How Quickly is C&C Catching on?

mattcolville

Adventurer
I'm interested and skeptical.

I'm interested because it does seem simpler than D&D3.

Then, I think, "D&D3 is pretty simple. It's just got a lot of rules." I *like* the fact that I can find a rule that tells me the radius of light shed by a torch. It's not complex, it just has answers for all the questions players have asked over 30 years. Complex is Champions where I have to do cube roots and vectors to figure out how much damage my hero does when he slams into you 1/3 of the way toward reaching his full velocity, as opposed to 1/2 way toward that same limit.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Breakdaddy

First Post
I've become increasingly disenchanted with the weight of the rules in 3.x D&D. I recently purchased the C&C PHB and instantly loved it. I showed it to my group and all of them have bought the C&C PHB and we are switching for a while. I will never give up 3.x entirely, but the flavor and rules light nature of C&C have grabbed me. It's also nice to be able to grab my old 1e AD&D modules and convert them on the fly in C&C. I've been playing D&D in various forms for over 17 years, so I have quite a bit of this stuff accumulated. It's nice to know I can still get some mileage from it in an in-print product. It also "feels" a lot less generic than the base D&D 3.x system. I'm certain this product is not for everyone, but I feel that most would find themselves pleasantly surprised by it's capacity to cover a wide variety of situations with a minimum of rules.
 



I'm skeptical, sine what I heard indicated it's too close to 2e.

The ability score system of C&C is at it's core, and I don't like it. (No bonuses until 15... ew.) Plus I'm spoiled by feats... even if it's just core feats.
 

Breakdaddy

First Post
(Psi)SeveredHead said:
I'm skeptical, sine what I heard indicated it's too close to 2e.

The ability score system of C&C is at it's core, and I don't like it. (No bonuses until 15... ew.) Plus I'm spoiled by feats... even if it's just core feats.

Its closer to 1e than 2e from what I can determine. Also, I dont have my players guide in front of me, but Im pretty certain that bonuses start at 13+, not 15+.
 

jester47

First Post
I am finding that C&C would be great for beer and pretzels D&D. Its awesome for the casual game. It is also a better system for running adventures that are not 3.5, as you can convert to C&C almost on the fly. I will probably stick to both. The problem with me though is that I really like to customise everything if I have to convert it. Like the Ogre in ToA. It was sort of a normal Ogre, but when he stepped out into 3.5 he was really a baddass. With C&C I can make him a baddass in short order.

I like both and I think C&C is going to spread the best way a game can spread - Word of mouth. Its the most powerful version of advertising, and its what got people to go see star wars.

Aaron.
 

Akrasia

Procrastinator
Well, there are a few things to keep in mind with respect to the question of this thread.

(1.) The PHB book simply has not arrived at most gamestores yet. The books are still working their way through the distribution system.
(2.) It will probably never arrive at some gamestores for the simple fact that, based on last year's sales, many gamestores are reluctant to stock new d20 3rd-party material -- despite the fact that C&C is not a d20 game (many gamestore owners simply do not know this).
(3.) Some of the main support material for C&C has yet to be published: e.g. the Monsters and Treasures book, and the first installment of Castle Zagyg (the original Castle Greyhawk). (As DaveMage indicated, the game might receive a boost once people see that the original Greyhawk dungeon campaign has finally been published, and it uses C&C).

It will be too bad if (2.) is significant enough to undermine C&C's chances, as that is a factor that has nothing to do with the quality of the game itself. :\

Here is another important thing to keep in mind when assessing the extent to which C&C is 'catching on':

C&C is a niche game. It will appeal only to players who want a 'rules light' system (e.g. no feats, skills, attacks of opportunity, etc., though they can be added as options) and/or a game with an 'old school' feel (e.g. clear and definite class 'archetypes'; no half-illithid PCs with uber-prestige classes, etc.). Consequently, it will not 'rival' 3.5 D&D -- not even close. At best, it will occupy a position alongside, say, the Conan RPG in terms of popularity -- an 'alternative' game for those who want a FRPG other than 3.x D&D.

Having said all that, C&C does have a few things going for it that make me cautiously optimistic that it will succeed in its particular market niche:

(a.) A considerable amount of upcoming support material (the Castle Zagyg series from EGG; a number of other 'old school' modules; a fantasy adventure magazine in the style of the early Dragon called 'the Crusader' [the first issue has articles by Darlene of Greyhawk map fame, Rob Kuntz, and others]; and possible C&C versions of Goodman Games' "Dungeon Crawl" modules).
(b.) Broad compatibility with ALL editions of D&D. I would say that C&C is, roughly, 90-95 percent compatible with pre-3e material (you can 'convert on the fly' by changing the ACs only); and 75 percent compatible with 3e material (you can usually 'convert on the fly', but certain multiclass combinations or feat abilities may require some thought, and higher level adventures and monsters will need to be 'toned down' somewhat).
(c.) Good art -- the cover for the PHB is quite attractive and striking. (I actually think that this is an important factor in getting casual consumers to open the book and look at it. In addition, players tend to have more positive feelings with respect to products that they fine aesthetically pleasing.) Moreover, art that is quite distinctive -- definitely not like WotC's predominant style.
(d.) A devoted core of 'grognard fans' over at places like Dragonsfoot that seem eager to support and proselytize the system. (This not a big factor, of course, but it certainly cannot hurt a game to have a devoted core group of supporters in place even before the game has been published).

In short, I think it is too early to tell whether C&C is 'caching on'. Moreovoer, I also think that we have to have appropriately modest expectations as to what 'catching on' would constitute for C&C (namely, establishing itself in a particular market niche, not rivalling 3E). Finally, I am cautiously optimistic that C&C will in fact 'catch on' and establish itself as the preferred system for a particular segment of the market.
:cool:
 

Akrasia

Procrastinator
rycanada said:
I came really close to buying it, but when it became clear that not all decisions were made to achieve rules-lightness, I decided not to.

I am not sure what you are referring to here. The only two respects in which C&C is arguably less 'rules light' than 3E are: (a.) the saving throws system (every ability score is relevant in C&C); and (b.) the experience point progression charts (rather than try to achieve complete balance among the classes at every level, as in 3E, balance is achieved through differential experience point progressions).

These are minor things, IMO, and I actually prefer C&C's approach to saving throws over 3E (as it ensures that there are no obvious 'dump stats' for any character, regardless of class).

But in every other respect -- combat, PC & NPC generation, task resolution, etc. -- C&C is more 'rules light' than 3E.
:)
 

Ry

Explorer
Akrasia said:
despite the fact that C&C is not a d20 game (many gamestore owners simply do not know this).

I think that was the clincher; if C&C had been a d20 game, then it would have got me, despite some of the quirkiness.
 

Remove ads

Top