How Quickly is C&C Catching on?

[Jackal42]

That's an interesting house rule for attribute modifiers. Have you thought about joining the C&CS so you can get in on the CKG talks? If nothing else I'd run over to the TLG boards and post that...assuming you don't mind the Trolls throwing it into the CKG if they choose.

As for weight carried around, that's all taken care of by encumbrance. The weight of an item is figured into its encumbrance value. So you don't ever calculate weight carried unless you're talking about how much an animal can carry around (at least so far). The encumbrance rules will ensure that you don't carry too much weight.

 

[Particle_Man]

That's an interesting house rule for attribute modifiers. Have you thought about joining the C&CS so you can get in on the CKG talks? If nothing else I'd run over to the TLG boards and post that...assuming you don't mind the Trolls throwing it into the CKG if they choose.

I have tried, seriously. I e-mailed them, etc. But they don't return my emails saying "Of COURSE you can join!" or give me the secret password. Always a bridesmaid...

Anyhow, I hereby not only give you permission, but officially deputize you to put the attribute mod. idea on the CKG section of the troll boards in my name (Alex Boston, for the nifty contributor book credit and associated egoboo).

Hmmm...I guess animal encumbrance could be simulated by giving each monster a "Base" encumbrance number (with humans, et al., that base is 8).

 

[National Acrobat]

Now, if the multi-class system is somewhat different from 1E ("best of this, best of that, average of the other") I'll be happier, but the 3E system as is well known would tend to shaft the spell-casters.

Multi-Class isn't the best of everything. You still have armor and weapon restrictions based upon your class choices. Fighter/Mages still can't wear armor if they are casting, Clerics still can't use weapons not on their list, etc. I play it that way, because it balances it out. Yeah, the Fighter/Thief in the group fights with a two-handed sword, unless he's trying to backstab.

The spellcasters still get hurt in C&C if they multiclass, because the target number for your spells still adds your level to the check, so if you are a lower level spell caster (multi-classed) going up against foes of the same xp range, your spells still will be easier to resist, not unlike the 3E mechanic. In C&C it still is better to be a single classed caster.

Also, the xp charts aren't a direct copy of 1E. Clerics for instance, need to gain as many xp as the arcanists do. Gone is the easy xp progression of the cleric and druid.

 

[Akrasia]

Viability is one thing. However, there are folks out there, yourself included (no offense) who seem to believe that C&C will take the world by storm. I'm just saying I find that incredibly unlikely.

Umm ... I have never claimed that "C&C will take the world by storm." :\ In fact, earlier in this thread (and elsewhere) I stated that C&C should be considered a success if it does as well as, say, Mongoose's Conan RPG. (Also, I think that some of the C&C supplements, e.g. the Castle Zagyg series, will do extremely well because they will appeal to gamers outside of C&C.)

Maybe that's only my personal preference, because I have little interest in, or need of, something like C&C. It seems like it's built primarily to cater to the nostalgia of gamers who didn't like the way 3e went with D&D. Seems to me like that's the constraint on the size of its market, to a large degree. Most D&D players seem to prefer 3e to any other previous edition, and many (myself included) wouldn't be playing D&D at all if it wasn't for 3e, as we had left the game entirely, frustrated with how badly designed it was.

3E brought me back to D&D as well. After DMing two (rather successful) campaigns, I have come to realize that it just does not suit my DM style at all. C&C fixes the things I didn't like about RC D&D, but without introducing the things I don't like about 3E. This is of course my personal preference -- but I think there are many other people like me.

Moreover, most gaming groups are not monolithic. In my group, for example, I am not the only GM. One of the other GMs is keen to run 3E (or rather, the Midnight version), and I am happy to play it. The third GM in our group also likes 3E, but is eager to try some alternative systems like Ars Magica and Burning Wheel. And aside from C&C, I am keen to run a minicampaign for Angel/Buffy.

Many people in this thread have expressed interest in using C&C for an occasional 'pick up' or 'beer and pretzel' game, while sticking to 3E for their 'main' campaigns.

In short, C&C might appeal to may gamers who will not convert 'wholesale' to the system.

Now, I know that C&C isn't just the nostalgia angle. Seems to me, though, that that's its main marketing schtick, and the majority of players who like it seem to be much more "old skool" in their preferences.

I agree that TLG needs to emphasize the 'rules light' and 'modular' aspects of C&C more (apparently they do this, with some success, at conventions). Perhaps future advertising will be along these lines.

 

[Akrasia]

For what it is worth, since C&C's ease of introducing house rules is one of its strengths, here is my house rule:

Races with ability adjustments don't adjust the ability: they adjust the ability modifier. ....

I like this idea. Did you play MERP back in the day by any chance? (The same rule was used there.)

 

[RFisher]

If I want a 7th level Kobold Assassin in either of my C&C campaigns I can make one in 5 minutes. I'll just use the stats from the 3.5 MM give him 3 feats (we use feats in my campaigns) and some logical gear. Done.

5 minutes is a long time.

I'll just note that he operates as a 7th level assassin. When attribute scores become important, I'll make them up on the fly: Since he's a kobold, I'll give him low enough Str, Con, & Cha for a -1 mod for each. Since he's an assassin, I'll give him a high enough Dex for a +1 mod. I'll leave Int & Wis in the zero mod range.

Of course, if he's suppossed to be the world's greatest kobold assassin, perhaps I'd give him an 18 Dex instead.

Gear will be made up on-the-fly as needed. (When he attacks, I'll decide what weapon I think he'd have. When he is attacked, I'll decide what armor & AC I think he'd have. When the PCs search his body, I'll decide what other stuff I think he'd have.)

You don't need rules to make monsters interesting. You just have to realize that the monsters stats in the rules are only examples. Plus they give you a starting point from which to tweak in order to create unique individuals with no effort.

 

[Particle_Man]

I like this idea. Did you play MERP back in the day by any chance? (The same rule was used there.)

Naw, though I dimly remember seeing things for Arms Law, Claw Law, the Iron Wind, in old (OLD!) dragon magazine advertisements, and I did buy HARP recently. But this idea was just something I came up with to stop min/maxers (frankly, if I don't watch myself I tend to min/max, so it's a concern I look out for when I might run a game).

Personally, I am happy with C&C although I am waiting to see what they do with the M&T. I am also trying to figure out modifying the Warlock for C&C (what to tone down, what to leave in), and also maybe Arthurian Adventures: Legends of Excalibur (although maybe not the latter - I am dming it right now and my players might revolt on me if I do a mid-campaign massive rules changes).

I think illusion adjudication needs a bit of work, but I think that about every gaming system I have ever come across that uses illusions. I swear, someday I will write up something on this. Maybe not for a particular game system, but something that breaks down illusions into various components and effects (hallucination/hologram, what "partially real" amounts to, whether one person disbelieving it successfully influences what another person sees, illusions of various senses, how easy it is for spellcasters to detect illusions, etc., etc., oh god etc., and then allows the game master to build up exactly what works for them. An illusions encyclopedia/toolkit. But that is a topic for another thread.

I think it will catch on, but unless it is marketed more agressively, it will not catch on that quickly. Word of mouth only goes so far.

As for whether C&C will catch on more quickly than word of mouth would warrant, well, I think a lot of it will come down to FLGSs wanting to risk it or not. I mean, word of mouth is good, but for a lot of new gamers, if it ain't in the store, then they won't even know it exists. So while I think the product is solid, a big factor will be how well this product is marketed. Trolllord games could perhaps sell the book in non-standard places, like Wallmart, Big bookstores, Big Grocery/Drug Stores (which often have small book sections), etc. It is inexpensive, and that is an advantage, but people have to know about the product to take advantage of this.

But measures of success are relative. On one level, I think that Trolllord Games will make a profit on C&C (that is, they will make more money than their expenses amount to, including salaries for their employees). On another level, it certainly won't overtake D&D (and no one thinks it would or could). If there is a standard of "success" that fits in-between these two points, that standard needs to be defined before we can talk about whether or not C&C will be a "success".

 

[RFisher]

I understand your point of view, Moogle. (Indeed, I held similar views in the past.) There are people, however, who find many of the things you find inelegant to be elegant. It's not only nostaglia. It's also different criteria.

I don't think C&C is for you.

 

[Breakdaddy]

I understand your point of view, Moogle. (Indeed, I held similar views in the past.) There are people, however, who find many of the things you find inelegant to be elegant. It's not only nostaglia. It's also different criteria.

This is a good way to look at it. I find the piles and piles of rules in 3.x to be terribly inelegant (functional, however anything but elegant).

 

[Desdichado]

Umm ... I have never claimed that "C&C will take the world by storm." :\ In fact, earlier in this thread (and elsewhere) I stated that C&C should be considered a success if it does as well as, say, Mongoose's Conan RPG.

Now, Akrasia, don't go confusing what you actually said with my vague impressions of your taste from some thread you posted in in Novemer or something like that.