Once you go C&C, you never go back

[Dragonhelm]

Okay, guys, let's ease up here, okay? Obviously, there's a couple of different points of view. I'd really hate for this thread to be closed.

I think some of the issues revolve around two different styles of gaming, subjective views, and lack of a standard definition.

For example, what makes a "complete" system? Can a game be run with C&C? Yes, and in those regards, it is complete. If your definition includes rules to cover most situations, then no, it may not be complete. Debating whether C&C is a complete system is all subjective, and no two parties will agree on what that definition is.

We talk about game balance. I disagree with the assessment that those who want game balance don't trust the DM. What they're striving for is a fair game and consistency. The problem with game balance is that it tends to be too much of a focus. Balance is something to be strived for, but not to the exclusion of the other elements of role-playing. Balance needs to be balanced itself against role-playing, fun, and so on.

There are times when rules need to be looked up. No matter what game I play in, I'm always looking up something. I think, though, that people need to keep in mind pacing. The last thing you want at the game table is to have bored players while you look up a rule. If you can find it right away, great. If not, then make a decision and then look it up later and apply it the right way from the next session on. DM adjudication should always be in effect, no matter the system.

I think, to be fair, we should also mention modularity. C&C is modular in a sense in that you can add in many different subsystems. Some may need more work than others. Skills, feats, non-weapon proficiencies, etc. are all easy enough to add. But what about psionics, shadow magic, or incarnum? Likewise, the d20 system is pretty modular in that a lot of gaming material out there is designed for d20, and can be used right away without much, if any, adjustment. At the same time, importing non-d20 items can be a bit more tricky.

You know, it really is a shame that every time a C&C thread comes along, it becomes so polarized. I guess the "versus" mentality is just part of society. You see it too often. Personally, I'm of the mind that we, as role-players, need to be more respectful of each others' points of view. C&C and D&D fit two different styles of gaming. While one side may not agree with the other, both sides can agree that they like to game. We should, IMO, be supportive of each other, and respect our differences in opinions.

 

[gideon_thorne]

You know, it really is a shame that every time a C&C thread comes along, it becomes so polarized. I guess the "versus" mentality is just part of society. You see it too often. Personally, I'm of the mind that we, as role-players, need to be more respectful of each others' points of view. C&C and D&D fit two different styles of gaming. While one side may not agree with the other, both sides can agree that they like to game. We should, IMO, be supportive of each other, and respect our differences in opinions.

To add a comment. In response to an early query about balance being an desirable goal. Yes, sure. Balance can be a desirable goal. But, unfortunately, I think it's an unrealistic one. What is balance after all? One can come up with all the equations in the world where one plugs in the values of X on either side of an = sign and it all looks very good on paper.

The thing is, what with all the math in the world, it can't predict the one random variable that no X value will compensate for. That being the players themselves. All the careful calculation in the business can't offset the random creativity of a disparate gathering of individuals.

And while, yes, I can agree that group balance and fairness is a laudable goal, it cant, in my considered opinion, be designed into any game system that has as its principle players, people. Certainly not one that relies on random probability as a determining factor. That sort of balance, in my opinion, is an illusion.

Clearly, the only real polarizing element here is how much detail one wants in ones random number determination. And for that, I can't help. I'm plain rotten at math. Especially at something as over my head as chaos theory.

 

[Jim Hague]

Jim, you seem in your statements to be more into "One True Wayism" than the people you are criticising. According to you, game rules should be comprehensive; game rules should be balanced. Some of us disagree, we are ok with sketchy rules and a lack of balance.

Hardly true. I've never said that people should play games with rules as I see them. It's implicit that my opinions on rules are just that: opinions. I'm responding to the broad strokes that gamers who don't like handwaving an extremely loose rules sets some how 'don't trust their GM', just as one example. I stand firmly by my opinion - game rules should be as comprehensive as play style allows, internally consistent, and most of all, fun.

I'm not a proponent of ultra-detailed systems. I've played GURPS, HERO, even (very briefly) Rolemaster. GURPS was the only one that stuck around for any time at all, but even that got bogged down as rules were added. As an anecdote here, GURPS suffers the same problems as C&C in some cases, but for different reasons - add enough books into the mix (the opposite of handwaving) and the rules cease to be internally consistent.

Right now, my systems of choice are True20 (middling complexity, but much room for improvisation), Mutants and Masterminds 2e (middling-high complexity in chargen), and Savage Worlds (rules-light to medium). Heavier systems don't suit me or my group at all, honstly, which is one of the reasons we tried C&C. Unfortunately, the gaps in the system ended up causing inconsistency in play, which wasn't fun for everyone.

Should every encounter be balanced and fair? Of course not. Take a look at the Conan stories for the style I'm fond of - yes, Conan is a raging machine of destruction, but there's plenty of times that he simply runs away when faced with a clearly superior foe.

For that matter, I'm fine with filling in the blanks on a game world, making details up, even letting players do so. It's all part of the fun. But I do like to have systems where water is always wet, gravity works, and the monster you fought early in your career and defeated is the same when you go looking for it later. Once again, though, C&C is far too much with the handwaving for me.

Does that mean C&C players are some sort of frothing, mad bunch? Not at all. The game has its fans who're happy with the mechanics. Bully for them, I say. For me and my group, there's simply not enough consistency in rules and tone for it to be a good game for us.

As always, your mileage may vary. Not applicable in the state of Denial or its outlying provinces.

 

[gideon_thorne]

As always, your mileage may vary. Not applicable in the state of Denial or its outlying provinces.

Hahahaha!

 

[Jim Hague]

Apropos of nothing else, I'd like to take a moment to thank Dragonhelm up there for chiming in. It's always good to see a voice of reason in these threads; all too often I'm afraid I lose my own.

 

[S'mon]

C&C and D&D fit two different styles of gaming. While one side may not agree with the other, both sides can agree that they like to game. We should, IMO, be supportive of each other, and respect our differences in opinions.

I agree. Also it's possible to like both C&C and 3e, and many people do.

 

[Treebore]

Unfortunately, with several groups, it's too much of a toolkit - it's not crunchy enough to emulate D&D, and it's too rules-heavy to qualify as a light system. The flexibility all too often becomes just handwaving. I'm not crying out for One True Wayism by calling others' products 'pathetic' either, I'd point out. It's great that your group likes C&C; mine found it to be insufficient.



Given nearly a year's worth of playing and attempting to use it both out of the box and with suggestions right off the TLG boards, I think I've got plenty of experience with the system. I'm well-aware of its strengths and limitations. I'm sorry that you take offense to that, but it's hardly surprising, given your own history.



Did I ever say 3.x did games best for me? Nope, not a once. Did I claim my group is 'more expert' than others? Nope. Try applying your own advice at home.



See, I never said these things. I called no one a liar. Simply put, you're making things up.



I'd rightly point out that I'm not the one going to message boards, deliberately starting flamewars and running off into the night crowing about it.

As for my posting here - until you're elected mod, I'll simply give your suggestions the weight they're worth.

I don't start flame wars either. I start off nice threads and then tell others to watch while others jump in and get ugly real fast. Then I point out how they are rude trolls with no provocation because thats the way they are on those boards. Their problem is that they were so predictable. I got plenty of PM's and posts on other boards about this, so I am not the only one who realizes I wasn't the troll, but showing how many Trolls are in the given population of certain boards.


But I am glad to see your back to posting the way you normally do.

I will continue to post on these boards the same way I always have, as nicely as I can manage.

 

[Treebore]

Spell recovery idea

Spell recovery Idea



I freely admit that this idea is inpsired by my playing world of Warcraft.

That being said, how about we do look at spells as being "mana based", and that mana is used to memorize and cast certain formula of certain ranks per day, what we call spells per level per day.

Now here is the BIG CHANGE, instead of saying they must rest 8 hours and then rememorize their spells why don't we say they recharge a level of spells each hour they are simply walking around, riding a horse, sitting there reading a book, and everything else that wouldn't be considered stressful work (cutting lumber, moving rock piles to build brick walls, fighting, etc...)

So the first hour of relatively sedentary time allows them to regain the mana to cast their first level spells, the second hour gives them back 2nd level, 3rd hour third level, and so on until 9 hours has passed for 9th level SPELL casters (18th level characters). This also assumes spells of all levels were used. If they cast only 4th level spells, then an hour later they have the energy for those 4th level spells back.


Keep spell memorization, but the way that will work is the spell they want to be changed is replaced by a mental ritual and study that is represented by the current rules for learning the spells for a given day. IF the caster doesn't want to change their spell selection they don't need to spend any time.

So the spell system still stay pretty vancian, but it doesn't keep spellcasters limited to one serious fight per day, nor do they become endless spell batteries.

So what do you think? Do you already do it this way? Close to this way? IF so, have you liked it, and what problems did you address, or changes made, to make it work even better?

 

[Umbran]

Jim Hague, Treebore:

We have exactly zero desire for arguments or bad feelings from elsewhere to show up here. Please stop propagating issues from one board to another, and let the subject drop. Thank you.

 

[moriarty777]

I find this thread a bit fascinating but I agree that lack of concise definitions will invariably make a mess of things. However, I do feel that both D&D 3.x and C&C have succeeded in improving and growing from the roots of AD&D (albeit in different ways). Both utilize a rule set which is consistent within itself and both can be used as-is within the context and styling of the rules supplied.

Balance is a different issue and is one that can end up being largely subjective.



M