[C&C] Why the edition wars?

[Akrasia]

As for myself I did not one negative word about C&C as a system despite your spurious claim to the contrary.

Okay, I should have been more precise: hostility towards C&C and/or its players.

Once again a pattern has developed, someone dares to question the superioriority of C&C and they are labeled "poorly informed" & "hostile". The ad hominem attacks come from a different source than you claim.

I never claimed that C&C was an 'across the board' superior system. And indeed, I don't think anyone who likes C&C has claimed this in this thread. However, a number of criticisms of the game have come from people who have not even read the book!

In any case, calling people 'zealots' and 'prosyletizers' is an ad hominem attack.

For someone going around telling people to 'look at their own behaviour', this is pretty outrageous.

Not an attack at all. Just a statement about the behavior of some C&C players.

Oh give me a break. If you cannot recognize that you have just insulted people, then you don't know the meaning of the words you use.

Look, I know that you're just trolling here. Fair enough, but it is not really constructive.

 

[jester47]

1) The title should be, why arn't we having a flame war about C&C.

2) People are treating this like a religious debate. No religion allowed!

3) I have bought C&C and after experiementing with some of the ideas in there, my group is going back to skills. It took just as long to calculate the rolls in C&C as it did in 3.5e and I realised that it was not the rule system but my own analness that was slowing me down in prep and durring the game. Things C&C inspired that we are keeping:

not using minis or counters. We use my tactiles like they were 10' squares and draw "football plays" on them with dry erase. This works great and we can still see where people should get their OOs and such.

Turning. Probably the biggest contribution C&C gives is its take on turning. Its a system that is very hard to forget and fairly simple. We changed the destroy rebuke threshold to that of 3.5e (if you have twice the HD in levels you can destroy/control) and have given a few more rules to turning damage based on creature intelligence. (non int d12 + cha mod, int with HD <lvl d6 + cha mod, int w/HD >= lvl 1 + Cha mod.

C&C is a decent game, and when M&T comes out and its complete, I may play it a bit. It has taught me about my style as a DM but it is not the greatest thing gaming since the discovery of the platonic solids. Same can be said for 3.5e. Everyone needs to get over it.

Aaron.

 

[Breakdaddy]

I stand by my original post and the choice of terminology as it adequately illustrates how the matter is being handled by some.

Because two wrongs ALWAYS make a right
Some people that have ardently defended C&C may have gone overboard in your opinion, and that is ok. It really is. Sometimes I even tend to agree with this assessment. Its not the point you make, its the way you make it that causes me consternation. Venomous language doesnt sway opinions (except to reinforce preexisting opinions!), it only causes more negativity. Common courtesy shouldnt be seen as optional, imho, but as standard operating procedure (on both sides of this debate).

 

[Breakdaddy]

1)Turning. Probably the biggest contribution C&C gives is its take on turning. Its a system that is very hard to forget and fairly simple. We changed the destroy rebuke threshold to that of 3.5e (if you have twice the HD in levels you can destroy/control) and have given a few more rules to turning damage based on creature intelligence. (non int d12 + cha mod, int with HD <lvl d6 + cha mod, int w/HD >= lvl 1 + Cha mod.

Agreed. This is probably the single most intuitive feature of C&C.

 

[Krieg]

Deleted to end the furball.

 

[Krieg]

Because two wrongs ALWAYS make a right
Some people that have ardently defended C&C may have gone overboard in your opinion, and that is ok. It really is. Sometimes I even tend to agree with this assessment. Its not the point you make, its the way you make it that causes me consternation. Venomous language doesnt sway opinions (except to reinforce preexisting opinions!), it only causes more negativity. Common courtesy shouldnt be seen as optional, imho, but as standard operating procedure (on both sides of this debate).

More than fair enough.

Believe it or not the point was not meant to belittle fans or the system. Unfortunately from the outside when you see every thread on a subject devolve into repetitive attacks and belittlement of anyone who disagrees with a certain belief by the same individuals, those individuals to begin to take on the appearance of crusaders rather than someone seriously interested in discussing the relative merits of the system.

Anyways as I said above it's obvious that this is not going to anywhere worthwhile at this point so I will take my leave.

 

[bolie]

Oh, yeah?!

 

[Akrasia]

... 3) I have bought C&C and after experiementing with some of the ideas in there, my group is going back to skills. ....

Why not just port skills into C&C? Or is this what you are doing?

(BTW there will be an optional skill system in the CKG. Not that that helps you now, of course.)

 

[Breakdaddy]

Believe it or not the point was not meant to belittle fans or the system. Unfortunately from the outside when you see every thread on a subject devolve into repetitive attacks and belittlement of anyone who disagrees with a certain belief by the same individuals, those individuals to begin to take on the appearance of crusaders rather than someone seriously interested in discussing the relative merits of the system.

Understood and I reiterate that in some cases I agree completely. As always, intent is difficult to assess in a written medium, so I personally like to try to cut people a little slack, so I appreciate you cutting me some.

 

[Psion]

3) I have bought C&C and after experiementing with some of the ideas in there, my group is going back to skills. It took just as long to calculate the rolls in C&C as it did in 3.5e and I realised that it was not the rule system but my own analness that was slowing me down in prep and durring the game.

Interesting.

Could this mean that Blue Rose is a bit closer to the rules light holy grail of d20 some are looking for?