How Quickly is C&C Catching on?

[Breakdaddy]

Leaving aside the issue of C&C, I am still wondering in what altenrate universe AD&D 1E is 'rules lite'.

FUDGE is rules-lite. Over The Edge is rules-lite. AD&D 1E is about as rules-lite as Star Fleet Battles.

I've never played Star Fleet Battles, but am assuming you are saying that it is, in fact, rules heavy. 1e, before it got the UA treatment, was a relatively rules light system when the group didnt utilize the optional stuff. I will agree, however, that when all options were put it and houserules injected to cover various things that the rules could become weighty in a big hurry. Still, when one looks at certain games that came after AD&D (rolemaster comes to mind), even with all options in place 1e was not a rules heavy system. 2e, with all optional stuff, is an ENTIRELY different matter. That got out of control very quickly when one injected all of the Players Option books.

 

[Particle_Man]

Davis, can you email me the password for the Castle Keepers Guide development forum on your message boards? I can't get in.

Me too please!
Alex Boston
ahboston@interchange.ubc.ca

 

[Akrasia]

I just thought I would point out that this post from TLG pretty much answers the question posed by this thread:

and one quick post concerning whether or not C&C is catching on - if sales continue at the rate they are we will be sold out in 15 days but, we think we have neough for 60 but, we planned on a 6-12 month supply. ...

So at least there is a lot of initial interest in the game.

Sure a lot of people who buy a new shiny book (especially one for only $20) will not actually become long-term players, or even try it once (I know I own a few games and books that have yet to see any game time, and probably never will).

But the fact that it is selling so well is surely a good sign. The TLG gamble that there is a market for a game like this looks like it is proving to be a good one.

 

[Flexor the Mighty!]

Me too please!
Alex Boston
ahboston@interchange.ubc.ca

I think you have to fill out a NDA.

 

[Treebore]

In the discussions amongst C&C Society members, I came to the conclusion that multiclassing was something that should be left out of the core rules because I didn't see a consensus forming on how it should be done.

Of course, C&C isn't a work by commitee, so consensus didn't really matter. As I understand it the MC rules didn't make it into the PHB for other reasons.

When you take the rules without MC & you add MC, you're effectively breaking the rules. So, the primes don't have to be a barrier to flexible MC.

People who like more restrictive MC rules typically come up with rules that require your primes to match all your classes.

People who like less restrictive MC rules, however, come up with ways around that. A simple way is to say that one of your classes is your "primary" class & that one of your primes must be its required prime. Your other classes' "required" prime is, however, not required. Such a system would allow you to create a Fighter/Rogue with Str & Con as primes. He may not be the most effective rogue, but he's still a more effective rogue than a straight fighter.

I expect we'll see lots of alternative MC rules for C&C. I wouldn't be surprised to have more than one option presented in the CKG. I wouldn't be surprise if none of them were considered the "standard" MC rules.

& in any case, I feel certain we'll see alternative MC rules in the Crusader.

I don't have my copy of the PH yet (it is in the mail). However, it looks to me that multi-classing in C&C is going to require a mentality like the one in 3E. You'll need to start your character knowing that you are going to multi-class and pick your primes based on this "plan"

I'm sure there is a bit more to this than has been mentioned in the thread so far, but if you pick your primes to fit the classes you will most likely want to take later, wouldn't that allow for a set of MC rules that would work? Or you can simply allow prime stats to be changed to fit whatever class you are "career changing" into. Altering saves and whatever else accordingly.

Is that a workable premise?

 

[gideon_thorne]

I've been keeping track of this Q&A thread and finally have time to answer a point or two myself.

Mostly this center's around the idea of a 'complete' game. Which, naturally, is an entirely subjective opinion so there is no 'right' answer.

But a discussion my dad and I were having this evening pointed out the simple fact that the PHB' is quite efficiently complete for a game if you really dont need monsters. Not that monsters wont come out later but when your dealing with begining characters one doesnt always have to go tearing off to the nearest dungeon and go duke it out with the nearest goblin.

The adventures of characters just begining and gathering together in a town or city can provide months of entertainment.

Some simple adventure hooks.

Small town, human raiders of the local barbarian tribe come in and abscond with the mayors daughter.

Slavers waylay some poor suckers on the road and somehow various characters get involved and try and free said slaves. Hell, some of the characters could be captured slaves themselves.

The endless things one can do with pirate adventures.

Run a thief adventure.

Run a fighter/mercenary story

Run a mage school

Dark things happen in the clerics cloister.

All kinds of possibilities are contained in one 128 page book.

The phb is an 'essentials' book. Its not neccessarily best described as a 'complete' game. But a game for tinkerers, a game for professionals, a series of rules that can be used as 'building blocks' for further complexity. A solid frame work, a foundation. These terms are accurate.

There is no need to bicker over who's got the better mouse trap. Although I know as well as anyone that gamers love to discourse over quite a diverse array of mechanical fine points. Said discussions being one thing that drives such a simple soul as myself more buggy than usual. *chuckles*

I guess success of the game is going to be entirely defined by what one expects? A large company wants major returns, millions of copies sold and all that. And while that would be just lovely for TLG, methinks tens of thousands of each of the books sold would make the relatively smaller number of staff quite happy. Its all a matter of perspective.

X amount of book sales are going to be sufficient to put a haste spell on the legs this game already has. Revenue generated out of that will be more than sufficient to get better advertizing and an over all ever improvement in quality.

Its all one step at a time though.

Peter

 

[bolie]

Those rules are there for a reason...

Now that I've played C&C, I'm finding that many of the rules that make 3.5 complicated and time consuming to play were put in there to answer questions that come up during the game.

While our combats went fast, that was at least in part due to the fact that we didn't have a lot of things to do other than hit the bad guy with our weapon or cast a spell.

Monsters and characters are easy to create because they have so few options. I made a wizard. Even though we house ruled feats back in, my wizard is pretty much the same as any other wizard.

When playing, I felt like I was tactically fighting with one hand behind my back. Our DM is good, though, so the story and the game is still fun and interesting. Combat is just perfunctory instead of being an interesting event in itself.

Bolie IV

 

[JRRNeiklot]

Personally, I find C&C allows MORE stuff in combat. Wanna swing on a chandalier and drop down on your enemies? Go for it. You can't do that in 3e without half a dozen feats. Mot well anyway. The dm can wing it of course, but no sane character will try it, because he'll draw half a dozen AOOs and and have to look up twice that many rules. And how many die rolls will it take - not even counting AOOs. Jump checks which I have NEVER seen anyone do without consulting a book, tumble checks, strength check, etc. In C&C it would be a simple action with maybe one modifier tacked on by the ck. Due to all the rules in 3e, I seldom see anyone try anything other than straight combat besides maybe an odd grapple or something. C&C is wide open for any off the wall action you want to try.

 

[Akrasia]

Here is my review of the PHB over at RPG.net.

http://www.rpg.net/reviews/archive/11/11008.phtml

Even though I am obviously a fan of this game, I tried my best to point out the book's shortcomings.

 

[Flexor the Mighty!]

When playing, I felt like I was tactically fighting with one hand behind my back. Our DM is good, though, so the story and the game is still fun and interesting. Combat is just perfunctory instead of being an interesting event in itself.

Bolie IV

That sounds good to me. To me the games emphasis should be on the adventure instead of the tactical combat simulator. Smooth and fast combats are what I like. There are still tactical concerns but not nearly as many as some games may make you address.