Well, I don't usually post on this subject, but that's partly because I am a satisfied (mostly satisfied) consumer. I wanted a game of simplicity, and a game that relied on clear, separated archetypes. For that reason, C&C was a very good base... and of course, I added my house rules and modifications to personalize the basics.
Re: der kluge's post -- I can understand that sentiment; however, it is also a matter of taste. I, for example, never liked specialist mages, and still consider the integration of the illusionist and the druid into the wizard and the cleric, respectively, one of the most serious mistakes of 2nd edition. The illusionist, for example, is a very good class to emulate the various magic-users found in REH's Conan tales. Playing an illusionist is very different from playing a straight wizard, just like playing a paladin is different from playing a fighter. An illusionist has to use more guile, but may be more effective under specific circumstances. These different tactics help to separate the different classes, presenting a clear play style for each. A paladin isn't just a fighter who can use clerical spells and smite evildoers, he is a champion of good and virtue.
Also, it is refreshing to just roll up a character instead of having to "build" it. Especially as a DM who has to have dozens of ready NPCs, often at a moment's notice. My chaotic refereeing style, which relies heavily on improvisation, benefits from the ease in NPC construction.... and C&C is very good in this area.
