C&C is not just for old school gaming!

S'mon said:
I've used C&C to run both Old-D&D scenarios and converted 3e scenarios in the same campaign; I guess that's what it's good for - it does both.

Quoted for Truth. And thats the thing where C&C shines, in my opinion. I don't care if it is "old school" or "new school" (terrible terms, those). To me it is important that the conversion, and mixing, between editions does not create too much of a headache. And C&C, so far, has proven that I can use older and newer editions of D&D without too much work. Also if you dont like the plethora of rules in the new system and don't have access to the older editions hardcopies then C&C is the nice way in the middle.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Psion said:
Well, consider me much less interested in SWSE.

Psion,

It's not nearly as similar as it sounds from this quote.

Characters *choose* their trained skills, choose which skills to take (now +5) Skill Focus in. The SWS skill system looks much, much more flexible and personalized than C&C's primes, especially when you take multiclassing into account.
 

I would be much more enthusiastic about C&C if the classes didn't have different XP progressions. Despite the other innovations the game offers, that pre-3.X holdover just doesn't sit with me any longer, and I think a total class rewrite would be in order before I ran the game.

Cheers,
Cam
 

MoogleEmpMog said:
Psion,

It's not nearly as similar as it sounds from this quote.

Characters *choose* their trained skills, choose which skills to take (now +5) Skill Focus in. The SWS skill system looks much, much more flexible and personalized than C&C's primes, especially when you take multiclassing into account.

Thanks for that!
 

Whizbang Dustyboots said:
Most C&C fans when they evangelize talk about it as an old school gaming system. Maybe Troll Lords didn't plan on it, but the results seem in line with what the players want.

I'd also agree with this statement. Me, I'm a huge fan of C&C. I already have AD&D and the RC if I just want an "old school" game. But most of the people championing C&C seem to be _really_ into playing the old stuff, and that's about it. Poking around the Troll Lord forums, it's all about old stuff too.

Of course whenever I see someone wondering about how well C&C would do with something like Eberron or Ptolus, I always see a pile of people talking about how you really have to use 3.5 to run the settings, because they're "designed" with 3.5 in mind. Which makes about as much sense to me as saying that you can't really run a horror game using d20, because d20 was designed with dungeon crawls in mind.

The single biggest thing I think that makes people dismiss C&C as being nothing more than "old school" with a new facelift, is the individualized XP tracks for the classes. I personally don't happen to like how every single class in D&D uses one XP track, because I don't think it's really balanced. But that's my opinion, and is no more wrong than saying I like the color blue. The second killer of C&C as being anything more than a game people like to dismiss as being good for nothing other than nostalgia, is the lack of a class building system. While Buy the Numbers works for me to solve that particular itch, it does mean some extra work.

The fact that people have to put in work to make new classes, that C&C isn't using a single XP track like D&D does, and that all of its products (and a majority of its fans) are focused on old style fantasy gaming, is pretty much what's going to keep it from reaching it's full potential for all except a relative handful of people.

And those folks (like me) that are using it for stuff other than old-school? We're around, we just don't bother saying much. People that don't like C&C aren't interested in hearing what we've done with it, and the C&C fans seem to be focused more on looking back than forward. Sure, C&C is worth a heck of a lot more than just "old school" gaming. I don't see much point in trying to change people's mind though. Despite the fact that I've never run a 3.x game, and don't ever plan on doing so (unless it were the d20 Lone Wolf game), I own a number of things for D&D/d20 and I'm quite pleased with 'em. So I'll just enjoy watching folks do all the heavy lifting of rules balancing and arguments, and then take what's built and strip it down like an auto at the chop-shop.

Seems like a win-win situation to me. :D
 

Scurvy_Platypus said:
The second killer of C&C as being anything more than a game people like to dismiss as being good for nothing other than nostalgia, is the lack of a class building system.
http://www.trolllord.com/newsite/cnc/8015.html <-- ?

Though it looks to be due sometime down the track, it sounds about right for curing this complaint, and suchlike. Beats me though - I've not even run 'core' C&C yet! :D

Also, it appears to [somewhat] address the very issue of pigeonholing that started this thread, if I'm not mistaken. Huh. Might be quite the turnaround for C&C. . . when it comes out. . . and if it proves popular. . . :uhoh:
 

Scurvy_Platypus said:
I'd also agree with this statement. Me, I'm a huge fan of C&C. I already have AD&D and the RC if I just want an "old school" game. But most of the people championing C&C seem to be _really_ into playing the old stuff, and that's about it. Poking around the Troll Lord forums, it's all about old stuff too.

For the most part, I like the TLG forums, but that's the exact vibe I get too.

Of course whenever I see someone wondering about how well C&C would do with something like Eberron or Ptolus, I always see a pile of people talking about how you really have to use 3.5 to run the settings, because they're "designed" with 3.5 in mind. Which makes about as much sense to me as saying that you can't really run a horror game using d20, because d20 was designed with dungeon crawls in mind.

Thank you, thank you! That puts it in perspective for me. I mean, yes, a setting is made with the current rules set in mind. But that didn't stop Dragonlance and the Forgotten Realms from going from AD&D to 3.5.



The single biggest thing I think that makes people dismiss C&C as being nothing more than "old school" with a new facelift, is the individualized XP tracks for the classes.

That and the HD progression above 9th level or so.


And those folks (like me) that are using it for stuff other than old-school? We're around, we just don't bother saying much.

I'm so glad to hear this. I've been feeling kind of alone for a while now!

I also know from talking with the Trolls that they intend for C&C to be used with all editions, even if they focus on the old school feel.

People that don't like C&C aren't interested in hearing what we've done with it, and the C&C fans seem to be focused more on looking back than forward. Sure, C&C is worth a heck of a lot more than just "old school" gaming. I don't see much point in trying to change people's mind though. Despite the fact that I've never run a 3.x game, and don't ever plan on doing so (unless it were the d20 Lone Wolf game), I own a number of things for D&D/d20 and I'm quite pleased with 'em. So I'll just enjoy watching folks do all the heavy lifting of rules balancing and arguments, and then take what's built and strip it down like an auto at the chop-shop.

Seems like a win-win situation to me. :D

Me too! :)

I do have a lot of AD&D books, but I also have a ton of d20 books. I want them to be useful too. Even if I strip down the rules a bit, I'd like to be able to use the entirety of my RPG book collection, not just the older stuff.

Maybe we need a resource for C&C "new school." Another POV.
 

MoogleEmpMog said:
Psion,

It's not nearly as similar as it sounds from this quote.

Characters *choose* their trained skills, choose which skills to take (now +5) Skill Focus in. The SWS skill system looks much, much more flexible and personalized than C&C's primes, especially when you take multiclassing into account.

People choose their primes in C&C, also - but you've right in that there's more customization. In C&C, if you have a prime chosen for DEX, you're good in ALL DEX-based skills. In Saga Edition, if you choose Ride it doesn't mean you're just as good in Pilot. In a way, your skills are stronger in C&C than they are in Saga Edition, especially considering the "1 per level" versus the "1/2 per level" part.

It's also worth noting that there IS a Skill System option for C&C (introduced in a supplement), but I know nothing about it.
 


I much prefer the variable XP progression and the hit die cap; not because they're old school, I just think they work better. Variable progression means you don't have to give Rogues scads of abilities to keep them balanced; the die cap at 10th keeps PCs heroic-but-mortal.
 

Remove ads

Top