Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="seskis281" data-source="post: 3738848" data-attributes="member: 41593">Indeed, when one refers to &quot;evangilism&quot; of C&amp;C what you're really saying is there are those of us who like C&amp;C a lot and want to share our experiences. There's another thread right now for those who tried C&amp;C and didn't stick with it... the point is our particular game system isn't as well-known, so we encourage others to try it. If they like it, great!&nbsp; <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f600.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":D" title="Big grin&nbsp; &nbsp; :D"&nbsp; data-smilie="8"data-shortname=":D" />&nbsp; If they find it's not their cup of tea, great too.&nbsp; <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile&nbsp; &nbsp; :)"&nbsp; data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />&nbsp; What's a little baffling is how hung up some get on proving that the system is somehow &quot;inherently flawed&quot; for not following certain specific RPGing philosophies. As I understand it, some of the early playtesters of the system weren't happy that it didn't go even further towards 1e (and so OSRIC was born). To me that wouldn't have made much sense, as 1e is already out there, and C&amp;C wanted to capture the &quot;spirit and feel&quot; of that older D&amp;D game while adapting certain d20 concepts and ideas. I keep coming back to the split in philosophies - and this is never more apparent when conversations turn to semantics. To be able to be played &quot;out of the box&quot; is one example - one school of thought says the foundational approach of a C&amp;C game is all you need, relying on the GM (CK) to interpret and apply in actual gameplay; the 2nd school says if its not provided for &quot;on the page&quot; then it is not &quot;inherent&quot; in the system. A discussion like this will never breach those opposing views, and again neither is &quot;right&quot; or &quot;wrong,&quot; just a POV. The 2nd example is what is meant by &quot;options.&quot; The primary crux of the arguments above come from two different interpretations here - either options mean specific feat-trees, well-developed, playtested and codified in rules for specific actions, or options mean characters can try just about anything at any level (which is the intent of the Siege engine mechanic.I will add that I have been reading another thread on more codified rules for &quot;social interaction,&quot; the idea that non-combat encounters have more specific rules governing their interaction the same as combat. Plenty of people say &quot;this will be great!&quot; That is one school of thought, and good for them if 4e gives this sort of highly structured setup for them. I would not look forward to bartering-stat blocks, but this is my personal preference.&nbsp;&nbsp; <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f631.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":eek:" title="Eek!&nbsp; &nbsp; :eek:"&nbsp; data-smilie="9"data-shortname=":eek:" /> So maybe it really comes down to the way the phrase &quot;well-designed&quot; gets thrown around. The gist of some (and by no means most) anti-C&amp;C posts tend to concentrate on proving &quot;flaws&quot; in intent and that it is not well-designed.&nbsp; This is really the one thing I take exception to.&nbsp; I think 3.5 is extremely well-designed. I just don't like the emphasis of the system (again - just personal preference). 1e was well-designed. 2e was well-designed. True20 is extremely well designed, but I prefer the medieval flavor still of C&amp;C over it. I will bet that 4e will be very well-designed, but it most likely will move even further away from my RPG interest and emphasis. For me, C&amp;C is extremely well-designed for my tastes, desires and preferred gameplay. Disliking a system is ok. Getting in a twist that others like it and find it works when you don't, well that's a little &quot;off.&quot;&nbsp; <img src="http://www.enworld.org/forum/images/smilies/paranoid.png"&nbsp; class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt=":uhoh:" title="Paranoid&nbsp; &nbsp; :uhoh:" data-shortname=":uhoh:" /></blockquote>

[QUOTE="seskis281, post: 3738848, member: 41593"] Indeed, when one refers to "evangilism" of C&C what you're really saying is there are those of us who like C&C a lot and want to share our experiences. There's another thread right now for those who tried C&C and didn't stick with it... the point is our particular game system isn't as well-known, so we encourage others to try it. If they like it, great! :D If they find it's not their cup of tea, great too. :) What's a little baffling is how hung up some get on proving that the system is somehow "inherently flawed" for not following certain specific RPGing philosophies. As I understand it, some of the early playtesters of the system weren't happy that it didn't go even further towards 1e (and so OSRIC was born). To me that wouldn't have made much sense, as 1e is already out there, and C&C wanted to capture the "spirit and feel" of that older D&D game while adapting certain d20 concepts and ideas. I keep coming back to the split in philosophies - and this is never more apparent when conversations turn to semantics. To be able to be played "out of the box" is one example - one school of thought says the foundational approach of a C&C game is all you need, relying on the GM (CK) to interpret and apply in actual gameplay; the 2nd school says if its not provided for "on the page" then it is not "inherent" in the system. A discussion like this will never breach those opposing views, and again neither is "right" or "wrong," just a POV. The 2nd example is what is meant by "options." The primary crux of the arguments above come from two different interpretations here - either options mean specific feat-trees, well-developed, playtested and codified in rules for specific actions, or options mean characters can try just about anything at any level (which is the [I]intent[/I] of the Siege engine mechanic. I will add that I have been reading another thread on more codified rules for "social interaction," the idea that non-combat encounters have more specific rules governing their interaction the same as combat. Plenty of people say "this will be great!" That is one school of thought, and good for them if 4e gives this sort of highly structured setup for them. I would not look forward to bartering-stat blocks, but this is my personal preference. :eek: So maybe it really comes down to the way the phrase "well-designed" gets thrown around. The gist of some (and by no means most) anti-C&C posts tend to concentrate on proving "flaws" in intent and that it is not well-designed. This is really the one thing I take exception to. I think 3.5 is extremely well-designed. I just don't like the emphasis of the system (again - just [I]personal[/I] preference). 1e was well-designed. 2e was well-designed. True20 is extremely well designed, but I prefer the medieval flavor still of C&C over it. I will bet that 4e will be very well-designed, but it most likely will move even further away from my RPG interest and emphasis. For me, C&C is extremely well-designed for [I]my[/I] tastes, desires and preferred gameplay. Disliking a system is ok. Getting in a twist that others like it and find it works when you don't, well that's a little "off." :uhoh: [/QUOTE]

Verification