Quote from: Simlasa;789325I'd been wondering about that. I don't know C&C but I've heard it described as 'streamlined 3.5'... and seen similar descriptions of 5e.
What are the main differences between them (besides the art/gloss)?

C&C offers even less toys for the PCs to play with. C&C class writeups hew closer to 1e than 5e.

Still, I think they have the best Bard and Cavalier/Knight, and one of the best Ranger writeups in TSR/OSR D&Dland.

A difference you notice in play is that C&C characters tend to have fewer clubs in their golf bag; a 5E character might think through the options a bit where a C&C character grabs a die and rolls whatever he did the turn before. If it sounds like a subtle shift toward 4E I'm sure that's intentional. But they did it thoughtfully enough that I don't really notice play being slowed by 'decision constipation'

Quote from: Simlasa;789325I'd been wondering about that. I don't know C&C but I've heard it described as 'streamlined 3.5'... and seen similar descriptions of 5e.
What are the main differences between them (besides the art/gloss)?

There's even less character-building stuff in C&C. No feats, no subclasses, no backgrounds, etc. C&C doesn't include a Warlock or Sorcerer in the core rules, but does have an Illusionist and a sort of Warlord-y Knight. Of course the Proficiency and Advantage/Disadvantage rules aren't (quite) present, either. It does have saves corresponding to each save. If you want to get an idea of how C&C is, here's the quickstart guide, compare and contrast Basic 5e.

I don't think WotC is in a good position to carry the "old school" torch, for the same reasons later TSR was not. The OSR is by nature a thing for hobbyists and small firms.

If the 5e line happens to include some "cross-over" products, wonderful; but I would not expect to see a steady stream of fresh material evoking the best of JG and early TSR.

On relation to C&C: Does 5e also follow the (basically  3e) model of keeping saves vs. magic and such basically static assuming "level appropriate" foes/situations? That seems to me to throw things out of whack unless there's considerable revision of the spell lists and casting allowances.

Quote from: Phillip;789715I don't think WotC is in a good position to carry the "old school" torch, for the same reasons later TSR was not. The OSR is by nature a thing for hobbyists and small firms.
.

WotC isn't in a good position to carry the "old school" torch because no one is because no one can agree what "old school' is.  We all played differently in the 70s and early 80s, and who's to say which one of us was more old school than the other?  The phrase "old school" seems to infer a date range of gaming, rather than a style of gaming.  So technically we were all old school, right?

Just play how you want to play, and realize that "old school" and "new school" are more subjective than anything else, meant to be used only in somewhat general terms.

Quote from: Sacrosanct;789717WotC isn't in a good position to carry the "old school" torch because no one is because no one can agree what "old school' is.  We all played differently in the 70s and early 80s, and who's to say which one of us was more old school than the other?  The phrase "old school" seems to infer a date range of gaming, rather than a style of gaming.  So technically we were all old school, right?

Just play how you want to play, and realize that "old school" and "new school" are more subjective than anything else, meant to be used only in somewhat general terms.

Whatever OS means to you, it's not likely to come from WotC unless it means:
1) Managers issue product specifications and deadlines.
2) Writers crank out assigned product regardless of whether they have a context of actual play from which to draw, much less a rare inspiration.
3) Enough people are ready to pay enough for what comes out of this pipeline to pay the rent and show the profit Corporate expects.

That's not how most of the works regarded as classics by self-described OSers arose. Unlike the 1970s, the D&D market is not undergoing explosive growth. Unlike the 1970s, hobbyists can share their creations freely via the Web. And WotC is not a couple of guys in a garage, never mind a couple of guys happy to make enough from game publishing to buy a few cups of coffee at Starbucks.

Quote from: Phillip;789716On relation to C&C: Does 5e also follow the (basically  3e) model of keeping saves vs. magic and such basically static assuming "level appropriate" foes/situations? That seems to me to throw things out of whack unless there's considerable revision of the spell lists and casting allowances.

Not... really? There's encounter guidelines, I guess, but it seems to be less of a thing. The Starter Set adventure features a dragon that the PCs are probably FUBAR if they actually get in a fight with it. Spell save difficulties do increase with caster level but never to the same extent, so it's still quite possible to save against an extremely powerful caster or fail against a weaker one.

5e and the OSR are definitely friends.  The existence of the latter influenced the creation of the former, and both benefit mutually from the existence of the other.

Quote from: Phillip;789720Whatever OS means to you, it's not likely to come from WotC unless it means:
1) Managers issue product specifications and deadlines.
2) Writers crank out assigned product regardless of whether they have a context of actual play from which to draw, much less a rare inspiration.
3) Enough people are ready to pay enough for what comes out of this pipeline to pay the rent and show the profit Corporate expects.

Old-school is a way to play the game at the table. I couldn't give two shits how the game materials I use are designed, published, and marketed.

Quote from: Haffrung;789944Old-school is a way to play the game at the table. I couldn't give two shits how the game materials I use are designed, published, and marketed.

Thanks for the bull, Pope. Reality check: Most other people using the term don't buy your dogma. They care about the nature of the material. They tend to find more value in stuff that arises -like the works from the 1970s and early '80s that they disproportionately cite when naming classics  - from the context of actual play, than in stuff created in isolation from it. You won't find a lot of praise for the "old-school goodness" of the deluge of factory-produced Forgotten Realms potboilers in the 2E AD&D era, compared with Ed Greenwood's seminal articles in The Dragon.

Quote from: Phillip;790167Thanks for the bull, Pope. Reality check: Most other people using the term don't buy your dogma. They care about the nature of the material. They tend to find more value in stuff that arises -like the works from the 1970s and early '80s that they disproportionately cite when naming classics  - from the context of actual play, than in stuff created in isolation from it. You won't find a lot of praise for the "old-school goodness" of the deluge of factory-produced Forgotten Realms potboilers in the 2E AD&D era, compared with Ed Greenwood's seminal articles in The Dragon.

Oh, you mean they're hipsters!

That explains a lot.

Quote from: Blacky the Blackball;790207Oh, you mean they're hipsters!

That explains a lot.

Oh, you're a pompous vapid-cliche thrower.

That explains a lot.

Seriously, Blacky, your know-nothing attitude explains a lot. It's not just D&D, is it? Anyone in any field who prefers the right tool for the job must be a "hipster" if his choice is just the opposite of current fashion. Can't have your Newspeak condemnation of people not in harmony with the groupthink commit the infraction of making sense, can you?

 Afghanistan and Iraq? Anyone who actually knows anything about either country or has actual counterinsurgency experience is just a "hipster" (almost as much as that so-trendy Clausewitz).

Quote from: Phillip;790211Oh, you're a pompous vapid-cliche thrower.

That explains a lot.

Quote from: Phillip;790217Seriously, Blacky, your know-nothing attitude explains a lot. It's not just D&D, is it? Anyone in any field who prefers the right tool for the job must be a "hipster" if his choice is just the opposite of current fashion. Can't have your Newspeak condemnation of people not in harmony with the groupthink commit the infraction of making sense, can you?

 Afghanistan and Iraq? Anyone who actually knows anything about either country or has actual counterinsurgency experience is just a "hipster" (almost as much as that so-trendy Clausewitz).

Man, that's the most hilarious over-reaction to a throwaway one-liner that I've ever seen! Who pissed in your cornflakes this morning?