I'm going to run AD&D

[obryn]

I have a weekend game that's been on hiatus since I got married. I'm looking to start it up again, and I was trying to find something that should be palatable to all my players and myself.

I don't want to run 3e. One of the players is in one 4e game, and that's quite enough for him thankyouverymuch. Also, I love variety.

Now, I've wanted to give Temple of Elemental Evil another run for several years now. I looked at converting it to 3e, I thought about converting it to 4e, and frankly I don't have the effort. C&C leaves me cold - really, I don't care for it.

So why not just run it with its original rules-set, the AD&D of yore?

Looking through the books last night, it felt like riding a bicycle. Some stuff was weird - I had forgotten a lot of the details - but I remembered how to use almost everything.

Now, I'm not going to run full-bore, all-the-rules AD&D. Then again, I don't think too many people did. I'm going to largely use the OSRIC-ized rule set. I won't worry too much about stuff like segments, and I won't touch weapon speed factor. On the other hand, I just might pull out the Weapon vs. AC table for laughs. :) I'll also add in some weapon specialization for fighters, because hey, why not?

At any rate, I'm looking forward to it. Running 4e has been a lot like running D&D/AD&D in my youth, and it's had me fondly reminiscing. This should be fun, and I'll do my best to keep a log of some sort. :)

-O

[Trainz]

I gave all my 2nd edition books to a buddy of mine (I still have my 1st ed and 3rd ed), and I have asked him if he still had those books. He does and doesn't use 'em, and said I could have them back if I so wanted.

Well, I'm thinking about taking 2nd ed as a base (2nd ed was probably the simplest edition of D&D), and add to it what I consider the cream of 3rd ed and 4th ed elements.

I'm thinking 3rd ed feats, and 4th ed races and skill system.

[Singularity]

I've been looking at C&C and OSRIC, and I'm thinking of using one of them (right now leaning heavily towards C&C) to run a second game in addition to my Pathfinder game.

[obryn]

I've been looking at C&C and OSRIC, and I'm thinking of using one of them (right now leaning heavily towards C&C) to run a second game in addition to my Pathfinder game.
Well, I can see the draw for C&C, but it just does absolutely nothing for me... I gave my books away last year. I found the books very boring and not at all inspiring; it didn't make me want to roll up a character and go adventuring.

(In fairness, OSRIC probably wouldn't either, in and of itself. It's just a nice reference for the AD&D rules, which most certainly do.)

I still have a fondness for oldschool gaming, but I want it to actually be oldschool. C&C puzzles me - it's more like a new, rules-light game, than it is an update of AD&D.

-O

[Bregh]

.

[obryn]

So, PapersAndPaychecks (the guy who writes/compiles OSRIC) just sent me a pre-release version of OSRIC 2.0. It looks really good. I think it will be actually released by the end of the month.

-O

[Singularity]

C&C puzzles me - it's more like a new, rules-light game, than it is an update of AD&D.

My interpretation of C&C is that it essentially is the old school system, although it detangles a lot of the mechanic weirdness inherent in the earlier editions. And in all honesty, I'm still reading through the rules, so I'm speaking more from impressions than analysis. For instance, I do know that it goes back to a system where different classes have their own XP progression. Rogues, for instance, automatically get all of their thievery type skills, but they base these off of their core ability rather than having percentages or assigning ranks, and then it just uses the SIEGE system for resolving those actions. To me, it makes sense, and it looks EASY.

The other thing about C&C that looks cool is that it would take very little conversion to get material from any edition of D&D to work with it. 1st and 2nd edition stuff, just go 20 minus the AC provided for the C&C equivalent. With 3rd edition, skills and feats are simply dumped. You could probably use some of the alternate core classes by simply converting class abilities straight across, though you may need to make some modifications if the original class abilities reference things in the game that don't exist in C&C, or they are simply unbalancing.

At any rate, I see only a very fine line between C&C and OSRIC. Both will let you use your old AD&D stuff, both should be extremely easy to simply wing-it, and both appeal to the same basic style of gaming. The major apperciable difference that I see between them is that C&C is a fully written out game whereas OSRIC was supposed to be for developers to create their own old school stuff. Since OSRIC 2.0 is coming out within the month, that will actually change and it will be a fully playable game as-is.

[obryn]

My interpretation of C&C is that it essentially is the old school system, although it detangles a lot of the mechanic weirdness inherent in the earlier editions. And in all honesty, I'm still reading through the rules, so I'm speaking more from impressions than analysis. For instance, I do know that it goes back to a system where different classes have their own XP progression. Rogues, for instance, automatically get all of their thievery type skills, but they base these off of their core ability rather than having percentages or assigning ranks, and then it just uses the SIEGE system for resolving those actions. To me, it makes sense, and it looks EASY.

The other thing about C&C that looks cool is that it would take very little conversion to get material from any edition of D&D to work with it. 1st and 2nd edition stuff, just go 20 minus the AC provided for the C&C equivalent. With 3rd edition, skills and feats are simply dumped. You could probably use some of the alternate core classes by simply converting class abilities straight across, though you may need to make some modifications if the original class abilities reference things in the game that don't exist in C&C, or they are simply unbalancing.

At any rate, I see only a very fine line between C&C and OSRIC. Both will let you use your old AD&D stuff, both should be extremely easy to simply wing-it, and both appeal to the same basic style of gaming. The major apperciable difference that I see between them is that C&C is a fully written out game whereas OSRIC was supposed to be for developers to create their own old school stuff. Since OSRIC 2.0 is coming out within the month, that will actually change and it will be a fully playable game as-is.
Yeah, like I said, C&C looks like a completely playable system. I get why people like it, but I had absolutely no positive or negative feelings for it after a read-through. Conversion seems like it'd be easy, though in fairness, any conversion is more than the zero conversion I'm looking at. :)

OSRIC 2.0 is pretty outstanding, from my read-through. It's basically PHB+MM+DMG, all thrown into a big, fairly well-formatted, 400-page (!) document. It even has the Random Whore table - and no, I'm not kidding.

-O

[Singularity]

Where do you get 2.0? It doesn't seem to be posted on their page.

[obryn]

Where do you get 2.0? It doesn't seem to be posted on their page.
I mentioned on ENWorld that I was going to run ToEE using 1e and OSRIC. Papers & Paychecks PM'd me a download link for 2.0.

I don't know why, but it was nice of him. :)

-O

[Sobek]

It's funny. I've been thinking about what I want to do after my 3.5 game wraps and I saw the ToEE, etc. out on RPGNow. I offered it up to my players last night. It will be interesting to see whether they bite on that or 4e.

[Dacke]

Damn, this thread almost makes me want to run some of my old Dark Sun stuff again. Too bad almost all my AD&D books are in storage nowadays, plus some of them are in pretty damn bad shape (the PHB especially).

[obryn]

Where do you get 2.0? It doesn't seem to be posted on their page.
Hey, cool - looks like he sent you the link to 2.0, too!

Thoughts? I'm impressed with how well-organized it is - although this may be because I'm reading the 1e books alongside it. :)

-O

[qstor]

I've been wanting to run Castle and Crusades but there doesn't seem to be much interest more in 4e.

Mike

[obryn]

While others will disagree vehemently, I'd recommend running OD&D or 1e/OSRIC before C&C.

Yes, I know that C&C provides a unified mechanic, and that the SIEGE engine is very popular. Nevertheless, after tinkering around with 1e for a bit, I've come to believe that unified systems and skill mechanics are somewhat detrimental to an oldschool gaming experience.

At the very least, I haven't missed them yet. :)

C&C is kind of a half-step, caught in limbo between 1e/2e and 3e. It scales back a lot of the 1e weirdness... but IMHO, that's part of what makes 1e special.

YMMV, IMHO, etc.

-O

[amethal]

C&C falls into my "what's the point" category. I get very annoyed when other people categorise the games I like in this way, so apologies to C&C fans - its just my opinion and I know that you all have reason to disagree with it.

However, if you want to run Temple of Elemental Evil, the two obvious options are :-

1. Use 1st edition AD&D (either dig out your old books, or use OSRIC) and run it as written.

2. Use 3rd edition and run the 3rd edition revised adventure.

All C&C does is say "We've re-done the AD&D rules so that high is always good, but we've also introduced the element of uncertainty, so that if you think you know how AD&D works you still need to look up the rules in our book to be on the safe side."

I would have liked it if C&C had taken the d20 rules and done a proper job of making them into a genuine rules light system, and had easy conversion with AD&D as a by-product rather than their main objective.

[obryn]

C&C falls into my "what's the point" category. I get very annoyed when other people categorise the games I like in this way, so apologies to C&C fans - its just my opinion and I know that you all have reason to disagree with it.
Actually, I completely agree... C&C plays somewhat like an oldschool game without the oldschool charm, IMHO.

Coincidentally, my second monthly AD&D session is tomorrow, and everyone's been looking forward to it!

-O

[Harry]

Well, I can see the draw for C&C, but it just does absolutely nothing for me... I gave my books away last year. I found the books very boring and not at all inspiring; it didn't make me want to roll up a character and go adventuring.

I'm running two AD&D campaigns atm, a long-standing Ravenloft campaign (over eight years) and a Grey-box FR campaign that migrated over from C&C to make better use of my huge AD&D resource library.

Papers & Paychecks PM'd me a download link for 2.0.

I don't know why, but it was nice of him. :)

I've been wanting to run Castle and Crusades but there doesn't seem to be much interest more in 4e.

Mike

While others will disagree vehemently, I'd recommend running OD&D or 1e/OSRIC before C&C.

C&C falls into my "what's the point" category.

Actually, I completely agree... C&C plays somewhat like an oldschool game without the oldschool charm, IMHO.

Yeah. Sometimes I can't tell if I'm being trolled. :o

[obryn]

Yeah. Sometimes I can't tell if I'm being trolled. :o
How would that be trolling you?

Really. I have no idea.

-O