How Quickly is C&C Catching on?

[Akrasia]

... Second, this really belongs in the d20 & OGL Systems forum, given its current direction, so I'll slide it over there.

And so the thread begins to die ...

 

[Henry]

One thing: I can definitely see Akrasia's point about the removal of fundamental game aspects from a system like 3E. To take Numion's example,

"No skills anymore! Everything is vs. DC 15 ability checks, only thieves can do thiefy stuff and wizards wizardly stuff. Anything that modified skills, now modifies these checks, and anything affected by skills is now affected by these checks"...

This would require a reworking of almost ALL prestige classes. Most classes have skill rank requirements, and these would have to be reworked into a single "character level" requirement. Even then, it means that some classes who weren't meant to gain the prestige class until higher level will be allowed admittance early. A fighter/rogue or rogue entering the duelist PrC at 5th level might be fine, but how about a 5th level single classed fighter? Also, skills would the affected for crafting of some magic items, and the bonuses for synergy would have to be hand-waived on a case-by-case basis.

Want to remove feats? This requires a reworking of the fighter class, a reworking of any PrC who receives free feats, and totally alters epic level progression, because epic feats are the backbone of the system.

Case in Point: It CAN be done, but it does require additional prep work for the game in question.

Hence a need for a product like C&C which starts with the bones of an elegant engine (d20 + abilities + mods vs. target number) and works off of that. It is what it is - yet another take on being the natural successor to 1st/2nd edition AD&D. There's room for it, same as any other d20 product.

Is it worth it? To me, yes. I just want to see how they do certain things (the saves and class abilities, for one), because if it offers enough customization, it makes an excellent option for when we want to "play D&D" without a lot of prep time. a couple of players are out, we can't play the main campaign, but the rest of the gang wants me to "run a dungeon" - C&C might work well.

Also, Gary and Rob are designing the DUNGEON I'VE WAITED 20 YEARS FOR in C&C, and just that alone is justification for existance.

 

[Breakdaddy]

Also, Gary and Rob are designing the DUNGEON I'VE WAITED 20 YEARS FOR in C&C, and just that alone is justification for existance.

Amen to that!

 

[Omote]

While I've picked up the C&C PHB, and love the simplicity of the game, I think many D&D 3.Xers will be turned off by its simplicity, and it's ability ot stick very heavily to archtypical PC classes.

The game is good, but if you LOVE 3rd edition, I don't think C&C will tickle your fancy.

I plan on using C&C as a gateway RPG for intorducing new players to the D&D game, or just a side diversion from the complexity of 3.X.

.................................Omote
FPQ

 

[Desdichado]

Then your experience has been very special, and appears to fly in the face of that of most people in radically altering 3e.

I've pretty radically altered 3e to the point that I don't consider it D&D anymore, but rather some other d20 game. His experience mirrors mine.

I think the 3e-Windows, C&C-Macintosh analogy is probably a good one (although its too early to say yet.) And I still argue that C&C is clearly aiming at the nostalgic crowd, rather purposefully (or even accurately) or not, that's still my main impression of the game; that it's an updated RC/d20 hybrid. To the question in the very first post in the thread, I'd still say the exact same thing I said earlier; it's got a small number (relatively speaking) of very vocal supporters to whom that's exactly what they were looking for, but most D&Ders are quite happy where they are, and many, in fact, would find C&C too spartan and limiting as a system.

Despite all the arguing, I think for the most part even the C&C supporters are saying almost exactly that same thing, when you get right down to it.

 

[DMScott]

Ummmm .... LIKE WHAT? :\

The only 'important thing' that I can think of that is missing are the rules for multiclassing.

For any game hoping to bring back the feel of 1E AD&D (or any D&D), lack of multiclassing is pretty much a gamebreaker, IMHO. I was also disappointed not to see a full bestiary, and various other bits and pieces. That pretty much confirmed that it's a nostalgia fad product, intended only for an audience that has all that stuff already, rather than meant to be a viable game on its own.

I can understand if C&C is not everyone's (or even most people's) bag. But it is annoying when people make hopelessly vague or unsubstantiated criticisms and/or comments about the game.

This is an interesting line for you to throw in, considering that you in fact substantiated my criticism. But since most of the C&C evangelists in this thread have generally affected a superior attitude to the rest of us peons, I guess you're simply acting in accordance with your peers.

It seems pretty clear that it is being marketed as a very robust and complete game system. Contrary to your vague assertion to the contrary, that is precisely what it is.

Except for the parts that you yourself agree they left out, of course, which it appears are of no consequence when you're spreading the Way, the Truth, and the Light of the Word.

Sorry for being snarky

No, you're clearly not. I hope you enjoy C&C, and someday manage to get over whatever huge issues you have with the fact that there are people who *gasp* don't think it's anything special. Even though the latter appears unlikely.

 

[Henry]

DMScott, is it correct to say then that your main discontent with the system is over parts that haven't come out yet, and are slated for future products (the multi-class rules to be in the CKG, and the monsters to be in the TM)? Is that why you don't see it as a "complete game?"

As for the attitude of C&C proponents, I really haven't seen that much "snarkiness". What little I have seen has been quickly self-moderated. For those who don't see it as any improvement over existing 1E sources, it's not going to be anything special. However, as a source of bringing new gamers to see what has come before, and can get them into something similar by in-print and therefore available product, it's not a bad deal.

 

[Breakdaddy]

Henry was right on when he said that if you have nothing to add about C&C, it's best to not post here at all. Rude comments wont do anything for either side of the debate. For my part, I enjoyed this thread immensely until it seemingly became a sounding board to air out grievances and slight others. Here is a news flash guys: Its the same hobby! We are ALL gamers here (that Im aware of), can't we be cool to each other? Is it THAT hard?

 

[Akrasia]

For any game hoping to bring back the feel of 1E AD&D (or any D&D), lack of multiclassing is pretty much a gamebreaker, IMHO. ...

There will be multiclassing rules posted as a free pdf at the TLG site and a number of options included in the CKG. In any case, the 1E/2E rules work just fine.

I was also disappointed not to see a full bestiary, and various other bits and pieces.

Ummm ... there will be a 'full bestiary' coming out soon. It will be hardback book for $20 called Monsters and Treasures.

Until then you can use the fee pdf download at TLG, or the SRD.

Why is the failure to include a 'full bestiary' in the C&C PHB a knock against the system, but not any other version of D&D (aside from the RC)? Please explain ...

That pretty much confirmed that it's a nostalgia fad product, intended only for an audience that has all that stuff already, rather than meant to be a viable game on its own.

Rubbish.

Again, there will be a M&T book coming out. There will be a book full of optinal rules (skills, etc.) called the Castle Keeper's Guide. There will be a full line of modules (including the original Castle Greyhawk).

How is this NOT a 'viable game on its own'? :\

No offense, but you have absolutely no real data to back up your claim here.

.... But since most of the C&C evangelists in this thread have generally affected a superior attitude to the rest of us peons, I guess you're simply acting in accordance with your peers.

Pointing out that your claims lack any substance is not the same thing as affecting 'a superior attitude.'

 

[Akrasia]

I've pretty radically altered 3e to the point that I don't consider it D&D anymore, but rather some other d20 game. His experience mirrors mine.
...

I have seen your website Joshua, and while you have altered the 3e system quite a bit, you still keep the 'fundamental features' of d20 intact -- namely, feats, skills, etc.

I certainly do not deny that the 'details' of 3e/d20 can be readily modified. Indeed, I did that in my last 3e campaign.

But my claim had to do with altering/removing 'fundamental' elements of 3e/d20, like skills or feats (or the combat system, etc.). That would require some major work.