Go with Castles and Crusades.  Only thing I would change for Castles and Crusades is to use the 1E spell tables for Paladins and Rangers.  Otherwise, most of CC works for me.

Quote from: ForgottenF on April 02, 2024, 12:56:51 PM
Not everyone likes to have to head-canon everything that makes their character unique or interesting.

I seldom say this, but you're actually doing it wrong.  If the only thing that separates your characters is the mechanical options present in the system, switch to board games (I hear this game called "chess" has the mechanical differences for characters baked in really well); it's more your speed.

I can understand that players want their choices to have an actual effect on the game world (which is what really separates characters from one another), but the need to formalize that into feats, abilities, or +1s on rolls is not a sign of sophistication.  Just the opposite.  It's a sign of limited imagination (and poor DMing).

On a side note, this is where 3e and beyond (including 5e, which I overall can tolerate) really screwed up D&D.  Specifically with magic items.  Often a magic item could truly be the defining detail that led to totally different play styles and character arcs.  Your fighter who found a Hammer of Thunderbolts was different than the one with the Vorpal Sword, who was different than the one with Boots of Spider Climb (raining arrows from a strength bow down from the ceiling).  It also meant that you could change your playstyle as needed, so if you didn't like the character's direction, a few magic items could change that (one reason I think Monty Haul campaigns get an undeserved bad name).  Fast-forward to 3e/PF, and now you were expected to get the magic items you wanted to enhance your "build" (sure, there was nothing that said you had to get those items, but if your character selected polearm mastery and specialized in halberds, the DM would feel like a dick if all you ever got was short swords, especially since your character was usually much weaker outside of your "build."  I never saw a 1e character refuse a magic item because it didn't optimize his "build," but in 3e, 4e, and 5e I've seen it regularly.  And don't get me started on the magic christmas tree effect starting in 3e...

Quite frankly, needing explicit mechanical choices at levels to make characters different is a crutch, not a feature.  It's lousy roleplaying and lousy DMing.  Some DMs and groups aren't beyond that, so I understand their desires.  But it's not the concept to build your game around, either.  It just breeds bad habits...

Quote from: Eirikrautha on April 02, 2024, 04:28:11 PM
I seldom say this, but you're actually doing it wrong.  If the only thing that separates your characters is the mechanical options present in the system, switch to board games (I hear this game called "chess" has the mechanical differences for characters baked in really well); it's more your speed.

I can understand that players want their choices to have an actual effect on the game world (which is what really separates characters from one another), but the need to formalize that into feats, abilities, or +1s on rolls is not a sign of sophistication.  Just the opposite.  It's a sign of limited imagination (and poor DMing).

This is the dumbest take I've read on this forum in months and there are actual fucking conspiracy theorists with severe mental illnesses bandying about ego posting on this website daily.

If you think a mechanically robust RPG with actual rules, balance, and you know, gameplay is lesser than literal fucking playground make-believe RPGs then I genuinely don't know how you find any entertainment with activities more intellectually stimulating than clapping yourself over the head with two rocks at the same time, but perhaps, maybe that kind of behavior is what informed your dumbass take.

Erm, excuse me, that was rude, sorry about that, I was taught not to point or laugh at the short-bus kids, I should know better.

Quote from: DefNotAnInsiderNopeNoWay on April 02, 2024, 05:32:49 PM

Quote from: Eirikrautha on April 02, 2024, 04:28:11 PM
I seldom say this, but you're actually doing it wrong.  If the only thing that separates your characters is the mechanical options present in the system, switch to board games (I hear this game called "chess" has the mechanical differences for characters baked in really well); it's more your speed.

I can understand that players want their choices to have an actual effect on the game world (which is what really separates characters from one another), but the need to formalize that into feats, abilities, or +1s on rolls is not a sign of sophistication.  Just the opposite.  It's a sign of limited imagination (and poor DMing).

This is the dumbest take I've read on this forum in months and there are actual fucking conspiracy theorists with severe mental illnesses bandying about ego posting on this website daily.

If you think a mechanically robust RPG with actual rules, balance, and you know, gameplay is lesser than literal fucking playground make-believe RPGs then I genuinely don't know how you find any entertainment with activities more intellectually stimulating than clapping yourself over the head with two rocks at the same time, but perhaps, maybe that kind of behavior is what informed your dumbass take.

Balance is an illusion. But you're clearly here for something else... welcome to Mos Eisley, droids like you are welcome at the Cantina.

This place is more like Jek Jek Tar.  If you can't handle the atmosphere, then bring a filter mask... as this new guy is about to find out.

Incoming blaster fire...

Quote from: Dracones on April 02, 2024, 03:20:47 PM
They're very different games. PF2E is a solid system for GMs and players that want rules for everything and fairly tight power gaming mechanics that are all baked in. Typically when I've played this game players are hell bent on squeezing every last +1 from the mechanics in each fight.

C&C is way more laid back and loose of a game. I feel like some of the mechanics are "meh", but it's an easy game to modify and has a solid user base. Their discord is great with weekly open games and there are PDFs of the books available for free to get you started. The game is very low friction to get into.

They're both solid choices, IMO, but this sums it up. PF2 is going to be more difficult to make up as you go along, at least for a while, but if you put in a (much smaller than 5e) amount of prep work it runs really well provided your players make the token effort to learn the rules and don't simply use all three of their actions to attack. It really shines when the players work together to maximize the mechanical bonuses, but that certainly isn't for everyone. It's a great example of the 'mechanically dense, but runs smoothly' game. If you have players that constantly have to look up rules or have choice paralysis, it might not be for you.

Quote from: GhostNinja on March 31, 2024, 01:57:22 PM
I have been running a 5e game but I have gotten to a point where I really hate running it.  It is a broken and bloated system and it basically feels like I am running a table top video game, not Dungeons and Dragons.

Two systems that I have been considering are Pathfinder 2nd edition and Castles and Crusades.

Both systems look really good and I am kind of leaning towards C&C so that I can run the Gary Gygax content but I am unsure which system to go with.  I want a system with ease and plenty of options for the players without the bloat of 5e.

Which system should I go with?

The D&D Rules Cyclopedia!



36 levels of swords and sorcery (PF2 only 20, C&C only 24)! Extensive combat rules for unarmed combat, two-weapon combat, naval + underwater combat, aerial combat, NPC morale and siege combat! Rules for player-designed and PC-owned strongholds and dominions! Rules for alternate planes of existence! Rules for immortal play when the PCs transcend 36th level (PF's concept of Spheres was lifted from BECMI's Immortals ruleset)! Complete monster manual + rules for engaging various types of NPC hirelings! Rules for wilderness exploration and survival!

There's more. A LOT more than Pathfinder 2e or Castles and Crusades can offer your group. I'd look it over before ruling out the BEST rpg in the genre. 

I plan to just stick with 5e and completely pass on fake 5e and "totally not 7e".

Quote from: DefNotAnInsiderNopeNoWay on April 02, 2024, 05:33:44 PM
Erm, excuse me, that was rude, sorry about that, I was taught not to point or laugh at the short-bus kids, I should know better.

I defer to your superior experience with retardation.  You are obviously an expert.  Especially since you missed the point by a country mile.  Way to practice what you preach...

Quote from: Omega on April 02, 2024, 09:27:58 PM
I plan to just stick with 5e and completely pass on fake 5e and "totally not 7e".

Same between the woke BS of Wotc and just not being able to continually justify spending money on a new core set and tired of the edition train 5E is the last edition I plan to purchase from Wotc.

Same with a Pork, Zork Or. or similar retrocllones.

Quote from: GhostNinja on April 02, 2024, 11:05:49 AM
It wouldn't have enough options for my group.  I ran OSE and that has more options that the original D&D and that wasn't enough for my group.

Here's the red pill...the lack of PC options in OD&D is it's major strength.

It doesn't appear that way on paper, but it happens at the table.

When players grasp that what makes their characters unique is not what's on their character sheet, really amazing things happen in actual play.

We have several 5e players who've joined our OD&D campaign and hearing their reactions and discoveries has been interesting and exciting for those of us who've been playing since before Reagan was president.

OD&D is like proto-matter. It has a unique energy that sparks creativity in players.

Your group might surprise themselves.

Quote from: GhostNinja on April 02, 2024, 10:27:42 AM

Quote from: Crusader X on March 31, 2024, 07:53:57 PM
Between C&C and Pathfinder, I would choose C&C, though I would probably houserule the SIEGE Engine a bit.

I have heard a few people talk about the engine and needing to house rule it.   What about it needs house ruling?  My desire is to play a game that does what I need it to do.  To be honest, if I have to do the designers job by fixing what they screwed up, that's not what I am looking for.

I'm not sure if it needs it, but a popular house rule seems to be just having a flat DC of 15 for most things, then use Advantage with Primes.  Its just a way to simplify things.

Instead of Advantage, I've also seen suggestions to use a bonus of anything from a +3 to a +6 for Primes.  I'm not sure what works the best. 

Quote from: Spinachcat on April 04, 2024, 04:22:42 AM

Quote from: GhostNinja on April 02, 2024, 11:05:49 AM
It wouldn't have enough options for my group.  I ran OSE and that has more options that the original D&D and that wasn't enough for my group.

Here's the red pill...the lack of PC options in OD&D is it's major strength.

It doesn't appear that way on paper, but it happens at the table.

When players grasp that what makes their characters unique is not what's on their character sheet, really amazing things happen in actual play.

We have several 5e players who've joined our OD&D campaign and hearing their reactions and discoveries has been interesting and exciting for those of us who've been playing since before Reagan was president.

OD&D is like proto-matter. It has a unique energy that sparks creativity in players.

Your group might surprise themselves.

Be careful!  There's a tard or two on the loose that thinks your statement is tantamount to advocating for no rules at all.  You can probably dazzle them with non-single-syllabic words and escape, if you need to...

I'd suggest the Classic Fantasy version of Mythras as an alternative. However, the Mythras combat system certainly isn't everyone's cup of tea. As for choosing between PF2 or C&C, I'd definitely pick the latter. Just reading through the PF2 rulebook was enough torture for me.