Once you go C&C, you never go back

[francisca]

I can see the point, don't get me wrong. Some people want more old school games and others want more new school games. For me, I kind of want a place where the two meet. It's cool, then, that we have room for all sorts of points of view.

That's why I was careful to couch my response as an "at my table" point of view. Clearly, C&C is just what the Dr. ordered for many group, otherwise, there never would have been a second print of the PHB. I'm glad those groups have a system they like enough to get together with friends and chuck dice.

In regard to the "too much in the middle" argument, I dunno. I find a lot of combinations of 2 good things unpalatable, except for Jack Daniels and Coke. Match made in heaven, that one.

Personal pref, etc... blah blah blah...

 

[gideon_thorne]

That's why I was careful to couch my response as an "at my table" point of view. Clearly, C&C is just what the Dr. ordered for many group, otherwise, there never would have been a second print of the PHB. I'm glad those groups have a system they like enough to get together with friends and chuck dice.

Or even a third print...

I wonder.. was the doctor who placed the order a mental health professional?

 

[moriarty777]

I've abstained from replying for a few days since I was trying to think long and hard how to approach my reply. Nothing bad though... just a longer post.

First off, I love my RPGs ... I've tried a great many of them over the years and I got my start in the very late 80's with AD&D (2nd Edition was just coming out) and was exposed to the Mentzer D&D Boxes and 1st Edition AD&D all pretty much at the same time. Collectively, it was all Dungeons & Dragons to me. I've also had fun with games and systems by FASA, ICE, Paladium, Chaosim, GDW, and WEG. Loved them all for various reasons but nothing could replace my love for the stuff that TSR had put out in the past.

In the mid to late 90's thought, RPGs and I parted company for many reasons. WOTC's new version of Dungeons & Dragons brought me back to the gaming table. There were a couple of things that irritated me a bit and I quickly saw a couple of balance issues with the game but that didn't deter me. I eventually switched to 3.5 once it made sense for me to do so (I sold my 3.0 core set for $60 and bought the 3.5 gift set for around $90). The more I played 3.5, the more I got dissatisfied with certain aspects of the game.

These are some of my biggest 'gripes' about the game:

- Despite equal experience point tables, there exists balance issues, or at the very least, design problems, with some of the core classes when they are measured against others. Some of these issues only begin to arise and be more painfully obvious after classes reach certain levels.

- The Skill system, though better thought out than the old weapon/non-weapon proficiency system needs to be better streamlined. I'm happy to say that it seems like they are going this route after a fashion (certain skills lumped into one like Perception instead of Spot and Search). The other problem (as is) that I have with the skill system is its ranks and synergies and the like... a streamlined mechanic would be also very nice to see. I just feel that a slightly simpler approach to deal with certain aspects of the Skill system may not be a bad thing.

- Tactical options and aspects of combat I found to be cumbersome. I believe True20 resolved some of these issues by addressing aspect of Attacks of Opportunity. Other things like Grapple is a pain. More options is not an answer if the base needs to be tweaked, fixed, or perfected.

- The Feat system needs a bit of an overhaul but part of that was brought on by an endless supply of Options Books. Some of it also deals with the game on a tactical nature and others... well... let's just say that not all Feats are created equal.

A lot of these issues I've mentioned potentially creates more 'min-maxing' that previous editions of the game. This in itself is a problem for me and others but not a fault of the system. However, if certain balance issues were checked, min-maxing wouldn't be as much of an issue either.

Now these are pretty much opinions and some of these may be shared by others. It was some of these issues that led me to C&C which I'm happily running and playing. The issues for my in 3.5 are really not there in C&C. This is not because it got fixed -- simply because some of the issues are not applicable.

However, I still hold on to my 3.5 ... and I have some hopes to fix aspects of it myself and the problems I have noticed that affect my game or how I play the game. In that vein, I've seen and liked certain aspects of the E6 Rules (or should I say guidelines) as one example. Other d20 friendly games like C&C has given me a couple of ideas to address a few things. True20 is a different matter, and I've recently gotten the book for it but still have to go through it in depth. In all honesty, from what I've seen, I might have switched to True20 completely had I seen it earlier. However in the end, C&C was more reminiscent of the game I started out with with some of the features that d20 brought to the game in 3rd Edition.

I like C&C ... I like it a lot. I have no hate for 3.x and I won't go around bashing it either. C&C at this time seems to be a better fit for what I'm looking for and this should be the criteria that gamers in general should be looking at -- "What is the best fit for me?" And if you're truly having a problem with finding that match, take the closest thing and adapt to it as necessary (which is why I'm a bit curious about 4th Ed).

M

 

[slimykuotoan]

I actually got into C&C after I found SKYPE (a free voice chat program) and wanted to try some online gaming with a few old friends.

We couldn't imagine playing 3.5 over the internet -being more miniature focused than some other rpgs- so I searched for a 'rules lighter' alternative.

Honestly, while some in my group like more crunch in their games, all agree that C&C is absolutely perfect for online gaming.

 

[Dragonhelm]

- The Skill system, though better thought out than the old weapon/non-weapon proficiency system needs to be better streamlined. I'm happy to say that it seems like they are going this route after a fashion (certain skills lumped into one like Perception instead of Spot and Search). The other problem (as is) that I have with the skill system is its ranks and synergies and the like... a streamlined mechanic would be also very nice to see. I just feel that a slightly simpler approach to deal with certain aspects of the Skill system may not be a bad thing.

I agree. I think you might like the 4e skill system, if the Star Wars Saga Edition rules are anything to judge by. In my own games, I have adapted D&D skills to C&C. I just have the players roll to see if they hit the target number I assign based on the situation. No synergies, and level works as ranks. Primes affect here as well. I may want to limit that some in the future, but it works out okay for now.

- Tactical options and aspects of combat I found to be cumbersome. I believe True20 resolved some of these issues by addressing aspect of Attacks of Opportunity. Other things like Grapple is a pain. More options is not an answer if the base needs to be tweaked, fixed, or perfected.

C&C combat seemed to function quite a bit like how I like to run combat. D&D 3e is more miniatures-friendly. While there is nothing wrong with that, it just doesn't fit my style of DMing. So I like having combat being more in one's head and fluid. While this can be done with 3.5, it isn't quite as easy.

- The Feat system needs a bit of an overhaul but part of that was brought on by an endless supply of Options Books. Some of it also deals with the game on a tactical nature and others... well... let's just say that not all Feats are created equal.

I really worked with the feat system when I tried to simplify 3.5. I killed anything dealing with attacks of opportunity, and I tended to nix the more tactical-sounding feats. I found that I liked how True20 handled feats a lot better. It took out most prerequisites, which was great. Overall, I think True20 has one of the best feat systems out there.

A lot of these issues I've mentioned potentially creates more 'min-maxing' that previous editions of the game. This in itself is a problem for me and others but not a fault of the system. However, if certain balance issues were checked, min-maxing wouldn't be as much of an issue either.

Min-maxing will happen in any game system, but I agree that 3.5 was very susceptible to this. What the designers found out when tackling skills for SWSE and 4e was that characters tended to be either min-maxed in skills, or they were jack-of-all-trades. I also got tired of figuring out ranks for high-level characters, which is why I'm perfectly happy using level. I'm very intrigued how 4e's skills are going to look.

I like C&C ... I like it a lot. I have no hate for 3.x and I won't go around bashing it either. C&C at this time seems to be a better fit for what I'm looking for and this should be the criteria that gamers in general should be looking at -- "What is the best fit for me?" And if you're truly having a problem with finding that match, take the closest thing and adapt to it as necessary (which is why I'm a bit curious about 4th Ed).

Amen!

It strikes me as odd that so many people are so worried about the "right system," that they forget that we are all different. We should be looking for the right system for us. I kept looking for the perfect game for a long time, but it just wasn't coming. What I decided upon was finding as close of a game as I could find (C&C), while making changes and adding in materials to get it where I like. It still isn't perfect, but it's pretty good.

 

[Greylock]

When we started playing C&C, we went completely without minis. It was a wonderful and refreshing thing, and for quite a while we kept playing that way, or at the minimum just placing our minis on the table as simple avatars. No grids. No measuring. No facing. Just describing the action while our minis sat there.

We've since returned, recently, to using minis as they are more commonly meant to be used, but our "year off" from minis pretty much broke us of the 3.x, D&D as chess mindset.

 

[S'mon]

Honestly, while some in my group like more crunch in their games, all agree that C&C is absolutely perfect for online gaming.

I find C&C great for online gaming with a small PC group; it's a little complicated for a large game. For 10+ players I prefer houseruled Moldvay/Cook B/X D&D.

 

[Valiant]

Neither does the C&C player. The CK can keep the final target number to himself, and figure it out using common sense. But I am sure glad that C&C has few rules thereby giving free reign for folks to make an unpredictable and exciting experience. ^_~`

The "final target number" is not enough of a mystery in 3E or C&C to keep the player from hedging his bets (it quickly becomes a question of "is this more or less difficult than the typical stuck door, trap, rope to climb etc.). In AD&D one pit trap might be crossed by rolling Dex (3d6) the next pit trap petrification, the next pit trap a d100 (with some target number the DM makes up in his head), using tables, no tables etc....and this could all be along the same corridor. Flexibility for the DM in determining outcomes using any method he chose) and ignorance (or lack of focus) of the rules by players (as well as the heavy reliance on tables by DM) were the halmarks of 1E/OD&D. The use of SIEGE (basically D20 light/defacto skills system) is why C&C is a great game for those pre-disposed to the sort of "push button" video gamey feel we see in 3E, and who prefer a less powerful GM, a story teller (with a few target numbers). Personally as a player I prefer being more surprised and as a GM more unpredictable and in complete control. But to each their own.

PS BTW, Its not that I'm against simpler and more standardized rules (like D20), I see AD&Ds variability and complexity (tables, etc.) as a nec. evil. If Gygax saw it that way back then, I don't know.

 

[Philotomy Jurament]

I find C&C great for online gaming with a small PC group; it's a little complicated for a large game. For 10+ players I prefer houseruled Moldvay/Cook B/X D&D.

For online play, I suggest using the AD&D approach to movement and engagement. It's very well-suited to an abstract approach (more so than any other edition, IMO), with its definition of engaged in melee (within 10'), closing to striking range, "who strikes whom" (DMG pg 70), et cetera. The flank/rear position diagrams from the DMG are not used as examples of precise positioning in combat, but rather as guides to how many enemies can attack one person in an abstract melee where the combatants are maneuvering and fighting within the 10' engagement range.

 

[Dristram]

In AD&D one pit trap might be crossed by rolling Dex (3d6) the next pit trap petrification, the next pit trap a d100 (with some target number the DM makes up in his head), using tables, no tables etc....and this could all be along the same corridor. Flexibility for the DM in determining outcomes using any method he chose) and ignorance (or lack of focus) of the rules by players (as well as the heavy reliance on tables by DM) were the halmarks of 1E/OD&D.

I really understand where you are coming from. I come from a 1st Ed. AD&D background, and one thing that bugged me was that if I had to create a rule or run an off the cuff roll for a situation, the game ran well, but would not be the same thing another DM might do. So in essence, my game was different than another in a basic way. I like a little more standardization in the game so the basics of it is the same no matter where and with whom you play. The SIEGE Engine fit that purpose nicely for me. I understand that non-standard rolling methods does not bug everyone, but for those that do, there is the simple add of SIEGE. SIEGE is a standard rule that still keeps me, as the DM (or CK), feeling like I'm running the game instead of just administering the game. But not everyone feels like I do, and like you, don't see the need for a SIEGE type system, and that's totally cool. C&C i s not for everyone, and no one says it is. C&C is a viable alternative to either 3e or earlier versions of D&D.