Once you go C&C, you never go back

[jdrakeh]

I'm deeply curious, in all honesty, what core system you are currently using?

Currently, OD&D -- but I never have (and never will) claim that it can do anything by design. I'm using it for exactly what it was designed to be used for -- vanilla fantasy that revolves around slaying monsters and reaping fantastic treasures. That said. . .

I could be totally disingeuous and say that it can do anything because, much like C&C (or any other game system, for that matter) if I design houserules that address X, the system will then do X.

The key is that the houserules are necessary for the system to do X. Out of the box, OD&D doesn't do everything (or anything) by design. It does medieval-inspired vanilla fantasy by design. Anything past that isn't something the system does by design but, rather, by modification after the fact.

 

[jdrakeh]

I just thought of a better way to convey what I'm getting at. Look at the following statements:

A: "I can do anything with C&C!"
B: "C&C can do anything!"

I'd say that the first of these statements may well be true, while the latter is undoubtedly false. Why? As designed, C&C only includes rules for class-based medieval-ish vanilla fantasy. Point blank, it doesn't have rules for anything else incorporated into its design.

The second statement above, if taken at face value, is an expression that the C&C RAW facilitates any and all possible play modes and genres (which, of course, they don't). This is the kind of disingenuity that I'm talking about, and the kind of matter of fact statement that often sparks flamewars.

The first statement above, OTOH, says only that the individual can use C&C to do anything, which makes no claim as to the all-encompassing nature of the rules. Rather, this statement addresses the reality that if the individual is willing to create their own rules for X to be used in conjunction with C&C they can, if fact, use C&C to do X.

That's a truthful assessment of the system. Of any system, really. If you're willing to design your own rules for gun-fu in Red Box D&D, Red Box D&D wil do gun-fu. It doesn't do it by design, though, and the credit for gun-fu isn't due Red Box D&D but, rather, the guy who took the time to design those houserules.

Saying that C&C can do anything by design, is not a truthful assessment of the system. If it actually could do anything by design, you wouldn't need to create rules for, well. . . anything. Because things that a game does by design, it provides rules for. And, clearly, C&C does not provide rules for anything.

 

[Greylock]

That is wretchedly overwrought.

And I think I'm starting to sense an agenda.

 

[gideon_thorne]

A much needed clarification. I've never had any issue with Troll Lord employees.

Then of course there's their main artist who is just plain bent.

 

[jdrakeh]

And I think I'm starting to sense an agenda.

My only "agenda" is to explain why saying that a system designed to do only X as-written can actually do "anything" by design is an incredibly disingenuine statement. And that seeing said claim over and over again is really, incredibly, frustrasting to me (and to others, I suspect).

If somebody wants to make that claim of any system, they either need to be able to point to offical, written, rules that validate it or give it a rest. Claimants often say that it's up to the refuter to disprove their strawman, though that's not the way that ordered argument works. The burden of proof falls on the one making the claim.

If a game system doesn't have rules for X, it can't do X.

Really, I have no idea how to convey that simple truth anymore succinctly. I mean, to me, that seems like a pretty basic concept but apparently some people are under the impression that a game doesn't need to contain rules for certain things in order to be credited as containing rules for those things. How they rationalize that, I can't begin to fathom.

 

[jdrakeh]

Then of course there's their main artist who is just plain bent.

Maybe -- but the artwork makes up for it (seriously, that was always a high point of C&C for me)

 

[gideon_thorne]

Maybe -- but the artwork makes up for it (seriously, that was always a high point of C&C for me)

*chuckles* I'm just making the point that, like the other troll lords, I don't take myself, gaming or much else too seriously. ^_^

I'm just as happy to meet friendly folk at cons and the like just to prove how much more weird I can be in person. ^_^

And for some informational posting. There will be Siege engine variant games coming down the pipe fairly soon. Star Siege, a sci fi game using the C&C core mechanic I believe will be one of the first offerings.

Its a chance to showcase what can be done with the system itself by exploring various other genres. So, eventually, the claims can become more true. The system can be made to do most anything. ^_^

But hey, its all good. Whatever folks want to have fun with. The operative word being 'fun'. ^_^

 

[jdrakeh]

The system can be made to do most anything. ^_^

See, that statement I have no issue with That was my point, originally. It can be altered to do most anything, yes, though this isn't the same thing as doing anything as-written.
That said, when Star SIEGE comes out, then SIEGE will do both space adventure and medieval fantasy by design.

Honestly, I'd kind of like to see a multi-genre (or "generic" if you prefer) SIEGE system book -- with tools for building classes from scratch, a formula for creating balanced class abilities, etc (at which point, the claim that it can do anything by design would arguably be true).

 

[w_earle_wheeler]

C&C has had some very obnoxious fans post here about how the game can do anything out of the box (i.e., unaltered), which makes it obviously superior to D&D -- and then they proceed to tell people that you only need to houserule or handwave a sizeable list of stuff to make it do X (thus, shooting hundreds of holes in the original claim).

This is what caused many problems for me with C&C. I believed the hype put out by over-eager shills, and that caused me to have a disproportionate amount of frustration when I ran the game.

Now that I've let that dust settle a bit, I'm willing to go back to the book and mine it for ideas to use in an OD&D/AD&D game. Editing issues aside, I always liked how the book was written.

But I'll probably never run a C&C game again.

I tried to sell my (five!) C&C PHB's to local gamers in the hopes that they could get enjoyment out of the game that I didn't. Even at $5, no one wanted to buy it. I ended up giving them to my FLGS in the hopes that they could one of them and lessen the hit they took for ordering the first printing of the book on my reccomendation.

 

[Drowbane]

I've played it a few times and then went back to 3e.