• The VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!

How Quickly is C&C Catching on?

Jackal42

First Post
I don't want to get into any system wars because I honestly don't care who likes what edition of which game but I do want to correct something I've seen pop up here a few times.

The C&C phb is not, nor was it intended to be, a nostalgia game. Nostalgia is defined as: A bittersweet longing for things, persons, or situations of the past, and that's not what C&C is about.

That idea seems to come from the fact that a lot of its gaming principles are based on older editions of D&D rather than d20 or 3e. That much is certainly true but to say that the product is nostalgia based is very inaccurate. The creators of C&C feel that such older gaming principles and methods are sorely lacking from today's market. Some agree and some don't, which is where we get to the argument of rules-lite vs rules-heavy. But C&C isn't meant to be a game for crusty old gamers who do nothing but daydream of days gone by which is what "nostalgia product" suggests. While many of C&C's fans are indeed grognards that's more because of what the system gives them, not because it was designed specifically for them. I myself have been one of C&C's strongest supporters and I've never played a game of 1e in my life and I ran 3e for about five years. If you take the time to look around you'll find quite of few C&C supporters are in the same boat.

C&C was designed with the following groups in mind, in no order:

1- Rules-Lite Gamers: Whether they are unhappy with 3e, some other system, or have never gamed before C&C targets those who want fast paced games, with fewer rolls of the dice, and more GM calls.
2- Modern Gamers: You could easily rename this one new gamers. C&C targets those who have never played before and attempts to give them an alternative (rpg and D&D) to the complex system of 3e thus filling the empty space on the market today.
3- Old-School Gamers: Call then grognards or whatever you wish but while C&C wasn't built for them it certainly targets them as part of its player base. This would include all those who have been playing OOP D&D non-stop and just want to pick up new adventures or those who have played almost all versions of D&D and always found that the best would be a balance. C&C gives both that old-school feel and that "every edition of D&D" balance.

I also don't get some of the specific arguments like "no monsters = nostalgia game." Many players’ handbooks don't have monsters. As I recall the current version of the 3e phb doesn't have any monsters. And rather than have the Trolls print monsters and then remove them for more useful content in a later printing (thus making you buy another copy) I'd rather see them do just what they're doing (ie: monsters in a pdf until the monster book comes out).

But whatever you may think of C&C, it is a complete game which stands on its own two feet and will be fully supported by TLG (and others I might add). The fact that it's modular, flexible, and harkens back to what many of us think is a better style of gaming is secondary. C&C is very much a modern, solid, and complete system. :)
 

log in or register to remove this ad

MoogleEmpMog

First Post
I don't know... in my experience, d20/OGL is extremely easy to modify. It doesn't even seem to take huge amounts of DM fiat.


Remove Spells

Consequences: A fun, balanced game? ;) Seriously, though. Certain high-end monsters will be even less in accordance with their alleged CRs. Other than that, no ill effects.

Solution: None, aside from dropping any ill-placed trust in the CR system.

Remove (or Greatly Restrict) Magic Items

Consequences: See spells, above.

Solution: See spells, above.

Remove PrCs

Consequences: None.

Solution: None.

Remove Feats

Consequences: PrCs require new requirements for entry. The fighter class must either be changed or removed. Rangers and monks need their "bonus feats" spelled out as class features. Certain high-end monsters will be even less in accordance with their alleged CRs.

Solution: Fix rangers and monks, possibly offer certain feats as fighter class features, dispense with beating around the bush and just put a level prereq on PrCs.

Remove Skills

Consequences: PrCs require new requirements for entry. Skill checks either become level checks, ability checks, or roleplay.

Solution: Nothing major.

Remove AoOs

Consequences: Spellcasters become stronger.

Solution: It's D&D. Of course spellcasters are stronger. Does the difference between an A-bomb and an H-bomb really MATTER to the poor non-caster at ground zero?

Unify Actions

Consequences: Spellcasters become stronger.

Solution: See above.
 

Akrasia

Procrastinator
MoogleEmpMog said:
I don't know... in my experience, d20/OGL is extremely easy to modify. It doesn't even seem to take huge amounts of DM fiat. ....

Well I do not see much point in debating this question any more, as I have already explained why I think that removing things like feats and skills wholesale (or radically altering the combat system, etc.) can have all kinds of unintended consequences for games (and heck, I even used a cool economics analogy to do so -- how can people still disagree with me?). While I will concede that people with a lot of experience with d20 might be able to radically revise the system with little problem, I don't think it is as easy as people seem to be assuming. At least it hasn't been in my experience, but YMMV and all that.

C&C has been designed to be modular, and in my playtest efforts, I have found it to be much easier to modify and tweak than 3E. But if you love 3E and have no problem radically modifying it to suit your needs (if that is what you want), then all the more power to you.

:cool:
 

Flexor the Mighty!

18/100 Strength!
The only glaring ommission was the lack of multiclass rules. Since the Castle Keepers Guide may be a few months off I am going to have to wing some rules to get one players idea for a hobbit rogue/illusionist off the ground. I just don't like the idea that I may have two seperate systems for MC going once the CKG comes out. That's bad. Sure I can just change the system to the "official" one if it's better but then I may have to drastically alter the PC in midgame. I don't like that. Rules lite is one thing I love, but MC rules are necessary. They can be especially needed when making PC's up for a smaller group where a MC PC may be necessary to fill a hole in the party roster.
 


DMScott

First Post
Henry said:
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)?

No. That would be my main discontent with C&C as a product line - that TLG have chosen not to release a relatively complete book - but doesn't really impact on my opinion of the system. So far as I can tell the original poster wasn't asking about anybody's opinion of specific rules systems that may or may not someday be published for C&C, but rather their opinion of the product as it exists now and whether it's "grabbing lots of people".

Is that why you don't see it as a "complete game?"

Yes, it is indeed not anywhere close to "complete", and so unsurprisingly I don't see it as a complete game.

As for the attitude of C&C proponents, I really haven't seen that much "snarkiness".

Then take it up with Akrasia, who apparently disagrees with you.
 

Jackal42

First Post
Ah I did mean to address the omission of multiclassing rules. I personally agree that such rules are necessary to a class based rpg so I agree that the lack of such rules hurt.

But, having said that, the three reasons the Trolls left them out are a) they weren't quite right and were taking a while to nail down...b) many feel that such rules are not rules lite and that they are, in fact, the bane of an archetypal fantasy game and...c) because they needed the space for more important rules.

And as it's easier to add such rules (ie: giving players more options) than to take them away (Saying, sorry I know it's in the phb but you can't do it) I agree with the choice. And, of course, I'd rather have better multiclass rules than rushed multiclass rules.

The Trolls have also said such rules should be available to the playtesters sometime around late January and then, as a pdf, to everyone else not too long after. So they're not even requiring anyone to buy the CKG for the multiclass rules. While I would have liked them in the phb I agree with their reasons and the pdf (and later the CKG) is good enough for me. :)
 

jstater

First Post
I might as well wade in ...

This Saturday, my gaming group and I will begin playing a hybrid C&C/3.5. I'm keeping prestige classes, because I like the options (I converted the entry requirements, which mostly involved changing skill requirements to prime attribute and character level requirements). I'm also keeping feats, which I also spent some time modifying.

We will use the SIEGE engine for attribute checks and saving throws, and the combat rules (though I will, at my discretion, allow attacks of opportunity). So, the question is, I suppose, why go to the trouble. Two reasons:

1) I was tired of the skill system in 3.5. I enjoyed it immensely at first, and then I started DM'ing. While players only need to concentrate on one character, DM's usually have quite a few NPCs running around, and it took too long to flesh out their skills. I don't have an immense amount of time to do prep work for my campaign, so I had already began combining skills (hide and move silently into sneak), and had even begun to ignore skill ranks for NPCs when I DM'd. This dovetails into reason 2 ...

2) I found that I was so tired of looking up modifiers and DC's, that I was just throwing out the numbers based on the best of my judgement. This was standard operating procedure when I DM'd first edition games.

So I found C&C, which keeps the best of 3rd edition, and makes the changes I would like to simplify 3rd edition for me. I'll let you know how the first game goes.
 

DMScott

First Post
Akrasia said:
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.

That's nice. It's still not in the rulebook, and thus an omission from same rulebook. As such, I don't think it's out of bounds to note that multiclassing is not in the rulebook.

Ummm ... there will be a 'full bestiary' coming out soon.

Again, that's nice. It's still not in the rulebook, and thus noting that you don't get a bestiary in what some folks have been billing as a "complete" game doesn't seem especially out of bounds to me. YMMV.

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 ...

If the D&D PHB were put forward as a complete, rules-light system that captured the feel of some other game, then such critical omissions would indeed be knocks against the PHB. But of course, it hasn't been put forward in such a manner, not in this thread nor anywhere else that I've seen recently. If it had been, I most likely would've posted my opinion that such a characterization of the D&D PHB is inaccurate. What that has to do with C&C, I don't really know, but presumably it's important to you to know these things.

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

Well, let's see. My "claims" are that the rulebook is not complete and lacks various important rules systems. You "corrected" me by showing that the rulebook is not complete and lacks various important rules systems. And you then decided to throw in a bunch of dismissive statements about how my claims lack substance, even as you're agreeing with them. Hmm, sounds like affecting a superior attitude to me.

Unless you plan to - for the very first time - point out some factual inaccuracy in what I've said, I think it's best to just leave it at that. Have fun.
 

Breakdaddy

First Post
Is anyone else here beginning to get the sneaking feeling that DMScott feels that C&C is incomplete and won't like it no matter what is said? :p
Lets stop beating this particular dead horse, folks. Nobody is going to convince the C&C players that C&C sucks based on their perceptions that the game is incomplete. By the same token, nobody is going to convince people that are ardently opposed to C&C that it is a good or even remotely noteworthy system. Who cares? Does anyone have any more good stuff to add about C&C or is this thread now only about being the 500 lbs bully and smacking the other guy around with the biggest version of your rulebook of choice?
 

Remove ads

Top