Once you go C&C, you never go back

[Particle_Man]

I like games that are easy to run, so I like C&C and Savage Worlds.

But Savage Worlds is getting the edge with Plot Point adventures, which make my game even easier to run. And besides...SOLOMON KANE!!!!!

Also, I was hoping that dragons would be less complicated in C&C then they were in the M&T books. Oh well.

But I am having fun running my C&C game now. I switch things around to keep it fresh. So a medusa, instead of having snakes on her head, has tentacles with eyeballs on the end. When you first look at her, make a save. If you fail, your eyeball disappear (replaced by a flap of skin, yes you are blind) and the medusa grows two more tentacles with eyeballs on the end...

I was a softy, so when she was killed, all the eyeballs flew back into their proper sockets. Very scary for the person that failed their save by one so had only one eyeball, so actually saw an eyeball tentacle flying towards their face!

 

[rogueattorney]

You can put me in the "I'd rather just play O(A)D&D" camp.

I appreciate that C&C resources are much more easily convertable to O(A)D&D than 3e resources are, and will continue to look into buying C&C adventures, campaign settings, and the like for conversion purposes. I still haven't gotten a good look at James Mishler's Wilderlands stuff for C&C, and am quite curious about it.

Also Gabor (Melan) Lux's three free C&C adventures that are floating around the 'Net are absolutely fabulous. Any fan of Howard/Burroughs/Leiber-esque pulpy S&S should check them out.

 

[Numion]

BTW, is it called the 'SIEGE' or the 'SEIGE' system? I've seen people use those terms almost interchangeably.

 

[Philotomy Jurament]

BTW, is it called the 'SIEGE' or the 'SEIGE' system? I've seen people use those terms almost interchangeably.

SIEGE is correct. "SEIGE" is just a (really) common misspelling, like "loose" when "lose" is intended.

Edit: Really, it's the "SIEGE engine," leveraging the obvious pun. "SIEGE system" just doesn't have the same punch.

 

[Philotomy Jurament]

...a medusa, instead of having snakes on her head, has tentacles with eyeballs on the end. When you first look at her, make a save. If you fail, your eyeball disappear (replaced by a flap of skin, yes you are blind) and the medusa grows two more tentacles with eyeballs on the end...

I like that. I'm going to steal it.

 

[Philotomy Jurament]

C&C has kind of a history which still influences attitudes about it. There have been personality conflicts, flamewars, a lot of bruised egos and pent up passive-agressive behaviour (you can see it in this thread if you wish). C&C has attracted this sort of thing in part because it assumes a lot about the nature of roleplaying games which are antithetical to the current consensus.

I think it's also because C&C has assumed a via media, middle-way position between different philosophies of gaming, so it attracts fire from enthusiasts and purists on both ends. The hard-core old-schoolers think it's too much like modern editions, and the fans of modern editions think it's too archaic and old school. Et cetera.

I started with the basic box as a baseline, and built a game of my own on top of that. It is no longer really C&C, but I must be thankful to the TLG people for catalysing my thoughts.

That's similar to how I feel about C&C. My "C&C" game is hardly C&C, anymore, but the game played a major role in assisting me in discovering exactly what I like in D&D and in "making the game my own."

 

[Dragonhelm]

I think it's also because C&C has assumed a via media, middle-way position between different philosophies of gaming, so it attracts fire from enthusiasts and purists on both ends. The hard-core old-schoolers think it's too much like modern editions, and the fans of modern editions think it's too archaic and old school. Et cetera.

Which is funny, because you would think that C&C would be where both camps meet.

*scratches head*

That's similar to how I feel about C&C. My "C&C" game is hardly C&C, anymore, but the game played a major role in assisting me in discovering exactly what I like in D&D and in "making the game my own."

Yeah, I'm kind of like that too. It has become a baseline for me, but I'm using things beyond as well.

 

[Lord Mhoram]

There are times I think 3.5 is too simple. C&C is not the game for me.

 

[Jim Hague]

C&C's a good game, but frankly the evangelism of its fans puts me off, as do the (IMO) false claims that conversion is a snap. It's solidly-built, well-supported, but there's a minority of its fans that put me off...especially when certain ones do cross-board, deliberate trolling, then head to the TLG forums to brag about it.

Poor form, that.

 

[Treebore]

Well I tried C&C, and it didn't float my boat. I like the idea of a rules-lite game, but the d20-ish mechanic didn't seem to work well at all, especially for games above the 9th-12th range. Once you hit 13th-15th level play, C&C really breaks down, and at 15th+, it's just as bad as any other version of AD&D, from 1st up through 3rd-and-a-half.

On the other hand, C&C did inspire me to switch from 3e back to OD&D (BECMI/RC), and that kind of rules-lite, nostalgic gaming really did work for me. It made me happy to play, and it improved the experience for me as a DM and for my friends as role-players. So I can at least credit C&C with giving me the idea of leaving d20 System gaming behind, even if I didn't like or want to play C&C itself.

Your not the only one that went that path. Which is cool. Gaming is about having fun, and you can't have real fun without being happy with what your playing.

It can be argued that I don't play "real C&C". but I do, since the spirit of the game is to play it how you want it to be. I have too many 3E books and modules, well, too many books and modules of every edition, to go with just any one of them, since C&C makes it the easiest to universally use all of the edition material. So thats what works for me and makes me happiest.

Going back to OD&D is what makes you happiest, and thats cool too, because thats what its really all about.