Osric vs Castles & Crusades

[Goblin Girl]

I don't know much about either of these game systems. Anyone care to give me the Cliff Notes version? Which one is best? Why do you think so?

[Dacke]

I'm not an expert in either, but as far as I can tell OSRIC is pretty much a repackaging of 1e AD&D, whereas C&C is a simplified version of d20 that's inspired by 1e and Basic.

[doc]

You wouldn't like C&C, a couple of Arkansas rednecks created it and thier based in Little Rock.

[Goblin Girl]

So has anyone around here played C&C?

[Harry]

It's what we play in our regular campaign. I've come to prefer it over 3.x, very much so. It is what Third Edition should have been in the first place. It is the logical evolution of 1st.

hth

[The Winslow]

I'm really familiar with neither, but C&C looks better designed to me. OSRIC's biggest appeal is nostalgia, not its intrinsic qualities.

[Goblin Girl]

I'm really familiar with neither, but C&C looks better designed to me. OSRIC's biggest appeal is nostalgia, not its intrinsic qualities.

Thanks. I glanced at C&C briefly at GenCon a few years ago, but all I really remember is that each class had a different XP table for advancement as with 2e. That doesn't thrill me, honestly. But I'm thinking that if the combat system is more streamlined, then it might be worth a closer look. I've downloaded the quick start rules, but there isn't really enough info there to go by, and I'm unwilling to buy it sight unseen, so I was hoping someone could fill me in.

I tried wading through the reviews at ENW, but lordy those are verbose people! I think they're all Robert Jordan wannabes.

[Dacke]

I tried wading through the reviews at ENW, but lordy those are verbose people! I think they're all Gary Gygax wannabes.
FIFY.

[Harry]

...all I really remember is that each class had a different XP table for advancement as with 2e. That doesn't thrill me, honestly.

It's not that big a deal at the table. The classes are unbalanced, and that's the way it should be, instead of twisting everything every which way to try and make them equal. The varied level requirements fixes it nicely, and while I have a few nits to pick about the way they range, it's not a big deal. C&C is old school in the fashion I'm used to from high school - it should take a character quite some time to level up, and it makes every bit of XP count.

[cnath.rm]

It's not that big a deal at the table. The classes are unbalanced, and that's the way it should be, instead of twisting everything every which way to try and make them equal. The varied level requirements fixes it nicely, and while I have a few nits to pick about the way they range, it's not a big deal. C&C is old school in the fashion I'm used to from high school - it should take a character quite some time to level up, and it makes every bit of XP count.I'm sure that it's going to piss Nadazdy off, but I'll ask anyway. Are there books or websites with conversions of the demons/devils for C&C?

[Harry]

Straight from the horse's mouth:

Actually, only a few of the OAD&D demons aren't available for general use, as they are names taken straight out of mythology. As to where the demons are... the Trolls didn't want them in the book. Demons (and devils) will be in a book of their own, to actually give them the write-ups they deserve, rather than a scant 2-3 pages. Also, demons tend to be high-level game material... something C&C supports, but after years of play, so they aren't really "iconic" foes for the starting player; they are for the experienced ones, but C&C is not "just for those with years of gaming." Its actually designed for new players.

And the upcoming monster books:

Monsters and Treasure II
Gods and Demons
Monster of Airdhe
Monsters of Inzae
1001 Monsters

When? No idea.

LINK (http://www.freeyabb.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?mforum=trolllordgames&t=3294&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=0&mforum=trolllordgames)

[cnath.rm]

Thanks for the info. :( I'd been hoping to convert some of the NecromancerGames stuff over without doing more then just plugging one monster in where the other had been before. Oh well, such is life.

[obryn]

I picked up C&C about a year ago during TLG's $10 sale, and frankly wasn't impressed with it. A friend of mine spilled coffee on one of the books while he was reading through it, but otherwise they're in good shape.

I'd be happy to just give my books to you, free of charge. :) I have the Player's Handbook and Monsters & Treasure. (The core books, AFAIK.) I thought I'd enjoy looking through them and maybe running it, but frankly the game didn't do anything for me. Hopefully you'll like it better. :)

Shoot me an email at dwarf74 at gmail if you're interested!

-O

[Goblin Girl]

I picked up C&C about a year ago during TLG's $10 sale, and frankly wasn't impressed with it. A friend of mine spilled coffee on one of the books while he was reading through it, but otherwise they're in good shape.

I'd be happy to just give my books to you, free of charge. :) I have the Player's Handbook and Monsters & Treasure. (The core books, AFAIK.) I thought I'd enjoy looking through them and maybe running it, but frankly the game didn't do anything for me. Hopefully you'll like it better. :)

Shoot me an email at dwarf74 at gmail if you're interested!

-O
Wow, thanks O! Email incoming. Izzy will be happy too, because he would rather spend the money on something other than more gaming books, I think. (We're saving up for an xbox 360 and Rock Band!)

[obryn]

Wow, thanks O! Email incoming. Izzy will be happy too, because he would rather spend the money on something other than more gaming books, I think. (We're saving up for an xbox 360 and Rock Band!)
Happy to help. :)

I'll try to get them in the mail within the next few days.

-O

[King Vyper]

Another vote here for C&C. Great Game. I had a short lived Norse Campaign I created using the C&C. Many of the people and writers for C&C are friends of mine from the DF Forums.

[Ancalagon]

From those descriptions, it's like hackmaster?

Ancalagon

[Harry]

From those descriptions, it's like hackmaster?

Ancalagon

No. Hackmaster is 1st Edition with all its warts and foibles and annoyances, even disregarding the scatological aspect. C&C is a cleaned up, streamlined version, almost a D20 lite. Completely different game mechanic from any version of D&D, but most everything from 1st and 2nd Editions converts with almost no pain, in no time at all. We recently ran Keep on the Borderlands, and the DM mostly just eyeballed the stats for the monsters and NPCs.

That's not to say that Hackmaster doesn't mesh well with C&C. It does, as does all early edition material. Which to me is one of the truly great things about C&C. Three weeks ago, the DM ran us through an early Dungeon scenario, and ran it straight from the magazine. When you play C&C, there is a smörgåsbord of material to draw from.

[Wow, Firefox spell check can do things I didn't imagine!]

[Goblin Girl]

Which to me is one of the truly great things about C&C. Three weeks ago, the DM ran us through an early Dungeon scenario, and ran it straight from the magazine. When you play C&C, there is a smörgåsbord of material to draw from.
And this is what I've heard from others. Neither of us is running or playing a game right now (can you believe that Izzy and GG aren't playing any D&D?) but we're both kind of thinking about what we'd like to run next. I've got a metric assload of 3.x stuff, and a smattering of other games as well. Izzy's got some of his stuff here, but most of it is still in storage back in Texas. Dunno where we'll put it when we finally go get it, but I digress.

I need a system that is easy to run, easy to teach and that will allow me to use all the stuff I already have if I want to. I'm hoping C&C is it. Perhaps I will blog about it once the books come. I've been wanting to put all my game-related thoughts in one place, so maybe now's the time. Lord knows I ought to do something with that web space I'm paying for. :o

[Harry]

C&C sounds like it fits the bill for you. It was designed with two kinds of players in mind - Folks weary of New School, looking for a more elegant Old School; and raw recruits. It's a very easy system to get the hang where beginners are concerned.

[SmokestackJones]

I bought the PHB a while back and, while I haven't ran/played in it yet, I was thoroughly enchanted with it. I like the idea of "back to the roots" classes and no skills. I especially liked the Pirmary/Secondary Attributes system - should make things go a lot smoother.


That and my Box O' Old Jugdes Guild is just waiting to start up something...

-SJ

[Goblin Girl]

That and my Box O' Old Jugdes Guild is just waiting to start up something...

C&C in the Wilderlands.:loveatfirstsight:

[Harry]

C&C in the Wilderlands.:loveatfirstsight:

That's where we've been campaigning. In our first go at "grim and gritty" old skool style D&D, we adventured around Bard's Gate. It didn't work so well, because we were still attempting to fit 3.5 D&D into the old school mold. Our second attempt, the first using Castles & Crusades, was done using a mixture of Goodman Games Aerth and "Keep on the Borderlands". That game had much promise, but it collapsed due to player fragmentation and group politics. However, the C&C experiment was praised by all. When we rebooted, we returned to the Wilderlands, this time in the neighborhood of Barakus, and this game promises to last. Good group this time.

[Lisa Nadazdy]

My opinion of C&C? Love it.

Take 1e AD&D- distill it until just about anything you didn't like about it gets washed out, including rules that didn't make sense or contradicted other rules. Streamline the system by using a very basic version of d20 (d20, roll over a DC) for most resolution, add in the Seige Engine, which allows for most any situation to be resolved with a broad mechanic, and you have a simple, fast D&D game. It's also highly adaptable, and it's pretty easy to plug in stuff from most versions of D&D with fair ease. Have a boatload of AD&D 1e and 2e stuff? No problem- most everything can be dropped in with little or no conversion needed. A magical sword in AD&D operates the same in C&C. Monsters work nearly the same in C&C as they do in AD&D.

As for demons and devils.... bitch, bitch, bitch. There isn'y demons or devils in the D&D Rules Cyclopedia, and it works just fine, thank you.

Also, look around on the net for house rules- C&C was constructed with that in mind- it's easy to drop in a skill system, or simple system of feats, or talents, if that's what you want in your game.

Now it does have a few warts- the classes have different XP charts, for instance, but up front, not all classes are equal; some are better in places than others, and the cost in the system shows that. For some people, that's a step backwards, but I've always felt that each class represented many years of training, so it's difficult for a fighter to become a wizard or thief overnight. I don't think having a stricter system for classes is all that out of place.

Something to keep in mind- the classes in C&C are not exactly like their AD&D counterparts; the Barbarian is better labled as the Berserker; the Bard isn't a spellcaster, and actually feels more like a warrior type (sort of like a Viking Skald instead of a wandering minstrel). Neither the Paladin nor Ranger are spellcasters, making them more rooted in warrior traditions (I could never figure out why Rangers got spells, anyway).

One of the things I like are racial types- they feel different from editions of D&D. Half-Elves at creation have to take after either their Elven parent, or their Human one, and the choice can give them different abilities. Half-Elves that favour their Human side can get bonuses to certain attribute checks, while those that favour their Elven parent get enhanced senses (on top of other abilities). Half-Orcs get Darkvision, an enhanced sense of smell, martial prowess, and resistence to disease.

Overall, it's a good package, at a low start cost, and you can pull in material from numerous sources. It's not perfect, but it does what I want it to do.

[Space Cadet B^3]

In people's opinions, could this maybe entice grognards who refuse to let go of their 2E stuff give the system a try?

Our group won't meet again until February, and they keep saying they want me to run, but I'm like, if I run, it's going to be 3/3.5 because that's what I have and that's what I know...

I'm so jonesing to game...

[obryn]

Well, I found that I, personally, didn't find much that C&C would offer to my group. My personal feeling is that - if I want to play an oldschool game - I'll pull my 1e books out of storage, or run a narrowly-focused D&D game. (Or, I'll try out Forward to Adventure... Pundit's a douche, but it seems like a reasonably well-made game.)

You may find otherwise. It's certainly tidier than AD&D, and would almost certainly run more smoothly. I can see that it's well-made, and respect the designers and what they've put together.

It's a matter of taste. It just wasn't to mine. :)

-O

[doc]

here (http://www.cncplayer.net/) is a list of house rules and other souce material for C&C, including PC sheets

[Harry]

We've been playing C&C for about a year now, and the only house rules/tweaks we've felt the need to add are Critical Hit Tables and a few changes to a handful of spells.

That's not to say we haven't added a ton of stuff - that's what makes C&C so much fun, and so wide open. But those are the only basic rules changes. The other things we've added come from many sources; Dragon Magazine, Arduin, old White Dwarf, Chaosium, Tekumel, and on and on and on. Sometimes something will come up that seems vaguely familiar, like our Elven Cleric's dog, which she got as a benefit at character creation [using Central Casting]. I scratched my noggin over it for the longest time, until I picked up Dragon #67, and there it was - the Cooshee.

[King Vyper]

We've been playing C&C for about a year now, and the only house rules/tweaks we've felt the need to add are Critical Hit Tables and a few changes to a handful of spells.

That's not to say we haven't added a ton of stuff - that's what makes C&C so much fun, and so wide open. But those are the only basic rules changes. The other things we've added come from many sources; Dragon Magazine, Arduin, old White Dwarf, Chaosium, Tekumel, and on and on and on. Sometimes something will come up that seems vaguely familiar, like our Elven Cleric's dog, which she got as a benefit at character creation [using Central Casting]. I scratched my noggin over it for the longest time, until I picked up Dragon #67, and there it was - the Cooshee.

What is Central Casting?

[Harry]

Central Casting is a series of books put out by Task Force Games in the '80s: Heroes of Legend, Heroes for Tomorrow, and Heroes Now! Dense books, full of tables, used to roll up character or NPC backgrounds. Nifty stuff. My group has decided to use them for most basic background stuff, although there is plenty of room to shoehorn in starting character concepts you've come up with on your own. Not every thing is a benefit, though. Far from it. My current character is walking around with three curses and one blessing, in addition to every thing else.

[SmokestackJones]

Central Casting is a series of books put out by Task Force Games in the '80s: Heroes of Legend, Heroes for Tomorrow, and Heroes Now! Dense books, full of tables, used to roll up character or NPC backgrounds. Nifty stuff. My group has decided to use them for most basic background stuff, although there is plenty of room to shoehorn in starting character concepts you've come up with on your own. Not every thing is a benefit, though. Far from it. My current character is walking around with three curses and one blessing, in addition to every thing else.
The books are a blast, if you can find them (EBay is a good start).

Don't forget Central Casting: Dungeons. Taking the step-by-step chart approach and applying it to the dungeon setting.

-SJ

[Jayhawk]

Don't forget Central Casting: Dungeons. Taking the step-by-step chart approach and applying it to the dungeon setting.

-SJ

Wha?!?! I never knew about that one! I love the other books, so I have to have it. It will be mine.

I was always surprised that no one ever coded those books to make a quick and easy background generator. It's all rolls, which seems like it should be easy to code...

[Sobek]

I may have to check out C&C. I've gotten really tired of some of the complexity of 3.5. On the other hand, 2E had me convinced that class/level games were a plague upon the earth.

I want the ease of a class/level game with the flexibility of Hero and the conciseness of Savage Worlds.

[obryn]

I may have to check out C&C. I've gotten really tired of some of the complexity of 3.5. On the other hand, 2E had me convinced that class/level games were a plague upon the earth.

I want the ease of a class/level game with the flexibility of Hero and the conciseness of Savage Worlds.
C&C is not that game, IMHO.

It's closer to 2e, thematically, than 3e. I found character customization to be one of its weak points - no multiclassing, no feats or talents... You could pick Primes, but really that's still painting a character with broad strokes.

-O

[Harry]

It's closer to 2e, thematically, than 3e. I found character customization to be one of its weak points - no multiclassing, no feats or talents... You could pick Primes, but really that's still painting a character with broad strokes.

After all this time, folks still think that because there aren't Feats, that your character cannot "do" Feats. Far from it. C&C is completely open ended when it comes to such things, and offers much more flexibility that 3.x because the game doesn't proscribe what your character can or cannot do. If you can imagine it, your character can try it, no Feat trees to fulfill, no silly prerequisites, no Kits. The SEIGE Engine mechanic was devised so that your character is only limited by your own creativity. I've actually found that character customization in C&C is wide-open with possibilities since the game doesn't limit you, or tell you what you can or cannot do.

[obryn]

After all this time, folks still think that because there aren't Feats, that your character cannot "do" Feats. Far from it. C&C is completely open ended when it comes to such things, and offers much more flexibility that 3.x because the game doesn't proscribe what your character can or cannot do. If you can imagine it, your character can try it, no Feat trees to fulfill, no silly prerequisites, no Kits. The SEIGE Engine mechanic was devised so that your character is only limited by your own creativity. I've actually found that character customization in C&C is wide-open with possibilities since the game doesn't limit you, or tell you what you can or cannot do.
Please read what I said and reply to it instead of inserting "C&C Fan Default Rant #2". I'm not saying there's things your character can't do, or that the range of things your character can do is narrower than in 3.5.

I'm saying that the level of mechanical differentiation between characters is lower than I prefer. It also has a lower number of character advancement options or ways for characters to specialize.

Can a character with INT as a prime do a whole lot of knowledgy things? Absolutely!

Is a Wizard with INT and DEX as primes very mechanically similar to another Wizard with INT and DEX as their primes? Absolutely, as well.

Can you differentiate characters based on non-mechanical aspects? Completely! You can do that in other games, too.

In C&C there's no real way for your Wizard to - for example - get good with a Longsword. None that I saw, anyway. They can't pick it up with feats and they can't multiclass. They're attached to the wizard archetype. C&C does not handle departure from archetypes as well as other games, like D&D or GURPS. This is just fine. There's nothing at all wrong with archetypes, if that's the game you're looking to play.

-O

[Harry]

I see no rant in what I posted.



Does this mean I'm playing it wrong, because my Wizard is using a long sword?

[doc]

The books are a blast, if you can find them (EBay is a good start).

Don't forget Central Casting: Dungeons. Taking the step-by-step chart approach and applying it to the dungeon setting.

-SJ

That's a killer book, if you can find it get it.

[obryn]

I see no rant in what I posted.



Does this mean I'm playing it wrong, because my Wizard is using a long sword?
Where'd he pick up that ability?

-O

[Harry]

Elf. He's more partial to daggers, though.

[obryn]

Elf. He's more partial to daggers, though.
OK. But if you were a human or dwarf, there would have been no way to use that longsword proficiently, right? And there'd be no way for your elf wizard to competently use a morningstar. You can't multiclass into fighter and you can't pick up extra weapon proficiencies down the road per the published rules.

That's what I mean by a lack of mechanical differentiation. It hews closer to archetypes than 3e. Players have fewer - often no - choices to make when advancing their characters in level.

-O

[Harry]

That's what I mean by a lack of mechanical differentiation. It hews closer to archetypes than 3e. Players have fewer - often no - choices to make when advancing their characters in level.

All that means is that you should make the most of character background and put some thought into it. Frankly, there's no reason at all why any character in the game should be bound to the weapon proficiency rules, and they don't have to be.

Oddly enough, I feel the same way in 3.x. In fact, I played in a game where the party Druid was quite proficient with a crossbow, and she justified it perfectly well in her background. Clay can tell you all about that.

[Sobek]

C&C is not that game, IMHO.

I don't think that game exists. If you find it, though, let me know.

I'm still not sure what about 2E turned me off. I continued my 1E game for years using some 2E sourcebooks unchanged, so it's not like there was a big mechanical difference. There was something intangible, though, that irked me.

If the intangibles of C&C are closer to 2E, then it's likely I wouldn't like it. I should still check it out, though.

[obryn]

All that means is that you should make the most of character background and put some thought into it. Frankly, there's no reason at all why any character in the game should be bound to the weapon proficiency rules, and they don't have to be.

Oddly enough, I feel the same way in 3.x. In fact, I played in a game where the party Druid was quite proficient with a crossbow, and she justified it perfectly well in her background. Clay can tell you all about that.
That's not what I'm talking about though - if you incorporate house rules and whatnot, we're not discussing the same game.

My argument is that C&C, as published, has less mechanical customization of characters, and that by default they adhere closer to archetypes. That's all. Naturally, you can house-rule any game to be however you want, so if we start bringing that into it, we're no longer having any kind of discussion.

I can't see why this is even remotely controversial. C&C is a perfectly good game for doing what it's intended to do - streamlined, archetype-driven, fast, oldschool-style play. It's not the crunchy, detailed, character-customization fest that 3e is. It's specifically designed not to be.

-O

[dekster]

I must say that my reading of C&C and recent play of it has been quite enjoyable.

Is it different from 3.x? You bet. Is it better? Depends on one's tastes.

C&C is down and dirty role playing with an "old-school" feel. One of the biggest pluses for me as a player is that the DM can do something on the fly. Ability checks are so much easier than having to sort through skills and synergy bonuses. There is also no hassle about which skill goes for what action....it's based on an attribute role.

This game does not have the crunch that many people like in 3.x and while I've been a happy player of D&D 3.x since it came out its increasing complexity began to frustrate me. For example, I liked the idea of Prestige classes in D&D but it eventually got to the point one had to plan for that class at first level and go straight for it. There could be no wavering or changing one's mind or, if you did, it took forever to get the prerequisits for that new Prestige class.

With C&C I found myself sitting at the table, smoothly running through combat. Found my archetype character and rolled it up quickly. This game also makes it very easy to add rules if the players or GM wants to add them.

Honestly, I was leaning toward True20 which is a very nice system but I didn't like the lack of attribute numbers. This, of course, is a matter of taste and I probably could play it w/ the same level of enjoyment but C&C is a fun ride.

Most of all, however, the best RPG is the one you're sitting at a table and slinging dice w/ friendly people and laughing and joking. That, imnsho, is the very best RPG you can be playing.

That's my .25 cents worth, don't ya know?

BTW, glad to be here!

[Tetsubo]

I bought a copy of C&C. It really seemed to capture the feel of 1E. And after reading it I made a discovery... my memories of 1E are far better than the actual rules... I got rid of the book and picked up a new D20 volume....

[Harry]

Jesus H Christ....

You know, I hated the idea of C&C when I first heard of it. My DM had to go to some lengths just to convince me to try it. But once he did, and I played the game, reread the book, and examined what it brought to the gaming table, I was sold solid. It's a sweet system, and bears little relation to 1st Edition as far as the basic rules go, although it feels like 1st Edition in play.

You people are really making me feel like going to go crap in a 4th Edition thread.

[Goblin Girl]

Jesus H Christ....

You know, I hated the idea of C&C when I first heard of it. My DM had to go to some lengths just to convince me to try it. But once he did, and I played the game, reread the book, and examined what it brought to the gaming table, I was sold solid. It's a sweet system, and bears little relation to 1st Edition as far as the basic rules go, although it feels like 1st Edition in play.

You people are really making me feel like going to go crap in a 4th Edition thread.

Harry, I asked for opinions about C&C. I don't think it's thread crapping for people to tell me why it isn't their cup of tea. No system can please everyone, so if a person who doesn't like it gives some details to explain why, I consider that helpful.

[obryn]

Jesus H Christ....

You know, I hated the idea of C&C when I first heard of it. My DM had to go to some lengths just to convince me to try it. But once he did, and I played the game, reread the book, and examined what it brought to the gaming table, I was sold solid. It's a sweet system, and bears little relation to 1st Edition as far as the basic rules go, although it feels like 1st Edition in play.

You people are really making me feel like going to go crap in a 4th Edition thread.
Did you miss the part where - because I didn't think it matched my style of gaming - I sent GG the rulebooks so she could play herself if she wanted to?

I'm not crapping on the system. I haven't come in to a "C&C ROCKS! I LOVE IT!" thread to talk about how I don't like it. I'm saying it's a good system, but it doesn't do everything better than 3.x - and that several of those things are important enough to me and my players that I don't think my gaming group will be using it.

-O

[Harry]

Harry, I asked for opinions about C&C. I don't think it's thread crapping for people to tell me why it isn't their cup of tea. No system can please everyone, so if a person who doesn't like it gives some details to explain why, I consider that helpful.

I agree, and I've held my temper at times when folks rag on a system like C&C, which they first freely admit they've not even played. But if I went to ENWorld, or to the 4th Edition thread here, and made a post like this.....

I bought a copy of C&C. It really seemed to capture the feel of 1E. And after reading it I made a discovery... my memories of 1E are far better than the actual rules... I got rid of the book and picked up a new D20 volume....

...folks would be telling me to get the hell out of the thread, or something even ruder at ENWorld these days.

[Goblin Girl]

...folks would be telling me to get the hell out of the thread, or something even ruder at ENWorld these days.
:) I guess we have different definitions of threadcrapping. If Tetsubo had said "C&C is Teh suXX0rs and anyone who likes it is a MORAN!!!!111ONE" then yeah, I'd call that threadcrapping. However, it isn't uncommon for people to have fond memories of something, and when they try to recreate that whatever it is, to find that the memories were better than the actual thing.

Or maybe the combination of the thanksgiving meal, hours spent afterward playing Rock Band have mellowed me. Or maybe it's just that being married to Izzy has made me so happy that I see everything in a more positive light.

No, that isn't it. The poop/bacon threads at CM still make me want to run amok with a meat cleaver. :grey:

I guess it must be that Tetsubo's comments didn't meet my definition of thread crapping. :win:

[cnath.rm]

I agree, and I've held my temper at times when folks rag on a system like C&C, which they first freely admit they've not even played. But if I went to ENWorld, or to the 4th Edition thread here, and made a post like this.....
--snip--

...folks would be telling me to get the hell out of the thread, or something even ruder at ENWorld these days.Another reason why I enjoy this board, things are (more or less) civil, but you can also unload on someone if it really needs to happen. (I was shocked when I followed a link to the Paizo boards and saw someone being chided for "attacks" that were so mellow that I'm not sure they would even be considered attacks here.

After reading all of this, I might take another look at my copies of the C&C books, particularly as Harry Joy's linked thread had a link to another thread of converted demons/devils :D Who knows, maybe my dream of using Necromancer Games adventures with C&C might come true after all.

[qstor]

It's what we play in our regular campaign. I've come to prefer it over 3.x, very much so. It is what Third Edition should have been in the first place. It is the logical evolution of 1st.

hth


I just wish they'd publish the Keepers Guide and another monster book instead of all the adventures.

Mike

[Harry]

Would you believe it, but that comes up an awful lot in conversation, at the Troll Lords boards and with my gaming friends. ;) A lot of the adventures, however, are straight up conversions of older D20 Troll Lords products. I'm glad that they are doing that. The new Aihrde Campaign setting, likewise, is a straight up conversion of the old "After Winter's Dark" book, with some extras and better maps.

[cnath.rm]

Would you believe it, but that comes up an awful lot in conversation, at the Troll Lords boards and with my gaming friends. ;) A lot of the adventures, however, are straight up conversions of older D20 Troll Lords products. I'm glad that they are doing that. The new Aihrde Campaign setting, likewise, is a straight up conversion of the old "After Winter's Dark" book, with some extras and better maps.I could be wrong, but wouldn't that seem to make it easier to put out other books if the adventures that are coming out are rewrite/conversions of the originals? (not that I have a prob with rewrites, I enjoyed the Kalamar "Coin" series, and I really with Necromancer would put out an update of "Wizard's Amulet" and "Crucible of Freya")

[Harry]

They have a bevy of in-house artists, and legions of fans to update the stats, so nope. Doesn't seem that difficult to me. Troll Lords modules were always more on the fluffy than crunchy side.

The Aihrde setting is lifted straight from the original for much of the text. It's expanded and has vastly superior art, but they've been playing in that setting at Troll Lords for a long while. Not much work to upgrade.

[Have I mentioned that Aihrde is an awesome setting? The DM and I went around and around, trying to decide whether to use that or Wilderlands, we both love it, and he went with the latter mainly for the grittier feel.]