Anyone care to read my 4 page C&C review?

[Henry]

A few points to make:

For Shadowslayer:
-Der Kluge to my knowledge not only HAS played the unmodified game (and lost a low-level wizard to an overly powerful fireball) but he IS playing a modified game right now with Scadgrad (also active over on the C&C forums). He's not reviewing blindly.

For Der Kluge:
It's a good review, but there were a few things I don't think you addressed. The Spells, for instance, nor the advantage of playing a more cutthroat game than 3E can allow are two things. In 3E, you are discouraged from being a very challenging DM due to the amount of time involved in character generation, ESPECIALLY over 4th or 5th level. If a 6th level character dies, chances are the player won't be re-entering the game that day, and if so it will only be towards the end of the session. This acts to subtly persuade the DM to make real challenges with less fervor, and soft-ball the play experience. If he doesn't soft-ball the play experience, then he risks alienating players, and thus that particular DM style is dissuaded. Some see it as a bad thing, some don't.

For the spells, they are much simpler, but they do lack in some areas, it's true. In fact, the editing in the spell overview tables is (sorry, Troll friends) some of the WORST I've seen in a gaming product. In the second printings, this needs to be addressed ASAP.

The ability mods you mentioned were done this way intentionally, and it's not because +4 is a high bonus, it's because the average bonus range (from 13 to 16) tends to inflate the amount of bonuses a character gets in combat. Whereas the average high score on most PCs in 4d6 drop lowest is 12 to 15, it makes a +3 or +4 bonus truly exceptional, whereas in most cases of point buy or rolling, scores of +3 and +4 or even +5 can be more common, which begins the power inflation that C&C wants to curtail.

You'll even notice that, whereas in d20 most class abilities are functions of level (cleric turning, barbarian rage, barbarian DR etc.) many or most of C&C's abilities are one-time bonuses, or improve much slower than an equivalent d20 bonus and are not linked to ability scores. The goal is to set power progression so that at high levels, bonuses are JUST reaching the low teens, more in keeping with older editions of D&D.

For the system of Primes, while it doesn't have the same gradation, and yes, you will get odd circumstances in some cases (like primes being more overriding than level bonuses to skills at low level) it's still a simplified system that does work well in play to keep things moving without obsolute DM fiat. One thing to notice is that, as levels increase, primes become less important. Even moreso, it allows someone with a strong concept from the beginning to at least indulge in that concept at low level (cf. the silver-tongued rogue, the dexterous fighter, etc. - and yes, I recall your Dexterous Fighter frustrations ) However, as level increases, class abilities take the fore - if someone wanted "silver-tonguedness" to be their forte, then Bard or Knight is the better choice.

I do agree with your summation: C&C is not for everyone, especially players who want detailed levels of customization with their characters that are woven deeply into the rules. The DM who does not like hours and hours of prep work, however, would find C&C to be a good tool, but if he has players who prefer massive detail, he WILL have to work with them to make them feel more comfortable in the game.

 

[GlassJaw]

I'm surprised people thought this was a good review. It certainly was long and I'm not questioning the effort put into it but if I had no idea what this product was, this review didn't help me too much. Too much editorial, not enough description of the game and book itself.

 

[der_kluge]

Yea, I admit I didn't cover spells too much. It's not terribly different from 3rd edition, at least on the surface. I also felt like 4 (Word) pages was enough as it was! Thanks for the feedback.

 

[der_kluge]

I'm surprised people thought this was a good review. It certainly was long and I'm not questioning the effort put into it but if I had no idea what this product was, this review didn't help me too much. Too much editorial, not enough description of the game and book itself.

Well, that was my intent. Because C&C is as much a concept as it is a book. I wanted to specifically address that angle. There are 4 other reviews that do a good job at addressing the book itself. I didn't want to do that.

 

[scadgrad]

First off, Curtis nice review. I know that took a ton of time and frankly a 3 STAR is about a point higher than I thought you'd arrive at and a point shy of what I would award. Helluva an effort and I as a frequent reader of the rveiews section certainly appreciate anyone who takes the time to do such a thankless job.

My first impression when reading this review is that it isn't so much of a review as it is an editorial based on a product. In my mind, a review tries to be balanced and impartial to give a fair and balanced account of a product. The first few paragraphs read more like an editorial piece that has a heavy bias to it.

I concede this point, but overall I think the rveiew was fair. My biggest problem is that Der_Kluge has a few mistaken ideas about why certain things are done in the game and IMHO misses some of the real strengths of the game. There's certainly room for a bit of bias in a review isn't there?

I will say that I agree with you on the attribute modifiers being different from 3e. What about people who play both systems? It happens, and the end result is that they have two different sets of modifiers to learn. It could actually be confusing. The logic escapes me as well, and I feel that it was done just to be different.

Remember guys, C&C is meant to be a BRIDGE between all editions of D&D. It does that very, very well (and is a HUGE benefit that this review somehow skips). The difference in stats reflects the fact that monsters don't have Con bonuses, nor do they possess the Hit Point Creep that started with the much-hated and maligned 2nd edition. I mean really, go back and look how the monsters have changed over the years. They get more and more HPs so the PCs get more "buff" in response. C&C just takes that paradigm back to a point where a Fighter with a +1 to hit and damage works just fine. To this same end, the authors rightfully scrapped the wonky Percentage Strength of past editions.

So no, it wasn't done "just to be different."

On the prime, it does sound a bit quirky in presentation. The alternate would be to say that characters with primes get an extra +6 to their rolls.

Yeah, exactly. You could easily just give one number and say "add 6 to your dice roll if that stat is prime."

First is the "old school feel"...

Agreed, but even more important is how easy it makes running classic modules. I just ran I6 the original Ravenloft and I did ZERO prep. I ran it completely on the fly and it worked beautifully. My experience doing this w/ both 3.0 and 3.5 were outrageous timesinks.

Perhaps it's just me, but the ability to go back and run an entire Planescape campaign, just by reading the material and jumping right in and still use all the "good parts" (or at least what most of our group considers the good parts) of 3.5 is pretty darn cool. That is one of the primary reasons I got on board with the game.

...I hope that someday I, too, can find that "perfect system" (at least for me). As it is, I'm houseruling quite a bit between D&D, C&C, and True20.

That's cool. I've found my "warm & happy place' by combining C&C w/ 3.5. My C&C houserules are very brief and honestly, when we're playing it just feels like D&D as you've probably always played it. I'm very intrigued by True20 though and I'll check it out as well.

 

[scadgrad]

While I like the idea of C&C, it does seem to have missed the boat for me. It's really too bad that WOTC couldn't/didn't open up the 1e AD&D rules.

I mean, there are 2 pale imitations of it on the market - Hackmaster (a bad joke, IMHO) and C&C (just bad), so obviously there is something of a demand. So why not deliver the real thing?

I'm pretty sure that you can go download them for about a Fiver over at RPGNow or DrivethroughRPG.

I fundamentally disagree about your assertion that C&C is a poor reflection of 1st ed. Even EGG concedes that it just about as close as one can legally get.

 

[der_kluge]

Remember guys, C&C is meant to be a BRIDGE between all editions of D&D. It does that very, very well (and is a HUGE benefit that this review somehow skips). The difference in stats reflects the fact that monsters don't have Con bonuses, nor do they possess the Hit Point Creep that started with the much-hated and maligned 2nd edition. I mean really, go back and look how the monsters have changed over the years. They get more and more HPs so the PCs get more "buff" in response. C&C just takes that paradigm back to a point where a Fighter with a +1 to hit and damage works just fine. To this same end, the authors rightfully scrapped the wonky Percentage Strength of past editions.

So no, it wasn't done "just to be different."

Good point, but I don't think the book actually brings up this point, does it? I mean, if you come at it from that angle, some of the things make more sense. Your story about how TLG wanted to publish Castle Greyhawk but couldn't because it would simply take too much work to convert to 3rd edition made a lot of sense to me. Understanding that puts the game into perspective. But the book itself doesn't convey that very well, I don't think.

 

[scadgrad]

A few points to make:

For Shadowslayer:
-Der Kluge to my knowledge not only HAS played the unmodified game (and lost a low-level wizard to an overly powerful fireball) but he IS playing a modified game right now with Scadgrad (also active over on the C&C forums). He's not reviewing blindly.

Just so.

For Der Kluge:
... In 3E, you are discouraged from being a very challenging DM due to the amount of time involved in character generation, ESPECIALLY over 4th or 5th level. If a 6th level character dies, chances are the player won't be re-entering the game that day, and if so it will only be towards the end of the session...

Absolutely right with this point. I believe that Der_Kluge, along w/ most critics of a brief character creation system, miss the point that the PCs aren't the only one's who have to use those rules. The DM uses them as well (and probably more frequently) and it seriously makes NPC creation much easier if that process is a simple one.

In fact, the editing in the spell overview tables is (sorry, Troll friends) some of the WORST I've seen in a gaming product. In the second printings, this needs to be addressed ASAP.

Yeah, it's really, really bad and the Trolls know it; thus the lengthy delay on the release of M&T which fares considerably better IMO.

I do agree with your summation: C&C is not for everyone, especially players who want detailed levels of customization with their characters that are woven deeply into the rules. The DM who does not like hours and hours of prep work, however, would find C&C to be a good tool, but if he has players who prefer massive detail, he WILL have to work with them to make them feel more comfortable in the game.

Couldn't have said it better myself.

 

[scadgrad]

Good point, but I don't think the book actually brings up this point, does it?...Understanding that puts the game into perspective. But the book itself doesn't convey that very well, I don't think.

Yeah, you're right. I think TLG wanted to distance themselves from (or at the very least avoid suggesting implicit compatibility with) older versions just to play it super safe from a legal standpoint. I believe they've underplayed EGG's involvement so as to not detract from EGG's Legendary Adventures which IIRC, is his preferred RPG system.

That's really the only reason I can come up with for why the Trolls are so low key about C&C's near-seamless meshing w/ EVERY version of the game we all love. I think that's a tremendous selling point that they just don't crow about enough.

 

[Dragonhelm]

Agreed, but even more important is how easy it makes running classic modules. I just ran I6 the original Ravenloft and I did ZERO prep. I ran it completely on the fly and it worked beautifully. My experience doing this w/ both 3.0 and 3.5 were outrageous timesinks.

Yep, forgot to mention that. That probably is one of C&C's greatest strengths is that materials from prior editions can be adapted quickly, which in turn gives new life to older products.