[C&C] Not nostalgia - Different folkloric basis than 3E

[rogueattorney]

However, there are plenty of rule chances in C&C, such as using different XP charts for different classes, that in no way affect the storytelling area. They are purely nostalgia driven changes.

I'm not going to say that differing xp charts have nothing to do with nostalgia. However, nostalgia is secondary to the extent that the entire point of the project was to get back to a rule set more closely resembling OOP versions of D&D. The primary purpose behind seperate xp charts goes to the radically different concpet of "balance" between pc's in 3e and previous editions.

3e assumes that all player character classes will be balanced to each other, that a 3rd level paladin will be as powerful as a 3rd level rogue, will be as powerful as a 3rd level wizard, etc. Neither C&C nor the OOP versions of AD&D make this assumption. In C&C/OOPD&D, characters are not balanced to each other, with some classes being more powerful at lower levels, others being more powerful at higher levels, etc. Balance is considered over the course of the class' career.

We could argue all day about whether either system effectively balances things, and partisans of each edition argue all the time whether this or that class is over-powered or under-powered, broken or hosed. And certainly, each system comes with a whole host of problems with regard to its concept of balance. However, while the 3e system might better serve the paradigm of 'options before all else', the OOP/C&C system definitely serves the concept of class archetypes better.

R.A.

 

[Mythmere1]

Also, just to clarify:

I think 3E is just as good as C&C. They just typify different traditions of storytelling.

When I say typify, I also mean they nudge the "feel" of the storyline.

As I've said, either system can be used for either style (see Necromancer Games) - and I'm also talking about something considerably more subtle than what most people are thinking I've said. I don't mean the plot of the story is altered. I mean that the plot and feel of the hero's personal development, how he fits into story, how he interacts with the plot, can be altered by the game's rules for character progression.

I AM NOT SAYING that a good DM can't create any kind of story he wants. I'm saying that rules for character progression (and probably some more minor things) suggest a particular flavor of hero. By story, I mean the story of a character's personal journey, and such things as the relative threat (to society beyond the hero) of the adversaries he tends to face head-on rather than by guile.

 

[Lizard]

I played 1e back when it was the only game in town -- when the DMG was brand new. (Indeed, we muddled through with just the MM and PHB for a full *year* before the DMG was printted!). Let me assure you, we did not play 'ordinary guys whose fate was to die in the mud'. Back in the real old days, people came up with the most insane munchkin nightmares you can imagine -- I had people who insisited on playing minotaurs and half-devils and halfling ninjas (using the old Dragon ninja rules, which were written entirely by the elders of the Lollipop Guild, if you get my drift.) What we DIDN'T have was the rules needed to BALANCE those nightmares, so we also had things like plutonium dragons with anti-matter breath. One of my favourite characters, Baldon Dragonrider (Gnome ftr/ill), had, among other things, a +5 shield of invisibility and silence, +5 plate mail, a staff of wizardry, and the 'eye of the basilisk' -- he could petrify with a glance. He got it by plucking out his own eye, without a second thought, and tossing in a carved gem eye he found. We won't even discuss how mundanely rings of wishes were used (or the nightmare of wish lawyering)

Please, take off the rose coloured glasses.

One reason 3e r0xx0rz is because it allows you to create those ridiculous characters in a balanced context (well, maybe not Baldon, but I played him for three years in Munchkin paradise), but ALSO lets you play common folks. One of the things which 'sold' me on 3e, after 13 years away from D&D, was that you could stat out the village blacksmith with skills and abilities. AND you could stat out Tiamat. To me, scalability is one of the holy grails of game design, and 3e offers it fairly well, with plenty of low-end detail and high-end munchkinism.

 

[Breakdaddy]

I played 1e back when it was the only game in town -- when the DMG was brand new. (Indeed, we muddled through with just the MM and PHB for a full *year* before the DMG was printted!). Let me assure you, we did not play 'ordinary guys whose fate was to die in the mud'. Back in the real old days, people came up with the most insane munchkin nightmares you can imagine -- I had people who insisited on playing minotaurs and half-devils and halfling ninjas (using the old Dragon ninja rules, which were written entirely by the elders of the Lollipop Guild, if you get my drift.) What we DIDN'T have was the rules needed to BALANCE those nightmares, so we also had things like plutonium dragons with anti-matter breath. One of my favourite characters, Baldon Dragonrider (Gnome ftr/ill), had, among other things, a +5 shield of invisibility and silence, +5 plate mail, a staff of wizardry, and the 'eye of the basilisk' -- he could petrify with a glance. He got it by plucking out his own eye, without a second thought, and tossing in a carved gem eye he found. We won't even discuss how mundanely rings of wishes were used (or the nightmare of wish lawyering)

Please, take off the rose coloured glasses.

This has already been brought up, but it bears repeating. Any good GM is going to handle such things in his own way. You would have NEVER gotten away with those things in my AD&D Game, or my C&C game for that matter. Rose colored glasses? Dunno, but your GM should have taken off the blinders before he let his players manhandle his campaign like that.

 

[Mythmere1]

What we DIDN'T have was the rules needed to BALANCE those nightmares

My point. You're saying that people wanted high-powered character, which means that at the time they would have been better served by the 3E ruleset. Scaleability and other features of 3E permit and even encourage games that rise to this level of power. C&C nudges the story by not reaching into this realm. The assumption is that such a game is beyond the "feel" of C&C, which advances to higher levels which are more human than what you describe.

Please, take off the rose coloured glasses.

I remember how it was played, and I started at about the same time as you did, post PH and pre-DMG. In the years following, I've come to avoid personally insulting people for their opinions.

One reason 3e r0xx0rz is because it allows you to create those ridiculous characters in a balanced context (well, maybe not Baldon, but I played him for three years in Munchkin paradise), but ALSO lets you play common folks. One of the things which 'sold' me on 3e, after 13 years away from D&D, was that you could stat out the village blacksmith with skills and abilities. AND you could stat out Tiamat. To me, scalability is one of the holy grails of game design, and 3e offers it fairly well, with plenty of low-end detail and high-end munchkinism.

I agree entirely. But I'm not criticizing 3E, so it's not relevant. You're missing my point.

 

[Breakdaddy]

I agree entirely. But I'm not criticizing 3E, so it's not relevant. You're missing my point.

Completely, I think. The biggest point that lizard makes appears to be to blame AD&D, as a system, for his pc having vastly overpowered armor and weapons, and a minor artifact that allows a save or petrify effect. This has nothing to do with the system. If anyone could prove to me that a 3e game, set at the same level, would be balanced if the PCs were given the exact same items, I would be amazed. Munchkinism knows no system. C&C players and 3e players can be munchkins, but please do not blame the system itself for not being able to handle your ridiculously overpowered array of firepower.

 

[Mythmere1]

Completely, I think. The biggest point that lizard makes appears to be to blame AD&D, as a system, for his pc having vastly overpowered armor and weapons, and a minor artifact that allows a save or petrify effect. This has nothing to do with the system. If anyone could prove to me that a 3e game, set at the same level, would be balanced if the PCs were given the exact same items, I would be amazed. Munchkinism knows no system. C&C players and 3e players can be munchkins, but please do not blame the system itself for not being able to handle your ridiculously overpowered array of firepower.

I differ slightly on the take, because I think munchkinism, super-powered characters, hack n slash, etc. are a totally valid way of playing if they are your cup of tea. They're not mine. I DO think 3E is better at handling such games, and that's a plus for 3E. My point, though, has nothing to do with the fact that 3E has the rules. C&C could, too. I consider the fact that C&C doesn't provide for high level gaming as a slight weakness in the first printing. In the second printing, I understand that C&C will include such rules, once again in the C&C flavor I'm talking about -- just an extension of hit dice and the same basic archetypal abilities. The rules will nudge toward a game in which the heroes progress in a particular fashion, more limited than 3E, with fewer special effects and fewer abilities that diverge from the archetype. The model is one more suited to a game in which the characters' personal journey is less about massive and varied personal firepower, and more about a coherent development, based more on getting better at what you do than becoming something you weren't before.

 

[Gomez]

Completely, I think. The biggest point that lizard makes appears to be to blame AD&D, as a system, for his pc having vastly overpowered armor and weapons, and a minor artifact that allows a save or petrify effect. This has nothing to do with the system. If anyone could prove to me that a 3e game, set at the same level, would be balanced if the PCs were given the exact same items, I would be amazed. Munchkinism knows no system. C&C players and 3e players can be munchkins, but please do not blame the system itself for not being able to handle your ridiculously overpowered array of firepower.

But I thought C&C killed the munchkin by giving him nothing to munchkin with? No feats, no skills, etc.....

Don't you blame 3e for giving the PC to many "overpowered" abilities? By making them "superhuman"?

 

[Lizard]

Completely, I think. The biggest point that lizard makes appears to be to blame AD&D, as a system, for his pc having vastly overpowered armor and weapons, and a minor artifact that allows a save or petrify effect. This has nothing to do with the system. If anyone could prove to me that a 3e game, set at the same level, would be balanced if the PCs were given the exact same items, I would be amazed. Munchkinism knows no system. C&C players and 3e players can be munchkins, but please do not blame the system itself for not being able to handle your ridiculously overpowered array of firepower.

Sorry, you miss my point. My point was, in Ye Olden Dayes, people did not settle down to play AD&D as a game of slightly-larger-than-life heroes grounded in a mostly realistic setting. AD&D was the original munchkin game, with games such as Runequest, Rolemaster, Chivalry&Sorcery and the like coming out in large part due to the unrealism and 'high entropy' of classic D&D/AD&D. Most people figured the original Deities & Demigods was 'the book of more things to kill'. Dungeons were ludicrous creations which were populated by monsters who stayed in their rooms until someone came to kill them, and apparently ignored the carnage going on next door. (Unless they were 'wandering' monsters, who roamed the levels looking for adventurers to eat.)

I never got any sense of 'grit' or 'realism' from AD&D. It was, as actually played, about power gaming and random death. Characters were their race, class, and level, and nothing more. (Names were often optional.) Most clerics couldn't identify what deity or pantheon they worshipped (until D&Dmg came out, then you picked some god who 'looked cool'.)

I find 3e characters considerably more realistic and grounded, in that they may have skills for doing things other than killing monsters. There are also fewer 'gamey' elements (though it is still a very gamist system, no doubt!), such as ONLY thieves being able to climb walls or clerics of Zorg Bloodrinker who have to use a mace. The fact monsters have stats and can learn skills, gain classes, etc, also removes some 'gameyness', in that there are no longer two castes of beings.

The nostalgia factor here has less to do with C&C and more to do with assigning to AD&D a focus and flavour it never had. I cannot see any evidence in the rules that the intent of the game was to play 'normal guys with experience'. (I might note that Unearthed Arcana pretty much stakes that concept to the ground with its multitude of stat generation systems...) AD&D was a major 'power up' as compared to classic Brown/White box D&D (which didn't even allow 1st level clerics spells at all!) Sure, it's gone up still further since then, with todays Wizards casting mountains of 1st level spells compared to the old one-shot wonders of 1e, but it's simply continuing the progression begun way-back-when.

 

[Mythmere1]

But I thought C&C killed the munchkin by giving him nothing to munchkin with? No feats, no skills, etc.....

How much crunch will a munchkin munch if a munchkin can't munch crunch?
I think Lizard's tale indicates that a munchkin will find a way regardless of the rules.

Don't you blame 3e for giving the PC to many "overpowered" abilities? By making them "superhuman"?

I, personally, don't think it's a matter of blame, just that 3E provides a certain "feel" resulting from these wide-ranging options - making the story a story of transformation rather than a story of rising to the top of an archetypal ... um, type. C&C's a story about rising to the top of a heap. In 3E, there aren't heaps. Characters are highly individualized. Same fun, but there's a different character to your "greatness" when you succeed and a different character to your striving when you're still climbing in power.