Irreconcilable differences(Forked Thread: When did I stop being WotC's...)

[Treebore]

To paraphrase Weird Al, "Everything you said is wrong."

It is not the real D&D; it is not what 4E "should have been"; and it retains many of the shortcomings of 2E.

• Only D&D is the "real" D&D, and each edition is "Real".
• If 4E contained as little innovation as C&C everyone at WotC would have been deservedly fired.
• Wizards still go from suck to "Ultimate Power" within 10 levels
• Intra-party balance isn't even strived for
• Fighters still suck past 5th level
• Equipment dependency; Can you say it?

Further the SIEGE Engine is a cheap knock-off of the d20 mechanic, except it's mathematically backwards and half as intuitive. I call is "Son of THAC0".

The only improvement C&C brought over 2E was a more unified and sensible saving throw sub-system.

C&C is just as fun as AD&D, which is a compliment I assure you, but let's not get carried away.

Well, as someone who has actually used C&C for over 2 years now, and actually ran a game to currently 15th level, I would say you are the one who is wrong.

Don't forget I played 3E for almost 5 years (running or playing characters well into EPic levels), 2E for over 10 years (games to over 22nd level), 1E for 5 years (again, games to over 20th level), and OD&D for about a year (characters up to 300,000 XP's). Oh, and 4E for two months. Third level characters.

So I have not only read over the rules, but actually used them rather extensively, except for 4E. I am not feeling enough 4E love to keep playing it.

So yes, I definitely disagree with your assessment of C&C.

 

[cignus_pfaccari]

4E in play has less resemblance to WoW than 3E. If people said "Hmm, 4E plays like a japanese tactical RPG", THAT'S a valid comparison.

Indeed.

Even though I can't summon Bahamut, yet.

Brad

 

[Irda Ranger]

So yes, I definitely disagree with your assessment of C&C.

You disagree with my assessment that C&C is just as fun as AD&D? Perhaps you disagree that C&C has a better saving throw system than AD&D? Or something else? Which part of my post did you disagree with?

I said C&C is not "the real D&D." And it's not. D&D is "the real D&D." C&C is its own game.

I said that C&C is not what 4E should have been. Because I disagree. And since it's a totally subjective opinion, I'm right.

I also said the SIEGE Engine was "Son of THAC0", and it is. The d20 system is much easier to use than previous rules, and the SIEGE Engine is really is just an inside out version of d20 that's not intuitive to use. It's mathematically the same, but do you know how long it takes me to explain d20 to a new gamer and teach them how to use it? About 5 seconds. And the SIEGE Engine? Longer. A lot longer. And to no advantage. It's just not intuitive and it's not any better in any significant way.

Don't forget I played 3E for almost 5 years (running or playing characters well into EPic levels), 2E for over 10 years (games to over 22nd level), 1E for 5 years (again, games to over 20th level), and OD&D for about a year (characters up to 300,000 XP's). Oh, and 4E for two months. Third level characters. So I have not only read over the rules, but actually used them rather extensively, except for 4E.

I'm not sure how this is relevant, but I played AD&D 2E for eight years and Iron Heroes for three. I wasn't able to play RPGs between the release of 3E and the release of Iron Heroes so I skipped a generation. I've played 4E a couple times.

Oh, and I own all the C&C books and have run several adventures using it. I don't run a regular campaign but I got in on the high-level beta test of the advanced rules and got all my Iron Heroes friends to sign NDA's so I could get them to test them too. I designed a mini-campaign using C&C rules and ran my wife solo through it. So I'm pretty familiar with the rules and the system.

I am not feeling enough 4E love to keep playing it.

Me neither. If I felt like playing a boardgame I'd own Talisman or Monopoly.

 

[daddystabz]

Actually, you are quite misguided and totally wrong in most of your assumptions. Also, keep in mind that the chief tenant of C&C is that it is meant to be houseruled and modified by the Castle Keeper. In fact, Gary Gygax himself stated he preferred C&C over the newer forms of D&D. He considered the newer editions of D&D (3e forward) a pale shadow of what D&D was meant to be. That is pretty much endorsement enough for me. Ask Treebore here what he thinks of C&C. He is one of its biggest supporters. Try to step outside your D&D fanboy guise. Gygax was the co-creator of D&D and its chief mind. Without him there would be no D&D. He stated C&C was more D&D than D&D from 3e forward. What else do you need?

As for your illogical criticism of the SIEGE engine it is in fact a VERY simple system and much easier than having a boat load of skills and skill points to have to take into account. Instead, you can take care of all that with a simple SIEGE roll. It doesn't get easier than this. All my friends understood it right off the bat and even my girlfriend's 10 year old son can grasp this simple mechanic and could play within it. How hard is it? If the attempted task is in regard to an ability that is a prime attribute of your character then your DC is lower than if it is tied to one that is non-prime. Prime being an ability score that the character chose at creation to be a primary focus. Non-prime being not one chosen as a primary focus. Pretty simple.

To paraphrase Weird Al, "Everything you said is wrong."



It is not the real D&D; it is not what 4E "should have been"; and it retains many of the shortcomings of 2E.

• Only D&D is the "real" D&D, and each edition is "Real".
• If 4E contained as little innovation as C&C everyone at WotC would have been deservedly fired.
• Wizards still go from suck to "Ultimate Power" within 10 levels
• Intra-party balance isn't even strived for
• Fighters still suck past 5th level
• Equipment dependency; Can you say it?

Further the SIEGE Engine is a cheap knock-off of the d20 mechanic, except it's mathematically backwards and half as intuitive. I call is "Son of THAC0".

The only improvement C&C brought over 2E was a more unified and sensible saving throw sub-system.

C&C is just as fun as AD&D, which is a compliment I assure you, but let's not get carried away.

 

[Irda Ranger]

Also, keep in mind that the chief tenant of C&C is that it is meant to be houseruled and modified by the Castle Keeper.

They should have sold me a blank notebook then instead of a book all full of words and charts.

In fact, Gary Gygax himself stated he preferred C&C over the newer forms of D&D. He considered the newer editions of D&D (3e forward) a pale shadow of what D&D was meant to be.

So do I. I prefer C&C by no less than a mile, and quite possibly more. That doesn't make anything I said before incorrect.

Gygax ... stated C&C was more D&D than D&D from 3e forward. What else do you need?

Legal ownership of the IP. EGG was canned and his company sold to Wizards. He got the shaft, and the people who did it were meanies, but that doesn't transmogrify C&C in "the real D&D." D&D is D&D.

As for your illogical criticism of the SIEGE engine it is in fact a VERY simple system and much easier than having a boat load of skills and skill points to have to take into account. Instead, you can take care of all that with a simple SIEGE roll. It doesn't get easier than this.

Spent a lot of time on the TLG boards, have you? I think I've seen this been said 1000x times over there. They keep repeating it like a mantra, but that doesn't make it true.

The SIEGE Engine is just d20, but the DC is always either 12 or 18, and all the bonuses are negative numbers and all the penalties are positive numbers. It's THAC0 all over again, except it's for a general skill system instead of combat. If you simply changed one rule (gave players a +6 for each Prime stat) you could use d20 instead and all the numbers become positive. It's just easier to compute.

Can anyone learn the SIEGE Engine? Of course; it's not rocket science. But I said it's less intuitive than d20 and it is.

 

[doctorhook]

I don't play 20 questions. You asked for a quote, you got it. Now I am done with your questioning.

You may as well have quoted Churchill or Gandhi or Homer Simpson for all the relevance it brought to your argument, Delta.

 

[Hunter In Darkness]

Ya know this is the first time ever 3e vs. 4e got derailed by C&C VS. D&D......


well done you all get xp

 

[BryonD]

1. The D&D brand: If things were simply about prefering one system to the other, there wouldn't be an edition war. The issue is that the D&D brand has value, both to individual people and in practice within the gaming community. The fact is that the D&D brand itself is solely supporting 4E right now hurts the 3E gamer and this isn't something that is likely to be fixed.

I don't care a lick about the brand.
I played 1E because it was the only game I knew of at that point.
I started playing 2E because it was the new shiny version of the game I played.
I stopped playing 2E and switched to other games because the other games showed me that much more could be acheived than what 2E offered.
I switched to 3E because it showed that a lot had been learned from those other games, and, IMO, it became a blend of the best aspects of other things.
I dropped 4E because it failed completely in offering what I want.

None of these things have anything to do with the name.
Indirectly, the name power of D&D certainly played a key role in the ability to put together the effort of making 3E exist. So it is a factor in that sense. But that has nothing to do with personal attraction.

For me the edition war comes down to the reality that a vastly different game with a vastly different target audience is, almost arbitrarily, assigned the same name as the game that works for me. So even though there are target audiences for both, one group gets "fired" for the sake of brand naming.

It kinda like if they had decided to do away with major league baseball just because they started having professional basketball.

 

[BryonD]

Der Kluge - I didn't hang out on Usenet, but, PlanetAd&D at the time was pretty vocal in hating all things 3e. Heck, the fact that you have an entire forum and community created specifically because of the dislike of 3e shows how strong the opposition to 3e was at the time.

I find comparing planetAD&D to the current split to be highly amusing.

Of course you assured me that all this would be over in two months. that was a little over three months ago and, if anything, it is gaining steam.

 

[Greg K]

In fact, Gary Gygax himself stated he preferred C&C over the newer forms of D&D. He considered the newer editions of D&D (3e forward) a pale shadow of what D&D was meant to be. That is pretty much endorsement enough for me. Ask Treebore here what he thinks of C&C. He is one of its biggest supporters. Try to step outside your D&D fanboy guise. Gygax was the co-creator of D&D and its chief mind. Without him there would be no D&D. He stated C&C was more D&D than D&D from 3e forward. What else do you need?

While I am thankul to EGG for co-creating DND and started with 1e (well, actually it was brief session or two with the original basic set), why should I could care that Gygax considered 3e a pale shadow of what DND was meant to be or that he considers C&C to be more DND than 3e? Were talking about the same guy that also created Cyborg Commando and Dangerous Journeys so he is not infallible.

BTW , if you are going to accuse Irda of DND fanboyism, read again what I quoted from you. It can easily be taken to be Gygax fanboyism. Glass houses, the kettle black and all that.