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

I do agree that any GM can take any game and run any genre they choose and reference any folklore they choose. 3e is ammenable to this as are Hackmaster, Rolemaster, Runequest and others. Much of it comes down to the language used and management of encounters, settings and characters. I personally think fewer rules allows for easier adoption of genres. On the other hand, I can also see that too few rules can restrict or overly tax someone trying to run certain types of games.

But, overall, I think Akrasia hits the nail on the head as for what C&C has going for it. Perhaps that will be our add line for retailers (can we borrow that?).

Davis
 

log in or register to remove this ad

cleaverthepit said:
... But, overall, I think Akrasia hits the nail on the head as for what C&C has going for it. Perhaps that will be our add line for retailers (can we borrow that?).

Davis

Sure, go ahead. :cool: (You guys need all the help you can get, LOL.)
 

Akrasia said:
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.

Actually, I never expected so many responses to the thread. I forgot how many people online are interested in C&C.

I don't think it's a major point at all - just an interesting one. Like I said, the influence is small, and can certainly be avoided by a good CK/DM. My point was just, "hey, look at this - I think it's a valid point that no-one has raised before."

A lot of the important points - the four major benefits you listed - have been covered before. I thought I'd contribute something relatively trivial, but interesting.
 

Mythmere1 said:
... I don't think it's a major point at all - just an interesting one. Like I said, the influence is small, and can certainly be avoided by a good CK/DM. My point was just, "hey, look at this - I think it's a valid point that no-one has raised before." ...

Okay, I agree with that.

Keep in mind that a thread that makes a 'modest point' is generally interpreted by others as making a 'major point' (since it is a new thread).

But I like the feel, or 'default folkore', of C&C. You will get no argument from me on that point.
 

While combat goes fairly quickly in our C&C games, it can sometimes feel like digging a hole in the desert. We fought some giants with a lot of hit points and as I burned through my spells, the ranger, paladin, and cleric beat them down, blow after blow. The giants hit us back. And then we hit them. And then they hit us back. And then we hit them.

3e combats take longer but are more interesting (or can be). If you restricted 3e combat to attack and move actions, they would also go quickly.

And in reference to Mythmere's comment about how much combat a 10th level character would have seen... I have trouble conceiving of enough combat to get to 10th level from 1st level. My mind boggles.

Bolie IV
 

Treebore your points are well taken...more generally, AD&D put a lot in the DMs hands, be it for better or worse. I think a lot of C&C "nostalgia" may be coming from that. maybe.

cleaverthepit thanks for posting, it is always great to have the "inside" point of view! And you are right, D&D in 3.0 and especially 3.5 has become very self- referential, to the point of being a problem. But yes, the DM can mitigate that.

and mythmere1 you also made a point about AD&D and as the various age/time gaming poles on the front page make pretty clear, a lot of EnWorlders played that game, and may have opinions on it
 


Very interesting post Mythmere, some interesting analysis. I agree that WotC's corporate focus on player-vs-player has created a very different feel for 3e than earlier editions. My problem with default 3e is that it leaves the GM in a weird limbo, bound by player-oriented rules (like "legal" stat builds) but with a role that is very far from the traditional adversarial role of 'just another player' in a card, war or board game.
 



Remove ads

Top