Giving C&C another look

[Reynard]

After spending a good portion of the day reading the PHB and M&T, I have come away with a few impressions:

1) Troll Lord needs copy editors, and badly.

2) While they turned me off the first go around, I kind of like the whole Prime/Not Prime thing.

3) Ultimately, though, other than the benefit of being able to convince 1E haters/d20 lovers to give old skool gaminga go, I just don't se where C&C does things that I can't do with my 1E book, Role Aids supplements and, for new goodness, Dragonsfoot and OSRIC resources. That isn't really a dig on C&C -- I like it a lot more this time around -- but as I started to consider switching my 1E ToEE capaign to it, I kept coming up against the big "Why?" Maybe if I was distressed about the wonkiness of 1E's collection of subsystems, it'd be different, but I am not -- that's part of the charm, IMO.

That isn't to say I won't try and run C&C with the "anti-1E" group, as it is the closest thing I am likely to get to running 1E with them, but all things being equal, I don't feel C&C offers anything that 1E doesn't.

If I am missing something, or you think I am just plain wrong in that assessment, please feel free to share.

 

[Treebore]

C&C does offer a lot, but if your going to run it anyways, thats the best way for you to see how it does it. As you figure out how to use the SIEGE engine. Then, when you see how easy it is to use stuff from any edition, and how incredibly flexible the SIEGE and Prime/non-Prime thing is, you'll love it and ask yourself why to go back to the overly complex 1E system.

Don't get me wrong, 1E is still good, and fun. But I like just using a d20, and damage dice. I like being able to look at all of my modules, from OD&D to 3E, and soon to be 4E, and know I can easily run them with no conversion notes.

Heck, I am almost done running DCC 18 Citadel of the Demon Prince for my 12th Lvl C&C group. No notes.

So you may fall in love with C&C yet. Or not. It definitely isn't for everyone.

 

[JoeGKushner]

If anyone else is interested in it, I have the revised PHB and the monsters and treasures book that I'd be willing to media mail for $25 to a US address.

 

[Dragon-Slayer]

I have found that dropping classes and levels and yet keeping the old time feeling works well with Iron Gauntlets. Characters never gain unrealistic amounts of hit points or end up trying to level up all the time. C&C isn't a bad game either (and I do run it), but it does have a few of the handicaps that continue to plague D&D.

Gary Gygax started the ball rolling with a good idea, which was almost immediately made obsolete by better games. There have been so many improvements over the years by other systems I find it hard to believe that I bought back into D&D with 3E at all.

 

[Uder]

Better yet, TLG just started a buy-one-get-one on most of their product line. PHB & M&T (newest printings) for just 19.95+shipping.

 

[Reynard]

I have found that dropping classes and levels and yet keeping the old time feeling works well with Iron Gauntlets. Characters never gain unrealistic amounts of hit points or end up trying to level up all the time. C&C isn't a bad game either (and I do run it), but it does have a few of the handicaps that continue to plague D&D.

Gary Gygax started the ball rolling with a good idea, which was almost immediately made obsolete by better games. There have been so many improvements over the years by other systems I find it hard to believe that I bought back into D&D with 3E at all.

Did you get the impression that this thread was somehow levelled against all the wonderful tropes that "plague" D&D, in all its forms? because, if so, you might want to read through it again.

 

[SavageRobby]

On first blush, it seems like actions are really easy for PCs, especially when attempting a Prime action -- stat bonus + level vs. 12 means a pretty good chance of success. that's not a bad thing necessarily, but it is a little different than the "try and try again" aspect of 1E AD&D.

Keep in mind that the book says to only roll when success is in doubt. For example, Rangers are supposed to be able to track well, so I don't make a PC Ranger make a SIEGE check to track an orc back to its lair, unless there is something special happening (rain or other elements, rocky terrain, the orc taking pains not to be tracked, etc).

Also keep in mind you can assign additional difficulty to the task, if its something that only a higher level person could attempt. So when that 12 suddenly becomes an 18-20, even with levels and stat bonuses the outcome becomes more variable.

3) Ultimately, though, other than the benefit of being able to convince 1E haters/d20 lovers to give old skool gaminga go, I just don't se where C&C does things that I can't do with my 1E book, Role Aids supplements and, for new goodness, Dragonsfoot and OSRIC resources. That isn't really a dig on C&C -- I like it a lot more this time around -- but as I started to consider switching my 1E ToEE capaign to it, I kept coming up against the big "Why?" Maybe if I was distressed about the wonkiness of 1E's collection of subsystems, it'd be different, but I am not -- that's part of the charm, IMO.

If you like 1e multitude of charts and subsystems, there is no real reason to switch. I still love 1e, but play C&C because:

1) It doesn't have all the subsystems, and I like the unified modern mechanic for resolution (the SIEGE engine)
2) The combat round/system is cleaner, and I like the shorter rounds
3) I like most of the changes made to the base classes (Rangers and Bards w/out spells, etc)
4) IMO, the balancing points are more evident in C&C, and so its easier to modify (and I feel less heretical)

If those aren't your (or your players) cup of tea, then Why Switch? is a pretty darn good question.

 

[Dragon-Slayer]

Did you get the impression that this thread was somehow levelled against all the wonderful tropes that "plague" D&D, in all its forms? because, if so, you might want to read through it again.

Tropes, no, nonsensical rules, yes. I had set down and read through the 1E PHB and DMG the other day, really reading the rules as I hadn't in years, and I wonder upon reflection why I ever played that game (other than being in my teens at the time they were released). Some of the weirdness has been dropped over the years and the OGL movement did launch countless companies that have produced a lot of great material.

The tropes of DnD/AD&D are hardly original, being taken from many and varied sources (many far beyond the often mentioned Tolkien and Robert E. Howard) and many have stood the test of time.

My apologies if you thought I was attacking the tropes, I just find the D&D ruleset to be wonky in its various incarnations.

 

[Dragonhelm]

1) It doesn't have all the subsystems, and I like the unified modern mechanic for resolution (the SIEGE engine)
2) The combat round/system is cleaner, and I like the shorter rounds

Agreed and agreed. I like the basic d20-esque mechanic, and combat is more of the way I like it. It's very flexible.

3) I like most of the changes made to the base classes (Rangers and Bards w/out spells, etc)

It's funny, because I like the ranger without spells, but not so much the bard. Probably because I play in Dragonlance and feel that bards should gain divine spellsongs from Branchala. I may use Monte Cook's variant bard to represent that.

4) IMO, the balancing points are more evident in C&C, and so its easier to modify (and I feel less heretical)

I do agree that C&C is easy to modify, and I too feel less heretical for making modifications (is that due to peer pressure?). I'm not sure if the balancing points are more evident or not. Can you clarify?

 

[Philotomy Jurament]

I agree that it boils down to taste. My comments below aren't meant as rebuttals or argument, just as my perspective and experience.

1) It doesn't have all the subsystems, and I like the unified modern mechanic for resolution (the SIEGE engine)

I've become less enamored with unified mechanics, in general. Sometimes, a separate subsystem models the concept better, IMO. And the subsystems in older editions of D&D are pretty simple, in any case. (RFisher's thoughts on this pretty much sum it up, for me, too.)

Addressing the SIEGE engine, in particular, I think it's a good mechanic, but found that I didn't like its application in certain areas (e.g. surprise, saving throws); I house-ruled it away, in those situations. I also found that I was using it less-and-less for general ability checks; many actions simply didn't require a roll, IMO. When actions do require a roll, I find it just as easy to think about the chance in percentage terms, and call for a die roll that way. The SIEGE engine is one of C&C bigs strengths, but I slowly found myself in the position where it didn't really offer me any big advantages.

2) The combat round/system is cleaner, and I like the shorter rounds

The combat reminds me of a cross of 2E and B/X. It's pretty nice. And I, too, prefer the shorter round. However, there are also things I missed (e.g. rates of fire for missiles, etc). I've ended up adopting a combat sequence dervied from OD&D's Swords & Spells rules. I've tried it out with OD&D, C&C, and AD&D, and it integrates well with all of them (unsurprisingly). Since I'm using the house ruled sequence for any of these systems, the question of BTB combat is a wash, for me.

For those interested, here's the system I'm using:
Full version (detailed, uses minis)
Simple version (simplified/lighter)
Initiative & the Combat Sequence
Movement in Combat

3) I like most of the changes made to the base classes (Rangers and Bards w/out spells, etc)

I prefer the 1E Ranger, but I like the C&C Bard. I also like the idea of using the Rune rules from the 2E HR1 Vikings supplement for Bards. On the issue of classes, though, I think C&C and AD&D classes are pretty darn close. In fact, I think you could use 1E classes in C&C or C&C classes in 1E without much trouble.

4) IMO, the balancing points are more evident in C&C, and so its easier to modify (and I feel less heretical)

I'm not sure what you mean by balancing points. C&C definitely lends itself to house-ruling, though. In fact, it seems to encourage it. It reminds me of OD&D, in that respect.

If those aren't your (or your players) cup of tea, then Why Switch? is a pretty darn good question.

To my mind, C&C is kind of a via media of D&D. It's the middle road, from which you can easily pull in elements from various editions, house rule and tweak, et cetera. I think that's a huge strength, and also the reason it seems to draw fire from both ends of the "D&D spectrum" (i.e. many old-school fans find it too much like 3E, and many 3E fans find it too much like earlier editions). I think it's an excellent choice for situations like Reynard's, where you have some players who aren't comfortable going with AD&D, but are willing to give C&C a try. And it's a good fit for anyone else that likes the "via media" position of the system, on its own merits.

I loved C&C when I first start playing it (coming directly from 3E). I still like it; it's a good system. However, as time has gone on, I've found myself house-ruling my C&C games (I'm currently running two of them) to be more and more like the earlier editions, and at this point I'd no longer consider it my main game (OD&D has usurped that position).

YMMV, as always.