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

[Treebore]

And one of those games was called Dungeons and Dragons



.... One funny thing Col. Pladoh mentioned in his Q&A threads is how he stopped using the "3d6 in order" system because people would just roll (and reject the charecter), and roll, and roll until they got the stats they wanted...D&D was never really about the average shlep. And while I realise you need at least a few levels of fighter to be a "superhero", is a 1st level AD&D paladin an "average shlep" or the 1st level barbarian, or the high con high strength fighter, or the AD&D elf fighter/magic user?

Which is exactly why I don't do point buys or whatever. I tell my players my preferred method of stat generation, but tell them to do it however they want, as long as it is still within racial limits. Most do it my preferred way, because it does allow for a high frequency of high stats, but some have simply written in whatever stats they wanted. Which is fine with me. I'm experienced enough of a DM that high stats don't break my games.

 

[harmyn]

not seen or played C&C. Have seen and played OD&D 1e, 2e (went back to 1e and OD&D after that one), and 3e and 3.5e. Also played way many other games to boot. But lets stick to D&D for this. DM's control munchkinism.

Could you create way out insane characters in the old rules? Sure as a spitfighter you could. Munchkins could totally run amok with Dragon magazine options and THEIR IMAGINATION. When I worked in the FLGS way back in the day I would have people coming in all day long telling me about their characters, and yes someone really did have an 18th level paladin/3rd level psion/5th level magic-suer/9th level assassin who was also a master vampire with a cloak that let him go out during the day. I also heard gripping tales of 6th level troupes whose characters staved off political intrigues, assassination plots, lost love, and epic battles to seal off the gates of hell (it retrospect it sounded a lot like one of Buffy:tVS's early seasons - before the show was out).

Same thing in 3e/3.5e though. Hey, now we have rules that allow for a character to make a ring of Cure Light Wounds for 2000gp that heals 1d8+1 hp of damage with each use and never runs out of power (item creation = CL 1 x SL 1 X 2000 for unlimited use = 2000gp). I can take books with optional rules and create archers who by 4th level will never miss or Bards who can sweet talk a rabid orc into pacifism by 5th level. Half-Celestial mystic-Theurges who are invoker/god of healing focused with spell templates for added effect.

What keeps all this from happening? Only the DM who can say aye or nay to a specific thing. Why can't a wizard go to Greyhawk/Waterdeep/Londonium to sell a bazillion gp in magic items under the fair item for sales rules suggestions? The DM again.

Arguing that 3e/3.5e is a more balanced system because it offers up all the extra rules is a flawed argument in the world of munchkins. Every rule is simply a new pretzel for the pile. I s the old stuff better. Depends on what you want to do.

If what you want to do is have fun the grab the rules set of your choice, DM fairly but sensibly, then cut loose with game night. I like them all (except for 2e, after the 97th soft-back of foolish rules that can't be used I was done) and can have fun, in depth rules and characters in all of them.

Just remember to have fun. And tell your players your house rules ahead of time if you can. They really appreciate that sort of thing.

 

[Psion]

Is this all about nostalgia? At my age, am I looking back to easier times and trying to grasp some vestige of a lost past? There's an element of that, but I think the ultimate answer is "no." The entire "look-back" to older-era gaming wasn't about nostalgia, it was about a particular kind of story. I think I was trying to recover not my youth, but a game that supports a particular folkloric dynamic, a particular kind of story.

I'm not seeing it, myself. I use the same sort of story structure that I did in prior editions.

Further, if NG is one of the biggest sellers of d20 fantasy modules, isn't that pretty much definitive of the "3e feel"?

 

[Akrasia]

Pragmatic reasons for liking C&C

I am not sure that C&C has a different 'folkloric basis' than 3E. In any case, to the extent that it does, I think that this is something largely in the control of the GM.

For example, when I designed my homebrew 'Ilmahal' setting for 3E, I had a pretty clear idea of what kind of 'character' or 'folkoric base' the setting was going to have (roughly, it was primarily inspired by Vance's Lyonesse novels, but with RE Howard influences as well; something like 'King Arthur meets Cthulhu'). I then made decisions about the 3E rules (and optional rules from UA) in order to realize this vision (e.g. no monks, slower magical healing, some banned spells, etc.)

It worked quite well! The campaign was successful in realizing the vision I had for it. So as much as I like to make fun of 3E players for 'half-dragon ninja-wizards', there is nothing in the rules themselves that dictate this kind of play. The modules from Necro and Goodman show this to be the case.

That being said, I vastly prefer C&C over 3E as a GM, and recently switched Ilmahal over to C&C.

My reasons for switching to C&C are simple:

1. Less prep time for adventures.
2. Faster pace of play during sessions.
3. Easier to 'tweak' the rules for my campaign (because the rules are simpler).
4. The rules 'fade into the background' during play (no endless adding and subtracting of modifiers, checking rules in particular situations, bringing out battleboards, etc.).

These are reasons why I prefer to GM C&C over 3E D&D (I am still happy to play 3E with a good DM, however). They are, for the most part, purely pragmatic reasons. They might not be reasons for everyone, or even most roleplayers (and I am sure that they are not), but they are certainly decisive reasons for me.

As for nostalgia, yeah, that plays a small part (it is nice to have a distinct 'illusionist' class again, etc.). But my main reasons for preferring C&C over 3E are pragmatic ones.

 

[Treebore]

Your number 4 is the biggest reason I am switching.

 

[cleaverthepit]

In short, what I attempted to do was to move gameplay, via the rules set, back to a pre-gaming literary 'habitat.'

I tried to manage this though various means.

1) strong archetypes (stricter class based system)
2) simple, maleable rules, allowing for contraction and expansion that resulted from or would be driven by the mileu of the story
3) language
4) breaking with game related literature and mythic developments (the ranger lacks spells)

I think, in that respect, there is a different folkloric base. But, this is only the case if one accepts that gaming has generated a folkloric base all its own. I believe it has. Although drawing on literature for its most basic elements, the game has developed its own internal literature. This is the literature of the half dragon half elven princess lycanthopic fighter, psionicist, wizard. It references its own rules set and constantly folds back on itself.

With C&C, I wanted to move the game back to playing 'out of game' folklore. However, it was developed in such a manner to allow it to develop its own folklore. And, importantly, a folklore that is very personal. This is why we encourage houserules so strongly. Each person and group has their own folklore they need to explore and develop (that's my experience anyway).

The most important element of the devlopment of the game was developing that rules set which faded into the background. Much effort was placed into this to further the type of game C&C was meant to foster. Gaming in a transparent box is how I like to think of it.

Whether we succeeded or not is not for me to judge, rather for everyone else. But, at least those of you who care, now know what I was aiming for.

Davis Chenault

 

[Treebore]

Yeah, getting rid of number 4 above. Works for me. I hate how 3E has slowed down story events, because we "have" to varify every rule in every slightly or majorly new situation. By the time you get "back" to the story you need a refresher on what was happening before you took a "rules verification" break.

I cane to fully realize this when I started playinng the dreaded 2E again. Boy do we get a lot done in one six hour gaming session! So when I checked out C&C, I knew, despite its relatively minor flaws, that this was a nice new take on some old and basic rules. A simplicity that would allow me to DM a story, rather than adjudicate rules interpretations and permutations.

Granted there will be some of that in C&C, but I figure it will only be 1/100th of what I see in 3E.

 

[Akrasia]

... I think, in that respect, there is a different folkloric base. But, this is only the case if one accepts that gaming has generated a folkloric base all its own. I believe it has. Although drawing on literature for its most basic elements, the game has developed its own internal literature. This is the literature of the half dragon half elven princess lycanthopic fighter, psionicist, wizard. It references its own rules set and constantly folds back on itself.

With C&C, I wanted to move the game back to playing 'out of game' folklore. ...

Okay, I guess I can see this. I certainly prefer the default 'folkloric base' that C&C has chosen (which is essentially the same as OAD&D) over the default 'folkloric base' of 3E D&D.

Nonetheless, the decisive factor in determining the character of any campaign is the GM. There is no reason why one could not run a 3E campaign that was very 'old school' in spirit (no crazy half-breeds and prestige classes).

My overall point is that one should not make too much of this point. There are other, more important, reasons for preferring C&C over 3E, or vice versa.

 

[MonsterMash]

Yeah, getting rid of number 4 above. Works for me. I hate how 3E has slowed down story events, because we "have" to varify every rule in every slightly or majorly new situation. By the time you get "back" to the story you need a refresher on what was happening before you took a "rules verification" break.

This and the reduced prep time are reasons I want to try out C&C.

 

[francisca]

Plus there is a great rule in the first edition DMG that every DM should remember, no matter what game they are running.

If anyone reading this has their 1E DMG handy, or still has this rule memorized, I would appreciate you quoting it for me. Essentially Gygax tells us that no matter what the rules say, we, the DM, are the final arbiter of anything that happens within the game, with an eye towards ensuring that the end result is an enjoyable game played by all. No rule supercedes the judgement of the DM, especially if the DM is ruling against the rule for the sake of running a better game.

Not really a rule, but some wonderful advice. Here are some snippets:

======
The fun of the game is action and drama. The challenge of problem solving is secondary. Long and drawn out operations by the referee irritate the players. More ”realistic” combat systems could certainly have been included here, but they have no real part in a game for a group of players having an exciting adventure. If you will do your best to keep the excitement level of your games at a peak, you will be doing yourself and your participants a favor which will be evident when players keep coming back for more.
======
The final word, then, is the game. Read how and why the system is as it is, follow the parameters, and then cut portions as needed to maintain excitement. For example, the rules call for wandering monsters, but these can be not only irritating - if not deadly - but the appearance of such can actually spoil a gome by interfering with an orderly expedition you have set up an area full of clever tricks and traps, populated it with well thought-out creature complexes, given clues about it to pique players’ interest, and the group has worked hard to supply themselves with everything by way of information and equipment they will need to face and overcome the imagined perils. They are gathered together and eager to spend an enjoyable evening playing their favorite game, with the expectation of going to a new, strange area and doing their best to triumph. They are willing to accept the hazards of the dice, be it loss of items, wounding, insanity, disease, death, as long as the process is exciting.
=====
The game is the thing, and certain rules can be distorted or disregarded altogether in favor of play.
=====
Know the game systems, and you will know how and when to take upon yourself the ultimate power. To become the final arbiter, rather than the interpreter of the rules, can be a difficult and demanding task, and it cannot be undertaken lightly, for your players expect to play this gome, not one made up on the spot. By the same token, they are playing the game the way you, their DM, imagines and creates it. Remembering that the game is greater than its parts, and knowing all of the parts, you will have overcome the greater part of the challenge of being a referee. Being a true DM requires cleverness and imagination which no set of rules books can bestow.
=====
Welcome to the exalted ranks of the overworked and harrassed, whose cleverness and imagination are all too often unappreciated by cloddish characters whose only thought in life is to loot, pillage, slay, and who fail to appreciate the hours of preparation which went into the creation of what they aim to destroy as cheaply and quickly as possible. As a DM you must live by the immortal words of the sage who said: “Never give a sucker an even break.” so, don‘t be a sucker for your players, for you‘d better be sure they follow sage advice too.

Hard for me to deny the wisdom in those words, 25+ years afterward.

edit: Text is from an OCR. Typoes are most likely not from me or Gygax, but rather the so-so OCR done by Wizards when they assembled the PDF.