How Quickly is C&C Catching on?

[bolie]

Except for the fact that I cant remember having seen anyone in this thread say that you *could* do everything with C&C that you can with D&D out of the box. There is invariably that caveat that states that you must houserule it to do this or that. In that regard, I think he is a tad bit off the mark. No offense is meant here, bolie has been a good contributor to this thread, I just wanted to point that out. Of course, I havent gone back and reread each post en toto to make absolutely sure about this, this is all vague recollection at the moment. Feel free to quote someone making this claim and smack me down properly.

No one has said that C&C would do all that 3e would out of the box but a lot of people (here and elsewhere) have said that not having a lot of rules somehow makes it easier to do a lot of different things. Several people have stated in this thread that feats, skills, and prestige classes don't make characters much more different from each other than primes and RP. Or they've stated that not having all those pesky feats and skills means they can use RP to distinguish characters as much or better.

I agree that you can do a lot to distinguish characters by RP and primes and equipment. But it boggles my mind that anyone would think that having feats, skills, and prestige classes doesn't help.

But then my understanding is that C&C isn't trying to allow for all the customization of characters and monsters, it's allowing for customizing of the game itself. Which is not an inherent flaw. I do not intend that as a criticism.

So... my take on C&C v. 3e is that 3e allows for a wider variety of characters and monsters and tactical options in combat but requires a much, MUCH larger investment of time and money and can discourage some people from thinking outside the box because the box is so big. C&C is simple and fast to play. Making characters is quick and relatively simple. The rules are less comprehensive which may encourage some people to be more creative (but which does not inherently allow more creativity).

As far as system design goes, I much prefer C&C saves to 3e saves and I much prefer 3e monster design (with stats and monster HD like classes) to C&C monster design. Much of the other stuff that I'm not crazy about in C&C can easily be house ruled (adding feats and/or skills, 5 foot steps, spells, etc...).

Oh, and I've tried posting on the Troll Lord games forum, but I keep getting an InvalidDomain error or something. I've used ezboard before with no trouble on other sites, though, so I'm not sure what the problem is. It might be my extreme firewall/proxy stuff or something. It's probably just as well that I haven't been able to post there.

Bolie IV

 

[Akrasia]

... I find that having a consistent rule set allows for me to better judge what my character can and can't do. No game like this is going to be 100% realistic. It would be tedious if it were. So the rules are a balance between playability and realism. There is no right balance, of course, so each set of rules seeks a different balance.

3e has a lot of rules and a lot of options within those rules. That means I can find rules to cover a wide variety of situations. It also means that the rules are more complex.

Personally, I like having rules. I like systems. If I don't have rules, I'll find myself trying to come up with rules. I don't like handling each event as a form of exception. I find it more mental effort to come up with a general solution to every problem than to look up a rule that someone else already worked out, even if it's not the best rule ever.
...

I don't understand why so many people claim that a game with fewer, more general rules, is somehow the same thing as a game with 'inconsistent' rules that require people to come up with rules on their own, or on an ad hoc basis. This is just mistaken.

Compare two systems for resolving non-combat tasks. One (the rules light) system, holds that you resolve every task by determining which ability score is appropriate (e.g. Strength, Intelligence, etc.), and making an 'ability score check' (say, rolling a d20 and adding the ability score modifier, plus/minus additional modifiers for difficulty). The other (rules 'robust') system has a list of 20+ skills, and holds that you resolve every task by determining which skill is appropriate (e.g. Climb, Knowledge aracana, etc.), and making a 'skill check' (say, rolling a d20 and adding the skill modifier, plus/minus additional modifiers for difficulty).

I fail completely to see why the former system is more 'ad hoc' than the latter. It is simply more general: it uses 'dexterity' for all dexterity-related tasks, rather than breaking those tasks down into individual skills.

It is possible for a rules-lite system to codify the ways in which different tasks and situations are resolved. They just provide more general mechanisms -- i.e. rules that cover a greater number of cases (and with fewer modifiers).

Obviously many people prefer the more complex system. But it is incorrect to claim that the more complex system (3E D&D) is necessarily more consistent than the more general system. (And often the opposite is true.)

 

[Akrasia]

No one has said that C&C would do all that 3e would out of the box but a lot of people (here and elsewhere) have said that not having a lot of rules somehow makes it easier to do a lot of different things. ...

By providing players with a simple rules framework, C&C provides a foundation onto which they can add what options they want (e.g. skills but not feats, etc.). Players can then 'build up' to the kind of game they want.

In contrast, altering or removing any of the basic elements of 3E D&D -- e.g. feats, skills, the combat system, etc. -- requires a lot more work, and can have all kinds of unforseen or unintended consequences.

I have already expressed my reasons for holding this to be the case ad nauseum earlier in this thread.

But overall, I would say that 'out of the box' 3E D&D provides a lot more options for players, whereas C&C makes it easier for groups to introduce 'house rules' and tweak the system to their needs.

 

[Mythmere1]

But overall, I would say that 'out of the box' 3E D&D provides a lot more options for players, whereas C&C makes it easier for groups to introduce 'house rules' and tweak the system to their needs.

I think you and bolie have arrived at the same (true) point. C&C is easier to use if you want to add a few complexities, but not the whole shootin' match. 3E offers more out of the box.

 

[Akrasia]

I think you and bolie have arrived at the same (true) point. C&C is easier to use if you want to add a few complexities, but not the whole shootin' match. 3E offers more out of the box.

Oh ... okay. (I am so used to just disagreeing with people ... )

 

[bolie]

I fail completely to see why the former system is more 'ad hoc' than the latter. It is simply more general: it uses 'dexterity' for all dexterity-related tasks, rather than breaking those tasks down into individual skills.

The "ad hoc" part is coming up with the DCs and modifiers. 3e has specific rules for a wide variety of situations. The DCs and modifiers are listed. You can look them up. You may not agree with them, but they are there. They give you a basis for coming up with new modifiers and DCs as well.

In 3e, feats giving certain abilities to characters along with a mechanic for resolving the action. If you wish to add a similar ability to C&C, you either have to come up with your own mechanic or use the one from 3e or another game. Again, this is "ad hoc" and requires more work on the part of the dm/players.

I suppose that the CKG could give lists of DCs and modifiers to help CKs. This would help with consistency and eliminate some of the arbitrariness of the game. Players would know what to expect as they could familiarize themselves with the list of DCs and modifiers.

But... if you want to customize characters (this one is more stealthy, that one is more persuasive, etc...), you still have to come up with another mechanism for doing so. Again, the CKG may have options for how to do this, but 3e has already established how that works.

By being simpler, C&C requires more creative work during the game (or before), but is more amenable to coming up with systems that fit a specific group. 3e has a certain balance and design philosophy. If you like it, use it. If not, C&C can serve as a basis to develop a system with a different balance, either deliberately beforehand or on an ad hoc basis during play. There's nothing wrong with either way.

Thinking about this, though, I will probably start keeping track of DCs and modifiers we come up with for various tasks so that we don't have to continually reinvent the wheel during play.

Bolie IV

 

[bolie]

Oh ... okay. (I am so used to just disagreeing with people ... )

Don't worry, I waded through the points we agree upon to pick out something to argue with. Agreement is no fun...

Bolie IV

 

[gideon_thorne]

Don't worry, I waded through the points we agree upon to pick out something to argue with. Agreement is no fun...

Bolie IV

Hell mate, thats just gamers in general. I notice a consistent theme to the effect of no matter how many points gamers can find to agree on, they have more fun taking contrary fine points and beating them till they are a soggy mess.

Which is not neccessarily a bad thing, at least we're communicating

 

[Mythmere1]

Interestingly, this thread has generated more replies (by about a hundred replies, too) than any other thread in the d20/OGL board over the course of the last 12 months (I stopped checking any further back).

 

[Breakdaddy]

Interestingly, this thread has generated more replies (by about a hundred replies, too) than any other thread in the d20/OGL board over the course of the last 12 months (I stopped checking any further back).

That is VERY cool for us C&C enthusiasts. Part of it, I think, is the fact that it got good exposure in the GENERAL DISCUSSION forum before it got keel hauled and dragged over into this forum.