der_kluge said:
I played in two separate C&C campaigns with two different GMs. The second was much more palatable since that GM used Feats (paired down, but he had them). So, it was a little better.
There's lots I don't like about C&C. But, for ease, just go read my 10 page review of it.
http://www.enworld.org/reviews.php?do=review&reviewid=2402441
A little crashing into a thread as I am still a C&C devotee, so I apologize in advance, but having read the general comments and specifically the review above I just wanted to add my two cents...
It's not surprising to me that many have tried C&C and it wasn't for them. It is a hybrid, and as an earlier poster said it operates in a niche between lovers of older AD&D versions and devotees of newer editions. As such, der Kluge's review is accurate in that it is not universally liked. But, contrary to the review, neither was 3.0 or 3.5 D&D (granting the larger fan base that was well established before C&C every premiered). In the end it comes down to tastes in RPGing and there's plenty of systems to choose from. If you were to ask me why I stick with it, it's not just the system I like (which has its wonkiness, which I and many others shape and houserule to our own tastes), but the openness to ideas and changes to the rules that come from TLG and those who are involved with the game - as a system its closer to what I wanted (and houseruled down to when I ran 3.0 games), so even though this point or that point may not be what I like its still the system I find closest to my tastes.
Having watched many edition wars and threads discussing "what's the right one" or the "best one," I think the answer is whatever works best for you. If C&C isn't it, that's cool. I think what does worry me is that too often I hear C&C referred to as "a step back," or "adding nothing new to RPGing." Again, it's a matter of taste - for me C&C was a published system that mirrored most (not all) of my desires and game philosophy, is fairly well supported (especially considering the tiny size of the company producing it), and most refreshingly has active encouragement from the designers to bend it in whatever way we as gamers see fit. I am an "oldtimer" who didn't always like 1e in the old days, and who after 4 years of 3.0 found this to be the inbetween compromise I was looking for. Others don't see it that way - again, it's cool.
The basic disagreement, as I see it, is between those who simply don't mind mixing and borrowing from multiple sources and using houserules as a natural part of RPGing, and those who feel the system (any system) should be THE system as is. C&C appeals to this first group, and no doubt will turn off the second. I doubt this particular oppositional POV on what "RPGing" means can be resolved on message boards like this.
As I said I ran 3.0 for years (heavily houseruled - but even then frustrated me whenever players stopped to pull out rule books to show me why I was "wrong" to do something a certain way), stopped playing when I moved away. Subsequently some students where I teach invited me into what they described as a "rockin' D&D game," which everyone talked about as the best around town, and after 3 hours of one session I was confused. They were using 3.5, had laptops on tables, stacks of 8 or 9 books, and the session consisted of about 10 minutes of someone reading a story, a few minutes of description as we headed down a road, then the battle maps came out and the next two hours basically consisted of two major combats with 40+ minutes of rolling and moving the figurines on the mat. After these two battles everyone went up a level and the last 40 minutes was spent working on leveling characters. Afterwards everyone around was psyched and said "I think that was the best one yet!"
I relate this story not to disparage that group or anyone else who prefers this form of RPGing - but when I read der Kluge's statement that what D&D was in the early days was maybe "fine for its time," and "we've moved on," I can't really agree - sometimes "forward" doesn't mean better or worse, just different. And if the differences aren't to some of our tastes, then "backwards" can sometimes be "better."
It will be interesting to see how the generation of 3.x players react to 4e players on boards in the future. It'll be a little like the kids looking at parents saying "I can't believe you thought that music was cool." And here I refer to the Beatles and Stones. Am I so much a music grognard that I can't see that rock n roll has "moved past" them?
So the upshot of this is this: play what you like, don't play what you don't like. The spirit of RPGing and D&D in particular was always not in the rules, but in a group sharing imagination of a fantasy world around a table with a set of dice.
And if you're waiting for that "perfect" system which will have NO flaws, no issues... well, I wish you well on your long journey.
