How Quickly is C&C Catching on?

[Numion]

C&C is not designed to allow you to easily import ideas from other games. C&C does. That makes it a far more powerful system than 3E to me.

Yes, I realize that 3E can be as simple as I want it to be, I realize I can adapt anything I want to fit into the 3E rules set, but C&C is DESIGNED to make the simplification inherent and to minimize the work/effort of converting ideas. At least ideas I want to steal from any old edition of D&D, 3E, or Hackmaster.

Surely with the thousands of different rules modifications and additional materials for D&D (in form of d20), you're not hinting that D&D wasn't easily modified? I'd say adapting stuff for 3e is not only easy, but has been done in a scale far more massive than with C&C.

I've heard the argument that due to it's interconnectedness the 3e rules can't be modified without chaos and anarchy, many times, but I've never seen it. I've modified 3e, others have too, and there's never been much problems. But people still like to argue that

As for those of you who seem to think us old time gamers are waxing nostalgic, maybe you should consider the possibility that because we have played for so long, with many different systems, that we may actually know a good thing when we see it.

I wouldn't consider myself a noob exactly, either.

 

[Akrasia]

....
I've heard the argument that due to it's interconnectedness the 3e rules can't be modified without chaos and anarchy, many times, but I've never seen it. I've modified 3e, others have too, and there's never been much problems. But people still like to argue that
....

Allow me to end your confusion.

While altering certain aspects of the 3e rules (e.g. modifying feats, adding new feats, modifying skills, introducing new prestige classes, using a somewhat different spell system, etc.) might be relatively easy (though of course it is worth noting the endless threads over at the WotC boards concerning how different feats, spells, etc. are 'broken'), altering fundamental aspects of 3e is not.

Try removing feats wholesale. Or skills. Or try radically streamlining the combat system. Fundamental changes like those require serious work.

In contrast, with C&C, you start with a very simple structure that allows you to 'build up' as you like. For example, the C&C rules enable you to add skills but not feats (if that is what you want for your game) without too much trouble. It is designed to be modular in this way.

Finally, I don't understand why you seem so snarky/antagonistic with respect to C&C. It is clear that this game is not your cup of tea. Fine. No one is heading over to Finland to force you to change your game.
:\

 

[Numion]

While altering certain aspects of the 3e rules (e.g. modifying feats, adding new feats, modifying skills, introducing new prestige classes, using a somewhat different spell system, etc.) might be relatively easy (though of course it is worth noting the endless threads over at the WotC boards concerning how different feats, spells, etc. are 'broken'), altering fundamental aspects of 3e is not.

Try removing feats wholesale. Or skills. Or try radically streamlining the combat system. Fundamental changes like those require serious work.

In contrast, with C&C, you start with a very simple structure that allows you to 'build up' as you like. For example, the C&C rules enable you to add skills but not feats (if that is what you want for your game) without too much trouble. It is designed to be modular in this way.

Removing aspects from 3e wouldn't require any more work than adding those aspects to another game, in my experience. Fast skilless system would be just to say (in booming DM voice) "No skills anymore! Everything is vs. DC 15 ability checks, only thieves can do thiefy stuff and wizards wizardly stuff. Anything that modified skills, now modifies these checks, and anything affected by skills is now affected by these checks", with the DM deciding on the spot the approppriate ability and either +2 or -2 for situation.

But then again, I've always been good at avoiding serious work, just like now, posting this from work Now, people might argue that my solution isn't balanced, but since we're arguing about a system for professionals, it shouldn't be a problem (ie nothing that good dm adjudication cant fix).

Finally, I don't understand why you seem so snarky/antagonistic with respect to C&C. It is clear that this game is not your cup of tea. Fine. No one is heading over to Finland to force you to change your game.
:\

Obviously 3e is not your cup of tea .. why hang out arguing about it on a 3e forum? :\

 

[Jupp]

AFAIK this forum here is called "General RPG Discussion"

 

[Numion]

AFAIK this forum here is called "General RPG Discussion"

Yep, but EN World is traditionally heavy on the 3e players, so if one was inclined to avoid confrontation with C&C vs. 3e threads, maybe this isn't the best place (this thread became a 'vs' thread long before I joined in).

 

[Akrasia]

Removing aspects from 3e wouldn't require any more work than adding those aspects to another game, in my experience. ...

Then your experience has been very special, and appears to fly in the face of that of most people in radically altering 3e.

The core elements of 3e -- feats, skills, etc. -- are all interdependent. As I patiently explained earlier with my economics analogy, it is far harder to remove things from a complex model with many interdependent variables than it is to add things to a simple model with fewer variables.

Amazingly, your assertions to the contrary have failed to convince me otherwise.

Fast skilless system would be just to say (in booming DM voice) "No skills anymore! Everything is vs. DC 15 ability checks, only thieves can do thiefy stuff and wizards wizardly stuff. Anything that modified skills, now modifies these checks, and anything affected by skills is now affected by these checks", with the DM deciding on the spot the approppriate ability and either +2 or -2 for situation.

Right ... and this wouldn't have all kinds of unintended consequences on how the game runs.

... since we're arguing about a system for professionals, it shouldn't be a problem ...

Huh? Well maybe this is where the confusion lies, then. C&C is meant to be a game for the nonprofessionals to tweak and modify.

Obviously 3e is not your cup of tea .. why hang out arguing about it on a 3e forum? :\

Are you always this snarky, or did you just step on a d4 today? :\

I wouldn't say that 3e 'is not my cup of tea', having run two 3e campaigns, and looking forward to playing in a 3e Midnight campaign in the near future.

I now prefer to DM C&C, but I am happy to play 3e.

In any case, there is discussion about many non 3e games on these boards. And C&C draws on the OGL, so it is perfectly legitimate to for me to hang out here.

Judging by the fact that this thread is already on its 9th page after only a couple of days, others here seem to be interested in C&C as well.

Sorry, but your "my way or the highway" attitude just plain reeks.

 

[Akrasia]

... Will a large community of C&C elitists emerge? Will C&C be the Macintosh to the bloated, buggy, yet infinitely popular Windows 3.5 ? ....

*Chuckle*

 

[Numion]

Right ... and this wouldn't have all kinds of unintended consequences on how the game runs.

And this is where the argument always stops . . just short of telling me what the awful consequences would be. My assertation would be that with the right DM there would be none, or negligible. You have failed to prove otherwise. I'm not saying my 30 second modification would suit everyone - but I could run a game like that with few difficulties.

Huh? Well maybe this is where the confusion lies, then. C&C is meant to be a game for the nonprofessionals to tweak and modify.

Didn't the Troll Lord guy just say ..

Steve did not want to go down the advertising/marketing raod we currently find ourselves travelling. He wanted "Castles & Crusades: For the Professional Gamer" or some such. In retrospect, he may have had a better idea.

Are you always this snarky, or did you just step on a d4 today? :\

I wasn't that snarky .. on Dragonsfoot scale, I was maybe 1.3/10 hostile to a system thats not the favorite on the forum

Sorry, but your "my way or the highway" attitude just plain reeks.

No need to apologize. I didn't say you're not allowed here; I questioned the wisdom of C&C vs. D&D arguments on 3e majority boards, and said that you'd find less objections to C&C vs. D&D arguments on C&C boards, or at least thats what I tried to say. Welcome to stay, of course, it's just that people come here from time to time trying to sell their favorite game with 3e's shortcomings, or defining the game on how its not D&D. (1st GURPS, then HARP, now you, etc..) Gets a bit tiring after a while.

 

[Henry]

I don't want to get into a "system war" argument, so I'll be brief: If someone does not have anything to contribute to a discussion of the merits or flaws of C&C, please don't post in this thread. There's plenty of other 3E and 3.5 threads to go around.

Second, this really belongs in the d20 & OGL Systems forum, given its current direction, so I'll slide it over there.

 

[Akrasia]

And this is where the argument always stops . . just short of telling me what the awful consequences would be. My assertation would be that with the right DM there would be none, or negligible. You have failed to prove otherwise. I'm not saying my 30 second modification would suit everyone - but I could run a game like that with few difficulties.....

I agree that with the right DM -- i.e. one willing to improvise and hand-wave at the appropriate times -- your changes would be fine.

But one thing that people always say is a great strength of 3e is that all the rules, etc. are balanced, etc., and so there is little need for 'DM fiat' or ad hoc rulings, etc.

Personally, I am happy to rely on a large amount of DM discretion. But this is normally not presented as one of the 'selling points' of 3e.

Didn't the Troll Lord guy just say ..
....

Yes he said that, and I think that advertising C&C as the game 'for professionals' would be ridiculous. I am glad they did not go this route. It runs contrary to the 'rules light' character of the game, and one of its main selling points.

Listening Trolls?!

I wasn't that snarky .. on Dragonsfoot scale, I was maybe 1.3/10 hostile to a system thats not the favorite on the forum ....

Dragonsfoot has been much friendlier ever since they got rid of the 'Edition Wars' stuff. Positively cuddly over the past year or so.

... I questioned the wisdom of C&C vs. D&D arguments on 3e majority boards ....

C&C draws (heavily!) on all editions of D&D -- including the OGL. Moreover, it is broadly compatible with all editions of D&D (including 3E).

So comparisons with 3E are going to be inevitable -- for the sake of explanation, if nothing else. Of course, to some extent this will involve trumping certain virtues of C&C relative to 3E.

IMO C&C and 3E both have different sets of virtues and vices. The virtues of C&C include: it has a simple structure; it is very modular; it requires little prep time; it plays quickly (so you can get through a full adventure in a 4 hour session); and it has a certain 'old school' charm. The virtues of 3E: it has a complex structure (thereby giving you all kinds of detail); it allows for a great degree of customization of PCs, NPCs, and even monsters; it provides detailed tactical combat that can almost be a game in itself; and there are tonnes of d20 material out there that you can draw upon to customize your game.

Some people will prefer one system over the other. Both games are played in my group.