Hello all!
This is a two part questions
1) what is your review/opinion on C&C? What you like and dislike in the system?
2) how does C&C compare with AD&D 1e/OSRIC and 2e in your opinion since it is basically AD&D 3e?
Thanks!
1. It's a great game. I like the simplicity of the Siege Engine mechanic. I like that the "philosophy" is you don't need to roll for everything. The PHB could have more spells per level, but that's just a minor gripe. I can just pull out my old AD&D PHB for more if necessary. And on that note, I often use old AD&D modules and just convert on the fly. It's very easy.
2. It "feels" like AD&D to me, but with less checks and it flows smoother
1) C&C is far from perfect. Not that any game is, but there a few things I dislike about C&C as a whole. Saves tied to threat level instead of AD&D-style tied to character level is probably the one I hate the most. I mean, it's actually a decent idea in theory when you think about it, but I prefer the notion that 20th level paladins are nigh-invincible against spells vs. threatened by a high-level caster. Not a deal breaker. I also think how the SIEGE engine works in general can be a bit wonky at times, and it's STILL somewhat ambiguous after years and going on 10 printings. Outside of that, game is basically AD&D that can be played with minimal effort. Combat is easy as hell to run, has an old school flavor, and converting modules is trivial.
2) C&C is AD&D with ascending AC and an easier combat system. All the little differences than seem to be important when comparing the games really aren't whatsoever. Compared to AD&D 2nd, I'd say it's "close enough" to not even matter. 1st vs. 2nd is nearly entirely cosmetic, anyway, so trying to split hairs there is essentially just listing how things are done in a slightly different manner BtB and subsequently glossed over by any competent DM.
Most of my group really like it and for the basic reason Brad and The Spaniard already mentioned.
About the only gripe that ever came up when we played is that henchmen don't come with any equipment and you are expected to completely outfit them with all gear, weapons and armor on top of the starting fee. It's a minor thing unless you really need someone at lower levels, when money is tighter, to help round out the group.
Easier and faster to run than prior versions of TSR D&D. Scales better for high level PCs vs. high level monsters. I never liked 3 + D&D from WotC so no comparison needed; if one likes extreme complexity in mechanics and roll playing vs role playing I can see them liking 3.x more than C&C though as C&C is simple and streamlined.
If one likes a skill based system C&C is not for them. If you want something with a single mechanic for conflict, task resolution then C&C might work for them. If a GM wants fast flexible combat that is C&C.
I'm afraid I strongly dislike the "Siege Engine" your milage may vary. I've heard they've fixed the encumbrance rules but they were a disaster in first edition. There's lots of other little things I dislike. Too many class specific abilities being one of them.
If you always preferred basic and wanted advanced's options C&C might be for you.
Quote from: David Johansen on October 02, 2023, 07:38:05 PM
I've heard they've fixed the encumbrance rules but they were a disaster in first edition.
I don't like them much either but I have never liked the encumbrance rules of any version of D&D and always end up making a super simple system (rule of thumb) for the games I run.
It works, but it's just so bland. Basically does what D&D does without the flavor.
I wanted to like this game badly but it didn't land for my table. The game seems to lean heavily into the need for class diversity to accomplish basic, "everyday" roleplaying session actions, and it feels so stretched with a party of fewer than four.
Quote from: Scooter on October 02, 2023, 07:41:55 PM
Quote from: David Johansen on October 02, 2023, 07:38:05 PM
I've heard they've fixed the encumbrance rules but they were a disaster in first edition.
I don't like them much either but I have never liked the encumbrance rules of any version of D&D and always end up making a super simple system (rule of thumb) for the games I run.
Wow that is harsh. Rule of thumb for encumbrance. Ouch. So if a player tries to carry too much you can whack them with an object no wider than your thum, provided you are on the steps of the courthouse of course. ;D
Quote from: SmallMountaineer on October 02, 2023, 08:10:03 PM
I wanted to like this game badly but it didn't land for my table. The game seems to lean heavily into the need for class diversity to accomplish basic, "everyday" roleplaying session actions, and it feels so stretched with a party of fewer than four.
Exactly like AD&D. Which was the design intention.
Quote from: rgalex on October 02, 2023, 03:55:29 PM
Most of my group really like it and for the basic reason Brad and The Spaniard already mentioned.
About the only gripe that ever came up when we played is that henchmen don't come with any equipment and you are expected to completely outfit them with all gear, weapons and armor on top of the starting fee. It's a minor thing unless you really need someone at lower levels, when money is tighter, to help round out the group.
Looked it up to verify: "Equipment Of Henchmen:
All henchmen will come with nothing except the (normal) clothes they wear. Although they will have a few copper and silver coins, they will have nothing of value — no armor or weapons, nothing! Their wretched state is, in fact, one of the prime motivations for their seeking employment with a successful adventurer."
So you can blame Gygax for that one...
The DMG seems to imply hitelings ARE hired with equipment, but of course they are paid muscle, not friends.
That's exactly right. Hirelings are professionals and come with their gear. Henchmen are rabble aspiring to be adventurers or at least to profit from adventures.
SIEGE turns me off, and after ASSH I'm not eager to investigate AD&D-derived rulesets; I'd rather play a B/X derivative (ACKS or maybe highly-tweaked OSE), 5e with OSR sensibilities, or something further afield.
Quote from: kaliburnuz on October 02, 2023, 01:57:00 PM
Hello all!
This is a two part questions
1) what is your review/opinion on C&C? What you like and dislike in the system?
2) how does C&C compare with AD&D 1e/OSRIC and 2e in your opinion since it is basically AD&D 3e?
Thanks!
1) Here you go. The TLDR is: overall a great system but I dislike the main mechanic (SIEGE engine).
https://methodsetmadness.blogspot.com/2023/09/a-few-thought-on-castles-crusades.html
2) Feels like simplified/modernized AD&D to me, with similar classes and bonuses (+1 per level), since it lacks many important bits of 3e (3 saves, feats, prestige classes, etc.). but it also has some aspects of basic (3d6 in order, streamlined abilities) and some modern aspects before 5e (six saves, roll high ability checks, a kind of "proficiency").
If I had to run a game with minimal house ruling, I'd probably choose C&C over AD&D.
Positive: I like the real AD&D vibe that the rules and presentation of the material give. It does "feel" like the AD&D 3rd edition that TSR might have produced rather than the road WOTC went down. I like that classes resemble their AD&D counterparts. I think the rules as a whole are streamlined and coherent, and support a more modern play style (by which I mean a reduction in reliance on tables and different subsystems).
Negative: I think the SIEGE engine as a concept is really intriguing and maybe quite good for streamlined play. HOWEVER, I dislike the emphasis on attributes rather than class for "Primes"— to me, a Thief should have a Prime in anything Thief-background related, not just Dexterity- related. I have read at least a hundred threads on this argument, and understand the reasoning, but just don't agree with it. But as a task resolution system, the SIEGE Primes and Non-Primes is a great and easy to use concept.
Quote from: GamerforHire on October 03, 2023, 01:17:18 PM
Negative: I think the SIEGE engine as a concept is really intriguing and maybe quite good for streamlined play. HOWEVER, I dislike the emphasis on attributes rather than class for "Primes"— to me, a Thief should have a Prime in anything Thief-background related, not just Dexterity- related.
I both agree and disagree. I actually don't like the idea of a class automatically having compentency in ALL class related tasks. I would prefer that each class have a spread of abilities based on the the different attributes and then your Primes making you better at some of them than others, allowing you to essentially create different sub classes.
That being said, I generally love C&C and it has become my go-to system when I play D&D style games these days.
I'm surprised at all the positive comments about C&C. I found that it lacked the quirkiness of AD&D but also lacked the flexibility of third edition. Sort of the worst of both worlds.
The SIEGE skill system is particularly frustrating. In 3e, the player rolls the die, adds the skill value from his character sheet and tells me the number. I just check that number against the target number for that particular skill check. It's fast and easy. With SIEGE, as the DM I need to either know which skills are Prime for each character or I need to tell the player any modifier to the roll. It's just a slower way to do it. And it doesn't match with to-hit vs ascending AC which work the same way as skills in 3e.
It's become my favorite D&D style game, mostly for the reasons mentioned above, but I'll get a bit more specific, while also noting a few negatives.
Positives
1. It does play like a faster version of AD&D and the Siege Engine is very flexible and easy to grasp. This includes monsters simply using HD for BtH and that serving as the basic level for DCs for spells and effects. This does, however, as others have noted, make it scale differently than classic D&D since high level foes facing other high level foes essentially equal each other out. On the plus side, one could say this is more realistic in that since things are tied to caster level, even the low level spells could be far more powerful when cast by a higher level caster (as in harder to resist in addition to more damaging).
2. It is super easy to convert stuff from most editions of D&D (except maybe 4th) to C&C. You can pretty much do it on the fly. This opens up tons of potential adventures & supplements, including from pretty much anything in the OSR. It's also super easy to house rule pretty much anything in. The Castle Keeper's Guide (CKG) has a ton of cool optional rules covering nearly every aspect of the game.
3. There are enough character class options & tons of spells & equipment, especially if you grab some of the supplemental books. The classes are pretty close to AD&D but they make a few tweaks to classes & races that I like. Examples include: spell-casting or non-casting options for bards, rangers & paladins; different abilities for Half-elves who favor Elven or Human parentage (cribbed from Tolkien); auto spell-casting for gnomes; d10 hit dice for monks; a much better system for multi-classing than in AD&D. They have favored classes for the various races, but you could allow the lame free for all that characterizes later editions if that's your thing.
4. Technically you can play with just the PHB and Monsters & Treasure. Troll Lord Games has usually made the PHB free as a pdf on their website.
5. The Troll Lords are great guys. Veterans, patriots, super-responsive, and keep politics out of it. You can tell that they just love gaming, classic fantasy literature, and the other good things in life.
Some Negatives
1. Their editing is bad and they really show no desire to ever improve it. They ignore offers to help or even outright corrections when you post them after they circulate manuscripts. You'll always find a ton of typos and grammatical errors in everything they put out. This even extends to their announcements & social media posts. This means that their books, while generally well-made, often feel less polished than they should.
2. Additionally, the artwork is really hit and miss. Some is great; some is terrible; a lot is just meh. They've tried to go color more recently, but the results have been mixed. I think average art looks better in black & white.
3. The writing is also uneven. Sometimes it's fun and evocative. Other times it's like the ramblings of the Rick Moranis character in "Ghostbusters." This is particularly true of the Aihrdhe products.
4. The official adventures vary widely in quality. Some authors you know to always avoid, but others are hit and miss. The same goes for their supplements, like the Adventurers Backpack. A combination of great and worthless material. But I guess that's true of most games.
5. Although it's easy to learn, the Siege Engine can be wonky. It scales different than classic D&D. And it's not always completely obvious what attribute applies for certain saves for spells. The more you use it, the easier it gets.
Overall, however, I like the game a lot. It requires the fewest house rules for me which makes it our current default game of choice.
Honest opinion:
I own it. I've read it. I could never sell my players on it unless I forced the issue. I "kinda" am intrigued by it. BUT... it makes me think "Why run this when I should just do what I've always wanted to do and make my own 10-lvel d20 fantasy heartbreaker version of 1e/2e?
It's a game that is effectively an artifact on my bookshelf as a reference of "something of interest". Would I run it? Only if my group said "We REALLY wanna play some 2e!" And even then it would be up against 2e itself, and it *might* make the cut. But more likely they would say "Let's play Fantasycraft." But that would only happen if the moon fell from the sky.
My unfiltered opinion is the same as any other OSR game.
I like the idea of OSR. I like that it exists. I don't really want to play it.
It sits in a weird spot for me, where my interest is more as a tourist than someone seriously considering running it.
I typically enjoy those kind of streamline design efforts, and can appreciate something more or less hitting its design intent. OTOH, the design intent they chose doesn't match what I want. I wouldn't use 3E as a starting place, and if I did it wouldn't be to simplify it. I don't care for monster attacks/defense/saves scaling with characters. The siege mechanic seems to use the complexity budget in a strange way. I don't doubt it makes the game less complex in some ways, but not where I would have picked.
Bottom line, I'm nowhere near the intended audience to run it. I'd probably enjoy playing it with a GM that was enthusiastic about it.
The Troll Lord folks seem like really good guys. Much respect to them. I own a few Castles & Crusades books, but I'm not sure if I'll ever run it. I'm generally into lighter, more streamlined games these days, and the C&C books are just way too verbose for my tastes to use at the table. Shadowdark seems to do what C&C does, but in a much more streamlined presentation. Shadowdark's use of ability checks and DCs is also much more intuitive to me than the SIEGE Engine.
I would happily play in a Castles & Crusades game, but for running a D&D-like d20 roll high fantasy game, it wouldn't be my first choice.
Quote from: hedgehobbit on October 03, 2023, 02:12:09 PM
I'm surprised at all the positive comments about C&C. I found that it lacked the quirkiness of AD&D but also lacked the flexibility of third edition. Sort of the worst of both worlds.
Like AD&D, C&C is NOT a skills based game like 3.x. The goal was to create a real 3rd edition D&D, modern engine and the "quirkiness removed . WotC's game was not a 3rd edition of D&D but a different animal altogether.
Quote from: Scooter on October 02, 2023, 09:21:53 PM
Quote from: SmallMountaineer on October 02, 2023, 08:10:03 PM
I wanted to like this game badly but it didn't land for my table. The game seems to lean heavily into the need for class diversity to accomplish basic, "everyday" roleplaying session actions, and it feels so stretched with a party of fewer than four.
Exactly like AD&D. Which was the design intention.
I'm sure the cobbler tastes right, I just don't think I like the recipe. Nothing against it though, and I hope the Troll Lords make off like bandits republishing Gygax's work!
I am posting this without a ton of contemplation, but as noted above I like the basic idea of the universal task resolution system that the SIEGE engine offers, just that I don't like the tie to attributes. Reading others' comments, I wonder about a heartbreaker variant where I combine C&C basically RAW, but substituting class or "background" for attributes in determining Primes. Get the "backgrounds" from any number of OSR games such as Barbarians of Lemuria, Into the Unknown, or even 5e D&D itself. Maybe combine this with the C&C variant rule of having Primes, secondary tests, and tertiary tests, with Class, Background, and "everything else" being the three categories.
Don't be too harsh. I am just brainstorming with a gin and tonic in one hand ...
:-[ The typos hurt, man. That and the adventures can be really hit or miss in the "neat! almost inspired!" to "boiler plate, are you even trying?" range. And SIEGE engine feels a little tacked on instead of robust playthroughed. ;D But it's like that happy golden retriever who isn't too bright and has a favorite stinky blanket it brings everywhere, but otherwise is always trying to please. 8) I know, I know, not the best explanation, but that's what it feels like to me.
Quote from: GamerforHire on October 04, 2023, 07:52:45 PM
I am posting this without a ton of contemplation, but as noted above I like the basic idea of the universal task resolution system that the SIEGE engine offers, just that I don't like the tie to attributes. Reading others' comments, I wonder about a heartbreaker variant where I combine C&C basically RAW, but substituting class or "background" for attributes in determining Primes. Get the "backgrounds" from any number of OSR games such as Barbarians of Lemuria, Into the Unknown, or even 5e D&D itself. Maybe combine this with the C&C variant rule of having Primes, secondary tests, and tertiary tests, with Class, Background, and "everything else" being the three categories.
Don't be too harsh. I am just brainstorming with a gin and tonic in one hand ...
A couple things about primes that I don't think have come up yet. First, even if you use RAW, where class determines one of your primes, you get to select the other(s). This allows for a fair degree of customization within classes since these choices can have significant in game effects. So if you want a martial cleric, make your other primes Str & Con, or Str & Dex. If you want that spiritual leader, make your other primes Cha & Int. Plus, some people actually make their lower attributes their primes. You can have a fighter with 9 Str as a prime and 17 Cha as non-prime. So your base CL for Str will be 12, but now for Cha it's 16 instead of 18. As you level up, this gets more significant.
Finally, because of how saves are distributed fairly equally amongst the stats, there are no real dump stats in C&C. Charisma, for example, which was always our dump stat back in the B/X and 1e days, is used for death, charm, and fear attacks, and for Clerics' turning. So it's not easily discarded.
After reading the replies, I'm just gonna say this: in ACTUAL PLAY, C&C is basically AD&D. It totally is. It might not look like it is given a reading of the rules, but that's how it plays at the table.
Yeah, there are issues, just like every other game in existence. The only way to fix that, honestly, is to write your own game exactly how you want it. And I'm sure most of us have at one time or another...I wrote a fantasy heartbreaker based on BIO-E from TMNT when I was in junior high. Was it any good? No idea, but I liked it. That said, sometimes you just want to play some Gygaxian Greyhawk, and C&C gives that to you without some of the more opaque parts of AD&D.
SIEGE engine "needs work", primes don't always "work out right", saves (for me) are less than ideal, etc., etc., etc. But when we're playing, it works fine. And sometimes fine is all you really want when you're drinking with your buddies and beating the fuck out of orcs in lost tombs.
Quote from: Brad on October 05, 2023, 11:54:22 AM
After reading the replies, I'm just gonna say this: in ACTUAL PLAY, C&C is basically AD&D. It totally is. It might not look like it is given a reading of the rules, but that's how it plays at the table.
Yes, I think they hit their design goal with that. Not surprised as Gary had a hand in its design as a "3rd Edition"
Quote from: Brad on October 05, 2023, 11:54:22 AM
SIEGE engine "needs work", primes don't always "work out right", saves (for me) are less than ideal, etc., etc., etc. But when we're playing, it works fine. And sometimes fine is all you really want when you're drinking with your buddies and beating the fuck out of orcs in lost tombs.
Best take on SIEGE engine.
Overall I wholeheartedly agree with Brad. C&C is basically AD&D3 at the table and I like it, even if it is not perfect.
The only real cons are the typos (I feel you Opaopajr :D) and the overall art direction which is really hit and miss IMHO.
Quote from: Felneth on October 06, 2023, 06:26:21 AM
Overall I wholeheartedly agree with Brad. C&C is basically AD&D3 at the table and I like it, even if it is not perfect.
The only real cons are the typos (I feel you Opaopajr :D) and the overall art direction which is really hit and miss IMHO.
Typos are pretty much a thing of the past in the core rule books
It's a game I'd like to like more than I actually do, I think.
I ran C&C for a while. At first I liked it. After running it for a while I kept running into things I didn't like, so I started changing them. I excised some spells (e.g., I remember getting rid of "sound burst" which I think came from 3e and totally stepped on the toes of the Magic-User, in my opinion). I changed the way surprise worked (instead of using a SIEGE engine check based on Wis I just house-ruled TSR D&D surprise into the game). I didn't like the way saving throws worked (again, it was a SIEGE engine thing) and house-ruled that (and again, I just house-ruled TSR D&D saving throws into the game). I prefer my D&Dish games to be strongly class/level based, and I didn't like the emphasis the SIEGE engine put on stats. I started ditching it, in general. I can be pretty thick, but eventually even I realized that what I really seemed to want was TSR D&D, so that's where I went. I currently run an original D&D game, and also a 1e AD&D game.
I think C&C is okay, but it's kind of its own thing with its own quirks. Whether you like or can tolerate those depends on what you're looking for, I suppose. To me, it just makes more sense to play TSR D&D.
As for the second part of the question, I'm not a big 2e AD&D fan (I prefer 1e), and as you can tell from the above I'm not a huge C&C fan, either. I'm not much for *running* any of the clone systems, for that matter. I appreciate them more as a source of possible supplements/adventures that are mostly compatible with the games I prefer. If I were to actually run a clone system (instead of actual TSR D&D) it would almost certainly be OSRIC. The OSRIC book available from Black Blade Publishing is a very reasonably priced, single volume set of rules that I think captures AD&D better than C&C and other clone or clone-like systems I'm familiar with.
Quote from: Philotomy Jurament on October 06, 2023, 12:56:00 PM
I ran C&C for a while. At first I liked it. After running it for a while I kept running into things I didn't like, so I started changing them. I excised some spells (e.g., I remember getting rid of "sound burst" which I think came from 3e and totally stepped on the toes of the Magic-User, in my opinion). I changed the way surprise worked (instead of using a SIEGE engine check based on Wis I just house-ruled TSR D&D surprise into the game). I didn't like the way saving throws worked (again, it was a SIEGE engine thing) and house-ruled that (and again, I just house-ruled TSR D&D saving throws into the game). I prefer my D&Dish games to be strongly class/level based, and I didn't like the emphasis the SIEGE engine put on stats. I started ditching it, in general. I can be pretty thick, but eventually even I realized that what I really seemed to want was TSR D&D, so that's where I went. I currently run an original D&D game, and also a 1e AD&D game.
I think C&C is okay, but it's kind of its own thing with its own quirks. Whether you like or can tolerate those depends on what you're looking for, I suppose. To me, it just makes more sense to play TSR D&D.
As for the second part of the question, I'm not a big 2e AD&D fan (I prefer 1e), and as you can tell from the above I'm not a huge C&C fan, either. I'm not much for *running* any of the clone systems, for that matter. I appreciate them more as a source of possible supplements/adventures that are mostly compatible with the games I prefer. If I were to actually run a clone system (instead of actual TSR D&D) it would almost certainly be OSRIC. The OSRIC book available from Black Blade Publishing is a very reasonably priced, single volume set of rules that I think captures AD&D better than C&C and other clone or clone-like systems I'm familiar with.
A reasonable position. C&C was my intro to the OSR scene. I played it quite a bit for about 2 years, ditched it for other options, and came back to it a few years later. I like its adaptability and flexibility.
As for other games that are more like retroclones, unless they're improving something significantly or streamlining (as in giving me a full game in one book), I'm no longer interested. I find OSRIC dull and poorly organized. Easier for me to use all my AD&D books than waste time with that. BFRPG is boring beyond belief. OSE is great as a reference and I like some of the advanced material, but I'm not crazy about the art and tone. Labyrinth Lord Advanced is good primarily for being in one book and emulating how we played, including freely mixing B/X and AD&D character classes for awhile. But it's also poorly organized and the art is generally bad. S&W is fine, but a bit limited in terms of things like spells & magic items. I love their monster books, though. The new edition is a bit disappointing in the art & presentation department. The previews of Greg Gillespie's new game were pretty underwhelming; just another set of house rules mashing things together. Labyrinth Lord does that already.
So for now we'll still with C&C, freely cribbing from everything else, which, in any case, is the beauty of the OSR.
I love Castles & Crusades in theory. Though I don't know I'd like it plain. I never liked the "prime" system. One little tweak I make that I think makes it awesome, though, is to bring back the Secondary Skills table. Anything that falls under the umbrella of the secondary skill gets the lower TN as if primed. So it goes more logically by skill area rather than being redundant with the attribute bonus. Done that way, I think it's a great, simple system for the standard "motley band of wandering psychopaths wander the land getting caught up in wacky adventures" motif that nearly every GM runs no matter how much they go on about their own personal style or unique campaign.
However, I don't think that lives up to the name of the game. "Castles & Crusades" gets me thinking about sieges and mass combat. And when it comes to that, I think the game only punctuates the brain rot of "modern" RPG sensibilities. There is a lot of stuff in 1E--a lot of it absolutely hated--that works remarkably well when you stray from the path of motley psychopaths. Three rules, at the very minimum, that I would have to port over are: 1E's full initiative system. Weapon vs Armor adjustments. And lower-is-better ACs, specifically the way only 1E calibrates the hit tables.
The first two, I think are more or less easy to throw into any game. Reversing the ACs, though, that requires converting every last AC. And at that point, I get to feeling it's a lot easier just to play 1E.
Quote from: Lunamancer on October 06, 2023, 09:16:52 PM
However, I don't think that lives up to the name of the game. "Castles & Crusades" gets me thinking about sieges and mass combat.
You do know why it is named Castles & Crusades don't you?
I'm going to just answer the thread title instead of the OP.
Quote from: kaliburnuz on October 02, 2023, 01:57:00 PM
What is your unfiltered opinion on Castle & Crusades?
One of the better games I no longer play. I retain a soft spot for it, but time has passed it by and we've got more finely tuned options now. I particularly liked the take on the bard, and the class-and-a-half system for multi-classing.
It's critics (last time I checked, I'm answering this before reading the thread) sometimes seemed needlessly vituperative over what I consider relatively minor and typical flaws for an rpg. Most valid critique is that target numbers for Primes and non-Primes can stand to be adjusted, but that's the easiest thing in the world to do, and the first thing that most who run it do.
Quote from: Scooter on October 06, 2023, 09:22:24 PM
You do know why it is named Castles & Crusades don't you?
I do.
I have no idea why you'd choose a handle for yourself that means one who has diarrhea. I mean maybe you're really trying to land a gig in an Imodium commercial or something. I have no problem admitting that I don't really know, though.
But I do know why it's named Castles & Crusades.
Quote from: Lunamancer on October 06, 2023, 09:43:29 PM
Quote from: Scooter on October 06, 2023, 09:22:24 PM
You do know why it is named Castles & Crusades don't you?
I have no idea why you'd choose a handle for yourself that means one who has diarrhea. I mean maybe you're really trying to land a gig in an Imodium commercial or something. I have no problem admitting that I don't really know, though.
It's gonna be okay. There are many new treatments for mental disorders these days.
Quote from: Philotomy Jurament on October 06, 2023, 12:56:00 PMThe OSRIC book available from Black Blade Publishing is a very reasonably priced, single volume set of rules that I think captures AD&D better than C&C and other clone or clone-like systems I'm familiar with.
But isn't OSRIC literally just AD&D with some slight changes for publishing adventures while avoiding lawsuits? Anyway, playing OSRIC seems kinda dumb because you can play the real thing instead of a clone. I had about five copies of OSRIC and finally got rid of them all because it wasn't even a good resource for playing AD&D since nothing was identical. Contrast with OSE which can be used as a reference for B/X.
Quote from: Brad on October 08, 2023, 03:48:31 PM
Quote from: Philotomy Jurament on October 06, 2023, 12:56:00 PMThe OSRIC book available from Black Blade Publishing is a very reasonably priced, single volume set of rules that I think captures AD&D better than C&C and other clone or clone-like systems I'm familiar with.
But isn't OSRIC literally just AD&D with some slight changes for publishing adventures while avoiding lawsuits? Anyway, playing OSRIC seems kinda dumb because you can play the real thing instead of a clone. I had about five copies of OSRIC and finally got rid of them all because it wasn't even a good resource for playing AD&D since nothing was identical. Contrast with OSE which can be used as a reference for B/X.
As someone who is not expert at AD&D, I prefer using OSRIC for reference, as:
- It feels easier to navigate / better organized.
- Excludes some rules few people like (e.g., weapon vs. armor).
- Other rules are simplified (eg. initiative).
- Is free online, has a good SRD I can reach in a few clicks - and link to my players.
If you're very familiar with AD&D, maybe you don't need a "reference index" at all.
Here:
https://osricwiki.presgas.name/doku.php?id=osric:index
Quote from: Eric Diaz on October 08, 2023, 04:52:31 PM
Quote from: Brad on October 08, 2023, 03:48:31 PM
Quote from: Philotomy Jurament on October 06, 2023, 12:56:00 PMThe OSRIC book available from Black Blade Publishing is a very reasonably priced, single volume set of rules that I think captures AD&D better than C&C and other clone or clone-like systems I'm familiar with.
But isn't OSRIC literally just AD&D with some slight changes for publishing adventures while avoiding lawsuits? Anyway, playing OSRIC seems kinda dumb because you can play the real thing instead of a clone. I had about five copies of OSRIC and finally got rid of them all because it wasn't even a good resource for playing AD&D since nothing was identical. Contrast with OSE which can be used as a reference for B/X.
As someone who is not expert at AD&D, I prefer using OSRIC for reference, as:
- It feels easier to navigate / better organized.
- Excludes some rules few people like (e.g., weapon vs. armor).
- Other rules are simplified (eg. initiative).
- Is free online, has a good SRD I can reach in a few clicks - and link to my players.
If you're very familiar with AD&D, maybe you don't need a "reference index" at all.
Here:
https://osricwiki.presgas.name/doku.php?id=osric:index
Yeah, I think it's a matter of personal preference. I found OSRIC poorly organized and uninspiring in every facet. But I have all my original AD&D stuff and know it well enough that I scarcely need a reference. OSE, on the other hand, I do find useful as a reference, though I'm not as impressed with it overall as some are. It's good because it's B/X, not because the game itself has been improved.
Quote from: Eric Diaz on October 08, 2023, 04:52:31 PM
As someone who is not expert at AD&D, I prefer using OSRIC for reference, as:
- It feels easier to navigate / better organized.
- Excludes some rules few people like (e.g., weapon vs. armor).
- Other rules are simplified (eg. initiative).
- Is free online, has a good SRD I can reach in a few clicks - and link to my players.
The epub is great. All hyperlinked internally. Takes the place of AD&D PHB, DMG & MM
I loathe e-books so that's never a plus for me. Never looked at an SRD in my life so also of no interest. I want a giant table in the basement or kitchen with books and gaming stuff spread all over the place, thank you very much.
Quote from: Brad on October 08, 2023, 03:48:31 PM
But isn't OSRIC literally just AD&D with some slight changes for publishing adventures while avoiding lawsuits?
That seems to be the accepted myth, but there are a lot of differences, some of which I'd characterize as gratuitous. And you don't need to be any kind of system expert to pick up on them.
If you so much and roll up a character--the sort of thing someone would have to do if they intended to actually play RPGs rather than just talk about them--then it's hard not to notice the changes to the XP advancement table. And I don't think it's got anything to do with just dodging copyright claims.
For example, in 1E the fighter XP requirements are expressed like
0-2,000
2,001-4,000
4,001-8,000
and so on.
If you wanted to keep that basically the same but not express it the same way, you could just do
0-1,999
2,000-3,999
4,000-7,999
and so on.
It would keep it functionally the same without copying anything at all verbatim.
Instead what you see in OSRIC is
0
1,900
4,250
7,750
and so on.
And I think I know why.
Because by the 1E way, it technically takes 2001 XP accumulated to get from 0 XP to 2nd level, but then from the start of 2nd level to 3rd level you only need 2000 XP more. Even though in practice the odds of hitting both levels in actual play with the exact number needed, down to the very last XP, is astronomical, and so this difference will never be relevant, this is the exact sort of thing that sticks in the craw of a nerd who is more obsessed with theory than play.
OSRIC's progression solves this non-problem. It takes 1900 to get to level 2, 2350 more to get to level 3, 3500 more to get to level 4, and so on. At what cost? Oh, just having a table that's a lot harder to memorize. But hey, nerds who talk about RPGs and don't play them don't care about that since they'll never have to look up how much XP they need at the end of the game session. That's only a concern for real gamers.
I have no reason to intrinsically hate OSRIC. It came out at a time when exactly what I needed was a way to have access to 1E books (the special edition covers were not yet available), and when I really wanted to write modules without having to write a whole RPG. It's exactly what I needed. It just dropped the ball throughout on these finer points, enough to where it just wasn't useful for me. And from the looks of it, it came down to prioritizing nerds who talk about RPGs over gamers who actually play RPGs.
Not saying they did it on purpose. They were probably fooled because what you see on RPG forums is so heavy skewed towards people who I don't think really play. The very fact that the myth of it being a faithful reproduction of 1E spreads despite it being easily debunkable by anyone who's ever rolled up an OSRIC character should give you an idea of how many people are actually playing OSRIC.
Quote from: Brad on October 08, 2023, 03:48:31 PM
Anyway, playing OSRIC seems kinda dumb because you can play the real thing instead of a clone.
Well, I play AD&D, not OSRIC, so I kind of agree, although I wouldn't say it's dumb to play OSRIC. I just don't need OSRIC as a set of rules; I prefer using the original game. I think it might be useful for someone who wanted to play a "close to 1e AD&D" set of rules who didn't already own the AD&D books (or who didn't like the organization or authorial voice of the originals -- which seems unfathomable to me, but some people dislike EGG's prose). It's a lot cheaper and easier to acquire the single volume OSRIC book than to get multiple out of print AD&D books. Or to download the free PDF, if you use PDFs.
Another potential reason to use OSRIC: it has good VTT/online tools (on Foundry and Fantasy Grounds). Again, this isn't something that appeals to me (I like to game around a tabletop rather than through a screen), but I think it appeals to many of today's gamers. An example from Foundry:
(https://i.imgur.com/8X8HkHT.png)
And even if you don't use a VTT, the tools could be useful for DM prep.
Quote from: Lunamancer on October 08, 2023, 08:01:57 PM
That seems to be the accepted myth, but there are a lot of differences, some of which I'd characterize as gratuitous.
There are certainly differences, and someone could view them as gratuitous now, but at the time that OSRIC was being created there was no "OSR" and there was real concern about how much of a "safe harbor" the OGL would be, especially in cases where tables and progressions in the 1e rules that were not mirrored in the SRD and that didn't follow a consistent algorithm such that it could be argued that they were copyrightable. Clone systems using the OGL were a new and untested concept. The authors of OSRIC tried to be scrupulous in following the OGL, and also cautious in an original presentation of rules from 1e -- just in case WotC decided to go the courts.
Most of the differences in OSRIC stem from that concern. A few were because the authors needed to settle on one of several possible interpretations of the 1e rules. The handling of initiative in OSRIC is a good example of that. Very few of differences were purely authorial preference. Anyway, I don't think I'd characterize the differences as "gratuitous" once the context is considered.
Lastly, and FWIW, there is a new revision of OSRIC currently under development (https://www.reddit.com/r/osr/comments/16bjlpx/comment/jzf3o1i/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3).
Quote from: Philotomy Jurament on October 10, 2023, 04:14:52 PM
Most of the differences in OSRIC stem from that concern. A few were because the authors needed to settle on one of several possible interpretations of the 1e rules. The handling of initiative in OSRIC is a good example of that. Very few of differences were purely authorial preference. Anyway, I don't think I'd characterize the differences as "gratuitous" once the context is considered.
My post I had already anticipated, considered, and rejected that concern as not a plausible explanation. I'm just not buying it.
We can look at the Attribute tables. The numerical adjustments there were preserved precisely. Instead of writing "+15%" for the Charisma loyal adjustment, for instance, it just had "+15." You mean to tell me the author thought merely dropping a percent sign was sufficient to dodge copyright claims, but changing 2000 to 1999 wasn't?
And why are the attributes listed in the 2nd Edition order? That's not something a 1E fan wants to see. At the very best, a 1E fan might be indifferent. But they're not going to like it. If copying the 1E order is a concern, why wouldn't copying the 2E order be just as much of a concern? They could have just been listed attributes alphabetically.
You say the author's preferences weren't forced into OSRIC, fine. I'm sure he solicited feedback when taking on the project, though, and there was no shortage of disingenuous gamers trolling forums trying to co-opt the culture. He may have genuinely believed he was making the most faithful reproduction possible for the audience. All I'm saying is it was anything but that.
I hope for the best in the revision, but if reddit is where it's coming together, I'm going to expect the worst.
>What is your review/opinion on C&C?
It's AD&D 3e.
>What you like and dislike in the system?
It's AD&D 3e.
The SIEGE engine is okay. Though, I replaced Primes with Advantage.
I can easily run any TSR Setting with C&C.
I like the slightly different classes and races.
>How does C&C compare with AD&D 1e/OSRIC and 2e in your opinion since it is basically AD&D 3e?
I prefer OD&D/Swords & Wizardry: White Box to C&C.
I prefer C&C to OSRIC, 1e or 2e.
BUT not by some massive margin.
The RPG hobby has a certain segment of players who ONLY will play Current In Print games and so, the big advantage of C&C for OSR GMs is these players can buy a brand new nice hardback player's book at a fair price which has everything they need to play.
Quote from: Lunamancer on October 10, 2023, 06:46:25 PM
My post I had already anticipated, considered, and rejected that concern as not a plausible explanation. I'm just not buying it.
You're free to believe as you wish, of course. However, just for the record, I'm not speculating. I know what I'm talking about.
Quote
I hope for the best in the revision, but if reddit is where it's coming together, I'm going to expect the worst.
No, reddit is not where it's coming together.
Greetings!
I don't understand why some people are hostile, snotty, and so ungrateful towards OSRIC. Marshall and his crew are a group of old school gamers that wanted to establish a work that could oreserve AD&D for the general public, and also serve as a creative vehicle for designers and writers to create new books for AD&D--*legally*. I would say that was a very noble accomplishment, and an achievement that they succeeded in accomplishing. C&C, and also Hackmaster created stuff--but it was more narrow in scope. OSRIC's achievement opened the door for anyone, anywhere, to make new books for AD&D.
That is an achievement that D&D gamers everywhere should be respectful of, and grateful for. OSRIC opened the door HUGELY for there to even be an "OSR".
Semper Fidelis,
SHARK
Quote from: SHARK on October 10, 2023, 10:56:02 PM
and also serve as a creative vehicle for designers and writers to create new books for AD&D--*legally*
Anyone can write books for AD&D. Legally. OSRIC didn't change the legality of doing so.
Quote from: Scooter on October 10, 2023, 11:38:32 PM
Quote from: SHARK on October 10, 2023, 10:56:02 PM
and also serve as a creative vehicle for designers and writers to create new books for AD&D--*legally*
Anyone can write books for AD&D. Legally. OSRIC didn't change the legality of doing so.
Greetings!
Really? Well, Jumping Bananas! Did you write Marshall and the crew of people that created OSRIC to tell them, "Hey! FUCKSTICK! Anyone can create AD&D books, legally! All without the fucking OSRIC book! Nyah! Nyah! Nyah!"
Right there, in the OSRIC forward, Marshall et. al, discusses the whole point of producing the OSRIC book.
Marshall and his team, his legal counsel that they consulted, well, I guess they are all just sadly ignorant. They didn't get the memo, apparently. ;D
Semper Fidelis,
SHARK
C&C is great. A little bit too high-fantasy for my taste but that's easily chopped down.
The siege engine is pretty good too but not perfect so could it do with a house rule or two. But over all it's a great game with some very nice supplements to boot.
Quote from: SHARK on October 11, 2023, 05:28:32 AM
Quote from: Scooter on October 10, 2023, 11:38:32 PM
Quote from: SHARK on October 10, 2023, 10:56:02 PM
and also serve as a creative vehicle for designers and writers to create new books for AD&D--*legally*
Anyone can write books for AD&D. Legally. OSRIC didn't change the legality of doing so.
Greetings!
Really? Well, Jumping Bananas! Did you write Marshall and the crew of people that created OSRIC to tell them, "Hey! FUCKSTICK! Anyone can create AD&D books, legally!
Why would I? Am I their parents? Do they pay me to tell them fucking obvious things? Are you retarded? And how did OSRIC CHANGE the legality of writing AD&D books dipshit?
Quote from: Scooter on October 11, 2023, 08:29:29 AM
Quote from: SHARK on October 11, 2023, 05:28:32 AM
Quote from: Scooter on October 10, 2023, 11:38:32 PM
Quote from: SHARK on October 10, 2023, 10:56:02 PM
and also serve as a creative vehicle for designers and writers to create new books for AD&D--*legally*
Anyone can write books for AD&D. Legally. OSRIC didn't change the legality of doing so.
Greetings!
Really? Well, Jumping Bananas! Did you write Marshall and the crew of people that created OSRIC to tell them, "Hey! FUCKSTICK! Anyone can create AD&D books, legally!
Why would I? Am I their parents? Do they pay me to tell them fucking obvious things? Are you retarded? And how did OSRIC CHANGE the legality of writing AD&D books dipshit?
Greetings!
Am I retarded? I'm a dipshit?
You can get fucked, jackass.
Semper Fidelis,
SHARK
Quote from: SHARK on October 11, 2023, 05:28:32 AM
Really? Well, Jumping Bananas! Did you write Marshall and the crew of people that created OSRIC to tell them, "Hey! FUCKSTICK! Anyone can create AD&D books, legally! All without the fucking OSRIC book! Nyah! Nyah! Nyah!"
Right there, in the OSRIC forward, Marshall et. al, discusses the whole point of producing the OSRIC book.
Marshall and his team, his legal counsel that they consulted, well, I guess they are all just sadly ignorant. They didn't get the memo, apparently. ;D
*eyeroll*
Who's being hostile and snotty now?
Look, I realize Scooter is not a real person, and as such is not necessarily entitled to be treated with respect by default, and even chose a name with the root word of "scoot", a slang term for diarrhea, which accurately describes the quality of his posts.
However, the fact is, your decrying of hostile and snotty attitudes towards OSRIC came right after a couple of my posts where I cited legitimate gripes I have about OSRIC without any hostility or snotty-ness.
And then this goofy shit about lawyers? Come on. That's just condescending bullshit. Whatever legal advice the lawyers gave I'm sure was sound legal advice. But the fact is, Cloud Kingdom Games in the 90's did a Riddle Rooms series which used an in-house RPG system that was a close AD&D knockoff that I could use their adventures in a 1E game with virtually no tweaking. And that's just one example that I can name because I happened to be a fan of it and still have physical copies of their products. I know there were others.
Some men say the earth is flat. Some men say the earth is round. But if it is flat, could Parliament make it round? And if it round, could the kings command flatten it? But if a lawyer says something contrary to something else that was already a thing, well then, I guess that must have never really happened.
D&D knockoffs were a thing. What I was looking to OSRIC for was something specifically 1E, and I think it missed the mark. There's nothing hostile or snotty or ungrateful about not liking someone's game product.
My impression of OSRIC (other than being a great "reference index", but not a game I'd play as written), is this.
Anyone can write an AD&D module, AFAICT, but you couldn't write "AD&D" on the cover.
OSRIC, AFAICT, tries to bridge that gap, and you can see several "OSRIC" products in DTRPG - some say "OSRIC & 1st Edition RPGs" or "1e | 2e | OSRIC", but most just say OSRIC. Same happened with S&S and LL.
OSRIC started at 2006 apparently.
Nowadays "OSR" is enough for me, as I use 1e, B/X, DCC, BFRPG and LotFP modules for the same campaign.
I'm not a lawyer etc. I'm judging it as a product.
"The commercial argument for OSRIC is much more robust than the legal one." - as suggested in the link below.
(In any case, it is curious to see the differences between OSRIC and 1e. So far I've heard: no WvA table or weapon speed, no bard/monk/psionics, XP tables, streamlined initiative, and different order of abilities).
EDIT: found this 2008 thread describing some differences and the idea of publishing 1e stuff using he OSRIC label.
https://www.dragonsfoot.org/forums/viewtopic.php?t=32741#:~:text=Re%3A%20Diffrences%20between%201ed%2FOSRIC,-Post%20by%20Dwayanu&text=Neither%20the%20Monk%20class%20nor,perhaps%20for%20some%20other%20things.
Quote from: SHARK on October 11, 2023, 08:40:43 AM
Am I retarded? I'm a dipshit?
Yes, you are. So now, how did OSRIC change the legality of writing 1st Ed AD&D material????
Further down the rabbit hole, for whom it may concern.
- There are more than 1000 products with the OSRIC label in DTRPG.
- There are more than 10000 products with the 1e label in DTRPG - BUT most are PF 1e or official AD&D products.
- There are about 900 products with the AD&D 1e label in DTRPG, mostly official AD&D products, but also PF stuff, stock art...
It seems OSRIC served as a good label for a while - and could still function as the "unofficial AD&D 1e product" marker, if there is a market for it (but I'd bet this market is small).
DTRPG labels are a bit of a mess anyway. It seems like lots of OSR products slapped the "OSRIC" system side by side with C&C, LL, S&W, and so on.
Quote from: Brad on October 08, 2023, 03:48:31 PM
Quote from: Philotomy Jurament on October 06, 2023, 12:56:00 PMThe OSRIC book available from Black Blade Publishing is a very reasonably priced, single volume set of rules that I think captures AD&D better than C&C and other clone or clone-like systems I'm familiar with.
But isn't OSRIC literally just AD&D with some slight changes for publishing adventures while avoiding lawsuits? Anyway, playing OSRIC seems kinda dumb because you can play the real thing instead of a clone. I had about five copies of OSRIC and finally got rid of them all because it wasn't even a good resource for playing AD&D since nothing was identical. Contrast with OSE which can be used as a reference for B/X.
OSRIC is cheaper and for a while was far more easily available, then it became habit. I remember the day that WOTC began making PDFs available of the rulebooks. eBay didn't seem to have as many copies available years ago as in recent years.
I haven't read C&C so I can't really say I have an opinion about it.
Quote from: Eric Diaz on October 11, 2023, 09:26:55 AM
(In any case, it is curious to see the differences between OSRIC and 1e. So far I've heard: no WvA table or weapon speed, no bard/monk/psionics, XP tables, streamlined initiative, and different order of abilities).
EDIT: found this 2008 thread describing some differences and the idea of publishing 1e stuff using he OSRIC label.
https://www.dragonsfoot.org/forums/viewtopic.php?t=32741#:~:text=Re%3A%20Diffrences%20between%201ed%2FOSRIC,-Post%20by%20Dwayanu&text=Neither%20the%20Monk%20class%20nor,perhaps%20for%20some%20other%20things.
Would it help to have a comprehensive list?
I just named a few things that are immediately obvious if you so much as try to roll up a character. Replacing encumbrance with weight and setting the conversion at 1 gp = 10 sp are a couple more, and they're once examples of pivoting to 2E aesthetics. Unlike the ordering of attributes which is trivial, these two actually do mess with the internal consistency of my world. The change in conversion rates, of course, are going to mean there's going to be a good number of items on the equipment list that will have their prices changed.
Quote from: Lunamancer on October 11, 2023, 02:11:51 PM
...they're once examples of pivoting to 2E aesthetics.
In many cases, OSRIC differences weren't an intentional (or gratuitous) pivot to 2e aesthetics, but rather an effect of using the (3.0) SRD as the OGL'd source which was then modified. I'm not claiming that's the case for all your specific examples, but I know it applies to attribute ordering, for example. There were discussions about whether to change that to match 1e ordering or not, and at the time the cautious approach won out.
Quote from: Philotomy Jurament on October 10, 2023, 04:14:52 PMWell, I play AD&D, not OSRIC, so I kind of agree, although I wouldn't say it's dumb to play OSRIC. I just don't need OSRIC as a set of rules; I prefer using the original game. I think it might be useful for someone who wanted to play a "close to 1e AD&D" set of rules who didn't already own the AD&D books (or who didn't like the organization or authorial voice of the originals -- which seems unfathomable to me, but some people dislike EGG's prose). It's a lot cheaper and easier to acquire the single volume OSRIC book than to get multiple out of print AD&D books. Or to download the free PDF, if you use PDFs.
Well that's just it, though. I'd say 95% of the people who actually want to play AD&D own the original books, or at least the reprints. My entire gaming group has a copy of the PHB because I gave it to them when we started playing years ago, well before OSRIC was a thing. For that 5% who want to play AD&D and don't own the books, they might not even know OSRIC exists, and if they did and used OSRIC instead of the originals, you know some crusty ass grognards would give them a hard time about it...
Just seems like everything about OSRIC is entirely hypothetical beyond being a vehicle by which to publish AD&D adventures. For that, it's excellent. For play at a real table, ehhh. The REASON to play AD&D is for pure Gygaxian atmosphere; you remove that and you might as well play something less complex.
EDIT: Also this thread is getting derailed...it's about C&C. So editing this to include some C&C stuff.
I went through the latest edition that incorporates the higher levels from the CKG and noticed something very weird that made me go back through my older books. What the actual stat bonuses do for stuff like additional hit points, adding to melee damage, etc., are almost impossible to find. They're buried in a paragraph of text in the stat section and really never overtly referenced anywhere else. I guess I never really thought about it because I've been playing D&D for so long, but there's literally not a table anywhere with this stuff I can find. Just super weird.
Quote from: Brad on October 11, 2023, 03:41:14 PM
I went through the latest edition that incorporates the higher levels from the CKG and noticed something very weird that made me go back through my older books. What the actual stat bonuses do for stuff like additional hit points, adding to melee damage, etc., are almost impossible to find.
The section on attributes and what they are and what they modify in the game leads directly to Attribute Modifiers explanation and table. Same two pages in the Creating a Character Chapter. If you read how to create a character it would be IMPOSSIBLE to not see all of it in sequence.
ATTRIBUTES section is pg 13-14. Page 14 has the table. ::)
Quote from: Lunamancer on October 11, 2023, 02:11:51 PM
Quote from: Eric Diaz on October 11, 2023, 09:26:55 AM
(In any case, it is curious to see the differences between OSRIC and 1e. So far I've heard: no WvA table or weapon speed, no bard/monk/psionics, XP tables, streamlined initiative, and different order of abilities).
EDIT: found this 2008 thread describing some differences and the idea of publishing 1e stuff using he OSRIC label.
https://www.dragonsfoot.org/forums/viewtopic.php?t=32741#:~:text=Re%3A%20Diffrences%20between%201ed%2FOSRIC,-Post%20by%20Dwayanu&text=Neither%20the%20Monk%20class%20nor,perhaps%20for%20some%20other%20things.
Would it help to have a comprehensive list?
I'd love to see a comprehensive list, yes!
But it is just curiosity, since I'm unlikely to play either game.
Quote from: Scooter on October 11, 2023, 03:54:39 PM
The section on attributes and what they are and what they modify in the game leads directly to Attribute Modifiers explanation and table. Same two pages in the Creating a Character Chapter. If you read how to create a character it would be IMPOSSIBLE to not see all of it in sequence.
ATTRIBUTES section is pg 13-14. Page 14 has the table. ::)
I am not talking about that table, I am talking about a table that says:
STR - Melee combat, melee damage
INT - Number of languages
Etc.
That is all buried in a paragraph of text on page 13 and referenced nowhere else. At least the INT/WIS references to bonus spells are covered by the appropriate classes, but say STR for melee? In the combat section: "Melee occurs when two creatures engage in hand-to-hand combat. The attacker rolls a d20 and adds their bonus to hit (BtH) plus any strength modifier."
That's my point. It is almost assumed by the rules you already know this stuff. And most people do, but it's not explicit and in your face like the tables in the AD&D PHB.
Quote from: Brad on October 11, 2023, 03:41:14 PM
Quote from: Philotomy Jurament on October 10, 2023, 04:14:52 PMWell, I play AD&D, not OSRIC, so I kind of agree, although I wouldn't say it's dumb to play OSRIC. I just don't need OSRIC as a set of rules; I prefer using the original game. I think it might be useful for someone who wanted to play a "close to 1e AD&D" set of rules who didn't already own the AD&D books (or who didn't like the organization or authorial voice of the originals -- which seems unfathomable to me, but some people dislike EGG's prose). It's a lot cheaper and easier to acquire the single volume OSRIC book than to get multiple out of print AD&D books. Or to download the free PDF, if you use PDFs.
Well that's just it, though. I'd say 95% of the people who actually want to play AD&D own the original books, or at least the reprints. My entire gaming group has a copy of the PHB because I gave it to them when we started playing years ago, well before OSRIC was a thing. For that 5% who want to play AD&D and don't own the books, they might not even know OSRIC exists, and if they did and used OSRIC instead of the originals, you know some crusty ass grognards would give them a hard time about it...
Just seems like everything about OSRIC is entirely hypothetical beyond being a vehicle by which to publish AD&D adventures. For that, it's excellent. For play at a real table, ehhh. The REASON to play AD&D is for pure Gygaxian atmosphere; you remove that and you might as well play something less complex.
Another personal anecdote: I was invited to an AD&D game last year, and had to create a 5th-level PC.
I am a complete noob in AD&D, having played only other editions (Basic, 3e, 4e, 5e) for decades.
I had the 1e PHB and OSRIC and found OSRIC much easier to learn/reference, so that is what I used.
(IIRC the PHB didn't even tell me my to-hit so I couldn't fill the sheet without the DMG or soem other section of the PHB instead of characters).
So, while I do not think that are many people trying to get into AD&D 1e for the FIRST TIME in 2023, OSRIC could still be useful for those.
I think most OSRIC criticism I hear is from people who are familiar with AD&D. I have never heard someone say "I started with OSRIC, then AD&D, and would never go back".
There is a certain "my first is the best" bias, I think - but again, few people START with OSRIC anyway... And I wouldn't recommend OSRIC for someone starting with D&D or RPGs.
(BTW, unfortunately, the game was cancelled due to scheduling.)
EDIT: sorry for the de-rail folks, to get back to the theme of the thread, I think C&C is a better "simplification" of AD&D than OSRIC. I posted a comprehensive review in this thread.
C&C is also more newbie-friendly IMO, could reasonably be your first RPG.
Quote from: Eric Diaz on October 11, 2023, 04:16:10 PM
Another personal anecdote: I was invited to an AD&D game last year, and had to create a 5th-level PC.
I am a complete noob in AD&D, having played only other editions (Basic, 3e, 4e, 5e) for decades.
I had the 1e PHB and OSRIC and found OSRIC much easier to learn/reference, so that is what I used.
(IIRC the PHB didn't even tell me my to-hit so I couldn't fill the sheet without the DMG or soem other section of the PHB instead of characters).
So, while I do not think that are many people trying to get into AD&D 1e for the FIRST TIME in 2023, OSRIC could still be useful for those.
I do have a beef with pretty much every 1E character sheet ever made. I think they ask for way too much information. The to-hit tables in 1E are indeed found only in the DMG, not the PHB. The idea is the player doesn't need to know the hit tables, and you don't need it on the character sheets.
I think this is something you, as a Basic D&D fan, should be able to appreciate. Basic D&D covers character levels 1-3, and character levels 1-3 all have the same hit tables. Monsters and NPCs may vary. But the hit tables for PCs within the scope of the basic game vary neither by class nor by level. Despite the ironic fact that the Basic D&D character sheet has plastered across the bottom an entire hit table to fill out, it's not a factor by which characters are differentiated. As far as players are concerned, it's a fixed constant.
In AD&D, sure, it varies for PCs. Maybe. If the DM wants it to. It's none of the players' business. If the DM does go by the book, at name level, clerics, magic-users, and thieves are all the same hit tables, with fighters 4 points ahead of the pack. It's almost like Fighters answer the Thieves' +4 to hit while backstabbing with a 4-point advantage to hit while frontstabbing. And if the DM is running a low level game, the differences are going to be so minimal it's not going to throw anything off to ignore it entirely.
That's the beauty of 1E's design and philosophy. It provides the DM with tools to use or not use. A lot of the details, especially the ones large number of gamers don't like or don't understand, are massively beneficial to certain play styles.
Yes, I think this is an unique, interesting play style that I haven't experimented much but have often considered: leave most/all the rules for the GM and let the PCs think "fiction only".
Even when playing Basic (I played modern versions like Black Box and RC more than the original), I never considered leaving to-hit a mystery.
But I think this could be the genuine "old school" (or "Free Kriegsspiel") method. The PCs could just drop in the game with no knowledge of the system; face the "milieu" head on and learn as they go.
I think players should not need to know all the rules on principle, and I dislike the whole "system mastery" thing that 3e seemed to encourage.
[I played such a game once. We just described your actions and the GM gave us "40% chance", etc. It was an interesting experience.]
Quote from: GamerforHire on October 11, 2023, 10:55:48 AM
Quote from: Brad on October 08, 2023, 03:48:31 PM
Quote from: Philotomy Jurament on October 06, 2023, 12:56:00 PMThe OSRIC book available from Black Blade Publishing is a very reasonably priced, single volume set of rules that I think captures AD&D better than C&C and other clone or clone-like systems I'm familiar with.
But isn't OSRIC literally just AD&D with some slight changes for publishing adventures while avoiding lawsuits? Anyway, playing OSRIC seems kinda dumb because you can play the real thing instead of a clone. I had about five copies of OSRIC and finally got rid of them all because it wasn't even a good resource for playing AD&D since nothing was identical. Contrast with OSE which can be used as a reference for B/X.
OSRIC is cheaper and for a while was far more easily available, then it became habit. I remember the day that WOTC began making PDFs available of the rulebooks. eBay didn't seem to have as many copies available years ago as in recent years.
One can get the all the 1E core books hardcover for about 64-70$ when sellers are trying to sell say the 1E DMG with original cover art for about 50-70$. Unless one really wants a specific printing why buy the second when with the first one gets an entire core set brand new. It amazes me with the reprints how sellers still think it's a market before reprints were available.
Sorry I'm late to the party. I hope 2 months isn't considered thread necromancy.
First, I'm amazed how a thread about C&C got completely hijacked by an argument about OSRIC. Aren't there enough such threads?
I have played or DMed about every edition. Until very recently I had put most of my interest into OSR-type games like Labyrinth Lord, especially the Advanced version. I loved being able to play AD&D 1e without all the cruft and rules that no one ever used anyway. At the same time, I've appreciated the "modernisms" of 3e, PF1 and 5e. Streamlined is always good.
In C&C I found pretty much the best of both worlds: OSR or 1e "feel" but more-modern mechanics (like ascending AC, BtH, etc.) And it's the most extensable/"hackable" version I've ever seen! It's been called the ""Rosetta Stone" of D&D because one can easily add features from most any edition and it still works. So if I preferred the 3e "Ref/Fort/Will" saves (I don't), it's an easy bolt-on. If I like the 5e spellcasting model (I Do!) it's easy to import. And I've easily made my own tweaks that I believe address the (few) issues that people have reported. I use a flat 15 target number and a flat +3 for primes. Simple.
One change that I've had recommended is to not add a challenge rating to saves. That makes it work a lot like AD&D. Lots of stuff that can be adapted.
For people who still want feats and skills and such, there are several good options. One was in Troll Lords' own CKG (for more 3e-type); another is in their 5e Guide to Airdhe (for more 5e-type).
While I still keep my feet wet with 3.x, PF1 and 5e, I'm pretty much sold on C&C now.
I think what sold me on replacing D&D with C&C was the way multi-classing is handled. I was never fond of multiclassing in any edition of D&D.
The problem I have is breaking 5E players of their wretched edition.
I can't call 5e "wretched." It has features it inherited from C&C. And the spellcasting system is a Huge improvement, IMO. The proficiency bonus mechanic is a nice thing to "hang" features upon.
There are things that I would like to change; "bounded accuracy" has issues, and makes the game almost impossible to hack. But overall, I can't blame people for wanting to play the currently-published version of The Game. The only edition that I would actually call "wretched" would be 4e.
I like the MC options of C&C. It's entirely possible and easy to make "classes" that are exactly what one would like. And there's also the option of bringing in classes from Amazing Adventures, TLG's "modern"/pulp game. The mentalist is actually a playable low-level psionic class that can easily be ported. And the raider class is, obviously, Indiana Jones, kind of a mix of fighter, rogue and scholar.
Tons of options for relatively-little work!
C&C's class-and-a-half (and half the xp requirement for the second class) really is a good piece of game design. It's worth stealing for other games, and if I were to ever beat my against the wall of psionics again that's how I'd handle it. XP cost to add psionics to a base class, without either doubling xp or just layering it on for free.
Quote from: Dave 2 on January 01, 2024, 05:53:29 PM
C&C's class-and-a-half (and half the xp requirement for the second class) really is a good piece of game design. It's worth stealing for other games, and if I were to ever beat my against the wall of psionics again that's how I'd handle it. XP cost to add psionics to a base class, without either doubling xp or just layering it on for free.
Funny; I love how C&C does multi-classing, but I find the class and a half option completely pointless. Guess I like all or nothing. And in my campaign, only demi-humans can multi-class, but they're restricted to the "favored class" options in the PHB. But again, this is another thing that makes C&C great. Very easy to add, subtract, and house rule.
I like some of the "less-than-all" options because you can basically design your own class on the fly. Like if you wanted a "racial-elf" class ala 2e, but you really wanted more fighter than mage, you can easily do it without having essentially 2 full classes. Same with a halfling.
"Full" multiclassing is still there, but I like options:)
Quote from: paladinn on January 01, 2024, 10:26:16 PM
I like some of the "less-than-all" options because you can basically design your own class on the fly. Like if you wanted a "racial-elf" class ala 2e, but you really wanted more fighter than mage, you can easily do it without having essentially 2 full classes. Same with a halfling.
"Full" multiclassing is still there, but I like options:)
They also have those racial class options from Aihrde, which we do use.
Right.. and I like the effort, but I find the racial classes a little OP. D12 HD, natural AC, DR, etc. for a dwarf? Seems a bit much. Likewise for the elf: full BtH, spell-life abilities and spontaneous casting for the same XP as a basic wizard? Wow.
Needs to be tweaked.
Quote from: paladinn on January 02, 2024, 09:34:38 AM
Right.. and I like the effort, but I find the racial classes a little OP. D12 HD, natural AC, DR, etc. for a dwarf? Seems a bit much. Likewise for the elf: full BtH, spell-life abilities and spontaneous casting for the same XP as a basic wizard? Wow.
Needs to be tweaked.
Not at all, IMO. Demi-humans should be inherently more powerful than humans. After all, they live far longer and are older, more mystical races. Just less numerous and more reclusive in general. Which is why I restrict their class choice in AD&D fashion, but also let them multi-class whereas humans cannot. Plus, in C&C they get docked a prime, which also balances power.
I also like how, while retaining the idea of limits (not hard, but suggested) on demi-human classes, C&C tweaks these. So most races can be bards, halflings can be rangers, half-orcs can be monks, etc. Just a minor, but very cool adjustment. In particular, the Tolkienesque take on Half-elves wherein one's abilities vary if they favor the human or elven parent, is brilliant.
Quote from: Persimmon on January 02, 2024, 10:31:59 AM
I also like how, while retaining the idea of limits (not hard, but suggested) on demi-human classes, C&C tweaks these. So most races can be bards, halflings can be rangers, half-orcs can be monks, etc. Just a minor, but very cool adjustment. In particular, the Tolkienesque take on Half-elves wherein one's abilities vary if they favor the human or elven parent, is brilliant.
Definitely agree. Dwarf wizards are just wrong.
Quote from: Persimmon on January 02, 2024, 10:31:59 AM
Demi-humans should be inherently more powerful than humans. After all, they live far longer and are older, more mystical races. Just less numerous and more reclusive in general. Which is why I restrict their class choice in AD&D fashion, but also let them multi-class whereas humans cannot. Plus, in C&C they get docked a prime, which also balances power.
I mostly agree that demihumans should have advantages, especially since they are docked one prime. I just think the dwarves especially are OP. I can see the AC bonus and/or the DR; but D12 HD?
For elves, I'd up the XP requirements some. I do like that they have spontaneous casting, which drives home their "mystical" nature. And I might let them choose wizard or druid spells, or have a custom spell list ala the old Alfheim classic splatbook.
I think I would also give demihumans a free 1st level advantage (cough:feat:cough) from the Racial advantages list in the CKG.
As others have said C&C is basically AD&D for me. I was able to pick it up and DM pretty quick. But, if I'm just playing AD&D, I'll stick with AD&D....which I do.
There are things that didn't jell with me. For example, the base Ranger and Paladin classes don't have spells. I like the spell casting Ranger and Paladin, so I still play AD&D. At the end of the day I saw no reason to change rules. They've got some great books I've kept, like the Castle Keeper Guide, for example.
So in my opinion, I just stick with AD&D 2e.
Quote from: Thorn Drumheller on January 02, 2024, 04:26:27 PM
There are things that didn't jell with me. For example, the base Ranger and Paladin classes don't have spells. I like the spell casting Ranger and Paladin, so I still play AD&D. At the end of the day I saw no reason to change rules. They've got some great books I've kept, like the Castle Keeper Guide, for example.
There are rules in the CKG for adding spells to paladins, rangers and bards, with a nominal XP increase. Very easily done. And each has their own spell list and are much more in keeping with the theme of the class.
Especially in later editions, paladins became more junior clerics and rangers were more junior druids. I prefer both to be true to their warrior roots. The original OD&D paladin didn't have spells anyway.
I am pondering reworking the bard as a not-quite-so-warrior class, and may go ahead and give it spells with reduced HD and maybe cleric BtH.. not sure yet.
But this is what's so cool about C&C: it is by far the most hackable version of The Game I've ever played.
Edit: the spells for paladins, rangers and bards are in the Adventurer's Backpack splatbook. Mea culpa
Quote from: paladinn on January 02, 2024, 04:35:39 PM
Quote from: Thorn Drumheller on January 02, 2024, 04:26:27 PM
There are things that didn't jell with me. For example, the base Ranger and Paladin classes don't have spells. I like the spell casting Ranger and Paladin, so I still play AD&D. At the end of the day I saw no reason to change rules. They've got some great books I've kept, like the Castle Keeper Guide, for example.
There are rules in the CKG for adding spells to paladins, rangers and bards, with a nominal XP increase. Very easily done. And each has their own spell list and are much more in keeping with the theme of the class.
Especially in later editions, paladins became more junior clerics and rangers were more junior druids. I prefer both to be true to their warrior roots. The original OD&D paladin didn't have spells anyway.
I am pondering reworking the bard as a not-quite-so-warrior class, and may go ahead and give it spells with reduced HD and maybe cleric BtH.. not sure yet.
But this is what's so cool about C&C: it is by far the most hackable version of The Game I've ever played.
Edit: the spells for paladins, rangers and bards are in the Adventurer's Backpack splatbook. Mea culpa
Yes; I really like the bard, ranger, and paladin spellcasting options from ABP, particularly because they all have discrete lists culled from the other casters. Moreover, you can simply not use them so you could have different kinds of each of these classes in C&C, which is preety cool.
One topic that has come up on another forum is the option of running Siege checks, especially saves, with no CR. So for most checks, you roll, add your ability mods and level, and compare to either 12 or 18 (I use 15 with a flat +3 for prime, instead). The thought is that it would make saves and such work much more like AD&D. My concern is that it makes saves Too easy at high levels; but one of the criticisms of C&C is that saves are too difficult at high levels.
Any thoughts? I'm on the fence.
Quote from: paladinn on January 03, 2024, 01:37:18 PM
One topic that has come up on another forum is the option of running Siege checks, especially saves, with no CR. So for most checks, you roll, add your ability mods and level, and compare to either 12 or 18 (I use 15 with a flat +3 for prime, instead). The thought is that it would make saves and such work much more like AD&D. My concern is that it makes saves Too easy at high levels; but one of the criticisms of C&C is that saves are too difficult at high levels.
Any thoughts? I'm on the fence.
What do the success rates look like if you cut CRs in half?
Quote from: Philotomy Jurament on January 03, 2024, 07:38:58 PM
Quote from: paladinn on January 03, 2024, 01:37:18 PM
Any thoughts? I'm on the fence.
Use AD&D saves?
Why? I know you hate C&C, but AD&D saves make no sense to me. "Death Ray".. really?
The Fort/Will/Ref save model made more sense. The 5e/C&C stat-based saves make even more to me.
The point the post-er of the "no CR" idea was making was to make it more like AD&D while still using the Siege engine. Does it work? Or would using 1/2 the CR work? I don't want to make it too easy. I'm already using spell level instead of caster level.
Quote from: paladinn on January 03, 2024, 07:43:02 PM
Why...AD&D saves make no sense to me..."Death Ray".. really?
If you don't like them, that's reason enough.
QuoteThe point the post-er of the "no CR" idea was making was to make it more like AD&D while still using the Siege engine. Does it work? Or would using 1/2 the CR work? I don't want to make it too easy. I'm already using spell level instead of caster level.
I see. I was thinking about the first part (i.e. "make it more like AD&D") and ignoring the "still use the SIEGE engine" part. FWIW, I don't see any reason it wouldn't work. And it would be closer to the AD&D approach, in my opinion. I'd prefer it over the standard C&C approach to saving throws.
But does that make saves, etc. too easy?
If I go that route, when/would I Want to add a CR?
Quote from: paladinn on January 03, 2024, 08:52:19 PM
But does that make saves, etc. too easy?
If I go that route, when/would I Want to add a CR?
Well, that pretty much depends on what you mean by "too easy." Certainly in AD&D and its various clones, by the higher levels, saves are easier, but do vary by categories & classes. The idea is that high level heroes are experienced and have earned it and/or learned how to react faster or whatever. So the C&C way is perhaps more realistic in that it's more difficult to resist higher level foes and their spells, etc. But also keep in mind that you're going to be much stronger against lower level foes, unlike AD&D, where that low level foe has the same chance to kill you with their death ray, wand, or whatever.
And in the end, the best way to figure it out, is just play a couple sessions each way and see how it goes. I don't really ever think much about "game balance." We just play. Sometimes things are tougher than I anticipated for the players; sometimes it's easier. Often it seems tied to who's rolling well that night. A year or so back I had a character blow three straight rolls leading to his death. He had a very reasonable chance to make all of them, but his rolls sucked. Oh well, he's now buried on a mountainside.
And Hell, you could just use the Swords & Wizardry method of the single saving throw for pretty much everything. That's actually my favorite method. But then you're ignoring the significance of primes.
Quote from: Persimmon on January 03, 2024, 10:34:50 PM
Quote from: paladinn on January 03, 2024, 08:52:19 PM
But does that make saves, etc. too easy?
If I go that route, when/would I Want to add a CR?
Well, that pretty much depends on what you mean by "too easy." Certainly in AD&D and its various clones, by the higher levels, saves are easier, but do vary by categories & classes. The idea is that high level heroes are experienced and have earned it and/or learned how to react faster or whatever. So the C&C way is perhaps more realistic in that it's more difficult to resist higher level foes and their spells, etc. But also keep in mind that you're going to be much stronger against lower level foes, unlike AD&D, where that low level foe has the same chance to kill you with their death ray, wand, or whatever.
And in the end, the best way to figure it out, is just play a couple sessions each way and see how it goes. I don't really ever think much about "game balance." We just play. Sometimes things are tougher than I anticipated for the players; sometimes it's easier. Often it seems tied to who's rolling well that night. A year or so back I had a character blow three straight rolls leading to his death. He had a very reasonable chance to make all of them, but his rolls sucked. Oh well, he's now buried on a mountainside.
And Hell, you could just use the Swords & Wizardry method of the single saving throw for pretty much everything. That's actually my favorite method. But then you're ignoring the significance of primes.
I guess that answers another of my puzzlements. I like the idea of the S&W single-save; but I can see that it becomes unusable with any of the other save models. Unless I just use the single-save, add ability mod and my +3 Prime bonus, if applicable. Hmmm.. pondering
Moved to other thread
Quote from: Persimmon on January 03, 2024, 10:34:50 PM
...unlike AD&D, where that low level foe has the same chance to kill you with their death ray, wand, or whatever...
Really a tangent of little import, but "death ray" isn't actually an AD&D saving throw category, it's an original D&D category that came from the description of the Finger of Death spell. In AD&D the category is "paralyzation, poison, or death magic."
Quote
And Hell, you could just use the Swords & Wizardry method of the single saving throw for pretty much everything. That's actually my favorite method. But then you're ignoring the significance of primes.
I'd consider that a benefit. In my opinion, one of the great strengths of a class/level game system is its class/level nature. I tend to dislike rules that dilute the importance of class/level and enhance the importance of stats. I'd even say core AD&D, itself, took a step too far in that direction (following the path blazed by original D&D's
Greyhawk supplement.)
Quote from: Philotomy Jurament on January 04, 2024, 01:36:59 AM
Quote from: Persimmon on January 03, 2024, 10:34:50 PM
...unlike AD&D, where that low level foe has the same chance to kill you with their death ray, wand, or whatever...
Really a tangent of little import, but "death ray" isn't actually an AD&D saving throw category, it's an original D&D category that came from the description of the Finger of Death spell. In AD&D the category is "paralyzation, poison, or death magic."
Quote
And Hell, you could just use the Swords & Wizardry method of the single saving throw for pretty much everything. That's actually my favorite method. But then you're ignoring the significance of primes.
I'd consider that a benefit. In my opinion, one of the great strengths of a class/level game system is its class/level nature. I tend to dislike rules that dilute the importance of class/level and enhance the importance of stats. I'd even say core AD&D, itself, took a step too far in that direction (following the path blazed by original D&D's Greyhawk supplement.)
Concerning class and level, that's part of the issue, however. Shouldn't it be harder to resist the magic of a 15th level wizard versus a 5th level wizard? On the one hand, of course, the former has access to far more powerful spells, so the chance of you being killed by him in combat is probably much greater anyhow, but the save is one sided in being tied only to your level. In other games, like MERP, resistance rolls scale by level so higher level characters much more easily resist lower level effects and vice versa. C&C basically merges the two systems by using level plus prime.
Personally, I can appreciate the merits of both. I like the continued danger involved in the C&C system. But the streamlined simplicity of S&W makes for very fast and easy play with minimal calculations. So it does come down to what your group prefers.
Quote from: Persimmon on January 04, 2024, 08:59:29 AM
Concerning class and level, that's part of the issue, however. Shouldn't it be harder to resist the magic of a 15th level wizard versus a 5th level wizard? On the one hand, of course, the former has access to far more powerful spells, so the chance of you being killed by him in combat is probably much greater anyhow, but the save is one sided in being tied only to your level. In other games, like MERP, resistance rolls scale by level so higher level characters much more easily resist lower level effects and vice versa. C&C basically merges the two systems by using level plus prime.
Personally, I can appreciate the merits of both. I like the continued danger involved in the C&C system. But the streamlined simplicity of S&W makes for very fast and easy play with minimal calculations. So it does come down to what your group prefers.
It's ultimately a preference, but it is a preference with side effects. So when considering what the group prefers, the side effects need to be considered as well. I would argue (possibly showing my bias) that having higher level casters harder to resist does seem logical on the surface, and it could be. However, doing it the other way leads to more interesting game play. I'll always take the latter over the former when in conflict.
Though I'm also one of those people who absolutely loathes automatic scaling of opponents in video games. The original Elder Scrolls Oblivion was almost unplayable to me over this issue. I really don't like the treadmill feel. In a table top game, I don't like what it does to the players. I don't want them pressing on with the current thing no matter what, because it will just be harder when they come back. I want there to be things they can't handle now that are trivial later. Having saves that get steadily better with level while the attacks largely do not sends a firm signal that the character is off the treadmill. There's plenty of other ways in which the challenges do grow (such as tougher monsters or higher level spells from higher level casters).
The other aspect that I was slower to appreciate is how much the AD&D-style saves contributes to the relative worth of the fighter. The caster is getting earth-shaking magic, and is capable of taking out hordes of weaker opponents, but taking on the really tough creatures becomes a crap shoot.
On the back-handed compliment side of things, it is much more difficult to get the math correct in the game model with everything scaling. So having a few things not scale, such as saving throws, gives the design team more room to make mistakes that won't kill the game flow. Sure, if you can get the scaling perfect, then you've kind of got the best of both worlds. But it's swinging for the fences, you either win or lose.
I did a video review on this on youtube.
https://youtu.be/y2BUXyOVoIg?si=o4DrDWUPMAQ0i18T
Basically, I like it as an alternative to 1st and 2nd Ed DnD. It has some nice streamlining mechanics and they even made the illusionist not suck.