How Quickly is C&C Catching on?

[Desdichado]

Personally, I find C&C allows MORE stuff in combat. Wanna swing on a chandalier and drop down on your enemies? Go for it. You can't do that in 3e without half a dozen feats. Mot well anyway. The dm can wing it of course, but no sane character will try it, because he'll draw half a dozen AOOs and and have to look up twice that many rules. And how many die rolls will it take - not even counting AOOs. Jump checks which I have NEVER seen anyone do without consulting a book, tumble checks, strength check, etc. In C&C it would be a simple action with maybe one modifier tacked on by the ck. Due to all the rules in 3e, I seldom see anyone try anything other than straight combat besides maybe an odd grapple or something. C&C is wide open for any off the wall action you want to try.

That's a pretty extreme mischaracterization of 3e.

 

[trilobite]

Personally, I find C&C allows MORE stuff in combat. Wanna swing on a chandalier and drop down on your enemies? Go for it. You can't do that in 3e without half a dozen feats. Mot well anyway. The dm can wing it of course, but no sane character will try it, because he'll draw half a dozen AOOs and and have to look up twice that many rules. And how many die rolls will it take - not even counting AOOs. Jump checks which I have NEVER seen anyone do without consulting a book, tumble checks, strength check, etc. In C&C it would be a simple action with maybe one modifier tacked on by the ck. Due to all the rules in 3e, I seldom see anyone try anything other than straight combat besides maybe an odd grapple or something. C&C is wide open for any off the wall action you want to try.

Player: I want to jump up on the table, grab the chandalier and swing to the other side of the room.

DM: Sure. Let's see. Make a Jump check of 10 to get on the table. As your swing over the two guardsmen, they are going to take swipes at you with AOO.

Player: Can I am make a tumble attempt as I swing to keep them from getting AOO's on me?

DM: That sounds good. Make a Tumble check of 15 to swing past the guards.


Ok that is two skill checks. How hard or time comsuming is that?

 

[Maggan]

Sounds good for TLG

I just thought I would point out that this post from TLG pretty much answers the question posed by this thread:

Originally Posted by cleaverthepit
...and one quick post concerning whether or not C&C is catching on - if sales continue at the rate they are we will be sold out in 15 days but, we think we have neough for 60 but, we planned on a 6-12 month supply ...

So at least there is a lot of initial interest in the game.

Sure a lot of people who buy a new shiny book (especially one for only $20) will not actually become long-term players, or even try it once (I know I own a few games and books that have yet to see any game time, and probably never will).

But the fact that it is selling so well is surely a good sign. The TLG gamble that there is a market for a game like this looks like it is proving to be a good one.

Sounds great for TLG! Any ideas on the size of the print run?

Cheers!

Maggan

 

[Von Ether]

Player: I want to jump up on the table, grab the chandalier and swing to the other side of the room.

DM: Sure. Let's see. Make a Jump check of 10 to get on the table. As your swing over the two guardsmen, they are going to take swipes at you with AOO.

Player: Can I am make a tumble attempt as I swing to keep them from getting AOO's on me?

DM: That sounds good. Make a Tumble check of 15 to swing past the guards.


Ok that is two skill checks. How hard or time comsuming is that?

Can you GM for me? LOL! In the games I've endured those checks would be 20 and the shear thought of making a Tumble-like check while swining would blow the GM's mind. I mean a Tumble check would be for only Tumbling. There's no way it could be used other acrobatic uses. I'm not saying this is a "fault" of DnD 3.+. I'm sure that some of these guys are going to find ways to increase the "default" of CnC checks once players hit 10th level.

For some GM's the idea of PCs having an easy stunt or job is anthema. It must mean their not being "firm enough."

--------
(The time I almost fainted at a Champions game)
Player: "My ninja is ducking and weaving in the danger room."
GM: "Okay, you have a DCV of 17, that covers you ducking a weaving. No need for an athletic roll."

 

[trilobite]

Can you GM for me? LOL! In the games I've endured those checks would be 20 and the shear thought of making a Tumble-like check while swining would blow the GM's mind. I mean a Tumble check would be for only Tumbling. There's no way it could be used other acrobatic uses. I'm not saying this is a "fault" of DnD 3.+. I'm sure that some of these guys are going to find ways to increase the "default" of CnC checks once players hit 10th level.

For some GM's the idea of PCs having an easy stunt or job is anthema. It must mean their not being "firm enough."

--------
(The time I almost fainted at a Champions game)
Player: "My ninja is ducking and weaving in the danger room."
GM: "Okay, you have a DCV of 17, that covers you ducking a weaving. No need for an athletic roll."

A player who comes up with a interesting or inovative idea should be rewarded in my opinion. Hey the whole idea is to have fun. Right? Though I agree some games I have seen have been a contest of will between the players and the GM. Players should be challenged but they need those "i didn't even break a sweat" moments too.

 

[Breakdaddy]

A player who comes up with a interesting or inovative idea should be rewarded in my opinion. Hey the whole idea is to have fun. Right? Though I agree some games I have seen have been contests of will between the players and the GM. Players should be challenged but they need those "i didn't even break a sweat" moments too.

Agreed. As a DM, I sometimes have to stop and internalize requests made by players to do this sort of thing. I find myself more inclined to say no than to have the players find a potentially game-breaking loophole to exploit. This is my fault, not D&D's. As a GM, the onus falls upon me to keep things flowing and to make sure it's fun for all. Personally, I feel that C&C breaks some of these bonds and frees me to allow a bit more of these cool maneuvers, since I'm not as worried about it "breaking" or not being in line with this or that feat or skill, or having the player use some killer combo of feats to make it a lot more potent than it should have been. Again, I fully realize that this is on me, as a DM, not on D&D (I *AM* paranoid, stop looking at me!!!). This is just one of those small, personal things that seems more simplified to me since I can just assign a difficulty to it, check if its a player prime, and see if it worked. No other worries such as AoOs, other feats or skills that might come into play, or the PC having the "high ground" for bonuses since he is swinging from a chandelier (in this case) and is technically above the opponent. None of these things are wrong, or even particularly annoying to me, they just are easier for me to deal with under C&C (or more to the point, not to have to deal with!).

 

[Numion]

Personally, I find C&C allows MORE stuff in combat. Wanna swing on a chandalier and drop down on your enemies? Go for it. You can't do that in 3e without half a dozen feats. Mot well anyway. The dm can wing it of course, but no sane character will try it, because he'll draw half a dozen AOOs and and have to look up twice that many rules. And how many die rolls will it take - not even counting AOOs. Jump checks which I have NEVER seen anyone do without consulting a book, tumble checks, strength check, etc. In C&C it would be a simple action with maybe one modifier tacked on by the ck. Due to all the rules in 3e, I seldom see anyone try anything other than straight combat besides maybe an odd grapple or something. C&C is wide open for any off the wall action you want to try.

If a 3.5e DM did that (screwed you out of a cool maneuver), do you really think he wouldn't screw you in C&C too? Bad DMs exist in every game, not specifically in 3.5e. You might´ve heard more horror stories about 3.5e (I haven't), but that could be because it is the most popular game around, and has the most DMs overall -> more bad DMs too.

Your example was pretty extreme though .. I don't know a single DM that would make it as difficult as you say, but maybe your DMs are just out for PC blood. C&C isn't going to fix that.

 

[JRRNeiklot]

I may have been a bit extreme, but in my experience, players go out of their way to avoide AOOS. If an action requires them to take an AOO, they just don't do it, unless it's a ":get the druid before he casts miasma" thing. Same with other actions. Why do a cool move when it's full of checks to make and penalties to hit? I believe C&C frees the characters up for these moves simply because there ARE no rules for those kind of maneuvers. A player will go ahead and swing from the chandelier because he's not aware of the minus 2 to hit. And, as you said, a good dm will encourage those kind of moves and even if he rolls a bit too low, he'll hit anyway with an ad-hock ruling. Of course that's breaking all the rules, but so what? The point was that rules constrain your characters. With no rules or feats that are required to do an action, I find players are doing wild, cool things like throwing chairs at their opponent, swinging on ropes, bull rushing people off cliffs, etc. I rarely saw any of these moves in 3e.

 

[trilobite]

I may have been a bit extreme, but in my experience, players go out of their way to avoide AOOS. If an action requires them to take an AOO, they just don't do it, unless it's a ":get the druid before he casts miasma" thing. Same with other actions. Why do a cool move when it's full of checks to make and penalties to hit? I believe C&C frees the characters up for these moves simply because there ARE no rules for those kind of maneuvers. A player will go ahead and swing from the chandelier because he's not aware of the minus 2 to hit. And, as you said, a good dm will encourage those kind of moves and even if he rolls a bit too low, he'll hit anyway with an ad-hock ruling. Of course that's breaking all the rules, but so what? The point was that rules constrain your characters. With no rules or feats that are required to do an action, I find players are doing wild, cool things like throwing chairs at their opponent, swinging on ropes, bull rushing people off cliffs, etc. I rarely saw any of these moves in 3e.

But if there is no limitations or guidelines on how to handle every strange manuever that a player can come up with, then that's what you will get.

I don't believe rules constrain a player. It's like physics. You know if you throw that apple into the air it will fall to earth. If everyone knows how a bull rush works then then I don't see why it would not be used. But if the GM has to fly by the set of his pants and make up rules on the fly every time then you lose any consistancy. That bull rush the player attempted last week might be handled differently this week. And that player might be pretty peeved when the rulling is different the second time around.

 

[Lizard]

I may have been a bit extreme, but in my experience, players go out of their way to avoide AOOS. If an action requires them to take an AOO, they just don't do it, unless it's a ":get the druid before he casts miasma" thing. Same with other actions. Why do a cool move when it's full of checks to make and penalties to hit? I believe C&C frees the characters up for these moves simply because there ARE no rules for those kind of maneuvers. A player will go ahead and swing from the chandelier because he's not aware of the minus 2 to hit. And, as you said, a good dm will encourage those kind of moves and even if he rolls a bit too low, he'll hit anyway with an ad-hock ruling. Of course that's breaking all the rules, but so what? The point was that rules constrain your characters. With no rules or feats that are required to do an action, I find players are doing wild, cool things like throwing chairs at their opponent, swinging on ropes, bull rushing people off cliffs, etc. I rarely saw any of these moves in 3e.

The problem here is that it's just as easy to say "OK, you grab the chandelier. It breaks, you fall into the mob of thugs, and all of them get a free attack on you." Rules cut both ways. If EVERYTHING is up to GM fiat, then players have no way to direct their improvement -- to become better at throwing furniture or bull rushing. Furthermore, it undermines niche protection.

Swishy LeFence: "I grab the chandelier, do a triple backflip, and skewer the villain with my blade!"
GM: "Sure, why not. Cool."
Throggle Blooddrinker: "Uh...I do that, too!"
GM: "Huh? You're a hulking half-ogre!"
Throggle: "So? I'm the same level and same class as Swishy, and we have the same Dexterity. And with my strength, I'm LESS encumbered than he was! If he can do it, I can do it!"
GM: "Oh....fine. You do it too..."
Arcanos Magicallios: "I grab the chandelier next!"

I'd rather have a game system where players have to choose among Cool Stuff -- where some can swing from chandeliers and some can whack six orcs in half with their battleaxe, rather than everyone being able to do everything...or not do anything at all, depending on the GM.

"I swing from the chandelier!"
"OK, that's a -6."
"Huh? My other GM never penalizes me!"
"Tough. This is my table."