How Quickly is C&C Catching on?

[RFisher]

I don't know any way of telling how well it is catching on, but if you want to get some idea of how it is selling, check the Amazon sales rank.

When I checked it earlier this week, the C&C PHB had a better (lower numerically) sales rank than: Ars Magica 5e, Decipher's Lord of the Rings, Spycraft, BESM d20, Exalted, Mongoose's Conan, Hackmaster PHB, Hero 5e, Feng Shui, Pendragon, BESM (tri-stat), Jadeclaw, Paranoia XP, Heroquest, d6 Adventure, Ironclaw, d6 Space, HARP, d6 Fantasy, & Savage Worlds.

(It was really sad to me to see how much better BESM d20 was doing than the tri-stat BESM.)

Of course, there's lots of things doing better than it, including: D&D PHB (WotC), Star Wars d20, T20, Mutants & Masterminds, GURPS Basic Set 1 & 2, d20 Modern, & d20 Future.

If you think you'd like something with fewer rules/complexity than d20 D&D, but C&C doesn't float your boat, maybe you should check out TLG's other recent release: Lejendary Adventure Essentials. EGG's latest work, IMHO, fills an interesting spot between class-based systems & skill-based systems.

Plus, unlike the C&C PHB, it includes monsters with only a few more pages overall!

(Oh no, if I haven't before, I really must be sounding like a TLG shill now...maybe I should complain about the C&C 2WF rules... )

 

[bolie]

These sort of things are easy to note down. And demonstrate the inherent flexability of the system.

Not having a mechanic or rule is not the same thing as flexibility. The C&C rules are very simple. They do not have any way to differentiate fighters or other characters in their abilities. It is not an advantage of the system that you have to house rule everything. It could be seen as an advantage that is easy to make up house rules, but that only benefits people who want to make up their own rules.

C&C is only helpful to the DM who doesn't want to recreate a complex system with a lot of options. If he does, he should use 3e, which already has that built in. C&C is useful for the DM who wants to not have most of those rules and just use simple mechanics and/or wing it.

This is not a bad thing, it's what I understand C&C was intended for.

Each system has it's place and style. C&C is simple and trying to add in the depth of 3e would be silly and hopelessly complex.

My comments are really directed at those who've argued that you can do everything in C&C that you can with 3e. You can't. You have to make up a bunch of rules to do everything. Don't play C&C if that's what you want to do. Play C&C if you want to not have all that stuff and then add back only a few of the things you consider most important.

Bolie IV

 

[Von Ether]

I apologize about my vague wording. My comment about degrees was infering that CnC has both fighter and ranger class. Taking the "mechanics don't make the difference" argument to one extreame, one could say the ranger class isn't needed. I've read somewhere the ranger class is in the CnCPH.

On the other hand, no rule system is perfect and people are going to drift towards optimal class combos, meaning that a lot of options to make more interesting fighters is pretty much pearls before swine.

Tell ya what. If someone can devise some solid optional CnC rules for using one XP chart, three or four saving throws and flexible multiclassing, I'll get seriously charged for CnC. Either way, I wish Troll Lord the best, it seems they are on to something.

As an aside, I RAN d20 for a year with only the 3.0 PHB. Nothing beats having the right players with the right attitude. Having the system tweaked to your style is just icing on the cake at that point.

 

[bolie]

Tell ya what. If someone can devise some solid optional CnC rules for using one XP chart, three or four saving throws and flexible multiclassing, I'll get seriously charged for CnC. Either way, I wish Troll Lord the best, it seems they are on to something.

As an aside, I RAN d20 for a year with only the 3.0 PHB. Nothing beats having the right players with the right attitude. Having the system tweaked to your style is just icing on the cake at that point.

I would like to see one xp chart and multiclassing, but the saving throw system is awesome. I much prefer having all ability checks handled the same way and stat bonus + level seems to work fine.

Having both a Con stat and a Fort save means having to figure out what's a Con check and what's a Fort save. If everything is a Fort save, than why wouldn't Str checks be Str saves with an appropriate modifier?

Just my $.02.

Oh, and I agree 100% about the players and the DM mattering more than the system. That's why I'm happy to play C&C with Mythmere. When I'm playing, I prefer to focus on playing and the plot and such. The rules are there to facilitate that.

Bolie IV

 

[nsruf]

How is a fighter in 3.5e not giving up AC just because he has 10 ranks in tumble? I fail to see a difference here. There are a few feats that help in this regard (slightly) but what you are saying has zero bearing on the differences between 3.5 and C&C. C&C uses dex prime, D&D uses tumble (or name a billion other skills here), the end result is the same.

Of course, you could use the swashbuckler class from Complete Warrior

With C&C, you have to make it up yourself or wait for a Crusader article. I will try the following house rule to give a boost to lightly armored characters:

Anybody with a Dex prime gets +2 to AC if wearing no armor or helmet and using at most a buckler.

What it boils down to is that 3E has most of the options spelt out, while C&C is more open to creative modifications. Since I found that creating NPCs by the rules for a 3E game (even fairly low-level ones) bores me, this seems like a refreshing change of pace.

 

[cleaverthepit]

Ok I have a few minutes

I am assuming that by swashbuckler you mean lightly armed and armored. A fighter, rogue or ranger type that depends heavily on motion to get him or her through a fight.

On page 123 you'll note the enc rules. Although many people tend to skip over them they were included because I thought them an integral part to defining a character and there impact on play can be significant.

Once a character become even lightly encumbered penalties begin to kick in and they get hefty as they progress. A typicla fighter (Chain mail, large shield, several weapons, helmet, backpack and sundries) rapidly approaches a moderate to heavy encumbrance. Penalties of -2 and -4 to all physical attribute checks and AC kick in and dramatically reduce a fighters capacity to perform actions and takeadvantage of AC. I can esily envision a lightly armed and armored swashbuckler type whupping up on a heavily armed fighter.

That said, we do encourage players to rely more heavily on roleplay than mechanics to establish a character and have created simple rules to facilitate and encourage this. That's the way we do it here at the home office - but that's us and we ain't always right in the head. We do think that, as a baseline for more exciting roleplay, this is a better approach in the long term.

Now having said that, we also realize gamers do like more options and character individualization expressed in rules sets. We also respect that, hence a simple sysytem that is easily expanded. In the CKG we will demostrate how this can be accomplished through a myriad of examples and optional rules sets - add-ons if you will. It is not, however, part of the basic rules set - the baseline rules. For many, these are enough. Its Feng Shui in rules so to speak.

What we will not do in the CKG is express 'x' rules set as 'the rule.' There will be no (I should say few rules - sse last para), rules in the book. There will be options and numerous for each subject area. Criticals, for example will have at least 6 different approaches, each catering to a particular style of play. It will be up the players and CKs to choose which they like or, through examples provided, create their own.

This is done because we firmly believe most groups have there own style of play and no single set of rules is going to match them all so we encourage porting in rules, amending our rules etc. to fit your particular groups needs (sorta like the Saturn of RPGs )

Finally, there will be some rules in the CKG that are basline rules but these are adjunct rules such as large scale combat, flight and other things that do not often make it into every game.

davis

 

[gideon_thorne]

Not having a mechanic or rule is not the same thing as flexibility. The C&C rules are very simple. They do not have any way to differentiate fighters or other characters in their abilities.

Yes they do. The Seige engine. The core mechanic is quite efficient in differentiating characters. Its simply that not everything is spelled out in pain staking minutae. The seige engine and inventive players with a cooperative game master can produce a wide variety of character personality and type.

The game does indeed lack the 'fine detail' of a copious volume and amount of rule books. But that was sort of the point.

The design philosophy of 'fill in the details yourself' may indeed be a niche market, but it does have sufficient appeal to do well I think. Indications in sales already point to that.

 

[bolie]

Yes they do. The Seige engine. The core mechanic is quite efficient in differentiating characters. Its simply that not everything is spelled out in pain staking minutae. The seige engine and inventive players with a cooperative game master can produce a wide variety of character personality and type.

ANY rule system and inventive players and a cooperative game master can produce just about any results they want. My point was that the rule system alone does little to differentiate characters. Prime attributes provide for a few variations, very few compared to the number of skills, feats, and prestige classes available in 3e.

My point is that C&C is simple and should be advertised that way. It's not going to satisfy someone who likes 3e.

Bolie IV

 

[cleaverthepit]

Oh and finally, I would say a swashbuckler type could either be from the fighter, ranger, rogue aspect. Also the selcetion of primes differentiates many straight fighters from swashbucking types.

And as an adendum - what the heck is a swashbuckling type ?

 

[cleaverthepit]

My point is that C&C is simple and should be advertised that way.

We are trying desperately to get that across and that it is intentionally simple and that since many gamers are happy with the system they play - we encourage them to stick with it. That's what this is all about at the end of the day - having fun.

So now I am actuallyoff to run a game again - hmmm the lord in his manner is a wee bit upset and not a little concerned a half-orc has dared make and appearnace in his town.

davis