Once you go C&C, you never go back

[Philotomy Jurament]

One of C&C's criticisms is that it is an "incomplete" game. Now, I can see people wanting more options out of it like a skill system and multiclassing rules, but C&C can be played as-is.

I agree; C&C works just fine played strictly by-the-book. I know because that's what I did, at first. I usually try to play new systems "by-the-book" for a while so I can get a good feel for how things really work. C&C works well as a "tookit" system, but it also stands alone, just fine.

Now, OD&D[1974], on the other hand...there's a system that pretty much demands some interpretation and house-ruling. (Which is one of the reasons I like it so much.)

 

[Jim Hague]

This whole thread seems out of whack. If you are reading this thread and want a prediction of whether you will like C&C read the following.

Ok...

Your preferences will dictate whether you want to play or dm C&C.

As they would for any game...

As a DM if you simply obsess over details, "fairness", "balance", hate pulling in things from other systems for no reason other than they are "cool" and aren't comfortable flying by the seat of your pants, stick with 3e -- you'll be happier. If you want ease of use or preparation, a game that respects the archetypes of conan etc, a fast game where you have confidence in your DM, and a system where you can port in small subsystems and options from od&d, 1e, 2e, monte cook, and others, play or dm C&C as well. It really is that simple.

So, in a single paragraph, you manage to:

*Imply that improvisatiopn isn't possible with 3.x
*Concepts like fairness and balance aren't desireable
*And that C&C is the only game that 'respects the archetypes' of certain kinds of characters.

Wow. That's a lot of big claims you're putting up, while insulting other playstyles to boot. And for the record, my group, with an average of 20+ years of experience found C&C seriously lacking in both flavor and consistency. Sort of a watery gruel, rules-wise. It needs...something. Let's see:

I can't emphasize how much C&C encourages you to tinker with it -- for example, I have a C&C game with hybrid weapon mastery from Basic D&D and Arcana Unearthed, segments and the helmet rule from 1e, the thief acrobat character class from Arcana Unearthed, Specialty Priests from 2e, the Mind Witch character class from Monte Cook's Arcana Evolved system, the Gem Witch character class from the Diamond Throne website, the Crimson Mist feat and a couple of other things for barbarian characters from the Conan system, death at variable negative hp from some online poster, my own grappling and overrunning system which is much simpler than the 3e system, the harsher d20 Modern massive damage threshhold, the concept of damage with exploding dice under certain circumstances from another game, and about 20 generally very simple feats from various sources (including some 3e feats and the Enworld 1e Feats pdf). I've assembled all of my favorite spells from all of the systems that I just mentioned including forty or fifty from Monte Cook's Arcana Evolved with different spells open to priests of various deities, the illusionist class, and the two witch classes. This whole massive system of choices, etc. is at most one-third as complex as 3e. The point is that C&C is such a simple engine that you may decide that you want to add x or y to that.

A game that requires that much tinkering isn't a complete system; it's a toolkit. If I wanted that much work putting a system together, I'd either go with a generic like GURPS or something like True20. There's simple, then there's too simple. In the case of C&C, it's a little too basic to serve as a robust system without all the tinkering you bring up.

Finally, I think the 3e and 3.5e modules are largely pathetic (red hand of doom and the paizo APs are noble exceptions). I've read the first part of the first installment of Castle Zagyg (Mouths of Madness) and I'd rather play or dm that or one of the 1e classics. That is another major appeal to me. A living system with real old school adventures.

Ah, you mean like 3.x and Dungeon Crawl Classics? If you want old school style, look no further, I think.

 

[Treebore]

Ok...



As they would for any game...



So, in a single paragraph, you manage to:

*Imply that improvisatiopn isn't possible with 3.x
*Concepts like fairness and balance aren't desireable
*And that C&C is the only game that 'respects the archetypes' of certain kinds of characters.

Wow. That's a lot of big claims you're putting up, while insulting other playstyles to boot. And for the record, my group, with an average of 20+ years of experience found C&C seriously lacking in both flavor and consistency. Sort of a watery gruel, rules-wise. It needs...something. Let's see:



A game that requires that much tinkering isn't a complete system; it's a toolkit. If I wanted that much work putting a system together, I'd either go with a generic like GURPS or something like True20. There's simple, then there's too simple. In the case of C&C, it's a little too basic to serve as a robust system without all the tinkering you bring up.



Ah, you mean like 3.x and Dungeon Crawl Classics? If you want old school style, look no further, I think.

Glad to hear C&C isn't for you, but you don't need to creating insults out of implications you want to take out of them while your telling us this. Those of us, like me with over 23+ years of gaming experience with many systems, say C&C is a complete rules system, and is easier to use as a tool kit to modify to your exact tastes.

So it wasn't to your or your groups liking, thats fine, but don't tell us you know more about gaming, rules systems, and how well they work, because you don't. C&C doesn't do what you want a system to do, so leave it at that instead of acting liking your an expert about what C&C does or does not do.

I played and DMed for almost 5 years and have now run C&C for over two years and I don't claim to be an expert on either system. I run and play either system the way I want to, and C&C is the better of the two at letting me do it the way I like best. All I am an expert is knowing what I want out of my rules systems, C&C does that the best for me. 3E does it best for you. Thats all you need to be saying, instead of turning the statements of posters into meanings you want them to have, or claiming you or your group is more of a game expert than any of us.

You don't like C&C, it didn't do anything you wanted it to do, thats all your a qualified expert to tell us about. To claim that your an expert and that the rest of us aren't, and are lying because we are saying things your "expert opinion" says is false, is out of bounds for the rules here on ENWorld. Not to mention giving your meaning to words someone else wrote.

You want to do things like that go to other boards where such things are a favored past time. Otherwise post like you do most of the time here on these boards.

 

[FATDRAGONGAMES]

Now, OD&D[1974], on the other hand...there's a system that pretty much demands some interpretation and house-ruling. (Which is one of the reasons I like it so much.)

Ditto.

 

[Valiant]

There was only one presented option in AD&D as well.

And the trolls objective is to give people the opportunity to play a fun game. Which is a lot more important than some nebulous subjective fuzzy feeling that no two people on the internets seem to be able to agree on the definition of.

Sure, for those things which would be realistically consistant to a PC there is standardization (combat, saves vs. magic, poison), but thats about it. Everything else was variable in AD&D, for instance what do you role to get past your typical trap or jump across a wide pit? (though each DM typically develops there own methods, often mixing it up).

Gideon, I don't doubt C&C is a fun game for some, my point is that its not the best fit for old schoolers who prefer non-D20 (as it was originally advertised as being). If they had wanted to get the old school Gygaxian gamers involved more they should have included tables, old school art etc. Its pretty clear to most TLG were targetting the 3Eers despite bringng gygax onboard

 

[Greylock]

I can't emphasize how much C&C requires you to tinker with it

Fixed that for you.

Bull honky. As I've said elsewhere in this thread, my group has been playing C&C for over a year, and the only thing we've added are critical hit/fumble rules. Other that that, a few new spells, some new races, and those are all from AD&D sources. We've played in original AD&D modules, 3.x modules, and Hackmaster adventures. Nothing rules wise tinkered with at all. It's a very malleable system, and adapts well.

 

[S'mon]

The problem is the only presented option (the default) is SIEGE, unless you've played AD&D and DMed it you'd never know to do anything different. Thats not going to give anyone coming from 3E an old school feeling game (but then I don't think that was the Trolls objective).

I guess they could have included more "Cleanse your mind of 3e" and "Don't sweat the small stuff" type advice, although there is quite a lot in there about eg only making SIEGE checks for major events.

 

[Jim Hague]

Glad to hear C&C isn't for you, but you don't need to creating insults out of implications you want to take out of them while your telling us this. Those of us, like me with over 23+ years of gaming experience with many systems, say C&C is a complete rules system, and is easier to use as a tool kit to modify to your exact tastes.

Unfortunately, with several groups, it's too much of a toolkit - it's not crunchy enough to emulate D&D, and it's too rules-heavy to qualify as a light system. The flexibility all too often becomes just handwaving. I'm not crying out for One True Wayism by calling others' products 'pathetic' either, I'd point out. It's great that your group likes C&C; mine found it to be insufficient.

So it wasn't to your or your groups liking, thats fine, but don't tell us you know more about gaming, rules systems, and how well they work, because you don't. C&C doesn't do what you want a system to do, so leave it at that instead of acting liking your an expert about what C&C does or does not do.

Given nearly a year's worth of playing and attempting to use it both out of the box and with suggestions right off the TLG boards, I think I've got plenty of experience with the system. I'm well-aware of its strengths and limitations. I'm sorry that you take offense to that, but it's hardly surprising, given your own history.

I played and DMed for almost 5 years and have now run C&C for over two years and I don't claim to be an expert on either system. I run and play either system the way I want to, and C&C is the better of the two at letting me do it the way I like best. All I am an expert is knowing what I want out of my rules systems, C&C does that the best for me. 3E does it best for you. Thats all you need to be saying, instead of turning the statements of posters into meanings you want them to have, or claiming you or your group is more of a game expert than any of us.

Did I ever say 3.x did games best for me? Nope, not a once. Did I claim my group is 'more expert' than others? Nope. Try applying your own advice at home.

You don't like C&C, it didn't do anything you wanted it to do, thats all your a qualified expert to tell us about. To claim that your an expert and that the rest of us aren't, and are lying because we are saying things your "expert opinion" says is false, is out of bounds for the rules here on ENWorld. Not to mention giving your meaning to words someone else wrote.

See, I never said these things. I called no one a liar. Simply put, you're making things up.

You want to do things like that go to other boards where such things are a favored past time. Otherwise post like you do most of the time here on these boards.

I'd rightly point out that I'm not the one going to message boards, deliberately starting flamewars and running off into the night crowing about it.

As for my posting here - until you're elected mod, I'll simply give your suggestions the weight they're worth.

 

[Dristram]

Gideon, I don't doubt C&C is a fun game for some, my point is that its not the best fit for old schoolers who prefer non-D20 (as it was originally advertised as being).

That's the first time I've heard C&C touted as such. I would not agree with that. It's too d20-ish in its mechanical style. I see C&C as what 3e should have been. It would have made a good 3rd Edition AD&D. C&C is like 3e with an old-school feel. For anyone who doesn't like d20, but does like B/X and AD&D, and is looking to play that kind of game again, I tell them to play B/X or AD&D, not C&C.

 

[S'mon]

*Imply that improvisatiopn isn't possible with 3.x

A game that requires that much tinkering isn't a complete system; it's a toolkit.

On the first point, I certainly found improvisation in 3e usually had unforeseen negative side effects and was best avoided.

On the second point, I guess that's your view of what constitutes a complete system, and you regard that as desirable/necessary. Many people disagree - to me, The Pool or Fighting Fantasy are both complete RPGS, as much as GURPs or 3e. They just have less rules.