Once you go C&C, you never go back

[Calico_Jack73]

I absolutely love it and would love to run it but the people in my group have gotten somewhat spoiled on the options for character development through Feats. There isn't a whole lot of interest in switching to it.

 

[Philotomy Jurament]

i could've told you.

Oh, you did. But I'm a stubborn bastard, so I have to learn things the slow way.

 

[Dragonhelm]

I stay out of debates on the issue, because I don't really have much to add, but also because the guys behind the game are so darn nice. Frankly, I think that's why you don't see a lot more criticism of the game: while some of the game's defenders can be argumentative at times, the actual authors are professional, and nice people to boot!

I agree. One time I made an order over the phone to the Trolls and landed up shooting the breeze for a while with them. I've also enjoyed talking to them at GenCon.

I'm using C&C quite a bit right now. Using it to run some Game Mastery modules.

One thing that I didn't like about C&C was the test resolution system where you needed two numbers depending on if a character specialized in an attribute.

What some people do is add +6 to a roll and keep the basic 18 target number on rolls, rather than having 18 or 12 (if prime). I do it that way, but make it +5 just to make it a bit easier to add.

 

[Jackelope King]

The SIEGE Engine is a spiffy idea for rules-light gaming. It's a simple way to resolve skill checks, and it does its job nicely for the most part (even if it really would benefit from supporting feats to help with niche protection a little better). They get big kudos there. Great idea.

Everything else... bleh. Too old school for my tastes. Tried it, rolled my eyes a lot, then decided on True20 for my rules-light. I'm much happier when I can actually make meaningful character design decisions, and when the rules feel more unified.

 

[jolt]

I voted no.

One of the main reasons I had initially left AD&D for was that I came to hate the notion of different level progressions for different classes. For one, most players tended to take whatever was strongest even if it meant slower leveling (weak classes were usually only taken by multi-classing demi-humans) and two, the progressions as written make no sense (e.g. the Magic-User at lower levels is weak and slow advancing but as time goes on he becomes immensely powerful and is one of the faster advancing classes in the game). I have no desire to move to a game that uses this leveling mechanic. (Rolemaster was the game I switched to (If you care (And you probably don't)))

If I wanted to switch to that style of game I would just go back to 1E (I still have all my stuff) as I'm more familiar with it and what I'd want to change.

jolt

 

[jolt]

But I'm a stubborn bastard...

Just for the record, while everyone else was saying that, I [bravely] stood up for you.

jolt

 

[dmccoy1693]

but also because the guys behind the game are so darn nice.

REALLY?!? Ask an OSRIC fan just how darn nice the TL boys are.

 

[Ottergame]

No. While I think it's well made and hits the goals it sets for itself, I'm just not interested in rules lite D&D.

 

[WSmith]

I bought it and really liked it at first (despite the spelling errors in the PHB). But then I figured, "this is a lot like AD&D, so why don't I just play 1st Edition AD&D?"

As one of the contributors that helped design C&C, I can say that this is the most prominent (and benign for conversation here) reason that after I played the final product for a little while, it just didn't feel close enough AD&D for me to enjoy. It is not bad on its own legs. But the final product just wasn't what I was hopping for.

 

[MrFilthyIke]

The Castles & Cultists normally used to come out in full force in many threads, trying to convert to d20 heathens to the TLG cause.



Aside from my dislike of some of the fans of the game, it's still a great game.

Just not greater than BD&D/AD&D/AD&D2E/D&D3E.