Once you go C&C, you never go back

[Jim Hague]

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

I won't disagree on that point. After playing 3.x for various years - that being the system that brought me back to D&D after leaving the nonsensical prior editions in disgust - I started feeling like improvisation wasn't something the rules encouraged. That's bad for me, since I'm a GM that improvises quite frequently, and 3.x to me is a 'clockwork' system - take a piece out and while it may continue to function, there are consequences. My systems of choice nowadays are Savage Worlds and True20. I haven't strayed far, just enough to satisfy my personal style.

On the topic of C&C, I felt like it was a bad combination of toolkit and too much of the old school. While I think prior editions have the lion's share of cool background - Planescape and Ravenloft, f'rex - the handwaving necessary to make the multiple microsystems and contradictory rules work was a pain. Is that a save vs. wands or pertifcation? And why, again?

When my group spent a year with various iterations of C&C, the toolkit seemed pretty flexible...except that the gaps it presented required too much handwaving, and the implicit anti-3.x feel of it led to some rules decisions that hearkened back to prior editions.

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.

Far too few, in my opinion. Both are barely systems, IMO. For me, a good system has solid, internally consistent rules, ones that don't create an environment where the players are at the pure whim of the GM.

Improvisation is good, but it needs a good skeleton to build on...and without that underlying structure, even the best GM is going to trip themselves up eventually, barring the copious taking of notes on every single ruling. That last bit ends up making many 'light' systems fail for a lot of groups I've seen, because the GM ends up having to organize vast binders of arbitrary rulings to keep things consistent.

Then again, some groups like that sort of thing. It is, admittedly, very 'old school'. My mileage certainly varied.

 

[Valiant]

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.

Dristram, I agree, C&C is a pretty good re-interpretation of 3E (actually making the skills system work) but I get zero "old-school" feel from it (in rules, artwork, layout, etc. its very D20). In an evolutionary perspective, I see C&C growing out of 3E rather then 1E; its certainly not the natural progression of Gygaxian D&D as some seem to suggest.

keep in mind that many of those who cheerlead for C&C were involved in its creation (thus a free marketing force), the Trolls went with their D20 based ideas rather then oldschoolers who wanted a real return to Gygaxian style D&D. The Trolls encouraged the "old school" connection (moving much of their operation to DF infact) picked up Gygax yet failed to deliver the true old school goods (but greatly benefited from the buzz early on).


Ironically, I think the Trolls spent too much time worrying about trying to capture both camps instead of focusing on creating their own identity (ie hand wave it) and ended up shooting themselves in their own foot. Too bad, they hit the market at the right time for a true revival of Gygaxian D&D (even picked up the man himself) but blew it trying to make everyone happy. At least we've seen some third party 1E material coming out in the last couple of years (and yes Peter, I know Gygax is only writing for C&C).

 

[Geron Raveneye]

I think we should distinguish between two kinds of "complete RPG" descriptions.

One kind of complete RPG is the one where the system as presented can do everything the designers set out to accomplish with it. Personally, I think C&C manages that quite well.

The other kind of complete RPG is the one where you can do EVERY imaginable thing with the system without improvising (though probably with plenty of pageturning). I think C&C is not necessarily built for that, SIEGE engine nonwithstanding.

I think it would be helpful if those discussing the "completeness" of Castles & Crusades would qualify their understanding of a "complete RPG" before putting any kind of label on the game. And maybe, if they discover that their definition of a "complete RPG" differs vastly from that of somebody they are discussing that fact with, simply recognize that they are driving on two completely separate tracks, and lay the topic to rest before it turns this thread into a pile of ash and cinder.

 

[S'mon]

I guess for me a complete RPG is one with some kind of task-resolution mechanism. That includes 'free kriegspiel' systems.

Edit: obviously, I disagree that "don't create an environment where the players are at the pure whim of the GM" is necessary for an RPG. Indeed, to me the whole point of having a GM is so they can use their judgement and discretion - at whim. Otherwise you can remove the GM.

 

[trollwad]

Basically, there are two ways to play C&C. First a "fast play" game with kids or friends stopping by when you are busy working all the time. Play by the book. Characters roll up quick, adventure and thats cool.

If you get more time and interest, it is very easy to house rule. Its the same engine, you just have more classes, more spells, more character options (weapon specializations, etc).

Fast modular simple. Its great for beginning gamers (rules as written) or very veteran gamers (comfortable importing their own modular adjustments and dming on the fly).

All the complaints about game completeness are valid if your view of the world obsesses about balance, completeness, you distrust your dm, etc. Some people do. I don't and thus I like the system.

As I've said before I like playing as opposed to dming 3e but in the two of the three 3e campaigns I've played in, I've spent 2x or more time watching others look up rules (that dont really matter imho) looking for the "right" decision than I have actually playing.

If you aren't comfortable making a few CL assessments on the fly or simply narrating your search for a secret door finds x, then you shouldn't play the game. One day you might enjoy playing it with your kids or with a group where you really trust the GM.

 

[Dristram]

Dristram, I agree, C&C is a pretty good re-interpretation of 3E (actually making the skills system work) but I get zero "old-school" feel from it (in rules, artwork, layout, etc. its very D20). In an evolutionary perspective, I see C&C growing out of 3E rather then 1E; its certainly not the natural progression of Gygaxian D&D as some seem to suggest.

From perspectives, I find that big fans of AD&D see a lot of 3e in C&C. And gamers who grew up on 3e D&D, don't see much 3e in C&C. It really is all in the perspective. There is a lot in 3e that I liked, thus I dove into it hard and fast in the beginning. And when using primarily the core books and with a group of gamers who are playing the game primarily for the table role-playing and a big interest in the story created by taking a character on adventures, 3e is very much my kind of game. It's the change in focus to class manipulation akin to what I understand GURPs and HERO are good at, is what turned me off on 3e as a D&D style RPG. With C&C, it has the old school way of "take this class as written and have fun creating a character around it." And classes as designed have an old school flair with the details like XP progression (AD&D), HP progression (AD&D), and Base Attack progression (OD&D), shield AC protection (AD&D), but with simple straight forward d20 related SIEGE system, which works akin to the d20 Skills system. When looking back at AD&D, C&C is actually a simpler game, akin to OD&D. It's easier to grasp for new gamers because the various rolls are unified in their use inspired by 3e, but still simple and straight forward.

It seems to me, because of what you've stated Valiant, that those GMs who love AD&D and have formed their own roll styles to determine the various abstract situations of the game, will find the C&C SIEGE engine intrusive and perhaps inferior to what they came up with. I can totally understand that. And if a gamer is totally happy with AD&D as is, hearing that C&C is another AD&D would feel defensive as I did when 2nd Edition AD&D came out. I refused to play 2e until pretty much forced to by 1995.

I find no real arguement with you. It's all a matter of taste. I was unhappy ultimately with AD&D and looked to 3e to make me happy again. In a way it did, but not completely. C&C is what I wished 3e had been. It's a game I like better.

 

[Jim Hague]

All the complaints about game completeness are valid if your view of the world obsesses about balance, completeness, you distrust your dm, etc. Some people do. I don't and thus I like the system.

You're doing fine, right up 'til here, trollwad. This statement absolutely smacks of One True Wayism - arguing that others' complaints are only 'valid' if they somehow are engaging in Bad Wrong Fun. It's got nothing to do with distrust. Game rules don't have to cover every single little thing, but they do have to be consistent and cover the most common situations. You use 'balance' like it's a dirty word; what's wrong with balance? For that matter, what's wrong with a complete game world? If you could stop bashing others' playstyles and pushing your own as the One True Way, your arguments would hold more water.

As I've said before I like playing as opposed to dming 3e but in the two of the three 3e campaigns I've played in, I've spent 2x or more time watching others look up rules (that dont really matter imho) looking for the "right" decision than I have actually playing.

That's a problem with the group, not the game.

If you aren't comfortable making a few CL assessments on the fly or simply narrating your search for a secret door finds x, then you shouldn't play the game. One day you might enjoy playing it with your kids or with a group where you really trust the GM.

And again, you go off with the backhanded insult against other playstyles. Here's the thing:

There is nothing in 3.x or any other system that prevents the GM from doing everything you've described. Nothing. In fact, if you actually read the core books and others like the DMG II, this sort of play is actually encouraged. C&C isn't anything special in that regard.

All you're crowing about is common sense GMing. It's not a matter of trust in the GM; as I pointed out earlier, a GM that constantly has to handwave things as is necessary in C&C is going to slip up. That means that constant handwaving of things produces an uneven, not-as-fun game...unless the GM spends time notating every little thing, which is as much or more intrusive than having to constantly look up rules.

Barring some sort of masochist player, people don't like being treated unfairly; that's where consistency becomes important. As I wrote not so terribly long ago, any good game needs a skeleton, a foundation to hang all the neat bits from. If you need to handwave so much, why use a rules-set at all? Why not go with something like The Pool or Risus?

 

[S'mon]

This statement absolutely smacks of One True Wayism - arguing that others' complaints are only 'valid' if they somehow are engaging in Bad Wrong Fun. It's got nothing to do with distrust. Game rules don't have to cover every single little thing, but they do have to be consistent and cover the most common situations. You use 'balance' like it's a dirty word; what's wrong with balance? For that matter, what's wrong with a complete game world? If you could stop bashing others' playstyles and pushing your own as the One True Way, your arguments would hold more water.

Jim, you seem in your statements to be more into "One True Wayism" than the people you are criticising. According to you, game rules should be comprehensive; game rules should be balanced. Some of us disagree, we are ok with sketchy rules and a lack of balance.

 

[gideon_thorne]

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

Why? None of these are relevant to an 'old school game', whatever that means?

And the simple fact of the matter is, even OD&D/AD&D sold a whole hell of a lot more books when they brought folks like Elmore, Easley, Parkinson and Caldwell came on board.

*chuckles* From what I have seen, not even Gary is an 'old school Gygaxian gamer', going by the vacuous definitions for such a thing, cause even he doesn't know what the hell that means.

It's not 'pretty clear' at all who TLG is targeting, to a fanatical few, if thats the impression one gets.

C&C is targeted at new players, for without new blood, you don't have a hobby.

 

[gideon_thorne]

keep in mind that many of those who cheerlead for C&C were involved in its creation (thus a free marketing force), the Trolls went with their D20 based ideas rather then oldschoolers who wanted a real return to Gygaxian style D&D. The Trolls encouraged the "old school" connection (moving much of their operation to DF infact) picked up Gygax yet failed to deliver the true old school goods (but greatly benefited from the buzz early on).

Opinion, not fact. Obviously many thousands of players disagree.

Incidentally, which seems to be a greater number than the 'cheerleaders' of more simulacrum like systems seem to be generating with the 'there's only one right way' approach.

Ironically, I think the Trolls spent too much time worrying about trying to capture both camps instead of focusing on creating their own identity (ie hand wave it) and ended up shooting themselves in their own foot. Too bad, they hit the market at the right time for a true revival of Gygaxian D&D (even picked up the man himself) but blew it trying to make everyone happy. At least we've seen some third party 1E material coming out in the last couple of years (and yes Peter, I know Gygax is only writing for C&C).

But thats the thing, one can hand wave it.

Being in the top 10 game companies in the industry is 'not shooting oneself in the foot'.

Neither is it a bad thing trying to make everyone happy. Thats called good business. Selling to a niche market is good for a hobbiest who has other sources of income, but not for anyone trying to realistically stay in business.

Factoid: C&C was invited to have its own forum at Dragonsfoot by the DF staff. It was their own decision and naught to do with anything TLG did.

C&C can be played any way any one wishes to do so. Its only stubborn intransigence that causes denial of whats so clearly obvious.