Once you go C&C, you never go back

[S'mon]

Oh I wouldn't go nearly that far, but from what I've seen you and I hold opposite views on quite a few things (everything?).

Well that would explain it, then.

 

[Valiant]

Cool, 2nd edition isn't old school. Woo-hoo!

Can a game be both old school and new school at the same time? I'm going to say yes. Obviously, C&C is meant to evoke some old school feel. At the same time, C&C is geared towards those who want "d20 lite" and those who want to house rule.

I guess C&C just....is. It attracts gamers, both old school and new school. I really like that.

I don't think most people include the bulk of 2E as "old school" though some modules etc. that would fit into that def. did slip in (esp. if you skipped the crap and went to the dungeon.

 

[Treebore]

I would definitely recommend playing C&C as is for a while. Probably 4 to 6 sessions. See what you do and do not like about how it does things.

Then you can add things.

My biggest add is probably feats. But I don't allow you to select feats. I allow you to use the SIEGE engine to attempt feats. So feats are also limited in that they have to be some kind of action. So cleaves, power attacks, tripping, maximizing spells, are all there. You can even earn them as a character ability. However you have to successfully make "X" amount of SIEGE checks before I will award them. A LOT of successful checks.

Another add was skills. But still very different from 3E. I just give a flat set of 10 skills plus INT bonus, and rank is equal to level.

Other than that I just use spells, magic items, and little rules from here and there.

The benefit is a game that plays exactly the way I want it to. Has exactly the degree of complication I want. Its perfect for me. So thats why I took a game like C&C, learned it, and took the time to turn it into the game I want. Perfection.

 

[jdrakeh]

I don't think most people include the bulk of 2E as "old school" though some modules etc. that would fit into that def. did slip in (esp. if you skipped the crap and went to the dungeon.

That was how the community of Original Dungeons & Dragons voted recently.

 

[gideon_thorne]

*wry smile* Outside of message boards, from what I gather from all the conventions I attend, and local and not so local game shops I go into, no one seems to really care what is, and what isn't 'old school'. They just wanna roll dice, beat up hapless creatures and take their stuff.

 

[Melan]

*wry smile* Outside of message boards, from what I gather from all the conventions I attend, and local and not so local game shops I go into, no one seems to really care what is, and what isn't 'old school'. They just wanna roll dice, beat up hapless creatures and take their stuff.

In that case, why publish a game like C&C, though? 3e is pretty fine for rolling dice and beating up hapless creatures; moreover, it tends to promise a lot more stuff.

There has to be some sort of quality which makes some people choose C&C over d20. Rules-light may be it. But then why C&C and why not True20 or some other easy system? That's a question TLG has to answer if it wishes to stay in business. "It's all the same to me" is a statement of no substance.

 

[S'mon]

In that case, why publish a game like C&C, though? 3e is pretty fine for rolling dice and beating up hapless creatures; moreover, it tends to promise a lot more stuff.

In 3e though 'beating up hapless monsters' is really non-core; by the book, almost every encounter is a serious threat - 'challenging' or worse - and this is true at all levels. In 1e/2e, as in C&C, high level PCs especially will often wade through dozens of encounters with barely breaking sweat, though always there's the possibility of something dangerous or overwhelming. High level AD&D, OD&D, and C&C give a real sense of power as you trash dozens of the same (eg) trolls you ran from when low level. In core 3e you rarely get to do this, in fact IME players often positively _resent_ 'underpowered' encounters, because they still take a good while to set up and run (often a very long time to run), with no payoff in XP or danger.

So, in terms of 'threat demographics' C&C is very much old school. This is one of the things I like about it. I like 3e tactical combat, especially at lower levels, but I also like a game where PCs can become genuinely and obviously powerful in-game.

 

[Melan]

So, in terms of 'threat demographics' C&C is very much old school.

Thank you for reaffirming my point.

 

[Aus_Snow]

Outside of message boards, from what I gather from all the conventions I attend, and local and not so local game shops I go into, no one seems to really care what is, and what isn't 'old school'. They just wanna roll dice, beat up hapless creatures and take their stuff.

Outside of message boards, I've never heard of anyone owning, playing, running, or even talking about Castles & Crusades, FWIW. And I know quite a few gamers.

But yeah, I agree. Most people 'IRL' don't seem to care a great deal about the system being used, except in the sense of the 'we're used to this one' kinda thing. And then again, most people will try a system once, if nothing else.

 

[S'mon]

Outside of message boards, I've never heard of anyone owning, playing, running, or even talking about Castles & Crusades, FWIW. And I know quite a few gamers.

C&C - the Ron Paul of RPGS!!

*ducks*