Once you go C&C, you never go back

[Valiant]

No they don't. "Only those activities that have a significant chance of failure, as determined by the Castle Keeper, should be resolved by a dice roll."

Thats a direct quote. ^_^

The same is true in 3E.

Dris wrote -And the players don't automatically know their chances of success because the Challenge Level (CL) is determined by the CK or other factors unknown to the players.-

This is also the arguement made by those who defend 3Es skill system

 

[Brutorz Bill]

That, I'm sorry to hear, because we always try to encourage people talking about all of their gaming - hell, the ENnies doesn't close itself to just d20 gaming for that matter, it's open to ALL games. I've used these forums to talk about everything from Feng Shui, to AD&D, to C&C, to Continuum, to Battletech, and even Marvel Super Heroes before.

What I do see sometimes, however, is people who come in with both guns blazing, they get shot down, and then they go to other message forums complaining about how "biased and elitist" things are.

I used to check EN World several times a day to get the latest gaming info. Made the migration to En World from Eric Noah's old site. A year ago I made the switch to C&C, loved it. I've never posted anything negative, never come in with guns blazing. I still checked in at EN World, then the whole 4th ed. announcement came about. It seemed everything was all about 4th ed.! I noticed if people expressed issues against 4th ed. massive flame wars erupted. At that point EN World changed to me.
I no longer come here. I only became aware of this thread from an associate telling me about it. EN World no longer meets my gaming needs. Not because I'm some C&C fanatical fanboy, my true gaming roots lie in P.A. gaming hence my handle, but because to me EN World is not the site it once was. Just my opinion.
Later,
Brutorz Bill

 

[gideon_thorne]

Ah, it is always intriguing to watch a "discussion" between gideon_thorne and Axe Mental Valiant. Just plain argmentum ad nauseam, without a hint of reflection or concession, repeating the same tired points overandoverandoverandoverandoveraaagetitoffmehelphelpoverandoverandover. :\

No reason why I should concede the facts to propaganda. But I think I covered everything so back to the sensible query's. ^_~`

 

[gideon_thorne]

The same is true in 3E.

Dris wrote -And the players don't automatically know their chances of success because the Challenge Level (CL) is determined by the CK or other factors unknown to the players.-

This is also the arguement made by those who defend 3Es skill system

And the same is true in every incarnation of D&D. I fail to see the point being made.

 

[gideon_thorne]

Whats even more amusing is watching the poll numbers in this thread. I'm starting to get the impression that folks are just messing with the results now. This, due to the fact that the numbers keep going up in the same increments.

 

[francisca]

Has anyone played it and not liked it?

Me.

Why? I gave it a fair shake. Eight game sessions, and all of us at the table were like, "Why are we playing this instead of AD&D or 3.x?"

In particular, I don't care for the SIEGE system. We have the old school D&D save system, and the d20 save system, both of which are serviceable. I think C&C should have picked one, we didn't need another.

To me, C&C wasn't old-school enough. Besides, if I want old school, I still have all my 1e and B/X books. Why settle for "kinda" old school when I have all the old material and people willing to play 1e AD&D?

Now, C&C is an OK system, but I see it as just another d20 derived fantasy system...one which serves no purpose at my table. I have 3.x for the feats, the skill system, the templates and all that whacky stuff, etc..., I have B/X and 1e for the old-school feel and nostalgia, and if I really want something different in a FRPG, I have RQ sitting on the shelf.

Also, I'm mostly a homebrewer, so the, "Yeah, but C&C is supported and 1e ain't!!11!!11!!" argument doesn't hold any water with me.

To me, C&C feels like an not-so-good impersonation of old school D&D, or an overly house-ruled version of 3e, or both. Can't decide.

So, yeah, it's a credible d20 based system, and I understand many enjoy it, but I'm one guy who simply doesn't like it for many reasons, some of which are intangible.

 

[Aus_Snow]

I'm mostly a homebrewer, so the, "Yeah, but C&C is supported and 1e ain't!!11!!11!!" argument doesn't hold any water with me.

Besides which, that (the bolded part, courtesy of me) isn't even true.

And I agree, generally, FWIW.

 

[slimykuotoan]

I have RQ sitting on the shelf.

What's RQ?

 

[Greylock]

What's RQ?

I suspect he refers to RuneQuest.

 

[Dristram]

I have 3.x for the feats, the skill system, the templates and all that whacky stuff, etc..., I have B/X and 1e for the old-school feel and nostalgia, and if I really want something different in a FRPG, I have RQ sitting on the shelf.

I can totally agree with you. But you left one out. If you want to play a game with old-school feel and nostalgia, and that's 3.x friendly, there is C&C.