Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Akrasia" data-source="post: 1803563" data-attributes="member: 23012">So I ran my first session of C&C tonight, and it went really well!   <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f600.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":D" title="Big grin    :D"  data-smilie="8"data-shortname=":D" /> I used the box set rules, which are not the complete rules.  (Among other things, they only include the "classic" four classes, whereas the final rules will have 12 classes, and they only cover character development up to level 10.)My chance to try C&C emerged because two of our regular players were away this week, so we would not have our regular (3.x D&D) session. I am the DM for that campaign (in my homebrew "Ilmahal" setting), and so proposed that we try a C&C adventure (also set in Ilmahal) rather than cancelling our session. The two available players have been involved with D&D for over 15 years (at 33 I am the oldest and most experienced, having played since 1979, but the other two people are 28 and 30, and very experienced themselves). They had played every edition. However, they also have a few differences between them: Player A prefers the role-playing and plot-based aspects of D&D, and dislikes the slowness of 3.x combat. Player A's main reason for liking 3.x is its abilty to 'customize' characters to a greater degree than was available in earlier editions (mainly through skills, but also more flexible multiclassing), and to reflect the 'growth' and 'changes' through which a character might go over time (e.g. an originally crude fighter might pick up skill ranks in diplomacy and thereby become quite charming at a later point). So player A is the 'role-player' of the two. Player B likes the combats and feats of 3.x. Although a pretty good role-player (and much better than many losers I have had to deal with in the past), and not a "min-maxer" or "power gamer", she does appreciate the "wargamey" aspects of 3.x more than myself or Player A. So I thought C&C might be a hard sell for Player B. She is the 'roll-player' of the two. Anyway, we started by creating the characters. This took less than 30 minutes -- a huge surprise to both A and B! We ended up with 4 characters (two for each player): 1. "Klarico" the LN dwarf cleric. (A) 2. "Ragu" the CG human rogue. (A) 3. "Bamm" the LG dwarf wizard. (B) 4. "Cork" the NG human fighter. (B) Klarico and Bamm are brothers; Ragu and Cork are orphans raised by the benevolent former adventurers, "The Silver Blade Triumvirate" (3 former werewolf hunters). This all makes vague sense in my campaign.  Er ... I digress ...   :\ Anyway, the adventure took us 2 hours to get through. I was not surprised that we managed to finish in 2 hours, but the other two players sure were!  Both players commented that the same adventure would have taken 4-6 hours in 3.x D&D. The adventure was great "old school" fun! I was surprised at how much the players immersed themselves in it, given that this was a distraction from the rather "crucial plot point" of the main campaign that we are at now. Afterwards, I was surprised at how positive Player B was. She commented that she was pretty "50/50" between 3.x and C&C, based on our session. She liked the fast pace and simplicity of C&C -- especially the fact that she did not have to look things up, and could find everything she needed to know by looking at her character sheet. On the other hand, she thought that the most important combat of the session would have been handled better by 3.x (and would have been more dramatic in 3.x). While she didn't have a problem with handling the "lesser combats" in the C&C style, the drama and importance of the "big conflict", in her opinion at least, lent itself better to the tactics, etc., of 3.x. Overall, her judgement was that C&C was just as good as 3.x -- there were advantages and disadvantages to both systems. Player A (unsurprisingly) was a bit more positive. Although he regretted the loss of skills (which -- unlike myself -- he thinks help to significantly individualize a character), he appreciated, massively, the much faster combats and the focus on the plot of the session (rather than attacks of opportunity, etc.). Although he remains uncertain, he did entertain thoughts of using C&C for his FR campaign (when he takes over as DM and starts his own campaign for our group in 1-2 months). At the very least, he spent several minutes thinking about a C&C/3E hybrid. As for myself, as DM (er ... "Castle Keeper" ... er ... "screen monkey"), there is no contest: C&C is awesome! Running this session was so much more fun for me (selfish person that I am  <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" /> ) than running 3.x. Nobody had to look at the rules once during the session (and this was our virgin session!). Combat was quick and dramatic, and the question "If I do x, will I provoke an attack of opportunity?" was not asked once. I am sure that some players will think that the absence of skills and a nuanced combat system are distinct disadvantages, but from the perspective of a DM who likes to keep the "story moving" -- but in a structured way -- C&C really does hit Aristotle's "golden mean" IMO. My overall verdict: C&C (boxed set) gets and "A." It accomplishes everything I want a FRPG to, and gives me plenty of room to improvise and house rule as well. (What prevents this set from getting an A+ is its occasional lack of rules coherence (esp. regarding combat).) The next time I DM my campaign "Ilmahal" with my current group, I will definitely be using C&C.   <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f60e.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":cool:" title="Cool    :cool:"  data-smilie="6"data-shortname=":cool:" /></blockquote>

Verification