How Quickly is C&C Catching on?

[MerricB]

Actually, I'd probably classify C&C as "preparation-light" and 3e D&D as "preparation-heavy".

For me, the one thing that always takes the longest in 3e D&D is the creation of NPCs and advanced monsters. This is in no small part due to ability modifiers' influence on every part of character creation.

3e D&D is much less complicated to prepare for if you just use the basic monsters from the manuals, and don't have many NPCs.

However, the power gained from the 3e monster/character systems is one that I don't really want to give up.

D&D 3e could also be described as "modifier-heavy"; I don't yet know what C&C is like in that regard.

Cheers!

 

[Breakdaddy]

From what I've read in this thread, I'd absolutely hate C&C.

Then you are probably not their target market. It bears repeating since not everyone seems to "get it" but this game is there to fill the niche in the market for a rules-light and/or old school (feel) game. If this isnt your bag, then you will probably pass on it. Not everyone loves the bloated rules system of 3.xe as-is though, and for those people, C&C is worth a look.

 

[MoogleEmpMog]

I have no problem with a rules-lite system (or lite-er than 3.x, anyway), but everything I've read about C&C just rubs me the wrong way.

Keeping the most clunky and time-consuming element of D&D (the spell system), playing to nostalgia for a system they don't own, suggesting race/class limitations, and that downright wonky ability score system? :\

C&C seems terribly, terribly inelegant to me. I'd be hard pressed to describe what I mean by elegance as a game design principle, but C&C violates it on almost every level. Maybe if I got the actual box or book in hand and looked it over, I'd get a better vibe from it, but I'm certainly not going to buy it just to see.

 

[Henry]

It does 1d6 per level with no upper limit listed. It has a 40' radius. Range is 450 ft. It ignites combustibles, damages objects, and melts...

*hurriedly* Yes, yes, man, but DOES IT EXPAND IN SMALL SPACES LIKE 1E?!?!

If so: YAY!!!!

If not: BOOO!

It and lightning bolt would be my first house rule for it. Why play old-school if you don't get to play with fire?

 

[Breakdaddy]

*hurriedly* Yes, yes, man, but DOES IT EXPAND IN SMALL SPACES LIKE 1E?!?!

If so: YAY!!!!

If not: BOOO!

It and lightning bolt would be my first house rule for it. Why play old-school if you don't get to play with fire?

LOL, it doesnt state either way. So if you want it to expand in small spaces, then YES!

 

[Breakdaddy]

I have no problem with a rules-lite system (or lite-er than 3.x, anyway), but everything I've read about C&C just rubs me the wrong way.

Keeping the most clunky and time-consuming element of D&D (the spell system), playing to nostalgia for a system they don't own, suggesting race/class limitations, and that downright wonky ability score system? :\

C&C seems terribly, terribly inelegant to me. I'd be hard pressed to describe what I mean by elegance as a game design principle, but C&C violates it on almost every level. Maybe if I got the actual box or book in hand and looked it over, I'd get a better vibe from it, but I'm certainly not going to buy it just to see.

Kinda sounds like you don't like D&D much either. Since C&C is OGL (therefore D&D based) it makes sense that you don't like it. I am, of course, making an assumption which might be incorrect, but you just took jabs at elements that are integral to every iteration of D&D, so it's perhaps an educated assumption
As far as C&C playing to nostalgia for a system they dont own... guilty as charged, I suspect. Of course, everyone who ever created any sort of supplement, adventure, system, or setting with a D20 or OGL logo on it is doing the EXACT same thing, so how is this wrong?

 

[bolie]

Ambivalent

I've just started playing C&C and I have mixed feelings about it.

The complexity of 3.5 does take some time, but I personally like the options. All else being equal, I'd prefer it.

Having said that, C&C is an acceptable substitute and I'm happy to play it. I found the book difficult to navigate, though. I also found some of the descriptions a bit unclear. I'm not sure I like how extremely simple monsters are. From a hack and slash standpoint, that's fine. But developing monsters as anything other than just something to kill would be harder in C&C than in D&D3.5. In 3.5, you can vary monster stats and add classes, skills, and feats to give an otherwise generic monster a unique feel. In C&C, a kobold is a kobold is a kobold.

I like that all stats are used for saves using an identical mechanic. So there are "no saving throws" but at the same time, there are six.

 

[Jupp]

In Italy for 30 years under the Borgias they had warfare, terror, murder, and bloodshed, but they produced Michelangelo, Leonardo da Vinci, and the Renaissance. In Switzerland they had brotherly love - they had 500 years of democracy and peace, and what did that produce? The cuckoo clock. – Harry Lime, The Third Man

Mr. Welles got it totally wrong, really, at least by about 50 kilometers. cuckoo clocks come from the black forest in South Germany. But "Emmentaler cheese" probably doesnt sound cool enough in such a movie.....

Errm...sorry for being off-topic. But I had to get this straight

 

[scadgrad]

What Trollwad said!

I think C&C stands a good chance of hanging around and making a splash. Why? Well it does have a lot of appeal for DMs who like the stream-lined preparation and the ease of on-the-fly conversions making every module you've ever purchased a piece of cake to run for your group. DMs are the type of people who get others involved in a campaign and often are instrumental in the sales of PHBs in general. Make a system that GMs will flock to and you've got a good chance at "catching on."

There are many things about the system that appeals to me as a GM and the fact that it meshes so well w/ older versions of D&D is certainly a selling point. But I also appreciate the fact that I can easily port in the things I like about 3.X (feats for instance) and the game goes along just fine. I've been playing C&C for over 4 months now with most of the core feats from 3.5 and a few other elements that we all like. We've had over 20 some-odd sessions and I can hardly put into words how much more enjoyable and less of a chore that the game is for me now (as the DM/CK). I'm currently running Lost City of Barakus in one campaign and the original I6 Ravenloft in another. Converting both of them on-the-fly is child's play.

I just can't see me ever running a straight 3.X game, that's how much I like this system. The cool thing is though, I can pick up whatever supplements for 3.5 and whatever modules I like since the system is so adaptable.

I'll put it this way, if you DM a game, you really should drop the $20 and give it a try. Especially so if you ever intend to run any of those old adventures you've got lying around in your closet. Why bother spending countless hours (as I did) converting Bone Hill or White Plume Mountain to 3.5 when you can just add feats to C&C and off you go?

 

[Breakdaddy]

In 3.5, you can vary monster stats and add classes, skills, and feats to give an otherwise generic monster a unique feel. In C&C, a kobold is a kobold is a kobold.

Of course, one of the coolest aspects of C&C is that you can bolt the level adjustment system from 3.x right in to C&C with little trouble. Personally, I see little problem with simply adding levels to a creature whenever I feel like it.