How Quickly is C&C Catching on?

[Akrasia]

... I'm starting to think that C&C features a simplified D&D combat system, simpler classes, and no feats, but not a simplified spell / monster special ability system. Is this the case?

No it is not the case!

Spells and monsters (special abilities) are simplier in C&C than they are in 3E D&D. I have DM'ed two 3E campaigns, and have run 3 sessions of C&C. I can assure you of this feature of the game.

To explain all the various ways that this is the case would take too much time, but a quick answer is that there is just a smaller range of different kinds of modifiers (variables) in C&C, hence there is less worry about how these modifiers (variables) interact with each other in any given situation (e.g. whether they stack or not, etc.).

It might also be worth mentioning that there are fewer spellcasting classes in C&C (rangers, paladins, and bards do not cast spells -- they have other abilities), so spellcasting will be slightly rarer in a C&C campaign.

 

[Greylock]

I'm interested and skeptical.

I'm interested because it does seem simpler than D&D3.

Then, I think, "D&D3 is pretty simple. It's just got a lot of rules." I *like* the fact that I can find a rule that tells me the radius of light shed by a torch. It's not complex, it just has answers for all the questions players have asked over 30 years. Complex is Champions where I have to do cube roots and vectors to figure out how much damage my hero does when he slams into you 1/3 of the way toward reaching his full velocity, as opposed to 1/2 way toward that same limit.

Sorry for the odd edit, but your remark is one I agree with and I only want to call out one part without diregarding the rest....

The heavy math rpg's aren't some modern RPing fancy. The type games you describe there have been around all my life. Thankfully the worst of them died out in the '80s. But they are not some modern bastardisation of DnD. They have been around for some 25 years now as "creative reinterpretations" of DnD. Usually for a non-fantasy setting.

Uber geek knowledge check,

 

[Frostmarrow]

I bought the box and tried it with my friends for one session. We didn't complete the module from the box but had a good time nevertheless. My friends liked it and they thought it was quaint. We are now back on our previously scheduled 3.5 game.

Even though we don't play C&C regularly it has made it's mark on our group. We are not as anal-retentive about the 3.5 rules as we were before we tried C&C. That's a very good thing!

 

[Akrasia]

I'm interested and skeptical.

I'm interested because it does seem simpler than D&D3.

Then, I think, "D&D3 is pretty simple. It's just got a lot of rules." I *like* the fact that I can find a rule that tells me the radius of light shed by a torch. It's not complex, it just has answers for all the questions players have asked over 30 years. ....

While I agree that 3E D&D is not as complex or rules heavy as, say, Champions, I disagree that 3E is 'simple'. Or rather, it does have a 'simple core', but that theoretical simplicity is IME buried in practice by the endless number of modifiers that might or might affect any given situation (combat, spell casting, etc.). And I completely disagree that all these additional modifiers and rules are necessary in order for the game to 'answer' any questions that players might have concerning any given situation.

From another thread, shurai said:

"When was the last time you had to cast a save-able 4d6 damage spell on the defensive at a spell-resistant character? Does turning undead provoke attacks of opportunity? Let's see, 2d6 plus cha, then a d20 check . . . uh, right. Bluff to sneak attack? Lemme see, my bluff vs. his sense motive, then the attack roll, uh, yeah. Remember how long it took each of us to figure out how attacks of opportunity works? Time to roll an attack . . .wait, he gets a 20% miss chance, is that before or after the attack roll? Wait, I threatened, better roll again. Now time to roll damage, which is 2d10+6+d6(fire)+2d8(spirited charge) . . . wait, does the spirited charge bonus get doubled too? Hang on, have to recalculate the damage bonus from strength, because I'm wielding two-handed this round. Whoops, forgot I was fighting defensively, I missed. Oh, forgot the flanking bonus, guess I hit after all. Has Bless worn off yet? That stacks with Bardic Music right? Oh yeah, it doesn't, because it doesn't stack unless they're dodge or circumstance bonuses, right? Or was it luck bonuses? When I cast Aid as a domain spell for the Good domain, does it count as a Good spell because that's not in the description. Nevermind, I'll just polymorph him into a frog. Oh, that's been erratta'd four times since Tuesday? Is that a Full Attack or a Partial Charge?

I think those of us who still think d20 is simple need to get a grip . . . a [monkey] grip." -- shurai
http://www.enworld.org/forums/showthread.php?t=112844&page=2&pp=20

That certainly coheres with my experience.

I have DM'ed two 3E D&D campaigns. Maybe I'm simple :\ , but I frequently found that things ground to a halt because of rules questions. And the prep time involved in statting up a high level NPC or complex monster was a major pain. (The campaigns were great, and the players enjoyed them. But as a DM I just found the work and rules involved rather grating.)

Ultimately, whether a system is 'rules heavy' or 'rules light' depends on how you experience the rules. If 3E D&D feels too 'rules heavy' for you, then it is. It doesn't matter how hard people try to argue that your perception is incorrect.

In my case, 3E D&D feels too rules heavy (at least to DM -- I'm happy to be a player in a 3E campaign). Given the frequency with which complaints about the 'heaviness' of 3E rules emerge on these boards -- along with proposals for 'simplifying' 3E -- I am not alone here. (Though I suspect that I belong a minority of gamers on this question.)

By contrast, as a GM, I find games like Unisystem and C&C to be 'just right' in terms 'rules weight'.

 

[MonsterMash]

I've now seen my brothers copy of the Players Handbook for C&C, and so far I'm favourably impressed - so far mainly layout and art, but a simpler system does appeal and I may end up converting my 3.5 Wilderlands campaign over.

 

[Steverooo]

I don't get the impression that Castles and Crusades is grabbing a lot of people, or that it ever will. No more so than Cyborg Commandos or Lejendary Adventures. Rules Light IS a niche market... and probably always will be.

One of the problems with the latter is that the players complain "everything is too GM-dependent!" (while the "lite" crowd complains "everything is too rules-dependent!") Myself, I like being able to calculate my chances, without having to ask the GM every time that I want to do something!

So it's all about "What's more important to you?" For me, I'd rather have rules for how far light goes and whether or not bonuses stack (which we can then ignore, if we choose to) than to have no rules for it, and have it all depend upon the overworked GM's perception. YMMV.

As for me, I have less and less interest in C&C, the more I read about it. If I ever saw the rules book, it would probably kill all my interest, for good!

 

[ivocaliban]

It will probably never arrive at some gamestores for the simple fact that, based on last year's sales, many gamestores are reluctant to stock new d20 3rd-party material -- despite the fact that C&C is not a d20 game (many gamestore owners simply do not know this).

True enough. The best and nearest gaming store to me (a brisk 4 hour drive) was hit very hard after the 3.5e conversion. Sales dropped off dramatically and so they've stopped re-ordering d20 products. It seems like they're eventually going to phase out RPGs altogether.

 

[Treebore]

C&C games are going to be like the older D&D games, if you have a good DM you are going to have good games. 3E being rules heavy makes it easier for good DM's to be good and harder for bad DM's to be bad DM's.

Me, I want a rules system that helps me run a game, not hold my hand and tell my what I can and cannot do as we take each step down the corridor.

 

[Akrasia]

...
One of the problems with the latter is that the players complain "everything is too GM-dependent!" (while the "lite" crowd complains "everything is too rules-dependent!") Myself, I like being able to calculate my chances, without having to ask the GM every time that I want to do something!

So it's all about "What's more important to you?" For me, I'd rather have rules for how far light goes and whether or not bonuses stack (which we can then ignore, if we choose to) than to have no rules for it, and have it all depend upon the overworked GM's perception. YMMV.
...

Leaving aside the fact that your post appears to make unwarranted generalizations based purely on your own tastes, the main claim that you make here is based on a flawed premise. While there is more room for GM discretion in a rules light game (and hence less need to bring the game to a grinding stop and look something up in the encyclopedia of rules), it is not necessarily the case that a rules light game leaves the adjudication of most tasks to mere GM whim.

The fact of the matter is that you can have a very parsimonious and consistent rules system. E.g. Imagine a game in which all mental tasks are resolved by making a "mind" ability score roll, and all physical tasks are resolved by making a "body" ability score roll. There are set 'difficulty levels' for different tasks (10 for average tasks, 15 for moderately hard, 20 for hard, and 25 for extremely hard). Here we have a very simple system -- two ability scores, and two ways in which these scores are used to resolve different tasks of four different levels of difficulty. (C&C is not this rules light, btw. )

I fail to see why such a system is any less "consistent" than 3E D&D. Sure, I suppose you have to make a "judgement call" as to whether breaking down a door is a "mental" or "physical" task, or whether the door is weak (DC 10) or tough (DC 20) -- but you also have to make these kinds of (usually obvious) judgement calls in 3E.

In any case, aside from making that important point, I don't want to get into a 'rules light' versus 'rules heavy' argument here. The simple fact is that C&C is a (relatively) rules light game, and so if that is not the kind of game you like, do not purchase the PHB. Not every game has to appeal to every player. I have zero interest in a game like Exalted, but I certainly recognize that that game will appeal to other reasonable gamers.

I agree that the 'old school' and 'rules light' niches are small relative to the overall RPG market. As I stated earlier, there is no chance of C&C 'overtaking' 3E (or anything close). At the same time, though, I think that those niches are nonetheless large enough for C&C to be a very viable and successful system. (I mean, the Angel and Buffy RPGs are 'rules light' niche games, yet they seem to be perfoming quite well for Eden studios.)

 

[Jackal42]

I actually found that 3e made good DMs pull out their hair and bad DMs just changed what they didn't like and were still bad DMs, but that's just my experience and, as Akrasia says, that's all that counts when talking about how "good" your game of choice is.

So, of course, C&C isn't going to be for everyone any more than 3e is for everyone. It's all in what you're looking for. C&C does have a rules light mechanic at its core and it does have an old school feel but there is also a lot more going for it if the above is your type of thing. Some of those things would be:

Price: It's only $20 for a saddle-stiched hard-back that has everything a player will ever need. No need to shell out lots of money for complete this or sword and this, etc.

Complete Rules: C&C answers all needed questions without trying to answer every possible question so it retains its rules light status without skipping the important questions. While it doesn't tell you what you need to roll in order to do a backflip over the orcs chasing you down a dungeon hallway (though it does go into how to handle such things on the fly) it does answer questions like how many languages a character can speak, how far you can see in different lighting conditions (as someone mentioned that above), how fast a character can move while climbing, what happens to your armor class or bonus to hit while concealed or taking cover, etc.

Great Unified Systems: Not only does C&C have only three types of rolls (combat, damage, and everything else) which keeps things really simple but the mechanics are easy to use and allow for a lot of depth. From the new encumbrance system (which is the best I've ever seen) to the siege engine itself the game does everything I've ever wanted and then some.

So as said before, the game isn't for everyone but if any of the above are for you then I'd give C&C a try. Oh, and Rycanada, if you'll post a spell from the 3.0 or 3.5 SRD here that you've always had trouble with (ie: just wished it was simpler) I'll post the C&C version (assuming there is one, but most of the SRD spells were carried over) for you to look at. And I'm pretty confident that you'll find the C&C version to be easier to read and use.