|
|
Post by Ghul on Oct 22, 2013 5:45:57 GMT -6
This blog post is excellent to me. A gaming fellow picks up a copy of AS&SH and shows it to his group on game night. They love what they see so much so, they want to play straight away, but he hasn't prepared anything. So what does he do? Why, what all great referees do . . . greenskeletongamingguild.blogspot.com/2013/10/prelude-to-madness.html |
|
|
|
Post by kesher on Oct 22, 2013 9:06:34 GMT -6
Okay, that was pure awesomeness.
Yes, please. More please.
I also think the author makes a great point that occasionally gets lost: If you've played ADD before, you can run this game off the top of your head; it'll feel like home. With a red sun. And Tsathoggua.
|
|
|
|
Post by Ghul on Oct 22, 2013 9:29:16 GMT -6
Okay, that was pure awesomeness. Yes, please. More please. I also think the author makes a great point that occasionally gets lost: If you've played ADD before, you can run this game off the top of your head; it'll feel like home. With a red sun. And Tsathoggua. Exactly so, Kesher. When I read that same passage, I thought, "Yes, this fellow gets it, and he's oozing with creativity." |
|
|
|
Post by blackadder23 on Oct 22, 2013 12:32:32 GMT -6
Good stuff! I hope he keeps up with it and makes more "converts".  |
|
|
|
Post by rabindranath72 on Oct 29, 2013 5:34:13 GMT -6
Well, AS&SH is above and beyond C&C, both in contents, attention to detail, layout, art (though I realise the latter is subjective) that I can fully understand why they wanted to make the switch  |
|
|
|
Post by Ghul on Oct 30, 2013 12:39:33 GMT -6
I have no major issues with C&C. In many ways I feel it is a better game than 3e and 4e, but I don't favor their d20 variation known as the SIEGE system. I tried it for a while when I was writing Castle Zagyg for Gary, but ultimately I found it unsatisfactory in play, so I added several pages of house rules that essentially turned it into AD&D. That being said, I know some fantastic fellow gamers who swear by C&C.
|
|
|
|
Post by rabindranath72 on Oct 31, 2013 2:54:45 GMT -6
I have no major issues with C&C. In many ways I feel it is a better game than 3e and 4e, but I don't favor their d20 variation known as the SIEGE system. I tried it for a while when I was writing Castle Zagyg for Gary, but ultimately I found it unsatisfactory in play, so I added several pages of house rules that essentially turned it into AD&D. That being said, I know some fantastic fellow gamers who swear by C&C. Yes the SIEGE system is practically broken when seen through the lens of D&D dynamics; in particular for saving throws. A 10th level fighter facing a 10th level wizard is practically dead, but that's not true with any other version of D&D, when saves either don't depend on the level of the attacking party, or scale differently than the attacking party. This makes high-level spellcasters in C&C too powerful, something which was seen as a problem in 3e, but in C&C is definitely overwhelming. For a game which sells itself as an alternative/successor to AD&D and other d20 variants of D&D, this is a fatal flaw (it's not inherently a problem, but it's too gritty for the way D&D is supposed to play.) And don't get me started on surprise based on Wisdom checks  , or the endless sequence of typos and spelling errors (at the 5th printing they STILL haven't corrected quite a few problems; that to me is simply unacceptable in a commercial product.) For my current campaign, I am using C&C, but I ditched the saving throws SIEGE mechanic and used the 3e saves progression (good save progression for Primary, bad save progression for Secondary) plus I redefined the challenge class for a save as 12+half the opponent's level or hit dice. This works orders of magnitude better. But I already know this will be the last time I play C&C; if I want a d20 D&D, I still have my 3.0 books, which I can simplify easily if I want something simpler, but at least I know the system is robust and there are no glaring problems. But then, as I said, I compare C&C to your work; the fact that you are a one-man-band; in your books there are very few to no typos; the game seems to be thoroughly playtested etc. and well, my hat off to you, sir! |
|
|
|
Post by Ghul on Oct 31, 2013 6:59:13 GMT -6
But then, as I said, I compare C&C to your work; the fact that you are a one-man-band; in your books there are very few to no typos; the game seems to be thoroughly playtested etc. and well, my hat off to you, sir! I should point out that without my editor, David Prata, there likely would have been nearly as many typos in AS&SH. David is a real editor. When he rolls up his sleeves to edit a document, you know you are in good hands. |
|
|
|
Post by rabindranath72 on Oct 31, 2013 10:42:27 GMT -6
I suppose that's what editors are for. Not everyone seems to agree, it seems  One is not a professional simply because he sells. |
|
, or the endless sequence of typos and spelling errors (at the 5th printing they STILL haven't corrected quite a few problems; that to me is simply unacceptable in a commercial product.)