Once you go C&C, you never go back

[Treebore]

The SIEGE basic mechanic is identical to the basic d20 System mechanic:

1. Roll 1d20
2. Add numbers to the result based on class, level, and ability modifiers.
3. Compare the result to a target number to determine success.

Then you have other, smaller things, such as armor working just as it does in d20, etc. There are, of course, some differences, too (namely primes) -- but at its core, the SIEGE mechanic is very much d20 System-derived.

No doubt, that OGL statement is in there for good reasons.

 

[gideon_thorne]

Do proper RPGs have to be written in a Gygaxian style in order to satisfy you?

In short, in that person's case, yes.

 

[moriarty777]

Ummm... why?

Grim Tales is a d20 toolkit based around the d20 Modern rules. It's pretty much all about rules.

Obviously you can tweak and bash things from Grim Tales to fit into C&C, but if you're going to C&C explicitly because you want a faster system, it seems kind of against your goal to immediately start plugging in rules to complicate it. Especially when it's from d20 Modern which has some rather different assumptions about the game from D&D.

Why not? I don't see how *certain* elements from Grim Tales couldn't fit into C&C easily. I would say it has more to do with how one may want to do it and what elements chosen.

However, if he wants to go the 'classless' route, my suggestion would be to take certain elements he likes from C&C and incorporate it into Grim Tales... it might be a lot easier that way.



M

 

[Emryys]

Why not? I don't see how *certain* elements from Grim Tales couldn't fit into C&C easily. I would say it has more to do with how one may want to do it and what elements chosen.

However, if he wants to go the 'classless' route, my suggestion would be to take certain elements he likes from C&C and incorporate it into Grim Tales... it might be a lot easier that way.

I've already begun to explore using Grimm Tales with a C&C base.

I like Feats/Talents in conservative doses, so looking at a system that has them tied to Ability scores may be useful. I was thinking the characters class prime would dictate which talents would be available in relation to the GT classes. Str prime would give access to the GT strong hero talents, etc... just scaled way back and tweaked for C&C

 

[S'mon]

Obviously you can tweak and bash things from Grim Tales to fit into C&C, but if you're going to C&C explicitly because you want a faster system, it seems kind of against your goal to immediately start plugging in rules to complicate it. Especially when it's from d20 Modern which has some rather different assumptions about the game from D&D.

I agree - and GT is *extremely* crunchy, even by 3e standards. The talents system on top of feats and skills makes for (IMO) very complex character generation. And there is practically no fluff/flavour. I can't think of anything in GT that would be a good fit with C&C.

 

[Valiant]

How on EARTH do you come to that conclusion? Yes, there is a d20 involved. The d20 is used to resolve most conflict situations - checks, attacks, saves etc. It has almost nothing else in common with D20 - The System ®. And how in the dickens have you determined what is D20 Art, Text and Layout? Do proper RPGs have to be written in a Gygaxian style in order to satisfy you?

If "old school" refers to 1E and earlier (and it does) then yes, a game that was advertised to be a return to old school should have something in common with 1E or OD&D. Remember, Gygax didn't write all that material, yet those authors (with their own styles) of earlier modules and books clearly fit into that old school classification.
The fact C&C has its own forum at DF (the home of 1E) suggests that this is a connection TLG wants made.

 

[gideon_thorne]

Gary himself has stated, without equivocation, that C&C has similar rules and the same spirit as AD&D. I suppose folks can argue with the primogenitor source if they want too, though.

 

[Dragonhelm]

If "old school" refers to 1E and earlier (and it does) then yes, a game that was advertised to be a return to old school should have something in common with 1E or OD&D. Remember, Gygax didn't write all that material, yet those authors (with their own styles) of earlier modules and books clearly fit into that old school classification.
The fact C&C has its own forum at DF (the home of 1E) suggests that this is a connection TLG wants made.

Cool, 2nd edition isn't old school. Woo-hoo!

Can a game be both old school and new school at the same time? I'm going to say yes. Obviously, C&C is meant to evoke some old school feel. At the same time, C&C is geared towards those who want "d20 lite" and those who want to house rule.

I guess C&C just....is. It attracts gamers, both old school and new school. I really like that.

 

[Zulgyan]

C&C taught me that it's wonderful to have a flexible and adaptable gamesystem that you can use to make it your own and take it into the direction you want and enjoy most.

That's why a have resently discovered and felt in love with OD&D, the game I play right now. C&C was my highway to OD&D and I'm thankful for that.

 

[Scurvy_Platypus]

I can't think of anything in GT that would be a good fit with C&C.

Oh I wouldn't go nearly that far, but from what I've seen you and I hold opposite views on quite a few things (everything?).

I can see the value of adding some stuff from Grim Tales to C&C, it's just that everything that would be added is rules. The rules themselves are fine, and certainly do what they set out to do.

I just don't think that anyone really looking at C&C because they want a rules light system should be starting off promptly adding rules right back in. That's not making a rules light (or lighter) game, that's changing the rules focus of the game, which is a bit of a different proposition.

If the OP is actually looking for a d20-based system that he can "rebuild" to better suit his sensibilities, then C&C isn't a bad way to go. It certainly won't be liked by the majority of people on either side of the C&C vs D&D group, both of whom (right or wrong) would say something like, "Why don't you play True 20" or some other system that seems to aim at being d20 but lighter.

Part of the problem is that a lot of stuff is "exception based" when it comes to d20. This feat or that means you don't suffer the penalty that everyone else does when doing something, or this or that feat gives you an explicit permission to do something, which in turn implies that anyone without the special permission (feat) can't. Adding in things like Talent trees and whatnot starts to head in the direction of re-complicating things that C&C deliberately left out.

It's been my observation that some people seem to "like the simplicity that C&C has" and then want to plug in their own reworks of this or that d20 rule and promptly recomplicate it, only in a direction that suits their own particular quirks. There's nothing wrong with that (I'm a strong proponent of houserules), but if it's the sort of thing they're planning on doing, they should be honest with themselves about it. Otherwise you wind up with a mess of rules that individually are fine, but conflict and aren't clear when put together.

For example:

I like the simplicity of C&C. I did 2 major rebuilds of C&C systems. The first was the magic, and the second was class building.

For magic, the goal was to allow me to take any kind of magic whatever, and be able to plug it into C&C and have it work. I used the Elements of Magic (Revised) for that. When I was done, the C&C spells basically looked the same, and the magic system wasn't any different. But I now had a way to be able to introduce different magic systems, and have a reasonable confidence that the spells/powers would be on roughly the same level.

In the case of the class building, my goal was to be able to take a class out of whatever D&D/d20 book I felt like, and be able to bring it across to C&C and again have at least a rough confidence that the classes would be equivalent. I used Buy the Numbers for this.

In both cases I used some rules and guidelines that are _much_ more complicated than C&C is and applied them. They weren't rules that the players would ever really see or be aware of, and they weren't anything that I'd have to mess around with a lot as the game played. But they were rules, they were present, and they influenced how things looked from my perspective and how certain aspects ran.

It's possible to take rules and complications from other sources, and feed them back into C&C. You can do it in such a fashion as to overtly complicate things, by reintroducing a feat system (even if it's limited) or reintroducing some sort of skill system (another popular tweak by different C&Cers). It is possible to maintain the simplicity of C&C, while having more complicated systems that are buried in the background that the players and (usually) the GM don't have to mess with.

The OP should be clear as to what direction he wants to go, if he's looking at mixing Grim Tales with C&C. It's going to influcence how he translates/rebuilds the rules, as well as whether the game still "feels" as if it's as "simple" or "uncomplicated" as C&C is by default, or simply a lighter version of d20 that started from a C&C base.