The C&C poll

[msd]

I'm more than curious (I have the two books necessary to play), but it's a hard sell for players who love D&D 3.5e.

GM: "Okay, no more skill points, no more feats, you progress slower, the benefits for leveling are pretty much built right in so you don't have to worry about customization!"

Players: *crickets*

Granted, that's not how I'd sell it, but I suspect that's going to be the bottom line. Being a GM who prefers story and characters to calculations and formula, I'd love to make the switch.

Obviously, and I realize that you note this in your post, that is not really the way to sell C&C.

When I talk to others about C&C, its about the ability to "pick up and play without learning lots of rules", "not being limited by concrete feats and skill selections but by the limits of your imagination", "faster paced play uninterrupted by constant rule checks", etc.

Again, I realize that you can get these kinds of things in 3.5 as well and I definitely like 3.5 as a system, but it just takes more work than it does in C&C.

 

[Arnwyn]

I agree. I see this with AD&D as well. And really, why are we "taking sides?" I mean, aren't we all gamers here?

You say that as if it means something! I do see that the "all gamers are/should be united" fallacy is still bandied about in some rare places, though.

But in any case, it's as irrelevant as saying "aren't we all sports fans". No. I have no problem declaring that for me, hockey and (CFL) football are fantastic, soccer sucks, and baseball is as fun as watching paint dry.

So, too, are peoples' feelings toward various games (though insulting other games probably doesn't get one very far...).

 

[MoogleEmpMog]

None of the above.

Was a "D&Der" for some purposes, but the system was largely obsoleted by d20 Modern and Mutants and Masterminds; Star Wars Saga puts the last nail in its coffin and is now my tactical class-based game of choice.

C&C doesn't enter into the equation.

 

[Dragonhelm]

You say that as if it means something! I do see that the "all gamers are/should be united" fallacy is still bandied about in some rare places, though.

But in any case, it's as irrelevant as saying "aren't we all sports fans". No. I have no problem declaring that for me, hockey and (CFL) football are fantastic, soccer sucks, and baseball is as fun as watching paint dry.

So, too, are peoples' feelings toward various games (though insulting other games probably doesn't get one very far...).

Well, I'm not saying that everyone should like both D&D and C&C. People have their own personal tastes, after all. I just wish people would be able to say, "Glad you like X system, but it's just not for me." without having to put another system down. *shrugs*

 

[Jefe Bergenstein]

Its disingenuous posts like this that cause C&Cers to get defensive.

Can you convert any edition of D&D to any other? Sure. Can you convert pretty much any one system to any other system? Of course. Does it take time? Yes. One thing I like (among many) about C&C is that conversion from any edition of D&D to C&C is much quicker and simpler than your usual conversion. Thats a serious bonus, in my eyes. And the conversions aren't just modules, adventures and NPCs - spells, magic items and even rules all port over quickly and easily.

So you're saying that a 7th level elf from BD&D, a 7th level monk from 1st edition, a 7/7/7 fighter/cleric/mage from 2nd edition, a 7th level monk from 3rd edition and a 7th level incarnate from 3.5 can all be ready to go on a 1st edition adventure together in this system with minimum work? I call schennigans. What bugs me is the constant cheerleading of C&C'ers that its the magical missing link. no its not. Any system can use material from other systems if you're willing to do the work. Its not the selling point people here are misrepresenting it as.

I'm in the camp of "its easier to add than subtract" from a game system, which is where C&C shines. I like skills, although not as detailed as the 3x skills - so I'm going to add something like Savage Worlds skills into C&C (using the SIEGE engine as the basis).

I'm the opposite. Its easier to at least have something written down, and at least have something to fall back on. Otherwise the best RPG system would be a blank sheet of paper.

If you like your character capabilities to be more nebulous and wide-open (and dependent on DM arbitration/judgment), you might like C&C. Nothing wrong with either preference.

This is largely why it seems to have a strong following. It "puts players in their place". Many DM's seem to yearn for a return to the time where players were willing to be crapped on because for whatever reason, gamers didnt have self esteem in the 80's. I loathe "suck up to the DM" style systems.

 

[T. Foster]

Not a fan of teh C&C. If I wanted a d20-based game (which I don't, but if I did...) I think I'd rather go with True20 or SW Saga Edition; for D&D I prefer OD&D or 1E AD&D.

 

[msd]

This is largely why it seems to have a strong following. It "puts players in their place". Many DM's seem to yearn for a return to the time where players were willing to be crapped on because for whatever reason, gamers didnt have self esteem in the 80's. I loathe "suck up to the DM" style systems.

The above seems like an overbroad and pretty unfair generalization of the things that make people want to play C&C. Certainly not applicable to anyone I have ever met who plays the game. You must know different folks...

 

[Breakdaddy]

So you're saying that a 7th level elf from BD&D, a 7th level monk from 1st edition, a 7/7/7 fighter/cleric/mage from 2nd edition, a 7th level monk from 3rd edition and a 7th level incarnate from 3.5 can all be ready to go on a 1st edition adventure together in this system with minimum work? I call schennigans. What bugs me is the constant cheerleading of C&C'ers that its the magical missing link. no its not. Any system can use material from other systems if you're willing to do the work. Its not the selling point people here are misrepresenting it as.



I'm the opposite. Its easier to at least have something written down, and at least have something to fall back on. Otherwise the best RPG system would be a blank sheet of paper.



This is largely why it seems to have a strong following. It "puts players in their place". Many DM's seem to yearn for a return to the time where players were willing to be crapped on because for whatever reason, gamers didnt have self esteem in the 80's. I loathe "suck up to the DM" style systems.

C&C is not how you represent it, at least not the way I play it. Since it seems C&C kicked your puppy, I won't argue with you further, but you seem to want to cast a dim light on C&C as a system and C&Cers as a community. Get over it, man. Call "shenanigans" if you like, but please don't denigrate the system because you think that I, as a C&C DM, wish to crap on my players and in turn, my players wish to suck up to me. Wise up, chief. That's all Ill say, waste of time though it may be. Flame away.

 

[S'mon]

Switched over to C&C - the complexity of 3e gives me a headache, plus with C&C it's back to "the GM's in charge"; which is what I like both as player & GM. I'm fine with playing 3e D&D, at least up to about 10th, and probably running it 1st-5th (with reduced XP gain), but no more high level 3e for me.

 

[Piratecat]

How about this? No more thread-crapping. If you've come to this thread to insult or denigrate C&C, or to talk about how much you hate it, please head elsewhere after voting. There are lots of other threads in this forum on D&D!

If you want to actually discuss C&C, both its strengths and weaknesses, please stick around and do so. That means no baiting the people who said earlier that they didn't care for the game, though.

If this is somehow a problem for anyone, please feel free to email me.