Acid_crash
First Post
jstater said:
When you get the Feats converted and the PrC converted to C&C, would it be possible for me to get a copy of your notes to use? Both of your reasons are reasons that I am leaning towards C&C myself.
-
NOW LIVE! Into the Woods--new character species, eerie monsters, and haunting villains to populate the woodlands of your D&D games.
How Quickly is C&C Catching on?
- Thread starter Mythmere1
- Start date
When you get the Feats converted and the PrC converted to C&C, would it be possible for me to get a copy of your notes to use? Both of your reasons are reasons that I am leaning towards C&C myself.
Krieg
First Post
Akrasia said:
Where exactly are you getting your information that it merely claims to be all the rules players only need to play?
The following quotes are from Troll Lord's website:
Where exactly does it state that it only has the rules for players?
JRRNeiklot said:
Hmmm...
Nope no appeals to nostalgia there. :\
While I don't really agree with Joshua's criticisms I wish that C&C's self appointed proselytizers would be a bit less disingenuous.
From the beginning C&C's designers have stated that it is primarily targeted for the OD&D/AD&D players who felt that 3.x was needlessly complex. Yes nostalgia for the "old days" is a large part of that demographic.
That is not necessarily a bad thing, it does not mean that the "new" D&D is better nor does it mean that the "old" D&D's only value is nostalgia.
Virtually every advertizing blurb for C&C has implied that it is a complete RPG in and of itself.
While that is probably more a bit of poorly worded advertizing on the part of Troll Lords rather than intentional deception, it is an undeniable fact.
That does not mean that it is a non viable game nor does it mean that Troll Lords failed in their mission.
The Orthodoxy wars get really old after awhile.
Last edited:
(Psi)SeveredHead
Adventurer
JRRNeiklot said:
You're contradicting yourself. Sure no one stole your account?
Do you think using the old mechanics are good or not? You might as well post reasons for why you think each mechanic is good and which is not.
What sort of mechanics did 3e fix that it shouldn't have fixed?
IMO, C&C's main strength is it's innovative use of saving throws. (Ok, maybe not so innovative, but IMO better than more mainstream D20). And, of course, possibly the biggest selling point, that you can write creature and NPC stats many times faster.
IMO it's biggest weaknesses are less important ability scores, differential XP charts (that makes things more complicated!), no feats and monsters not having Con. I can deal with monster stats being less defined, but oh please no more 2e glass ninja monsters!
At least some of these weaknesses can be dealt with house ruling (since the system does support this).
I don't know how the system handles magic item value per level and CR assumptions. Both of these are very important to me. If it's anything like 1e/2e, there will either be less expected treasure (woot!) or no guidelines for treasure (boo!). The way it handles skills are also very important to me, but for some reason my brain shuts down anytime I look at the skills discussions
Wow, I wrote a pretty negative review there - of course, I don't have the product itself, so take it with an enormous helping of salt. It's probably just not for me.
Acid_crash
First Post
I think the one nail C&C has in its coffin regarding multiclassing is its Prime system. I love the Prime system, makes things really easy, but I think this is the restricting force against good multiclassing rules.
From what I understand, each person gets one Prime from their class and another Prime of their choice. Humans get a third Prime. Am I right?
If so, and if the only way to get into a class is to have its primary ability score a Prime for your character, than as you gain levels you will be pretty restricted in what classes you can multiclass into. Not as bad for humans, but that does make sense since humans are the most versatile race in the game.
From what I understand, each person gets one Prime from their class and another Prime of their choice. Humans get a third Prime. Am I right?
If so, and if the only way to get into a class is to have its primary ability score a Prime for your character, than as you gain levels you will be pretty restricted in what classes you can multiclass into. Not as bad for humans, but that does make sense since humans are the most versatile race in the game.
Acid_crash said:
I don't think the Prime system is a nail in the coffin - as you say, it makes things really easy. But I agree with you that if the system doesn't offer a good multiclassing system - especially when the system has already cut down player options significantly - then the system will have serious trouble catching on outside of the grognard set. As one of the C&C convert-fanatics, I'm waiting to see how the multiclassing system works. If it's like the way you've said (restricted to a player's prime attributes), then I think it will work pretty well. Humans have 3 of 6 attributes as primes, and non-humans have 2 of 6.
I think that's flexible enough to work - waiting to see what the final results are.
JRRNeiklot
First Post
(Psi)SeveredHead said:
Where did I contradict myself? To clarify, I think the older mechanics of multiclassing (which C&C lacks, but will undoubtedly be similar to OAD&D) are much preferrable to 3e's system. The lack of skills, feats, and prestige classes is also a plus. AOOS, rogues who stomp fighter's butts , attributes in the 40s and ac in the 60s all are things 3e introduced that I can't stand.
Now, don't get me wrong, I jumped on the 3e bandwagon before it ever came out, and I happily played it for a while, but the hour long combats just completely turned me off of 3e.
I have ran some encounters in both systems - 3e, and C&C, and C&C gets it done in half the time - at worst.
Now, I know some will say I'm yet again bringing up the bad parts (imo) of 3e and yet saying nothing of what's so great about C&C. But they are one and the same to me. That's not to say I don't wish those of you playing 3e loads of fun, I hope you have a blast. I just would rather sit through an insurance seminar than DM another session of 3e.
Now I've gotten completely off track in this post, sigh.
I'm waiting until the GM book is out since it will have the errata and multiclassing rules (there's some old school flavor for you.)Breakdaddy said:Is anyone else here beginning to get the sneaking feeling that DMScott feels that C&C is incomplete and won't like it no matter what is said?
Lets stop beating this particular dead horse, folks. Nobody is going to convince the C&C players that C&C sucks based on their perceptions that the game is incomplete. By the same token, nobody is going to convince people that are ardently opposed to C&C that it is a good or even remotely noteworthy system. Who cares? Does anyone have any more good stuff to add about C&C or is this thread now only about being the 500 lbs bully and smacking the other guy around with the biggest version of your rulebook of choice?
For my two cents, I prefer multiclassing the 3.0 way. It always seemed to me that it was backwards in previous editions. The flexible humans should have been able to dabble in two classes at once and the demi-humans should have been dual classing ... sort of creates natural class caps anyway.
Akrasia
Procrastinator
Krieg said:
Well, since those blurbs are about the player's book (the PHB), I guess I read them as addressing players.
But you are right that they are vague, and so could lead people to think that the PHB is more like the Rules Cyclopedia than the traditional AD&D/D&D Players' Handbook.
(Although, of course, one could run a complete C&C campaign with the PHB -- and just have the party fight NPCs! Or use the free monster download as well, and never buy anything else. Or the free SRD. But yes, the PHB does not cover monsters...
)Frankly, I would have preferred it if TLG had gone the RC route, and produced a larger (though no doubt more expensive) 'all-in-one' book.
But the fact that the PHB follows the AD&D and 3E tradition does not mean that it is not a 'viable' game, or that it is merely a 'fad' product.
In any case, given how inexpensive the PHB is ($20 for a well bound hardback book), it is a great deal. The Monsters and Treasures book will be $20 as well. That means the entire (complete) system will be around $40. (Since the CKG will be purely optional.) Most 3E books cost almost that much now ($30-40 range), and the main 'stand alone' OGL fantasy game aside from D&D, Mongoose's Conan RPG, costs $50 (for one book).
Krieg said:
While nostalgia might be part of the appeal of C&C, what I object to (and, I assume, other fans of the system as well) is the idea that it is the game's only or primary appeal.
'Nostalgia' is not a necessary condition -- and certainly not a sufficient condition -- for liking the C&C system. That the fact that is resembles 'old school' D&D will appeal to some players is undeniable. But the game is more than some kind of 'Return to ... X' one-short gimmick.
A person could have never played any version of pre-3E D&D, and still like the system.
Last edited:
Jackal42
First Post
Krieg, like many, you're reading those statements wrong. As Akrasia pointed out they were directed at players for the most part. However, the phb does indeed have all you need to get started on your campaigns. The ads don't say it's everything you'll ever need...just all you need to get started and that's very much the case. The only thing left out (monsters) was because they had no choice (either up the price or drop the monsters). So they left the price the same and gave you the monsters for free. And I can't see how anyone can complain that they got something for free. But the phb is certainly as advertised. The problem comes in for those who were reading a lot more into those statements than was ever there.
Joshua Dyal, I'd also like to address your statement which reads...
"That's cute, but not particularly insightful. A game that harks back to the RC is hardly equivalent to your cute little analogy, because it’s an outdated (and, in my opinion) outclassed and obsolete rule system. If you're trying to say that I'm wrong and C&C isn't an old school rule set resembling a RC/d20 hybrid, then say so, and maybe you can find some specific examples while your at it."
First of all, the idea that the RC (or any OOP game, D&D or otherwise) is "outdated outclassed and obsolete..." is foolish in the extreme. Outclassed is an opinion so I can't (and will not) argue with that. If you feel it's outclassed no worries. However, outdated and obsolete are so ridiculous as to be laughable. Which is easily proved by the large amount of players each game still has (old AND new so don't give me that crusty old grognards still hanging on junk).
As I've said in the past, I don't care which game people enjoy and I don't care if they hate everything about C&C. I'm very much of the mind that everybody should play what they want and leave everybody else the heck alone. The only thing that gets my goat is the ignorant thought process which states if it's OOP then it's outdated or obsolete. Taking that statement further and saying that games which think old school ideals (more GM control, etc) are nothing but nostalgia products because they are using "outdated" or "obsolete" ideas is even more ridiculous. Especially in the case of C&C which is at least 50% modern style and new mechanical content.
I also notice nobody bothered to argue with my earlier post on the subject so to make it easier for you...I'll repost much of it here:
"The C&C phb is not, nor was it intended to be, a nostalgia game. Nostalgia is defined as: A bittersweet longing for things, persons, or situations of the past, and that's not what C&C is about.
That idea seems to come from the fact that a lot of its gaming principles are based on older editions of D&D rather than d20 or 3e. That much is certainly true but to say that the product is nostalgia based is very inaccurate. The creators of C&C feel that such older gaming principles and methods are sorely lacking from today's market. Some agree and some don't, which is where we get to the argument of rules-lite vs rules-heavy. But C&C isn't meant to be a game for crusty old gamers who do nothing but daydream of days gone by which is what "nostalgia product" suggests. While many of C&C's fans are indeed grognards that's more because of what the system gives them, not because it was designed specifically for them. I myself have been one of C&C's strongest supporters and I've never played a game of 1e in my life and I ran 3e for about five years. If you take the time to look around you'll find quite of few C&C supporters are in the same boat.
C&C was designed with the following groups in mind, in no order:
1- Rules-Lite Gamers: Whether they are unhappy with 3e, some other system, or have never gamed before C&C targets those who want fast paced games, with fewer rolls of the dice, and more GM calls.
2- Modern Gamers: You could easily rename this one new gamers. C&C targets those who have never played before and attempts to give them an alternative (rpg and D&D) to the complex system of 3e thus filling the empty space on the market today.
3- Old-School Gamers: Call then grognards or whatever you wish but while C&C wasn't built for them it certainly targets them as part of its player base. This would include all those who have been playing OOP D&D non-stop and just want to pick up new adventures or those who have played almost all versions of D&D and always found that the best would be a balance. C&C gives both that old-school feel and that "every edition of D&D" balance.
I also don't get some of the specific arguments like "no monsters = nostalgia game." Many players’ handbooks don't have monsters. As I recall the current version of the 3e phb doesn't have any monsters. And rather than have the Trolls print monsters and then remove them for more useful content in a later printing (thus making you buy another copy) I'd rather see them do just what they're doing (ie: monsters in a pdf until the monster book comes out)."
Now if you can't see the difference between "nostalgia product" and product which the market is lacking (ie: the difference between the C&C boxed set and the C&C phb) that's because you've got blinders on. But there is no need to tell people C&C is nostalgia based because it's using outdated or obsolete ideas. That's the biggest joke I think I've ever heard. That's like telling Bobby Fisher he needs to start playing kung-fu chess (www.icq.com) because standard chess is outdated and obsolete.
Joshua Dyal, I'd also like to address your statement which reads...
"That's cute, but not particularly insightful. A game that harks back to the RC is hardly equivalent to your cute little analogy, because it’s an outdated (and, in my opinion) outclassed and obsolete rule system. If you're trying to say that I'm wrong and C&C isn't an old school rule set resembling a RC/d20 hybrid, then say so, and maybe you can find some specific examples while your at it."
First of all, the idea that the RC (or any OOP game, D&D or otherwise) is "outdated outclassed and obsolete..." is foolish in the extreme. Outclassed is an opinion so I can't (and will not) argue with that. If you feel it's outclassed no worries. However, outdated and obsolete are so ridiculous as to be laughable. Which is easily proved by the large amount of players each game still has (old AND new so don't give me that crusty old grognards still hanging on junk).
As I've said in the past, I don't care which game people enjoy and I don't care if they hate everything about C&C. I'm very much of the mind that everybody should play what they want and leave everybody else the heck alone. The only thing that gets my goat is the ignorant thought process which states if it's OOP then it's outdated or obsolete. Taking that statement further and saying that games which think old school ideals (more GM control, etc) are nothing but nostalgia products because they are using "outdated" or "obsolete" ideas is even more ridiculous. Especially in the case of C&C which is at least 50% modern style and new mechanical content.
I also notice nobody bothered to argue with my earlier post on the subject so to make it easier for you...I'll repost much of it here:
"The C&C phb is not, nor was it intended to be, a nostalgia game. Nostalgia is defined as: A bittersweet longing for things, persons, or situations of the past, and that's not what C&C is about.
That idea seems to come from the fact that a lot of its gaming principles are based on older editions of D&D rather than d20 or 3e. That much is certainly true but to say that the product is nostalgia based is very inaccurate. The creators of C&C feel that such older gaming principles and methods are sorely lacking from today's market. Some agree and some don't, which is where we get to the argument of rules-lite vs rules-heavy. But C&C isn't meant to be a game for crusty old gamers who do nothing but daydream of days gone by which is what "nostalgia product" suggests. While many of C&C's fans are indeed grognards that's more because of what the system gives them, not because it was designed specifically for them. I myself have been one of C&C's strongest supporters and I've never played a game of 1e in my life and I ran 3e for about five years. If you take the time to look around you'll find quite of few C&C supporters are in the same boat.
C&C was designed with the following groups in mind, in no order:
1- Rules-Lite Gamers: Whether they are unhappy with 3e, some other system, or have never gamed before C&C targets those who want fast paced games, with fewer rolls of the dice, and more GM calls.
2- Modern Gamers: You could easily rename this one new gamers. C&C targets those who have never played before and attempts to give them an alternative (rpg and D&D) to the complex system of 3e thus filling the empty space on the market today.
3- Old-School Gamers: Call then grognards or whatever you wish but while C&C wasn't built for them it certainly targets them as part of its player base. This would include all those who have been playing OOP D&D non-stop and just want to pick up new adventures or those who have played almost all versions of D&D and always found that the best would be a balance. C&C gives both that old-school feel and that "every edition of D&D" balance.
I also don't get some of the specific arguments like "no monsters = nostalgia game." Many players’ handbooks don't have monsters. As I recall the current version of the 3e phb doesn't have any monsters. And rather than have the Trolls print monsters and then remove them for more useful content in a later printing (thus making you buy another copy) I'd rather see them do just what they're doing (ie: monsters in a pdf until the monster book comes out)."
Now if you can't see the difference between "nostalgia product" and product which the market is lacking (ie: the difference between the C&C boxed set and the C&C phb) that's because you've got blinders on. But there is no need to tell people C&C is nostalgia based because it's using outdated or obsolete ideas. That's the biggest joke I think I've ever heard. That's like telling Bobby Fisher he needs to start playing kung-fu chess (www.icq.com) because standard chess is outdated and obsolete.
cleaverthepit
First Post
Just to hit a few points
The following are old school rules
1: positive ACs (from the late 60s early 70s by EGG)
2: prestige classes (bard 1e)
3: skills (1e intro, 2e expansion)
4: feats (just class abilities that cross class lines, introed in 1e, developed in UA and hits a stride in 2e)
5: crits (uhh Arduin Grimoire)
and the list goes on. 3e refined some of the concepts to points where they are nearly unrecognizable as they once were. 3e unified, codified and made them all work together. and the designers did an astounding job of it. ASTOUNDING
old skool, new skool???
here is what works, all editions are built on similar principles and concepts. we just boiled them down to as little as possible and, following the design principles of 3e, created a unifying mechanic.
to do this required going back to aspects of earlier editions such as 6 saving throw categories. there are good reasons for this.
old skool? new skool?
I no longer no where to begin.
Long and the short. The game is not generated for grognards only. grogs may be attracted to it for specific reasons but really, i mean, its a small portion of a tiny market.
its similarity to earlier editions of the game reflects a design philosophy not a rules set.
Oh fir ding blast. I am going to go collect some thoughts and post a real post about something real. Like .... Battlestar Galactica ( i give it a 9 out of 10 hoot hoot. but i give desperate housewives a 10 out of 10)
Breakdaddy - did i tell ya. Awesome. mac and i started conversions months ago but quit cause we do not have time but, perhaps early in the spring we can get together and start working on this. i think it would be waaaay cool.
more later.
davis - i need to stay on topic.
The following are old school rules
1: positive ACs (from the late 60s early 70s by EGG)
2: prestige classes (bard 1e)
3: skills (1e intro, 2e expansion)
4: feats (just class abilities that cross class lines, introed in 1e, developed in UA and hits a stride in 2e)
5: crits (uhh Arduin Grimoire)
and the list goes on. 3e refined some of the concepts to points where they are nearly unrecognizable as they once were. 3e unified, codified and made them all work together. and the designers did an astounding job of it. ASTOUNDING
old skool, new skool???
here is what works, all editions are built on similar principles and concepts. we just boiled them down to as little as possible and, following the design principles of 3e, created a unifying mechanic.
to do this required going back to aspects of earlier editions such as 6 saving throw categories. there are good reasons for this.
old skool? new skool?
I no longer no where to begin.
Long and the short. The game is not generated for grognards only. grogs may be attracted to it for specific reasons but really, i mean, its a small portion of a tiny market.
its similarity to earlier editions of the game reflects a design philosophy not a rules set.
Oh fir ding blast. I am going to go collect some thoughts and post a real post about something real. Like .... Battlestar Galactica ( i give it a 9 out of 10 hoot hoot. but i give desperate housewives a 10 out of 10)
Breakdaddy - did i tell ya. Awesome. mac and i started conversions months ago but quit cause we do not have time but, perhaps early in the spring we can get together and start working on this. i think it would be waaaay cool.
more later.
davis - i need to stay on topic.
Similar Threads
