Once you go C&C, you never go back

[Crothian]

Tried and I thought it did an amazing job of getting rid of most of the things I liked while keeping the things I didn't. I got rid of all those books pretty quickly.

 

[Desdichado]

I think the reason for that is that the C&C player base is already heavily self-selected towards people who will most likely like it.

I have not played it, although I would. I guess. I can't imagine myself ever adopting it for a campaign, though.

 

[Dice4Hire]

Looks like C&C is getting punked.

 

[jdrakeh]

I ran a C&C over the Summer of 2006 which went well enough (petered out due to schedule conflicts) but didn't actually convince any of the participants to take it up as their house fantasy system specifically because it lacked the level of mechanical detail that D&D 3x did.

 

[Dragonhelm]

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

*blinks*

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.

You know, it really is a shame that some (not all!) of the fans of C&C can be so...enthusiastic.

You don't successfully promote one game by putting down another. Now, to be clear, this isn't localized to C&C fans by any means. I've seen plenty of d20 fans in my time bash AD&D, for example.

You're absolutely right, C&C is a fantastic game. You're also right in that it isn't the only great game in town. My own POV is that you promote your game while also respecting others. A good friend of mine is a True20 fan, and part of the reason we get along so great is that we respect each others' choices on rules systems.

Personally, I like C&C as a nice, basic rules system that is easy to house rule. I like that it works fine on its own, but it also is open to adding new subsystems. I don't like the variable XP tables, lack of multiclassing rules, and that the hit die progression ends with a flat bonus to HP at higher levels. However, combat is real easy to run and the SIEGE engine lends well to giving the game a good "Hollywood" feel. The only other major limitation is that it doesn't lend to mechanical customization as well.

I recommend it for those who want an old-school feel to their game with some of the basic advantages of 3e. I do not recommend it for those who are very tactical-minded or who favor a lot of mechanics. I would hope that, before making any decision on the game, you guys would give it a chance at least once. If you like it, great. If not, that's okay. C&C is great for its audience, but it isn't for everyone.

 

[Olgar Shiverstone]

Passed. I applauded the desire for streamlining but didn't like where complexity had been added (six saves vice three, for example) and didn't like some of the character flexibility sacrifices.

There's probably a sweet spot for me somewhere just below 3.5, but C&C ain't it.

 

[FATDRAGONGAMES]

I converted fairly quickly, but that's mainly because I am still in love with AD&D. Looking through the C&C players handbook made me feel like a 10 year old again looking through the AD&D books. My 3.5 group took a while to convince to try it, but after they did we gradually switched our game to a C&C/3.5 hybrid and now it is totally a C&C/AD&D game. If you love all of the mechanics of 3.5, C&C isn't for you. I'm not bashing 3.5 in any way, and I still play it. For me, I simply prefer the game I knew as a kid.

 

[Numion]

The emperor has no clothes, huh? I always suspected it was just a vocal minority, but damn ..

Anyway, I always thought that there was something inherently wrong in a game if its best features couldn't be explained without putting down another game. It makes it seem that the makers spent time making 'not D&D' instead of making the best game they could.

 

[Treebore]

I've seen posts by plenty of people who didn't like it. Its not a game for everyone, but if your looking for something else its worth trying out.

I've seen them play C&C for a long while, then go on to something like Savage Worlds, BAsic D&D, and even back to 3E.

My biggest reason for going with it, at first, was because I had a hundred plus books for 3E and D20 based books, almost everything for 2E, lots of 1E, and a good bit of basic. C&C initially was just the best thing for me to go with to use all of that material together in one game.

Now its just the perfect system for me, because it allows me to not only use what rules I want from whatever system I want, and create the rules base that is absolutely perfect for what I want, because I turned it into that.

So now I have a rules set that is flexible enough to allow players skills, even feat like abilities, but still play simply enough to where role play is the focus and still play out quickly.


I liked 3E enough to play it for almost 5 years, and to buy tons of its books and modules. Heck, I just bought a bunch of books in the GR sale.

I'm even loooking forward to 4E, even though I'll never DM it.

Why? Largely because C&C has turned every rules set of D&D into a "research library" like never before. Its amazing to me how easy the SIEGE engine makes everything compatible.

So C&C is perfect for me, maybe for you, and there is only one way to find out. Give it a fair try. Meaning play it and figure it out to where you "get it". Then, if you don't like it, fair enough. C&C isn't for everyone.

 

[JoeBlank]

Passed. I applauded the desire for streamlining but didn't like where complexity had been added (six saves vice three, for example) and didn't like some of the character flexibility sacrifices.

There's probably a sweet spot for me somewhere just below 3.5, but C&C ain't it.

My sentinments precisely.

As for the poll results, I don't think anyone expected C&C to "win out" over D&D. Many of the target fan base probably do not even post here.