Imaro said:
This is utterly wrong...eratta is a type of support, but according to your stance, even this isn't part of the game. I could even see the point with my quote(taken out of context) if you were talking about support that costs, and even then I wouldn't agree. Support is often a big factor for many gamers when choosing their games, otherwise why do companies produce supplemental books? C&C really doesn't need a skil system, or multiclassing to be flexible. Here's another example...
I've never seen a GM other than myself use errata without my having pointed it out to them beforehand. Obviously it happens or it wouldn't be printed, but I'd never reccomend a system on the basis of "the system in the book is a mess, but once you incorporate the errata, it works like a charm!"
Imaro said:
Human Fighter in D&D has 12 or even 16 skill points to put into skills. If he puts his ranks in his class skills first he ends up with something along the lines of Climb(4)...Ride(4)...Jump(4)...Swim(4)
The same Human Fighter in C&C gets an automatic Str Prime...this gives a (6+level) bonus to his roll for any action governed by Str (Climb, Jump, and Swim). So he can already do as much as the average fighter in D&D...now he can pick two more primes from his abilities. I'm sorry this is more "flexible" than having x amount of points to distribute amongst Y skills. Now the flexibility angle does break down without the ability to multi-class, but it's balanced out by each class actually having a wider range of abilities from primes. The flexibility lies in playing an archetype...as a real archetype, but being able to customize that archetype within it's designated niche. Of course with the FREE multi-classing rules there's even more freedom for those who want it.
You're talking about the flexibility of an individual CHARACTER. Specifically, of a character in play (as opposed to in character creation). I'm talking about the flexibility of a system, and touching on chargen as it relates to the OP's desire to run two specific 2e settins, Dark Sun and Ravenloft. C&C is a fine choice for Ravenloft, where the differences are mostly a matter of TWISTING the genre tropes and gameplay assumptions of D&D, less so for Dark Sun, which rejects many of both.
I freely acknowledge that the C&C fighter is a more mechanically flexible character than the D&D 3.5 fighter when it comes to non-combat skills. Of course, the D&D 3.5 fighter's paucity of skills is a common complaint with that system. The D&D 3.5 fighter may actually be less mechanically flexible in combat, as well, because D&D 3.5 is more concerned with mechanical differentiation than it is with in-game flexibility.
D&D 3.5 is a very INflexible system in-game, moreso than C&C. D&D is more flexible than C&C in character creation, but neither is even average in this regard. Neither provides much in the way of systemic flexibility.
By definition, Archetype-based systems discourage flexibility in chargen. This is a feature, not a bug. These systems, of which C&C is definitely one, encourage you to adopt a specific role - in C&C's case, a role defined largely by earlier editions of D&D.
Compared to a point-buy system, or a class system using generic classes (d20 Modern, for example), it is inherently and by design less flexible. This is not a complaint nor a criticism - again, were I fonder of the specific genre and gameplay conventions of C&C, I would be perfectly happy to use its archetypes. It is an observation, and one I do not think TLG would want to deny. They produced a game that pretty explicitly rejects the "half-dragon half-fiend halfling Paladin/Monk/Fighter/Wizard/Halfling Paragon/Spellsword" that is as much a D&D 3e cliche as "Bob the Fighter" is a D&D 1e cliche. It just as strongly rejects d20 Modern's "Strong/Fast/Tough/Smart/Dedicated/Charismatic" and True20's "Warrior/Expert/Mystic" generic class systems.
Imaro said:
You've totally ignored every point I made in my previous post and instead chose to focus on something that is largely irrelevant to the discussion of flexibility. Let me say this, refering to my bastard sword example above, Things being heavily and minutely defined...does not necessarily translate to flexibility. The fighter in the above example is more flexible than the one who has to pay a feat, or devote points to use a bastard sword.
Actually, it's completely relevant, because it explains the total disconnect I have from your concept of "flexibility" (which is, as far as I can tell, either universal to all RPGs except GMless ones or synonymous with "rules-lite"). As long as that disconnect remains, as long as we're talking about COMPLETELY DIFFERENT CONCEPTS, you give me absolutely no reason to address the flexibility issue.
Do either Mutants and Masterminds (become Fatigued to take essentially ANY action if it's related to your concept, and the fairly plentiful Hero Points remove Fatigue) or Spirit of the Century (all attributes, from "Steel-Thewed God of the Sword" to "Face That Launched A Thousand Ships" to "Soul Man" work the same way and each player defines what his PC's are and how they apply in play) sound like "things being heavily and minutely defined?"
You appear to be arguing for C&C against D&D 3.5, yet you're addressing your posts to me and I *never* suggested the OP use D&D 3.5. At least one of the systems I suggested, FATE/SotC, is more Rules-Lite than C&C by most any measure I can think of. The other two (M&M and Star Wars Saga) are both, much touted for being simplified from D&D 3.5 - SWS in small amounts both in character creation and in play, M&M very much so in play but not as much in character creation.
That's not to say that all C&C fans are bad. Quite the contrary, there are a number of really good ones. Treebore is an excellent example. So don't let a few bad apples spoil the pot.
