I'll keep these considerations in mind when I go to start my Old Skool D&D campaign (whenever I find the time! le sighe...).

Currently looking at running LL with the AEC, so AD&D with some Basic mechanics.  Still deciding if I want to work more of AD&D's combat system in there (cherry pick a few ideas), but I'll definitely be scanning C&C over the next few weekends for bits and pieces.

You know, that is one of the really nice things about C&C, S&W, LL, the AEC, and all the rest--the fact that they are largely compatible or easy to convert.  That means I can run Castles & Crusades, you run Swords & Wizardry, your cousin runs Labyrinth Lord, and our buddy runs a homebrew mix utilizing bits from all of the and the Rules Cyclopedia, and we can still talk shop pretty easily.

A common language is good for a community, but not always good for business.

However, developers like Valve (and some MMO devs) are proving that -- for at least the video-game industry -- you can maintain the status quo while revising and expanding your content, and it works wonders with maintaining the interest of your longtime/hardcore fans and makes it easier for people to integrate with the community (since the state of flux is much more organic and paced).

It hasn't worked so well for the tabletop industry, but I'm not sure anyone has really employed the strategy correctly.

I do have a feeling, though, that a lot of people "jumped ship" before 3.5, since WotC decided to make the systemic changes significant enough to make it more work to convert material back and forth between 3.0 and 3.5.  If they had released the "revised" edition they were originally supposed to (overseen by Cook and some of the other original designers), who knows what would've happened.

Well, I helped my kids make characters again the other night and played a bit there's plenty of things I wish they'd done a little better but that's true of every D&D variant I'm aware of.

Personally the 0 HD / wargame basis is the core concept behind D&D and a big part of its long term success.  I wish they'd made the rules a bit more wargamey.  You see, the way I see it, D&D's success is a result of being all things to all people.  By being a wargame it gets some people but because mass battle combat is simplistic it also appeals to the rules lite crowd.  It's got elves and dwarves and dragons and wizards but it's grounded in a fairly classical medieval wargame approach and manages to be quite gritty while doing so.

The thing is that you really can play D&D (OD&D - C&C leaving out 3 and 4) as anything from a superior version of Milton Bradley's Heroquest to Warhammer Fantasy Battle to a virtually free form story game.  It can hit all the bases.  Unfortunately this has been neglected since 1e but as it was a fundamental aspect of the game, versions done by people who actually wanted to clean up D&D instead of publishing their heartbreaker under that title (and yes I'm firmly in that camp myself) tend to keep various obvious aspects without actually creating a game that functions well in big battles.

Anyhow, in C&C a fighter is +2 to hit with their specialized weapon at first level while barbarians, paladins, knights, and rangers are at +0.  Fighters are the only class that can get multiple attacks too.  The only thing that challenges their supremacy in combat is the ranger's + Level damage against humanoids and giants.

Quote from: Peregrin;390971Currently looking at running LL with the AEC, so AD&D with some Basic mechanics.

A similar approach that I think has a lot of merit is to use the 1e AD&D Players Handbook as the "core rules," with just about everything in the 1e DMG being subject to DM fiat on exactly how its handled.  Everything the players "need to know" is the in Players Handbook.  Then you can run the details of combat and such however you like (e.g. using the B/X or LL combat sequence, an OD&D-ish combat sequence, et cetera).

True.  However I feel that LL: AEC is a little more cleaned up and easily digestible, especially for people who have never played AD&D (spell acquisition/knowledge checks are made more clear, etc.).  Definitely not as interesting to read, but easier to use at the table.  A read-through of the AD&D DMG for the perspective and insights is probably warranted, though.

I'd also been considering the Gray Book (OD&D + supps + strategic review + selected material from elsewhere), but was told I may as well play AD&D at that point.  It would also need some minutiae imported from elsewhere (morale, some combat info, etc.).

C&C is a good bridge from 3e to older edition games, and I appreciate it for that sole reason. The only reason to stay with C&C instead of going full fledge retro-clone/AD&D is that you like the SIEGE engine system.

As for LL+AEC, it's the best thing ever!!!!

Quote from: David Johansen;391037You see, the way I see it, D&D's success is a result of being all things to all people.  By being a wargame it gets some people but because mass battle combat is simplistic it also appeals to the rules lite crowd.  It's got elves and dwarves and dragons and wizards but it's grounded in a fairly classical medieval wargame approach and manages to be quite gritty while doing so.

The thing is that you really can play D&D (OD&D - C&C leaving out 3 and 4) as anything from a superior version of Milton Bradley's Heroquest to Warhammer Fantasy Battle to a virtually free form story game.  It can hit all the bases.  Unfortunately this has been neglected since 1e but as it was a fundamental aspect of the game, versions done by people who actually wanted to clean up D&D instead of publishing their heartbreaker under that title (and yes I'm firmly in that camp myself) tend to keep various obvious aspects without actually creating a game that functions well in big battles.

Emphasis (bolded) mine. I say you're on to something here, and the bolded parts in particular are crucial to understand the history of D&D. Great post!

Well, the simple fact is that every time (four IRRC) I've set out to write a cleaned up D&D it has strayed very far from the original eventually.  I'm actually working on blending of one of them with my attempt at a Rolemaster heartbreaker right now, the D&D one had more skills.

Quote from: The Butcher;391273I say you're on to something here, and the bolded parts in particular are crucial to understand the history of D&D. Great post!

Maybe not the history of D&D but the success story of D&D?

Quote from: Dirk Remmecke;391871Maybe not the history of D&D but the success story of D&D?

Both!

Quote from: David Johansen;391037D&D's success is a result of being all things to all people.

The secret to D&D's initial popularity.

Quote from: David Johansen;391037Unfortunately this has been neglected since 1e but as it was a fundamental aspect of the game, versions done by people who actually wanted to clean up D&D instead of publishing their heartbreaker under that title (and yes I'm firmly in that camp myself) tend to keep various obvious aspects without actually creating a game that functions well in big battles.

The history of D&D's successive editions, in a nutshell.

Quote from: PaladinCA;390918I found nothing remarkable about the Siege Engine Mechanic. I bought and read the books twice before selling them off. I don't see the appeal or agree with the rave reviews I've read online. YMMV

Sorry to hear that. I think that the SIEGE mechanic is pretty neat because it has one simple roll to do almost everything. My goal when I DM a RPG is to hardly ever have to look up a rule, and SIEGE helps me out a lot there.

Quote from: areola;391139C&C is a good bridge from 3e to older edition games, and I appreciate it for that sole reason. The only reason to stay with C&C instead of going full fledge retro-clone/AD&D is that you like the SIEGE engine system.

I see this as another big advantage, that C&C captures the AD&D feel but uses 3E style rules. I have players from both ends of the spectrum and this is a great compromise for both factions.

When I don't run OD&D, I ususally run C&C.

Quote from: The Butcher;391874Both!

The secret to D&D's initial popularity.



The history of D&D's successive editions, in a nutshell.

Well, to the first, I think it might have been a barrier to greater mainstream penetration because many people walked away and filed it under "stupid adolescent stuff that makes no sense."  Now good DMs might have helped there but there's also some pretty counter intuitive stuff in AD&D that I've seen lead to really nasty arguements.

To the second I'd have to say that second edition was an attempt to clean up D&D by people who really didn't get the wargame aspect of it and were more concerned with narrative flow than balance.  It's a problem I have with Castles and Crusades too.

Honestly, all I really want is a Holmes basic set retro clone that puts in a proper stat bonus set and variable weapon damage and gives thieves a better starting chance on their skills.

Quote from: finarvyn;391882Sorry to hear that. I think that the SIEGE mechanic is pretty neat because it has one simple roll to do almost everything. My goal when I DM a RPG is to hardly ever have to look up a rule, and SIEGE helps me out a lot there.

I see this as another big advantage, that C&C captures the AD&D feel but uses 3E style rules. I have players from both ends of the spectrum and this is a great compromise for both factions.

When I don't run OD&D, I ususally run C&C.

Both positive points for me as well.

Quote from: David Johansen;391884Well, to the first, I think it might have been a barrier to greater mainstream penetration because many people walked away and filed it under "stupid adolescent stuff that makes no sense."

Possibly.

Quote from: David Johansen;391884To the second I'd have to say that second edition was an attempt to clean up D&D by people who really didn't get the wargame aspect of it and were more concerned with narrative flow than balance.  It's a problem I have with Castles and Crusades too.

Yeah, C&C does feel a lot like 2e at times. I attributed it to the "high fantasy" feel of the art, published adventures and setting; but your insight on mechanics, and their wargame roots, is intriguing.

Quote from: David Johansen;391884Honestly, all I really want is a Holmes basic set retro clone that puts in a proper stat bonus set and variable weapon damage and gives thieves a better starting chance on their skills.

I'm not really familiar with Holmes, but maybe a S&W Core or LL hack is the way to go?