aia wrote:Great list!!! i went through it and found it extremely useful (i didnt know of the existance of several items... :oops: ).
I have 2 question though:1) what are the reasons for the C&C exclusion? I am not in the topic and i dont know what has been discussed about it...
2) i didnt find any ref to Swordplay & Spellcraft (http://elflairgames.blogspot.it/) ... did you exclude this game as well or is it simply missing?
Guy Fullerton wrote:Castles & Crusades is not a clone (or even a simulacrum) of Gygaxian-era D&D. It's true that C&C shares some elements with, and is somewhat inspired by Gygaxian-era D&D, but that doesn't sufficiently qualify it for inclusion on my list. C&C contains too many significant differences from the various Gygaxian-era versions of D&D..
JasonZavoda wrote:What edition of C&C are you talking about? Guy, 1st edition C&C seemed to be AD&D with a few houserules.
Guy Fullerton wrote:JasonZavoda wrote:What edition of C&C are you talking about? Guy, 1st edition C&C seemed to be AD&D with a few houserules.I'm talking about all editions of C&C.Seemingly innocuous differences have a surprisingly jarring effect on game play and the emergent behavior & attitude of the players. Examples of these small, but significant differences include:- Players are entitled to choose any class and race combination, regardless of stat rolls.- No level limits for non-human races.- Saving throws do not automatically become (significantly) easier as attacker and defender *both* increase in level.- The existence of the SIEGE system as a one-mechanic-fits-all resolution system.- Domain establishment and management is not ingrained into the classes.- It touts creation of the character's persona as the "most important step in character creation."- Treasure acquisition is not, by explicit default, the primary means of acquiring xp.- The C&C Player's Handbook offers guidance on "mood," "pace," and maintaining the "narrative" instead of how to be a successful adventurer.- That raise dead is always successful, with no built-in chance of failure based on Con / Resurrection Survival.Don't get me wrong; I can see why many people like C&C, and it does have many similarities with AD&D.But when I feel the need to play with a retro-inspired game (as opposed to playing the actual vintage games), I choose something *much* closer to the source: Swords & Wizardry, OSRIC, Labyrinth Lord, etc.
copycat wrote:All great reasons, Guy, and spot on. C&C is not AD&D, nor is it "d20." I would be very hesitant to include it in any "clone" or "simulacra" category since it tries harder to be "storybook," not chess.
JasonZavoda wrote:Guy Fullerton wrote:I'm talking about all editions of C&C.Seemingly innocuous differences have a surprisingly jarring effect on game play and the emergent behavior & attitude of the players. Examples of these small, but significant differences include:- Players are entitled to choose any class and race combination, regardless of stat rolls.- No level limits for non-human races.- Saving throws do not automatically become (significantly) easier as attacker and defender *both* increase in level.- The existence of the SIEGE system as a one-mechanic-fits-all resolution system.- Domain establishment and management is not ingrained into the classes.- It touts creation of the character's persona as the "most important step in character creation."- Treasure acquisition is not, by explicit default, the primary means of acquiring xp.- The C&C Player's Handbook offers guidance on "mood," "pace," and maintaining the "narrative" instead of how to be a successful adventurer.- That raise dead is always successful, with no built-in chance of failure based on Con / Resurrection Survival.Don't get me wrong; I can see why many people like C&C, and it does have many similarities with AD&D.But when I feel the need to play with a retro-inspired game (as opposed to playing the actual vintage games), I choose something *much* closer to the source: Swords & Wizardry, OSRIC, Labyrinth Lord, etc.But that is exactly my point. C&C is nothing but an almost word for word copy of the AD&D PHB with some variants thrown in. Your points are all variations from AD&D not unique elements in themselves and not the bulk of the book. Of course OSRIC is an almost word for word copy of the PHB, MM and parts of the DMG with as few variants thrown in as possible.
Guy Fullerton wrote:I'm talking about all editions of C&C.Seemingly innocuous differences have a surprisingly jarring effect on game play and the emergent behavior & attitude of the players. Examples of these small, but significant differences include:- Players are entitled to choose any class and race combination, regardless of stat rolls.- No level limits for non-human races.- Saving throws do not automatically become (significantly) easier as attacker and defender *both* increase in level.- The existence of the SIEGE system as a one-mechanic-fits-all resolution system.- Domain establishment and management is not ingrained into the classes.- It touts creation of the character's persona as the "most important step in character creation."- Treasure acquisition is not, by explicit default, the primary means of acquiring xp.- The C&C Player's Handbook offers guidance on "mood," "pace," and maintaining the "narrative" instead of how to be a successful adventurer.- That raise dead is always successful, with no built-in chance of failure based on Con / Resurrection Survival.Don't get me wrong; I can see why many people like C&C, and it does have many similarities with AD&D.But when I feel the need to play with a retro-inspired game (as opposed to playing the actual vintage games), I choose something *much* closer to the source: Swords & Wizardry, OSRIC, Labyrinth Lord, etc.
