How Quickly is C&C Catching on?

[Jupp]

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.

I think monsters and NPCs are not defined by their stats like classes, feats and whatnot but by how the DM describes and plays them. The players will never see the stats anyway but they see how you describe the monsters and how you play them. And if the monster has a special attack, well, then you let it make that attack in C&C. I dont think you need stats for this to make it work. Perhaps a little note on your campaign sheet to remember it, but thats it.

 

[scadgrad]

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.

If I want a 7th level Kobold Assassin in either of my C&C campaigns I can make one in 5 minutes. I'll just use the stats from the 3.5 MM give him 3 feats (we use feats in my campaigns) and some logical gear. Done.

The game is totally modular. Use whatever parts of 3.X (or anything else d20 you've got lying around) you like. Or use the 3.X MM straight up and convert as you go.

As a DM, I absolutely love the brief monster stats, but hey to each his own.

 

[MoogleEmpMog]

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?

I like D&D a lot, but I like the d20 system better than D&D. Given the choice between a 3.x D&D campaign and an OGL Steampunk, d20 Modern, Grim Tales or Conan campaign, I'll take the latter - but I still like, and play, D&D.

I've always disliked D&D's spell system. Basic D&D was tolerable, though I was unlikely to play a spellcaster myself. Spells got worse in AD&D (more spells, and more complex spells), worse in 2e (even more spells), still worse in 3e (you mean there's this many spells here, and there's still MORE?), and marginally better in 3.5 (slightly more refined and explained spells, and a handful of removed contradictions or broken options). I'll agree this is integral... which is perhaps the main reason I prefer d20/OGL sources that go further afield.

D&D nostalgia doesn't do much for me. I've enjoyed basic D&D and D&D 3.x the most system-wise, and Spelljammer the most setting-wise. No nostalgia for 'Jammer in C&C, last I checked. I also find it somewhat unseemly that C&C plays so heavily to nostalgia for another company's material, but that's just a gut reaction.

Race/class limitations? Aside from a few PrCs (and the "Races of" series or DM fiat provide ways out even for those), those were removed from 3e, and good riddance. Hardly integral anymore.

By the ability score system, I meant the whole 12/18 mechanic. I'd sooner see ability modifiers than ability scores, but otherwise D&D's abilities are probably the thing I like best about the system. C&C's usage is nothing like D&Ds past, so I wouldn't call that integral.

And the lack of detail in monsters/monsters not being created in a similar manner to characters. Ugh. I can write a perfectly valid hack-n-slash stat line for a 3e monster that's only a bit longer than the C&C ones I've seen, but know that the monster's full, character-valid stats are available if I happen to need them.

How is, for example, Mongoose's Conan the RPG playing to D&D nostalgia? Rules familiarity, perhaps, and the educated gamer's knowledge that a game bearing the OGL logo runs off a modified version of the 3e rules - that I can understand. Nostalgia is something else entirely.

 

[Breakdaddy]

How is, for example, Mongoose's Conan the RPG playing to D&D nostalgia? Rules familiarity, perhaps, and the educated gamer's knowledge that a game bearing the OGL logo runs off a modified version of the 3e rules - that I can understand. Nostalgia is something else entirely.

You make some valid points. As far as Conan or any other RPG playing to D&D nostalgia, its simply a matter of logical progression. If OD&D/AD&D hadnt been so popular back in the day, then the re-release of the new 3.0 wouldnt have been as well received, and thus, the market for D20/OGL would be a heck of a lot flatter. All I am saying here is that the nostalgia value of old school D&D *IS* the reason that such nifty stuff can now be released under the D20/OGL and have a decent market. Nostalgia has its place. The other point is that Conan plays off of nostalgia for the old books/movies. The people who wrote the game didnt write either the books or the movie script, but they are catering to the audience's nostalgia for them. How does this make the game less valid or fun?

 

[Doug McCrae]

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 think hack & slash is precisely the genre for which you want crunchy combat with tons of stats and options. If combat's boring in a hack & slash game, you don't have much else. OTOH a game more focused on character interaction doesn't need detailed stats. You make the monsters interesting thru cultural and behavioural detail.

 

[MoogleEmpMog]

You make some valid points. As far as Conan or any other RPG playing to D&D nostalgia, its simply a matter of logical progression. If OD&D/AD&D hadnt been so popular back in the day, then the re-release of the new 3.0 wouldnt have been as well received, and thus, the market for D20/OGL would be a heck of a lot flatter. All I am saying here is that the nostalgia value of old school D&D *IS* the reason that such nifty stuff can now be released under the D20/OGL and have a decent market. Nostalgia has its place. The other point is that Conan plays off of nostalgia for the old books/movies. The people who wrote the game didnt write either the books or the movie script, but they are catering to the audience's nostalgia for them. How does this make the game less valid or fun?

Star Trek II took in a good portion of its box office returns due to the nostalgia factor (which isn't to say it wasn't a good movie). Matrix 2 took in a good portion of its box office returns because it was the sequel to a popular film (which isn't to say it wasn't a good movie... that it wasn't speaks for itself )

D&D 3.x was, in essence, the "sequel" to AD&D 2e, which was in turn the sequel to AD&D 1e. Its popularity does derive, at least in part, from the fact that people liked the last version and were either playing it currently or had played it in the past. That doesn't mean it was nostalgia, though - nostalgia connotates a longing for something that was active and then ceased to be (or significantly slowed down), not something that was active immediately prior to the release of a new version.

The OGL plays less to nostalgia, more to current popularity (and even more to familiarity). Almost every reasonably experienced roleplayer knows how to play d20, whether they like it or not - and many do like it. As such they know the gist of how to play an OGL game.

Also, if WotC, as current owners of the D&D name, decided to play to nostalgia, I wouldn't have a problem with it - nor if an individual GM's homebrew did so. It just bugs me at a gut level to see another company doing so.

Mongoose bought a license to use Conan, as far as I know (or else it's not copywrighted; many Mongoose games are licensed).

 

[Thyrkill]

As a DM who already "simplifies" the 3.X rules and enjoys converting older material to that system, C & C sounds very intiguing. That said, I just ordered it from my local FLGS so that I can give it a look.

Thanks for a great thread!

Matt

 

[Acid_crash]

For those using C&C and adding Feats to it, what feats are you primarily using and have you made any rule modifications to them?

My one other question regarding C&C, and this is something I have been confused on, is how is multiclassing done? It's the one thing I do really like about d20 is how easy multiclassing is and how each class uses the same xp chart...gain 1000, gain a level and choose the class you want... but with each class getting different xp charts, it seems that multiclassing in this way would be more difficult.

Other than that, this game looks pretty damn cool. I like how they took away spellcasting from Paladins, Rangers and Bards, and put in a Assassin as a core class. Now, all I would need to do is add in the new classes from Black Company (like Noble, Jack of all Trades, and Acadimecian and Scout) and run BC using C&C.

The other thing that has me excited is that they are releasing their own Unearthed Arcana version right off the bat with the Castle Keeper Guide...a fully optional rules book to use with C&C, and hopefully a good spellpoint system to get rid of fire and forget magic.

I wonder how using the BC magic system would port to C&C.

 

[MoogleEmpMog]

I think hack & slash is precisely the genre for which you want crunchy combat with tons of stats and options. If combat's boring in a hack & slash game, you don't have much else. OTOH a game more focused on character interaction doesn't need detailed stats. You make the monsters interesting thru cultural and behavioural detail.

I have to disagree, at least with what a hack & slash game needs.

Compare the stat line of a d20 (or even C&C) creature to that of a Warhammer creature. GW's finest has a simpler, much more compact stat block.

Hack & slash requires streamlined rules because there's a lot of combat and often lots of creatures involved in it. A character interaction-based game can get away with somewhat clunkier combat mechanics.

 

[Doug McCrae]

Compare the stat line of a d20 (or even C&C) creature to that of a Warhammer creature. GW's finest has a simpler, much more compact stat block.

I prefer 3rd ed combat to Warhammer. WFRP, anyway. I'm not familiar with the tabletop miniatures battle game version. In fact I prefer 3rd ed combat to any other rpg's.