My C&C campaign is kicking some major butt

[Akrasia]

I always say, if you can't make ANY rules system fade into the background, the fault lies on the GM and/or players. ...

I just read this again, and I have to say that it is one of the most ridiculous and annoying things that I have read in quite some time.

Game rules have an impact on game play. The more rules you have in the game, the more often questions concerning those rules emerge during play. The more often that questions concerning rules emerge during play, the less likely they are going to 'fade into the background'.

If that means the 'fault' lies with 'me' as a GM, so be it. I frankly could not give a crap. This is game for crying out loud. I guess I am a horrible GM, but I find it much easier to run the kinds of games I enjoy (in my role as GM) with comparatively 'rules light' systems.

Comprendez-vous?

 

[S'mon]

I definitely agree with Akrasia, it's ridiculous to claim that "if you can't make ANY rules system fade into the background, the fault lies on the GM and/or players" - some systems are designed (more or less successfully) to fade into the background (C&C, Eden's Unisystem), other rules systems are designed to provide a focus of play - Advanced Squad Leader, 3e's grid combat system. 3e's skills system actually does tend to fade into the background when I GM, but only because I wing the DCs & results of success - if I actually ran Diplomacy or Intimidate strictly by the RAW I'd be bashing my brains out in no time.
BTW I'm not saying 'hard kriegspiel' systems like 3e combat are a _bad_ thing, they're just very different from a (semi)-free-kriegspiel system like C&C and create a very different gaming atmosphere.

 

[Dragonhelm]

3e's skills system actually does tend to fade into the background when I GM, but only because I wing the DCs & results of success - if I actually ran Diplomacy or Intimidate strictly by the RAW I'd be bashing my brains out in no time.

I do the same thing. By "winging it", I can work in levels of success, which I really like.

What I've noticed is that I developed a style of DM'ing from the AD&D days, and it has stuck with me. The combat style of 3e doesn't work so well with my own style. C&C's works much better for me, not being that different from AD&D.

I like both C&C and D&D (*gasp!*). I do feel that you can use each system for different purposes. For example, I would use D&D for Dragonlance, and C&C for Castle Zagyg.

At the same time, part of me wants a happy medium. *sigh*

 

[Treebore]

Akrasia aned S'mon ignore him.

If you don't know your good enough and smart enough that is your problem. His problem is rude ignorance. You guys know your good, so why let his comment get to you? I'll be happy to pit my intelligence and wisdom against his any time. Maybe he is smarter. Until then I could care less about his sweeping claims that I know are bogus. Heck, the rules for L5R are in the forefront of the game, because those rules are what capture the flavor.

Ignore him.

BTW, I can't wait to start my own C&C campaign. I hope to have the chance soon after I move to AZ.

 

[Mythmere1]

Our game may have been slightly weak last night, although actually the players all said they had fun, so maybe it was one of those where the DM just gets a different impression from the players. I had fun, too - but I'm more focused on social encounters than the players. I always try to work in combat, and all they got was a pretty weak combat.

Since people tend to snipe at the system, I'll note that the weakness was mine as a DM (CK), not based on the rules. This session would have been about identical under either set of rules, since it was all RP.

The paladin has decided to unite the fragmented kingdoms and feudal areas of the South against an evil demigod whose power is rising in the north - in this session, they consolidated their hold on a wilderness stronghold taken from giants, did a bit of diplomacy with the good giants, met the Abbot of a monastery that focuses on a Regimen of Twelve Increments to reform evil monsters and humanoids, then extracted the paladin's sister from a problematic marriage and established the paladin as a count. The paladin now dislikes the abbot, the ranger now dislikes the paladin's sister. The wizard has overcome a phobia of teleportation. For the next session, they've got dungeoneering plans, so I've got a more structured plan for next time.

Having a good time...

 

[Breakdaddy]

Our game may have been slightly weak last night, although actually the players all said they had fun, so maybe it was one of those where the DM just gets a different impression from the players. I had fun, too - but I'm more focused on social encounters than the players. I always try to work in combat, and all they got was a pretty weak combat.

I wouldnt worry too much about it, they cant all be award-winning sessions. I dont know anyone who has played for a significant amount of time that hasnt had at least a couple of lukewarm games, no matter how hard everyone tried to make the game great.

 

[MonsterMash]

I definitely agree with Akrasia, it's ridiculous to claim that "if you can't make ANY rules system fade into the background, the fault lies on the GM and/or players" - some systems are designed (more or less successfully) to fade into the background (C&C, Eden's Unisystem), other rules systems are designed to provide a focus of play - Advanced Squad Leader, 3e's grid combat system. 3e's skills system actually does tend to fade into the background when I GM, but only because I wing the DCs & results of success - if I actually ran Diplomacy or Intimidate strictly by the RAW I'd be bashing my brains out in no time.
BTW I'm not saying 'hard kriegspiel' systems like 3e combat are a _bad_ thing, they're just very different from a (semi)-free-kriegspiel system like C&C and create a very different gaming atmosphere.

Got to agree that some rules systems become intrusive, which is usually where I drop that game, I still love and play original Squad Leader, but realised before actually laying out any money that ASL would need to be more like a way of life than a game and therefore not so suitable for me.

 

[MonsterMash]

I had a similar experience in my last 3e campaign once it reached ca 10th level, running it became a chore rather than a joy. I'm enjoying my current 3.5 campaign a lot, though PCs are currently only level 1-2. I'm running Lost City of Barakus, I think 3.5 with a few tweaks (mostly rules from Conan RPG) should work fine up to ca level 7 or 8, when LCoB is done I'll take stock and see if I want to continue the campaign using 3.5 rules, one possibility might be to switch to C&C - I'm already using C&C a lot for inspiration in current game, helping me keep in the rules-light mindset - possibly see if the players would like to convert their PCs over to C&C for high-level play. If I did that I'd need to change PCs' levels to take account that eg a C&C Rogue is weaker & needs less XP than a 3e one, I'd probably use Fighter as base and lower Wizard, raise Rogue, etc.

I probably swap over quite happily even though clerics may not be so powerful in C&C as in 3.5. I think that avoiding rigid use of battlemats for encounters has helped, though we have needed it for a few. It'll be interesting to see if the party can avoid a TPK before 7-8th level given the odd times our dice rolling can turn bad though.

 

[bolie]

It was a necessary session to set the stage for our future adventures. We were floundering a bit because our DM refuses to railroad us.

The Nameless One

 

[Akrasia]

...
BTW, I can't wait to start my own C&C campaign. I hope to have the chance soon after I move to AZ.

Good luck! What kind of campaign are you hoping to run run?