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?
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?
If you are running at the table: Castles and Crusades. With the optional rule that your prime is just a +6 to your roll.
Plus it is close enough to classic material that you can use older modules, etc..
I wouldn't do PF2 unless you are taking advantage of VTT automation.
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?
PF2 is a strange system to me. C&C is pretty solid - I'd go with that between the choice of them.
That said - are you completely against just running 1e or 2e? Or something a little more well thought out? Specifically, if you're going to run C&C, to me you may as well go Fantasy Craft.
The only draw to C&C is the "2e" feel - which I totally get.
My go to for replacing 5E is Savage Worlds Pathfinder but I doubt that'd be what you're looking for. I actually think Basic Role Playing by Chaosium is a good alternative with the right amount of crunch vs roleplay. Very versatile However Castles & Crusades IS very good too. That or BECMI if you want to get into running castles and other domains.
Try running a one shot of each game and see which one works best for you and your group.
If your time with the group is limited, then perhaps you could find an online game of each type and play in it so you can see firsthand what the games are like?
Pathfinder 2e is a good replacement for the modern ways of playing 5e. If you are playing 5e in an old school way I don't know what to recommend because that's very roll-your-owny, and probably the best way to play 5e.
But you discuss 5e being bloated. Do you mean with options, or do you mean with rules? Because Pathfinder 2e has more rules, and you MUST know them to run the game. It's a high rules system. Its advantage over 5e is that if you know all the rules (and hopefully the players do to), it's logical and smooth. But that's still a big ask, and asking your team to switch to a high-rules system that they don't know may be annoying for them.
Anyway, if you want something that is a modern game like 3.X through 5e, Pathfinder 2e is a solid effort. Be careful with the "remaster" though- the D&D OGL fiasco has caused Paizo to rename everything and do a bunch of changes. You will have to learn the original Pathfinder 2e and the remaster (which is still ongoing) and then make your own calls on whether races should be losing racial penalties and such. Basically, you have to crawl up the rulesystem's ass one large intestine more than the standard system. It might still be worth it.
I can't speak to Castles and Crusades, except that it is so different I'd want to know why you picked that one specifically out of the competition. Your reason for that might yield a very definitive answer. For instance, if you read it and felt that it is what you want to run, well, maybe you should.
I always consider the setting when selecting a rules system. Some combinations feel like a better fit than others. I think C&C is excellent for settings that lean toward the traditional medieval European trappings. Knights, clerics, and paladins are exactly the sort of classes you'd want and C&C does them well. C&C would be my pick for Greyhawk or Harnworld. If you are going for a more contemporary fantasy setting then maybe something else might feel like a better fit. I'm not familiar enough with PF to know if that would be better or not.
Quote from: Jaeger on March 31, 2024, 02:18:57 PM
If you are running at the table: Castles and Crusades. With the optional rule that your prime is just a +6 to your roll.
Plus it is close enough to classic material that you can use older modules, etc..
That's the way I am leaning.
Quote from: Jaeger on March 31, 2024, 02:18:57 PM
I wouldn't do PF2 unless you are taking advantage of VTT automation.
I'm not. I am trying to get more in person games and less online games. I don't mind playing by VTT but I prefer in person.
I'll second (or third?) the vote for Savage Pathfinder if you want to run D&D-like fantasy, but not use the D&D rules. It's my go-to for that purpose as well.
Does it have to be Pathfinder 2? Maybe it's because I grew up with 3.0 and 3.5, but I find Pathfinder 1 much more intuitive than Pathfinder 2. It can still be a chunky system, but for me at least there's an internal logic to it that makes it easier to understand than other equally complex games. Admittedly Pathfinder 2 is a game I have only cursory knowledge of, but 3.5/PF1 certainly feel more grounded to me than either 5e or Pathfinder 2.
EDIT: Are you planning to continue your campaign with a new system, or start fresh? Like Vidgrip mentioned, Castles & Crusades isn't really the same flavor-wise to 5e. PF2 is definitely closer, but then it's also going to replicate the things you probably don't like about running 5e
Quote from: tenbones on March 31, 2024, 02:43:44 PM
PF2 is a strange system to me. C&C is pretty solid - I'd go with that between the choice of them.
Kind of the way I am leaning.
Quote from: tenbones on March 31, 2024, 02:43:44 PM
That said - are you completely against just running 1e or 2e? Or something a little more well thought out?
I am not against it. I would run AD&D 2e because I dislike how disorganized 1e is. Played it and that drove me crazy. Actually I am currently playing in a 2e game and having a lot of fun.
Quote from: tenbones on March 31, 2024, 02:43:44 PM
The only draw to C&C is the "2e" feel - which I totally get.
That's cool. Diodn't know that.
Quote from: King Tyranno on March 31, 2024, 03:22:20 PM
My go to for replacing 5E is Savage Worlds Pathfinder but I doubt that'd be what you're looking for. I actually think Basic Role Playing by Chaosium is a good alternative with the right amount of crunch vs roleplay. Very versatile However Castles & Crusades IS very good too. That or BECMI if you want to get into running castles and other domains.
I am a fan of Savage Worlds but just for everything but Fantasy. Something about SW doesn't come across to me as fun running a fantasy setting.
Quote from: ForgottenF on March 31, 2024, 04:49:07 PM
I'll second (or third?) the vote for Savage Pathfinder if you want to run D&D-like fantasy, but not use the D&D rules. It's my go-to for that purpose as well.
As I said to someone else, I love Savage Worlds but I cannot see it as fun for fantasy.
Quote from: ForgottenF on March 31, 2024, 04:49:07 PMDoes it have to be Pathfinder 2? Maybe it's because I grew up with 3.0 and 3.5, but I find Pathfinder 1 much more intuitive than Pathfinder 2. It can still be a chunky system, but for me at least there's an internal logic to it that makes it easier to understand than other equally complex games. Admittedly Pathfinder 2 is a game I have only cursory knowledge of, but 3.5/PF1 certainly feel more grounded to me than either 5e or Pathfinder 2.
No, No 3.0 or 3.5. I played 3.5 and I Literly quit playing D&D because I hated 3.5 and how over complicated it was. 3.0 and 3.5 were simply an attempt to make D&D a wargame again, not a rpg.
Quote from: ForgottenF on March 31, 2024, 04:49:07 PMEDIT: Are you planning to continue your campaign with a new system, or start fresh? Like Vidgrip mentioned, Castles & Crusades isn't really the same flavor-wise to 5e. PF2 is definitely closer, but then it's also going to replicate the things you probably don't like about running 5e
Then I would probably just start over. Use my current world with the new characters.
Quote from: Svenhelgrim on March 31, 2024, 03:31:34 PM
Try running a one shot of each game and see which one works best for you and your group.
If your time with the group is limited, then perhaps you could find an online game of each type and play in it so you can see firsthand what the games are like?
That's not a bad idea.
Quote from: Vidgrip on March 31, 2024, 03:47:42 PM
I always consider the setting when selecting a rules system. Some combinations feel like a better fit than others. I think C&C is excellent for settings that lean toward the traditional medieval European trappings. Knights, clerics, and paladins are exactly the sort of classes you'd want and C&C does them well. C&C would be my pick for Greyhawk or Harnworld. If you are going for a more contemporary fantasy setting then maybe something else might feel like a better fit. I'm not familiar enough with PF to know if that would be better or not.
Ok. Thanks for letting me know.
Quote from: GhostNinja on March 31, 2024, 05:35:21 PM
Quote from: ForgottenF on March 31, 2024, 04:49:07 PM
I'll second (or third?) the vote for Savage Pathfinder if you want to run D&D-like fantasy, but not use the D&D rules. It's my go-to for that purpose as well.
As I said to someone else, I love Savage Worlds but I cannot see it as fun for fantasy.
Quote from: ForgottenF on March 31, 2024, 04:49:07 PMDoes it have to be Pathfinder 2? Maybe it's because I grew up with 3.0 and 3.5, but I find Pathfinder 1 much more intuitive than Pathfinder 2. It can still be a chunky system, but for me at least there's an internal logic to it that makes it easier to understand than other equally complex games. Admittedly Pathfinder 2 is a game I have only cursory knowledge of, but 3.5/PF1 certainly feel more grounded to me than either 5e or Pathfinder 2.
No, No 3.0 or 3.5. I played 3.5 and I Literly quit playing D&D because I hated 3.5 and how over complicated it was. 3.0 and 3.5 were simply an attempt to make D&D a wargame again, not a rpg.
I've never gotten that perspective on 3.x. To me, it reads as the most simulationist edition of D&D by far, but that's not the point.
If that's how you feel, I wouldn't recommend going within a mile of either edition of Pathfinder. That D20 system DNA is baked right into the crust. Ditto for FantasyCraft, which was mentioned upthread. Everything I've read or heard about Pathfinder 2 suggests it is much more gamey than anything from the 3rd edition era.
If simplicity is the priority, then it's no contest. Any OSR game is going to be much simpler than Pathfinder. If you want something with more class options than C&C, I'd say
Fantastic Heroes and Witchery. I think that has the most class options of the major OSR games. Either that or ACKS. If you want something with more progression options for a single character, you're probably looking for
Shadow of the Demon Lord or maybe
Fantasy Age.
If you think 5e is too bloated, I'd be kind of surprised if you liked PF2e better.
Quote from: ForgottenF on March 31, 2024, 06:09:34 PM
If simplicity is the priority, then it's no contest. Any OSR game is going to be much simpler than Pathfinder. If you want something with more class options than C&C, I'd say Fantastic Heroes and Witchery. I think that has the most class options of the major OSR games. Either that or ACKS. If you want something with more progression options for a single character, you're probably looking for Shadow of the Demon Lord or maybe Fantasy Age.
Well I am into Old School Essentials but I am not sure if I could sell it to this group. I ran a one shot with them and they had fun, but I am not sure if that is what they are going for.
Quote from: Almost_Useless on March 31, 2024, 06:13:26 PM
If you think 5e is too bloated, I'd be kind of surprised if you liked PF2e better.
Yeah, I am more leaning towards Castles and Crusades but I wanted to hear people's opinions.
Between C&C and Pathfinder, I would choose C&C, though I would probably houserule the SIEGE Engine a bit.
Games like Olde Swords Reign and Shadowdark also seem like good replacements for 5e. Have you considered those at all?
This is kind of like asking which you would prefer, wedding cake, or a cheeseburger. C&C has that AD&D "feel" but is also, IMO, kind of unfocused, and I ended up liquidating most of my stuff. It just doesn't scratch the itch for me. On the other hand, PF2 comes loaded with a lot of complexity. I'm actually a recent convert, because the Remastered version was appealing enough to me to make the leap. Neither one is something I would consider a very straightforward replacement for a game that will do dungeons, with some character customization, and some decent rules for world-building. So to answer the question directly, if you want to "skip to the good part" and aren't actually that worried much about the system, C&C makes sense. If you just want to plug-and-play, and have a fairly rich experience, Pathfinder 2e will do that within certain parameters.
But if you are looking for something different, I think it's time to think about wider experiences. Savage Worlds is good for swashbuckling, and would probably be the ideal system to run a D&D Honor Among Thieves inspired campaign. GURPS is good for the nitty gritty, and if you want to focus on heroic but not superpowered adventurers. Fantasy Hero is probably one of my top picks for world-building. True20 does modern literary fantasy very well. Warhammer has some tactical aspects I like, but is also pretty streamlined in play, gritty, and well-written. Everyone should try Runequest at least once; it's just a very transparent percentile based system with a bit of bite and generally well-worked magic rules.
To me there's not even a question here as I can't fathom why anyone would want the bloat of Mathfinder. C&C just runs a Hell of a lot smoother and it's super easy to bolt pretty much anything onto it. There are lots of optional rules in the Castle Keeper's Guide and if your players are into extra classes and spells, there are tons out there in the various official books as well as fan-made that covers just about anything. As others have noted and I've also done, you can run any AD&D 1e or 2e module on the fly with C&C. Plus, there's all that Gygax content forthcoming from them. Finally, the people who run the company are cool guys, veterans, and plain old fashioned gamers, not SJWs trying to push "The Message."
Incidentally, there's a Sword & Sorcery take on C&C called "Swords & Chaos" that adds stuff from DCC and a couple other influences if your players like that genre. I was a bit disappointed in the execution of this game, but it exists FWIW.
Quote from: GhostNinja on March 31, 2024, 07:10:03 PM
Quote from: ForgottenF on March 31, 2024, 06:09:34 PM
If simplicity is the priority, then it's no contest. Any OSR game is going to be much simpler than Pathfinder. If you want something with more class options than C&C, I'd say Fantastic Heroes and Witchery. I think that has the most class options of the major OSR games. Either that or ACKS. If you want something with more progression options for a single character, you're probably looking for Shadow of the Demon Lord or maybe Fantasy Age.
Well I am into Old School Essentials but I am not sure if I could sell it to this group. I ran a one shot with them and they had fun, but I am not sure if that is what they are going for.
I get that. Unlike a lot of OSR people, I completely understand why a person coming from newer systems might look at the player options presented in something like OSE and find them unappealing.
It sounds like you'd be looking for a kind of "middleweight" system, which has something of the customizability and fleshed-out classes of 3rd through 5th editions, without the headache-inducing quantity of powers/feats etc. and the potential for characters getting overpowered, but also not so stripped down as OSE and related games. Sadly, I don't know that there is a great one, at least not without stepping out of the D&D framework entirely (like Savage Worlds). If I knew one it'd probably be what I played.
Shadow of the Demon Lord definitely sits in that middle ground, but I have my reservations about both the system and the author.
Fantasy Age might be it, but I've only skimmed the book, so I couldn't say. Another one I've only given a cursory look at that might fit the bill is
Heroes of Adventure. I don't know it well enough to recommend or not, but it is at least free (https://nameless-designer.itch.io/heroes-of-adventure).
Quote from: GhostNinja on March 31, 2024, 05:30:01 PM
Quote from: King Tyranno on March 31, 2024, 03:22:20 PM
My go to for replacing 5E is Savage Worlds Pathfinder but I doubt that'd be what you're looking for. I actually think Basic Role Playing by Chaosium is a good alternative with the right amount of crunch vs roleplay. Very versatile However Castles & Crusades IS very good too. That or BECMI if you want to get into running castles and other domains.
I am a fan of Savage Worlds but just for everything but Fantasy. Something about SW doesn't come across to me as fun running a fantasy setting.
I didn't want to be the guy that brought up Savage Worlds (heh) but since that door has been cracked...
This response has me genuinely curious. Of all the genres of RPG's that Savage Worlds handles, Fantasy is the last one that I'd expect someone to mention that has used Savage Worlds. If you don't mind talking about it - why?
I'd go C&C. Here are my impressions:
https://methodsetmadness.blogspot.com/2023/09/a-few-thought-on-castles-crusades.html
Like everyone, I think it is a great game but the SIEGE engine is not that great for me.
Instead of "primes" I might let the PCs improve some abilities, and probably add some feats.
You say " I want a system with ease and plenty of options for the players without the bloat of 5e."
Ease is C&C.
Plenty of options is PF 2, but it has at least as much bloat as 5e, maybe more if you play 5e basic (no feats etc.)
An alternative would be running something like BFRPG with more options (I have a book on OSR feats, but there are OSR games that come with feats - LFG and WWN come to mind).
C&C is my go to game. Not a Pathfinder fan.
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 best and most prolific options are the ones in your imagination that come out at the table, in real time, organically, through play. I recommend a rules-light retro-clone like Swords & Wizardry, Labyrinth Lord, Dungeon Crawl Classics, or my own (free) Advanced Crimson Dragon Slayer.
For light with options, I'd strongly recommend Dragonbane from Free League. C&C doesn't have options and PF2e is not light. ;D
Suck it up and run AD&D. Use Unearthed Arcana if you want, just be sure that anyone who rolls up a cavalier-Paladin is required to lay the smacketh down on heretics.
In all sincerity, C&C is basically just the lazy man's version of AD&D and it works fine in actual play. Just be sure you're not making the players roll for every fucking thing under the sun and you'll be fine.
Go back to the beginning: OD&D, 1974 edition
Here's a fun read:
https://docs.google.com/file/d/0Bx-230B8tqxvMmFrNGJFU3hGNnM/edit?resourcekey=0-gJx1QCEZkqNQDCRrGrvheA
8) Come to Castles & Crusades for the simplicity, stay for the typos... :'(
Quote from: Brad on April 01, 2024, 08:32:10 PM
Suck it up and run AD&D. Use Unearthed Arcana if you want, just be sure that anyone who rolls up a cavalier-Paladin is required to lay the smacketh down on heretics.
In all sincerity, C&C is basically just the lazy man's version of AD&D and it works fine in actual play. Just be sure you're not making the players roll for every fucking thing under the sun and you'll be fine.
I have the .pdfs (I will eventually get the print versions) of AD&D 2nd edition and I am playing it right now and I am enjoying it. That might be an option.
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.
Quote from: Crusader X on March 31, 2024, 07:53:57 PMGames like Olde Swords Reign and Shadowdark also seem like good replacements for 5e. Have you considered those at all?
I haven't even heard of Olde Swords Reign before so I will check it out. Looked at ShadowDark and truthfully, it doesn't impress me.
Quote from: Persimmon on March 31, 2024, 09:38:07 PM
To me there's not even a question here as I can't fathom why anyone would want the bloat of Mathfinder. C&C just runs a Hell of a lot smoother and it's super easy to bolt pretty much anything onto it. There are lots of optional rules in the Castle Keeper's Guide and if your players are into extra classes and spells, there are tons out there in the various official books as well as fan-made that covers just about anything. As others have noted and I've also done, you can run any AD&D 1e or 2e module on the fly with C&C. Plus, there's all that Gygax content forthcoming from them. Finally, the people who run the company are cool guys, veterans, and plain old fashioned gamers, not SJWs trying to push "The Message."
Incidentally, there's a Sword & Sorcery take on C&C called "Swords & Chaos" that adds stuff from DCC and a couple other influences if your players like that genre. I was a bit disappointed in the execution of this game, but it exists FWIW.
I was leaning more towards C&C but people have noted that with the engine (Seige engine) you need to do house ruling but people are never clear about what needs to be house ruled so I am a bit confused.
Quote from: ForgottenF on March 31, 2024, 09:42:31 PM
I get that. Unlike a lot of OSR people, I completely understand why a person coming from newer systems might look at the player options presented in something like OSE and find them unappealing.
Yes, it's too bad because there are plenty of options in OSE (I use basic and Advance) and a lot of fun. But some people just love the bloat of options from the newer games.
Quote from: ForgottenF on March 31, 2024, 09:42:31 PMIt sounds like you'd be looking for a kind of "middleweight" system, which has something of the customizability and fleshed-out classes of 3rd through 5th editions, without the headache-inducing quantity of powers/feats etc. and the potential for characters getting overpowered, but also not so stripped down as OSE and related games. Sadly, I don't know that there is a great one, at least not without stepping out of the D&D framework entirely (like Savage Worlds). If I knew one it'd probably be what I played. Shadow of the Demon Lord definitely sits in that middle ground, but I have my reservations about both the system and the author. Fantasy Age might be it, but I've only skimmed the book, so I couldn't say. Another one I've only given a cursory look at that might fit the bill is Heroes of Adventure. I don't know it well enough to recommend or not, but it is at least free (https://nameless-designer.itch.io/heroes-of-adventure).
I will give Fantasy Age a look.
Quote from: tenbones on April 01, 2024, 01:17:38 PM
I didn't want to be the guy that brought up Savage Worlds (heh) but since that door has been cracked...
This response has me genuinely curious. Of all the genres of RPG's that Savage Worlds handles, Fantasy is the last one that I'd expect someone to mention that has used Savage Worlds. If you don't mind talking about it - why?
I love Savage Worlds, I do. I have run it for many different settings and genres. I just cannot see Savage Worlds working well with a fantasy settings.
Quote from: The Spaniard on April 01, 2024, 04:12:46 PM
C&C is my go to game. Not a Pathfinder fan.
Yeah, Pathfinder was an option but not one I really wanted to go with. But I just wanted to put out choices that my group might accept.
Quote from: Spinachcat on April 02, 2024, 03:37:56 AM
Go back to the beginning: OD&D, 1974 edition
Here's a fun read:
https://docs.google.com/file/d/0Bx-230B8tqxvMmFrNGJFU3hGNnM/edit?resourcekey=0-gJx1QCEZkqNQDCRrGrvheA
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.
Quote from: Opaopajr on April 02, 2024, 09:31:36 AM
8) Come to Castles & Crusades for the simplicity, stay for the typos... :'(
Thanks for the input. Are the typos that bad?
Quote from: GhostNinja on April 02, 2024, 11:06:20 AM
Quote from: Opaopajr on April 02, 2024, 09:31:36 AM
8) Come to Castles & Crusades for the simplicity, stay for the typos... :'(
Thanks for the input. Are the typos that bad?
That's a normative question. If, instead, you want to know if there are lots of typos that have carried over more than eight editions, then yes, they are "bad". But hey, part of the charm of C&C is embracing the typos and grammar issues because it persists and persists.
RE: house-ruling C&C, in my experience playing it on and off for over 10 years, it's mind-numbingly simple to change whatever you want, and the system works fine as-is. Typically, someone will bring up the SIEGE engine being sub-optimal, or the way saves are handled (my biggest gripe), but if you actually PLAY the game instead of getting into the weeds of mechanical analysis, you can run AD&D-style combats super fast and have a decent skill-check system that covers 99% of what you'd need in a fantasy game. Just play it like it's in the book and not worry about it.
Quote from: GhostNinja on April 02, 2024, 10:55:07 AM
I love Savage Worlds, I do. I have run it for many different settings and genres. I just cannot see Savage Worlds working well with a fantasy settings.
Well by all means check out my proselytizing stylings starting here. (https://www.therpgsite.com/pen-paper-roleplaying-games-rpgs-discussion/so-savage-pathfinder-is-out/msg1176673/#msg1176673)
I can literally pick up *ANY* d20 module of any edition and run it in Savage Worlds. I actually wouldn't even recommend Savage Pathfinder *unless* you really want to simulate "Classes". Otherwise I'd go with the Savage Worlds Core + Fantasy Companion and you're pretty much set.
I'd get the Savage Pathfinder Bestiary too just because between the Core, FCompanion and SF Bestiary - you have far more monsters statted than you'd need for most campaigns.
So no consideration for Fantasy Craft? It's *not* a light system, but if you're even considering Pathfinder of *any* iteration, you're doing yourself an intense disservice by passing up Fantasy Craft. It's what 3e aspired to be. And while that might leave a bad taste in people's mouths, Pathfinder is Fantasy Craft's retarded neighbor by design comparison. Except in this case Pathfinder got a full ad-campaign by Sally Struthers and Sarah McLachlan and Fantasy Craft got Red-Headed Step-child status and sent to live in a trailerpark on the edge of the desert.
She's still out there, I hear. That hot red-head. She's waiting...
Quote from: GhostNinja on April 02, 2024, 10:37:06 AM
Quote from: ForgottenF on March 31, 2024, 09:42:31 PM
I get that. Unlike a lot of OSR people, I completely understand why a person coming from newer systems might look at the player options presented in something like OSE and find them unappealing.
Yes, it's too bad because there are plenty of options in OSE (I use basic and Advance) and a lot of fun. But some people just love the bloat of options from the newer games.
Eh, like I said, I sympathize with it to an extent. For a lot of players a major appeal of cracking open a new RPG book is thinking "what cool thing can I play in this game?", and a major appeal when playing is looking forward to making decisions when leveling up. The OSE classes are purposefully light on flavor, and outside of loot, nearly all the character progression is locked in once you choose your class. I understand why it's done that way, but I also understand how it can be deflating for a player. Not everyone likes to have to head-canon everything that makes their character unique or interesting.
Quote from: tenbones on April 02, 2024, 12:22:24 PM
She's still out there, I hear. That hot red-head. She's waiting...
Something I've been considering with regard to Fantasy Craft: How well does it work for games without PC spellcasting? (Note that I don't say 'without magic', but that magic should be wrapped up in items, locations, creatures, NPCs, et al.)
Quote from: Brad on April 02, 2024, 11:21:21 AM
RE: house-ruling C&C, in my experience playing it on and off for over 10 years, it's mind-numbingly simple to change whatever you want, and the system works fine as-is. Typically, someone will bring up the SIEGE engine being sub-optimal, or the way saves are handled (my biggest gripe), but if you actually PLAY the game instead of getting into the weeds of mechanical analysis, you can run AD&D-style combats super fast and have a decent skill-check system that covers 99% of what you'd need in a fantasy game. Just play it like it's in the book and not worry about it.
Ok thank you for the clarification.
Quote from: Armchair Gamer on April 02, 2024, 01:06:08 PM
Quote from: tenbones on April 02, 2024, 12:22:24 PM
She's still out there, I hear. That hot red-head. She's waiting...
Something I've been considering with regard to Fantasy Craft: How well does it work for games without PC spellcasting? (Note that I don't say 'without magic', but that magic should be wrapped up in items, locations, creatures, NPCs, et al.)
LOL I'd argue *any* fantasy game works better this way if everyone is on board with it. Some people just *have* to be the special snowflakes that have exception-based rules for themselves that can only be described as "magic".
In Fantasy Craft it works fine - since it's a toolkit. Just adjust it as needed class-wise to the conceits of your setting and you're good to go.
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.
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!
(https://live.staticflickr.com/8064/8244977498_95123085de_b.jpg)
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.
Another vote for C&C from me. 8)
Quote from: Jaeger on March 31, 2024, 02:18:57 PMCastles and Crusades. With the optional rule that your prime is just a +6 to your roll.
Or just use Advantage for primes instead of the +6. Not exactly equivalent, but close and easy to use. ;)