C&C or Hackmaster for old-school gaming?

[gale_wolf]

I know and love C&C and like its unified mechanic for AD&D1e goodness. I know nothing about Hackmaster and wonder if anyone can enlighten me on what it is that Hackmaster does or does not do better for 1st edition styled gaming?

[Agent Oracle]

Well first, a question:

How long do you want to spend re-re-relearning the rules?

Yeah, Hackmaster is Slightly humorous RPG by it's lonesome. it's all the best (and worst, and middling) aspects of D&D, and AD&D with 10 extra pages of questionable modifiers for each basic rule. Just remember, it originated from a comic book parody of D&D. I mean, the book has an entire chapter on how to sanctify your dice for pity's sake!

But between the two? I have to reccomend Castles and Crusades. Not because Hackmaster is a bad game, just that C&C is a better one. Lots of classic play fun for everyone.

[hackmastergeneral]

It depends on what you mean by "old school".

Hackmaster is old school with the dial turned up to 15 and the knob ripped off. It takes the old D&D/AD&D tropes, turns them on their head, and gives em a new paint job.

Its great - the books read great, the Hacklopedia of Beasts are some of the most readable monster entries I've ever seen, and its a fun game.

HOWEVER, as the above poster said, it IS the best and worst of the old game, with some new wrinkles added in. It doesn't try to change what made AD&D the beast it was - it embraces them, loves them, and tells you you're a wuss-pussy if you think they need changing as well. The critical hit tables are monsterous, but man are they fun to roll.

The Hackmaster GM screen is a thing of unholy beauty. It is, quite simply, the new relic of a modern religion. Bow before its chart-ridden majesty!

Honor mechanics are a good one - they really add to the flavor of the game. The "Hacked" versions of old modules are some of the best adventures out there.

It is, as well, a crunchy game. Crunchy with a capital CR.

I don't know C&C - never really looked at it. It gets a lot of love round here.

[FASERIP]

To add to hackmastergeneral's post, HackMaster has tons of rules. It's fun to play (and I found it fun to run), but I never played AD&D that way in the past. We ignored tons of rules and just rolled d10s for initiative before slinging the d20s.

C&C feels more like how we played AD&D back then. I would imagine folks who used every rule in AD&D will think that HackMaster feels more like D&D.

If you want more 'oldskool' feel in your gaming, I would recommend adding some houserules to C&C. If you're really interested in HackMaster, leaf through a copy of the PHB or snag one on eBay. It's a cool game and there are plenty of things to mine from it.

Or you may even decide to play that instead of C&C.

[Liberator]

Hackmaster is a blast. I absolutely love it.

That being said, if you're going for 'old-school', I'd lean towards CnC honestly.

Old-School has taken on a new meaning for me lately: Sit down, roll up character, play....and no more than 10 minutes has passed during character generation. CnC will give you that. HM...not so much...takes a little longer.

So, I guess I'd lean towards CnC.

HM has a LOT of great stuff, and I do love it oh so, so much. But it's mega-crunchy. A lot crunchier than AdnD.

[Carnifex]

I would have to recommend HackMaster over C&C. HackMaster really is based on AD&D1E and it does not get any better than that for old school gaming. C&C on the other hand is pretty much OGL SRD with an old school paint job.

[Jimmy Invictus]

I would have to recommend HackMaster over C&C. HackMaster really is based on AD&D1E and it does not get any better than that for old school gaming. C&C on the other hand is pretty much OGL SRD with an old school paint job.

I would tend to agree; although I do like C&C (I was a playtester for god's sake :D ), I much prefer HackMaster for real Old School gaming goodness.

[Mark Plemmons]

I know and love C&C and like its unified mechanic for AD&D1e goodness. I know nothing about Hackmaster and wonder if anyone can enlighten me on what it is that Hackmaster does or does not do better for 1st edition styled gaming?

Aside from the info on the main HackMaster page (http://www.kenzerco.com/index.php?cPath=25_26), I like to recommend this review (http://www.rpg.net/reviews/archive/12/12222.phtml) as well.

[Piestrio]

I'll have to chime in and repeat that it depends on what you think "old-school" is.

If you played AD&D with all the guts ripped out and fondly remember the fast and loose nature of the game C&C is for you.

If you played AD&D like it was written, or even with a bucket load of house rules, and fonbly remember rolling awsome critical hits and figuring out obtuse tomes in your spare time Hackmaster is for you.

I love and have ran both games, but were I to start a game tomarrow it would be Hackmaster. The puppy's just got so much soul.

Piestrio

[Lunamancer]

I would have to recommend HackMaster over C&C. HackMaster really is based on AD&D1E and it does not get any better than that for old school gaming. C&C on the other hand is pretty much OGL SRD with an old school paint job.

I have to disagree there. I think OGL SRD is the paint job. The core is in the classes, monsters, magic, and so forth. For the most part, C&C does a great job being true old-school at its core (there are a couple of C&C class rehashes that I don't think do a good job of capturing the old-school spirit). Hackmaster pretty much is a parody, and a very good one at that.

It really does come down to one's perception on old-school. I feel that genres in general tend to take emphasise on the worst of something since that is what makes it unique. If you want a humorously glorified "worst of AD&D", then Hackmaster is what you want. If you want something a little closer to the spirit of the original, go with C&C.

[Reynard]

I have an honest question:

Why not just play 1st Edition AD&D? Is there a particular reason why you must use something other than the game you actually want to play?

If I had to choose between the two, I'd take HM. It is a little too much for me as a DM, but I could excise some things and make it 1E turned up to 11 instead of 15 (as hackmastergeneral said). To me C&C offers absolutely nothing that AD&D1 doesn't provide, except perhaps the fact that it is sort of, kind of a d20 game so d20-only players might be hornswaggled into giving it a go.

I have recently come to the conclusion that if I want that classic feel, I gotta play that classic game. Accept no substitutes.

[RobertFisher]

Why not just play 1st Edition AD&D?

I'm with Reynard on this one. HM is 1e with a bunch of stuff added, almost none of which (IMHO) makes it better. C&C goes the other way & (IMHO) simplifies things too much. (Or perhaps not too much, but in different ways that I would have.)

The 1e books are easy to find used or can be bought in PDF for $6 each.

Of course, I prefer classic D&D. 2e w/o the optional rules falls kind of midway between classic D&D & 1e. But you're really splitting hairs at that point.

Now the HM & C&C modules are worth getting no matter what system you choose.

Of course, YMMV.

[Emerald Lich]

Given a choice between the two, I'd (narrowly) take C&C over Hackmaster.

I find C&C to be a system that's over-simplified ... and Hackmaster a system that's over-complicated. In my own experience, I've found that it's much, much easier to add additional house rules to a simple game system than to rip existing rules out of a complicated one.

Part of the fun of Hackmaster is wallowing in the complexity of the rules. If you don't want to embrace that complexity with much love and enthusiasm, C&C is much better, hands down.

I agree with one of the posters above, though - the best "compromise" between the two would simply be 1st edition AD&D.

[J. Richardson]

Or play this game:

http://www.basicfantasy.org/

[pacalypse]

I have to throw in a vote for C&C, especially since you make it clear in your original post, that you enjoy it's unified mechanics. Hackmaster & even AD&D 1e ain't gonna give that too you. In my oppinion C&C is really close to AD&D 1e without all the various subsystems to remember.

Alot of posters say it's oversimplified, but I don't get this...especially when compared to AD&D 1e. Does a unified mechanic make it "simple" or "streamlined", I would say the latter. I really don't see anything that doesn't sync up that well with AD&D 1e if you want a unified mechanic.

[Spinachcat]

Why not just play 1st Edition AD&D? Is there a particular reason why you must use something other than the game you actually want to play?

Run Reynard Run! :eek:

Please everyone, put away the pitchforks. Reynard didn't really mean to say on RPG.net that you should actually PLAY a game that you have owned more than twelve months. Really, it's gonna be okay so blow out the torches.

. . . on a more serious note:

Hackmaster is to fantasy what Paranoia is to science fiction. It's much fun and much silliness with grognard goodness. I would run it for gonzo laughs. C&C is AD&D 2.5 and does a very good (but not perfect) job streamlining the old rules into something more modern. I would run it for rules-lite D&D where I wanted the D&D structure but the freedom to play from the couch with near zero checking up on rules.

It should be noted that a HUGE number of people still play AD&D and just have happily kept gaming without any input from the marketplace or the online forums.

They are like the lost 13th tribe!

[NulSyn]

I have to vote Hackmaster. For all the reasons sated before my post. Though I have to say that HM is only as silly or serious as you want it to be. It is by no means overly silly or overly serious but in a happy middle ground thats easily accepted or ignored.

And even though it has a lot of rules if you knew ad&d 1st an2nd edition then most the rules should be familiar to you.

The major differences being:

The skill system (% based)
Honor stat and Comeliness stat
Exploding Damage

Now IMHO the best part of HM is that it very blatantly states what a player should know and what a GM should know. This adds to the flavor of the game to me. And adds a little player vs GM feel to the game. Which I like!

[tete]

Exalted! oh come on someone had to say it.

Seriously though I would go with Hackmaster.

[Reynard]

Now IMHO the best part of HM is that it very blatantly states what a player should know and what a GM should know. This adds to the flavor of the game to me. And adds a little player vs GM feel to the game. Which I like!

Sadly, this is anathema to a lot of D&D players today (whether they are old school or new school). I was re-reading my DMG and PHB for 1E last night and actually found myself admiring much of the advice given regarding the distinct lines drawn between players and DMs.

[NulSyn]

Sadly, this is anathema to a lot of D&D players today (whether they are old school or new school). I was re-reading my DMG and PHB for 1E last night and actually found myself admiring much of the advice given regarding the distinct lines drawn between players and DMs.

The most fun games i have ran are usually the ones with players only marginally familiar with the world/mechanics. I agree thats its sad, because I think once all the players know as much as the GM the game lessens in fun value. Not always but more times than not this is what has happend in my experience

[gale_wolf]

I have an honest question:

Why not just play 1st Edition AD&D? Is there a particular reason why you must use something other than the game you actually want to play?

And it's a valid question too, I'd play AD&D1e given the chance, but the group I'm with wants to try a modern incarnation of that classic game, hence my question of C&C vs HM.

[gale_wolf]

I have to throw in a vote for C&C, especially since you make it clear in your original post, that you enjoy it's unified mechanics. Hackmaster & even AD&D 1e ain't gonna give that too you. In my oppinion C&C is really close to AD&D 1e without all the various subsystems to remember.

Alot of posters say it's oversimplified, but I don't get this...especially when compared to AD&D 1e. Does a unified mechanic make it "simple" or "streamlined", I would say the latter. I really don't see anything that doesn't sync up that well with AD&D 1e if you want a unified mechanic.

Yes it does sound like C&C is the way to go to keep my group, and their feeble collective attention span, happy. I must say that I'm getting more and more interested in HM though.

[Reynard]

Yes it does sound like C&C is the way to go to keep my group, and their feeble collective attention span, happy. I must say that I'm getting more and more interested in HM though.

The other advantage of HM is that if the players and you find it too detailed/crunchy, you can always "lighten" things up by dropping back to 1E rules. Also, HM has modern versions of most of the classic modules, if that sort of thing is important to you.

Spend a session rolling up HM characters -- flaws and all -- and I bet the players will be jazzed. Once play starts, you'll have to see whether the d10000 crit charts and such increase or reduce your fun.

[Carnifex]

Why not take both games for a test ride, see which one suits your group the best. My guess is once you compare them side by side, one or the other will become more appealing. I think most old school gamers would prefer HM if they gave it a fair chance instead of writing it off as a mere "Parody" game.

[Reynard]

This is tangential, but probably not really worth its own thread: Does anyone have any experience using some of the HM classes in 1E. I am considering it, but I am not sure if it is more trouble than it is worth.

[RobertFisher]

Hackmaster is to fantasy what Paranoia is to science fiction. It's much fun and much silliness with grognard goodness. I would run it for gonzo laughs.

Personally, I'd rather go with d20 Munchkin if going that route.

...although that may just be that I feel like I've pretty much fully explored making fun of AD&D & so making fun of the d20 system would be fresher...

[Hackhamster]

Last session, the girlfriend of one of my players showed up. I invited her to play, but she demurred and said she'd just check out the PHB for a while, and watch what we did. Bout every 5 minutes, I'd hear a chuckle, sometimes a giggle coming from her direction. And thats what HM is all about for me: it doesn't take itself seriously, and despite its rep as a parody of AD&D, it's a balanced gaming system that appeals to my inner grogard. It's old-school gaming with a punk-ass, deranged attitude.

[Rabid Southern Cross Fan]

Castles & Crusades, definitely. The best part is that you can run 1e AD&D/D&D modules straight 'out of the can' so to speak. All you do is subtract 20 from the Armor Class to get the d20 equivalent. Other than that, its pretty much the same.

ex.: A monster with a -2 AC in AD&D would would have a 22 AC in C&C.

[Lazarus]

I'm going to throw OSRIC into the mix, as well. It's another take at modernifying old-school games. Admittedly, it's more of a system reference document than an actual game guide, but in that, it gets the rules across clearer.

I will also admit I don't know much about HackMaster other than the fact that it really is a modified AD&D.

So, I can compare bits of OSRIC and C&C, and really it comes down to this for me: What I don't like about OSRIC is that each stat still has the big different table of what the numbers mean, and it's different for each stat. What I don't like about C&C is that it has variable xp for different classes (meaning that multiclassing is wonky). Interestingly, these two points are "fixed" in the other ruleset.

Laz

[MonsterMash]

Personally I'd prefer C&C as I find the rules cleaner and as someone who started with OD&D I like having less rules provided at base. Hackmaster is more if you liked running 1e AD&D with all the rules, but I may borrow the Honour rules for my C&C games.

[hackmastergeneral]

Personally, I'd rather go with d20 Munchkin if going that route.

...although that may just be that I feel like I've pretty much fully explored making fun of AD&D & so making fun of the d20 system would be fresher...

Except Hackmaster doesn't "make fun" of AD&D - in a few very small ways, its satirizes some of the old school attitudes, but it doesn't "make fun". Jolly and the boys said it was their homage to the old school gaming they did - basically publishing a lot of the hosue rules they used.

Hackmaster is NOT "Paranoia". I wish people would stop using that analogy, or claiming its just a "comedy" or "parody" game.

Its not. Yes, theres humor, and some silliness, but the overwhelming majority of the game is very serious, and the humor bits are easily pulled out.

I tended to run it with a humorous bent because, well, I'm a funny guy with a good sense of humor, and I LOVED Knights of the Dinner Table. But theres nothing that FORCES you to run it like that.

[Yodelero]

C&C is definitely easier to run than HackMaster, but lately I've been getting tired of the "unified mechanic" game system fever that's seemed to have gripped the industry. It's why I got tired of running GURPS, well that and the fact that it takes so freakin' long to make a character... and all the math. :p

C&C is basically d20 Lite pretending to be O/AD&D. I like the game, and run it occasionally, but it's not D&D. HackMaster is a lot more true to the original AD&D game, because it is AD&D... with a whole slew of new crunch and more hit points.

I have all the old versions of the game, OD&D, first edition AD&D (with all the books and tons of adventures), Holmes Basic, Moldvay/Cook Basic/Expert, Rules Cyclopedia, everything besides 2nd and 3rd edition. I have HackMaster with the complete Hacklopedia of Beasts, and also C&C. But when it comes to it, I prefer to run first edition AD&D with just the Monster Manual, Players Handbook, and Dungeon Masters Guide. That's all I need.

And my players always have a blast, no matter what game I run :D