Frost said:
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.