How Quickly is C&C Catching on?

[Melan]

I believe JRRNeiklot has shed light on something important here. Rules exist to "translate" various actions for the player characters into the context of the game system. Aside from providing mechanics for these actions, they also codify the play experience - they implicitely tell you what you can do, not just how you do it. This way, they often limit the choices available to a PC, leading to less out of the box thinking. With good players, this is not a serious issue. But I have still noticed that in my 3e games, the players focused more on actions that the rules told them they could accomplish, whereas in a game more heavily relying on DM arbitration and at-the-table judgement (such as C&C and OD&D - we played the first for months and the latter as a one-shot), they often tried crazy and unorthodox tactics because they knew I would come up with a simple solution right there... and what's more, reward these ideas with a fair chance of success.

I do not claim this is true for all gamers all of the time. But they are true for my group. The same goes for "crunchy bits" as well - I have observed that the mre of these the players have at their disposal, the more they use them to solve problems... instead of coming up with Baldrick's proverbial "cunning plan", they just use a feat or a PrC ability. As a reasonably rules-light and crunch-light system, C&C has solved the problem pretty well. The ability check mechanic, in particular, has turned out to be a very adaptable tool suitable for adjudicating very divergent problems without resorting to additional rules.

If you are a DM who likes codification and being able to refer to a book for rule calls, it is unlikely you will like C&C. If you like to wing it (like me), you should probably give it a look.

 

[Melan]

Leaving aside the issue of C&C, I am still wondering in what altenrate universe AD&D 1E is 'rules lite'.

FUDGE is rules-lite. Over The Edge is rules-lite. AD&D 1E is about as rules-lite as Star Fleet Battles.

AD&D 1e by the book is not rules light. AD&D the way many (probably most?) people played it, however, was. Most of the complex or hard rules - such as Weapon -vs- Armour charts, surprise, speed factors, initiative - were either ignored or simplified. The remaining rules were relatively simple, although not particularly elegant in their design. Much was left to the DM's judgement, and had to be made up as he went. In my experience, players either tried "the crazy stuff" (and avoided uncomfortably complicated actions like pummeling, wrestling and overbearing) or retreated to the comfortable sanctuary of "I attack, you attack, I attack again".

There are also different degrees of rules lightness. I would argue that many so-called rules light systems are basically systemless... at least compared to 3e. Compared to 3e by the book, both 1e and the Forge Darling of the Month are rules light, even if the latter is much more so than the former. C&C is somewhere between 1e and the Basic-Expert line... except with more streamlined mechanics.

 

[JRRNeiklot]

The problem here is that it's just as easy to say "OK, you grab the chandelier. It breaks, you fall into the mob of thugs, and all of them get a free attack on you." Rules cut both ways. If EVERYTHING is up to GM fiat, then players have no way to direct their improvement -- to become better at throwing furniture or bull rushing. Furthermore, it undermines niche protection.
"

That's not a problem at all. If the chandelier won't hold his weight, that's life. Part of the game.

Let theelf try it, if he makes it, the half ogre is welcome to try and, when it breaks, give him the above treatment, if you like. I wouldn't give them free attacks, though. Staggerring to his feat bruised and batterred, and surrounded by the enemy should be enough to teach him. The same would apply when the halfling tries to throw a table at the charging orcs.

Rules or no, I've seen much cooler things tried with both success and failure in C&C than I have in 5 years of 3e. I'm not saying it HAS to be that way, just that most players won't attempt anything they don't have a feat that makes said stunt easier to do.

 

[cleaverthepit]

Hallo

real quick

1: thanks for all the good words guys and gals

2: i will be addressing all password/NDA issues on our forums on wed - this is for access to CKG discussions so please bounce over to the C&C society thread there for updates -as there are issues

3: our C&C site just crashed due to high traffic volume - good sign or poor planning. I'll chock it up to both.

UGG

hey can anyone access the enworld review of C&C???

davis

 

[Lizard]

Rules or no, I've seen much cooler things tried with both success and failure in C&C than I have in 5 years of 3e. I'm not saying it HAS to be that way, just that most players won't attempt anything they don't have a feat that makes said stunt easier to do.

Shrug. I'll need to read C&C to be sure, but, based on the 'nostalgia edition', it has the same flaws which drove me away from AD&D 1/2e and which 3e corrected -- lack of character diversity. No skills, no feats, no multiclassing...to me, this seriously limits your ability to mold your character. "Anyone can just try to do anything!" tends to boil down to "Once one player finds a cool tactic, everyone else just copies him". I rather like the fact that 2 fighters in 3e can have totally different fighting styles based on their choices of feats and skills. I don't think I could go back to a game where everyone is just "a fighter", exactly the same as every other fighter.

It is easier to ignore rules than to add them. I have no problem allowing for cool stunts in 3e, and often grant a bonus if something is dramatically appropriate and fits the character concept. The strong rules framework is there to provide support for when I don't want to handwave it. It's a platform, not a cage.

 

[nsruf]

Shrug. I'll need to read C&C to be sure, but, based on the 'nostalgia edition', it has the same flaws which drove me away from AD&D 1/2e and which 3e corrected -- lack of character diversity. No skills, no feats, no multiclassing...

This is the only thing that I am worried about, too: that my players will complain about a lack of options. But don't forget that multiclassing will be part of the game as soon as the Trolls decide on the rules (and I have made up my own version to get started). And the primes give you an additional way to individualize characters.

to me, this seriously limits your ability to mold your character. "Anyone can just try to do anything!" tends to boil down to "Once one player finds a cool tactic, everyone else just copies him".

Well, you could restrict it by class (like a disarm maneuver can only be performed by the more combat-oriented classes) or make it so difficult only a character with a prime in the relevant ability has an acceptable chance of success.

It is easier to ignore rules than to add them. I have no problem allowing for cool stunts in 3e, and often grant a bonus if something is dramatically appropriate and fits the character concept. The strong rules framework is there to provide support for when I don't want to handwave it. It's a platform, not a cage.

What drove me away from GMing 3E is not the rules during play but the excessive prep time for npcs and monsters. I know I could just handwave this, but it doesn't feel right, and my players would probably squash any opposition that wasn't built with as much dedication as their PCs. So from a GM's standpoint, C&C looks ideal. Let's see what my players think...

 

[Akrasia]

... What drove me away from GMing 3E is not the rules during play but the excessive prep time for npcs and monsters. I know I could just handwave this, but it doesn't feel right, and my players would probably squash any opposition that wasn't built with as much dedication as their PCs. So from a GM's standpoint, C&C looks ideal. Let's see what my players think...

Same here. (Well, the 'rules during play' also did play a factor. But prep time was the decisive factor for me.)

My players also did not like the elimination of 'options'.

But our group couldn't always meet as a group, so we ran a few 'trial sessions' of C&C, and they loved the faster pace of the game ("WOW, we actually got through a full adventure in 4 hours!").

So they were mixed: fewer options but faster game.

Then I told them: "Look you wankers, I'm the person who has to do 90 percent of the bleedin' work here, and you think both games are fun, so my vote definitely decides."

Conclusion: when I DM, it is C&C.

But one player keeps promising to run 3E Midnight. I love that setting and hope that he does so in the near future. He will be DM, and so his vote should count a lot.

In short, I think DMs do a crap load of work, and so their preferences with respect to system should carry considerable weight. DM'ing 3E was a burden for me (I still enjoyed it, but it was not as much fun as I thought it should be). DM'ing (or, I should say, 'CK'ing') C&C is MUCH more fun for ME. So that is the game we play when I GM. Others can run the systems of their choice.

 

[Melan]

Shrug. I'll need to read C&C to be sure, but, based on the 'nostalgia edition', it has the same flaws which drove me away from AD&D 1/2e and which 3e corrected -- lack of character diversity. No skills, no feats, no multiclassing...to me, this seriously limits your ability to mold your character.

C&C is built around strong archetypes. If you didn't like the restrictive nature of the older editions, you probably won't like this game either. 3e allows customization to your heart's content, and there is nothing wrong with that. But there are people, including myself, who don't care about molding our characters much (okay, I use skills). For us, a small number of classes is better than a multitude of choices and options... I'd even argue that if a DM allows too many feats, PrCs and other options in his campaign, he is not DMing a class based game anymore. Old editions were restrictive and didn't allow much player choice. We still played them and liked them, despite all the great non-restrictive games. For us, some of 3e's changes aren't just superfluous - they are unwelcome.

Some of it can be avoided. But when new players come to your table with non-classic ideas, modules are full of weird multiclass combos (granted, Necromancer doesn't do this as often as others) and the whole spirit of the game is divorced from the way you want to play it, you might as well switch to another system. It could have been something else - if it weren't for C&C, I guess I would be back to playing 1e. But hey, C&C is out and available.

"Anyone can just try to do anything!" tends to boil down to "Once one player finds a cool tactic, everyone else just copies him". I rather like the fact that 2 fighters in 3e can have totally different fighting styles based on their choices of feats and skills. I don't think I could go back to a game where everyone is just "a fighter", exactly the same as every other fighter.

Not so sure about this. The two compeletely differently built fighters aren't just differentiated by their abilities - they are pigeonholed. Instead of everyone "copying a cool tactic" from someone else, everyone is using their own cool tactic... which gets old just as fast ("Let's see, I use disarm... again"), except in a game where these character building choices are codified, you can't just change them, because they are a part of your character's stat block. I mean, you can't reroll your hp in most campaigns either, and neither can you reassign those feats. And there are still "better" character builds - I have never seen a PC take a feat like Endurance, except as a prerequisite for PrCs.

I'd rather see out of the game customization. Two statistically identical characters are still not the same if they are played differently. You don't really need rules for this. For example, there were two human fighters in my old campaign who were more or less equals, had similar magical equipment, but still managed to be completely different from each other. They weren't "just fighters".

It is easier to ignore rules than to add them.

I disagree. Official rules have an air of legitimacy that often takes some serious willpower to challenge. I can do it, but often, if you try to tell your players you will take away their toys, they will not accept it. For some reason, adding new rules has always seemed to be easier. And then there is still the whole modularity thing - in an integrated system like 3e, removing those fiddly bits is asking for trouble.

The strong rules framework is there to provide support for when I don't want to handwave it. It's a platform, not a cage.

It was a cage for my players. And I like to handwave. In fact, that's what I have been doing since I started gaming.

 

[Breakdaddy]

hey can anyone access the enworld review of C&C???

davis

Cant at the moment, last time I checked it was a favorable review by Akrasia, but havent looked in a week or two.

 

[Henry]

Interesting aside -- in my 3.5e game Sunday, our half-elf monk and halfling rogue PCs, desparate to save their artificer ally, got into position in one round and saved the artificer from a 9 foot armored troll intent on murdering him. One did a running-back dive past an attack to get into position , and the other tumbled BETWEEN the legs of said troll, to come up flanking and dealing a backstab that nearly cut the legs out from under the troll. The monk, a second later, dealt the crushing facial blow that took the troll down. All without a single rules alteration from standard. But then, it's amazing what two guys with a +18 tumble can do.

If one wants looser rules, there's nothing stopping them from using them - but there's also plenty of room for such feats of derring-do under 3e, too.