The unified mechanics also makes it much simpler in many respects than some older editions of D&D and other game systems as well.
Where does the trouble begin for me? Well, that balance means a LOT of codifying things. Carefully defining a class ability, or a feat, or a spell, etc. For a player, it's fairly straightforward. Know your character and his abilities, know the game's basic mechanics, and you're off! (Of course, that's true of most RPGs).
For a DM that tries to play it by the book(s), there is a LOT of this kind of thing to keep track of. You don't have to stat out every NPC, and you can just run the monsters right from the MM, that helps. But you also need to be aware of the in-game effects for HUNDREDS of spells and feats and skills. Think you've designed the perfect murder mystery? Whoops! Speak with Dead just revealed the murderer. Set up a dandy ambush? Darn, the rogue has plowed so many points into Spot and Tumble that he's unsurprisable and nigh-unhittable. Think the monster's got them on the ropes? Think again. Turns out the one PC's template makes him immune to the creature's special attack. I'm not even going to get into the endless at-table arguments about how a given rule works.
When I DM'd 3.X, I found myself spending more time doing things like statblocks and calculating CRs than writing the adventures. That <> fun for me, and as a father of 2 with a full-time job, my free time is limited.
Now, you can tone this down a fair deal by going "Core Books Only" and watching what loot you give PCs, but here's the tricky part. As soon as you start fiddling with things like availability of magic items, you run the risk of upending the whole tea cart. Fewer magic items mean spellcasters are unbalancedly powerful. Limit spells? Now no one in their right mind will play a wizard. Sure you can tweak this that and the other until you've regained equilibrium, but at what point are you still playing the same game?
I should also mention, to be fair, a lot of the reason I spent so much time poring over this stuff was that I wanted a particular feel to my games. I wanted a game that felt real, where combat was tense and dramatic. A world where you had to think about things like "What if the Watch finds out?" In D&D 3.X, the simple fact is that unless you want to design 18th level cops tricked out to the wazoo with feats and items, then in a very short time the PCs are going to be the hottest things in town. Now in a sense they should be. They're the heroes after all. But the DMG's explanation that "There's always someone more powerful." doesn't really cut it. If a local lord isn't a 20th level paladin himself, then him having one on retainer doesn't make a whole lot of sense. Powerful wizards have better things to do than chase down snot-nose mid-level PCs who torched an inn. You can make a world where all this can fit, but it's not the kind of world I care to play or run in.
Games like C&C (and others) fit this bill for me better than 3.x. I prefer to be able to get things up & running with less fuss and prep time. I also like a system where I can make changes or adjudicate on the fly without "breaking" some other part of the game.
I hope this doesn't come across as a slam against 3.X, it's not intended as such. WOTC's D&D overall is a carefully crafted game that has given many people hours of fun. That's a good thing. I have simply found -for my games- it's not the right tool for the job. IMHO, YMMV, etc. etc.
"Bighara RULES!" -Ogrepuppy
"Well, that's just genius." -GnomeBoy
"Well, that's just genius."
-GnomeBoy-
jason.richardson
- Hard-Bitten Adventurer
- Posts: 161
- Joined: Wed May 10, 2006 11:22 am
- Location: Savannah, Georgia
1e was my game for a long time. We went from the blue book (Holmes Basic) into 1e when it was released, and that was D&D to me for 20 years.jason.richardson wrote:Ditto with bighara....
Which is why everyone should be playing AD&D First Edition!
cheers,
jason
Nowadays, I actually like Moldvay/Cook Basic & Expert. Just for the freewheeling aspect of it. It's also a wonderfully concise little game.
C&C is nice because it captures a lot of that 1e feel, mixes in a little of that B/X tweakability, yet keeps the d20 unified mechanic and some character flexibility (no race/class restrictions).
"Bighara RULES!" -Ogrepuppy
"Well, that's just genius." -GnomeBoy
"Well, that's just genius."
-GnomeBoy-
jason.richardson
- Hard-Bitten Adventurer
- Posts: 161
- Joined: Wed May 10, 2006 11:22 am
- Location: Savannah, Georgia
Yeah, those are great, the Basic & Expert rules.bighara wrote:1e was my game for a long time. We went from the blue book (Holmes Basic) into 1e when it was released, and that was D&D to me for 20 years.jason.richardson wrote:Ditto with bighara....
Which is why everyone should be playing AD&D First Edition!
cheers,
jason
Nowadays, I actually like Moldvay/Cook Basic & Expert. Just for the freewheeling aspect of it. It's also a wonderfully concise little game.
C&C is nice because it captures a lot of that 1e feel, mixes in a little of that B/X tweakability, yet keeps the d20 unified mechanic and some character flexibility (no race/class restrictions).
Question: if you have the D&D Rules Cyclopedia are you playing Moldvay/Cook's version of basic D&D?
jason
I have both. I like Moldvay/ Cook because it's a more pared-down version of the game. I've mainly played it via chat & PbP, so less is more. Also, most of the "extras" in the RC (skills, new classes, etc.) are not used in my games. NTM I've rarely had a game get beyond mid-level, so the upper level stuff is irrelevant too.
That said, the RC is a sweet tome. I'll often leaf through it just because I like the look of it. I've frequently used some monsters out of the RC in my Moldvay games as well.
That said, the RC is a sweet tome. I'll often leaf through it just because I like the look of it. I've frequently used some monsters out of the RC in my Moldvay games as well.
"Bighara RULES!" -Ogrepuppy
"Well, that's just genius." -GnomeBoy
"Well, that's just genius."
-GnomeBoy-
jason.richardson
- Hard-Bitten Adventurer
- Posts: 161
- Joined: Wed May 10, 2006 11:22 am
- Location: Savannah, Georgia
My apologizes to the thread starter...sorry to go off topic, but..bighara wrote:I have both. I like Moldvay/ Cook because it's a more pared-down version of the game. I've mainly played it via chat & PbP, so less is more. Also, most of the "extras" in the RC (skills, new classes, etc.) are not used in my games. NTM I've rarely had a game get beyond mid-level, so the upper level stuff is irrelevant too.
That said, the RC is a sweet tome. I'll often leaf through it just because I like the look of it. I've frequently used some monsters out of the RC in my Moldvay games as well.
bighara, what are your thoughts on this basic fantasy game:
http://www.basicfantasy.org/
-
Treebore
- Cold-Blooded Diabolist
- Posts: 419
- Joined: Tue Aug 22, 2006 6:50 pm
- Location: Elfrida, Arizona
I liked basic fantasy enough to have the pdf on my computer, and I'll read through it now and again for inspiration on how to tweak things in my C&C game. I do the same with Fudge/Fate and a couple of others.
They are actually all good, solid, simple systems, and I would be willing to play with them, it just that C&C "unifies" all editions of D&D, making it much easier for me to use 1E and 2E material, and even 3E and OD&D. Plus I have taken a serious liking to the SIEGE system of C&C. Very flexible.
So being able to easily use all of my D&D books that I want to, plus the SIEGE system, keeps C&C my system of choice.
If I only had 1E or OD&D I may have just went/stayed with those, but I have a TON of every edition of D&D, so it is extremely nice to have one simpler, yet incredibly flexible system, to use everything with. Nothing will sit for years/decades collecting dust anymore, unless I simply don't like it.
They are actually all good, solid, simple systems, and I would be willing to play with them, it just that C&C "unifies" all editions of D&D, making it much easier for me to use 1E and 2E material, and even 3E and OD&D. Plus I have taken a serious liking to the SIEGE system of C&C. Very flexible.
So being able to easily use all of my D&D books that I want to, plus the SIEGE system, keeps C&C my system of choice.
If I only had 1E or OD&D I may have just went/stayed with those, but I have a TON of every edition of D&D, so it is extremely nice to have one simpler, yet incredibly flexible system, to use everything with. Nothing will sit for years/decades collecting dust anymore, unless I simply don't like it.
Castles and Crusades is my game of choice!
-
CharlieRock
- Deft-Handed Cutpurse
- Posts: 262
- Joined: Tue Oct 31, 2006 1:39 am
- Location: Missouri
I would like to try C&C. But, at my local game store it sells out so quickly. There are usually only a few adventure modules whenever I get down there. I'm liking D&D3.x, but it is a totally different game. Different isn't necessarily bad. I played OD&D (pre-1ed. ?) for more than twenty years now. It still rocks as an adventure RPG. 
P.S. The older OD&D style seems easier for my newest team members to learn ,too.
P.S. The older OD&D style seems easier for my newest team members to learn ,too.
Well, since this is a Goodman Games forum, it's only fair to point out that the DCC modules convert VERY easily to CnC.CharlieRock wrote:I would like to try C&C. But, at my local game store it sells out so quickly. There are usually only a few adventure modules whenever I get down there. I'm liking D&D3.x, but it is a totally different game. Different isn't necessarily bad. I played OD&D (pre-1ed. ?) for more than twenty years now. It still rocks as an adventure RPG.
P.S. The older OD&D style seems easier for my newest team members to learn ,too.
"Bighara RULES!" -Ogrepuppy
"Well, that's just genius." -GnomeBoy
"Well, that's just genius."
-GnomeBoy-
gideon_thorne
- Far-Sighted Wanderer
- Posts: 33
- Joined: Fri Aug 12, 2005 5:11 pm
- Contact:
Might be just as quick to order direct from TLG?CharlieRock wrote:I would like to try C&C. But, at my local game store it sells out so quickly. There are usually only a few adventure modules whenever I get down there. I'm liking D&D3.x, but it is a totally different game. Different isn't necessarily bad. I played OD&D (pre-1ed. ?) for more than twenty years now. It still rocks as an adventure RPG.
P.S. The older OD&D style seems easier for my newest team members to learn ,too.
Although it is nice to hear that it sells out fast in your local shop.
Peter B
Castles & Crusades and Lejendary Adventure Artist
Castles & Crusades and Lejendary Adventure Artist
-
James Mishler
- Wild-Eyed Zealot
- Posts: 74
- Joined: Sat Oct 21, 2006 7:30 am
- Location: Appleton, Wisconsin
- Contact:
He could special order it from his retailer... if there's a strong C&C community developing, it will help everyone if the retailer benefits from the sale.gideon_thorne wrote:Might be just as quick to order direct from TLG?
Although it is nice to hear that it sells out fast in your local shop.
I'm sure his retailer could also special order the Goodman Games Castles & Crusades modules...
James Mishler
Personal Gameblog: http://adventuresingaming2.blogspot.com
Personal Gameblog: http://adventuresingaming2.blogspot.com
-
goodmangames
- Cold-Hearted Immortal
- Posts: 2703
- Joined: Sun Dec 01, 2002 12:41 pm
- Location: San Jose, CA
-
Treebore
- Cold-Blooded Diabolist
- Posts: 419
- Joined: Tue Aug 22, 2006 6:50 pm
- Location: Elfrida, Arizona
Note to anyone reading this, when I moved here to AZ my LGS wasn't stocking C&C or DCC's worth a darn.
I e-mailed Joe and the Trolls and now my LGS is stocking both, except the Troll and Goodman C&C modules. He still makes me special order those, so I just order straight from Joe and the Trolls when those come out.
But the DCC's are being stocked. When he found out I had bought DCC 35 at GenCon he asked me about it, to the point where I wrote up a review (copying and pasting some posts by others) and he said he got almost a dozen on pre-order because of it. Since he posted it on his "message board" (that cork board so many LGS's have) and many saw it or had it pointed out to them.
Anyways, with some simple efforts you can increase sales of your favorite companies, and get more people interested in gaming with you. A win/win deal.
I e-mailed Joe and the Trolls and now my LGS is stocking both, except the Troll and Goodman C&C modules. He still makes me special order those, so I just order straight from Joe and the Trolls when those come out.
But the DCC's are being stocked. When he found out I had bought DCC 35 at GenCon he asked me about it, to the point where I wrote up a review (copying and pasting some posts by others) and he said he got almost a dozen on pre-order because of it. Since he posted it on his "message board" (that cork board so many LGS's have) and many saw it or had it pointed out to them.
Anyways, with some simple efforts you can increase sales of your favorite companies, and get more people interested in gaming with you. A win/win deal.
Castles and Crusades is my game of choice!
This is good point, I have 4 DCCs placed in the C&C campaign I just kicked off. I've already place the hook for Sunless Garden in the first night.bighara wrote:Well, since this is a Goodman Games forum, it's only fair to point out that the DCC modules convert VERY easily to CnC.CharlieRock wrote:I would like to try C&C. But, at my local game store it sells out so quickly. There are usually only a few adventure modules whenever I get down there. I'm liking D&D3.x, but it is a totally different game. Different isn't necessarily bad. I played OD&D (pre-1ed. ?) for more than twenty years now. It still rocks as an adventure RPG.
P.S. The older OD&D style seems easier for my newest team members to learn ,too.
Never throw rocks at a man with a Vorpal Sword
-
CharlieRock
- Deft-Handed Cutpurse
- Posts: 262
- Joined: Tue Oct 31, 2006 1:39 am
- Location: Missouri
Okay. PM? or Email? Guess I'll emial it .. easiergoodmangames wrote:CharlieRock,
Please give me the details of your local retailer (either via posting here or an email). I'll talk to Steve and we'll see what we can do to get them stocking the C&C product line more regularly.
Thanks,
Joseph
(should see it under Goodmangames@mindspring.com 1121 CST 11/14/06)
Thanks, again.