Once you go C&C, you never go back

[Dragonhelm]

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.

Please do not let the vocal defenders of C&C stand as a representation of the game or its makers. There are those out there, like Treebore and myself, who support C&C without putting another system down.

In fact, I've always liked how Treebore approaches things. He takes books from all editions and uses them in his game. In fact, this is much of what the creators had in mind, from what I understand.

I also like Treebore's approach on how to get people into C&C. Give it a fair shot. If you like it, great. If not, that's fine too. C&C isn't for everyone. What's important is that you game using the rules that work best for you.

 

[Ghostwind]

I'm planning on using C&C as a tool to teach D&D to beginning players with the next group I form at work.

 

[jdrakeh]

post deleted

 

[Rhuvein]

Yep, our group tried 3E and then C&C and we all liked it enough to switch. Heck, Regdar, Lidda and Jozan have been adventuring with C&C for almost 3 years!!

Personally, for me it's mostly about the ease of running the game without a lot or pre-prep or work during the game.

As a player, I continue to play 3.5, AD&D 1E, LA and other games online.

To me, it's more about the people you play with, how GM runs the game and how interesting the overall atmosphere is (campaign world).

 

[Greylock]

Yes. My group decided to give C&C a shot over a year ago. We were all veterans of 1st and 3rd Edition, and the DM had a tough time selling us on C&C. But once we started playing, we fell in love with it. The campaign we started in C&C fell apart due to some issues with a couple of players, and we rebooted very briefly as a Dragonstar/Rifts game, which didn't last long. We held a group meeting, decided to play fantasy again, and took a vote as to which system we would use. To my surprise, the entire group voted for C&C. Not a single vote against.

No one was more surprised than the DM, though, who'd had such a tough time convincing us to try it a few months before.

 

[Treebore]

I'd like to second that sentiment. There are some 'fans' of C&C who probably do more to ensure that potential interested parties never play it (in fact, I know that there are). Treebore is the best thing that C&C has going for it at many online communities.

Thanks to you and Dragonhelm.

Over on RPGnet people have actually posted that they stayed away from C&C because of me and my posts. Among the dumbest things I have ever heard, but there is a lot of that on that board.

If I stayed away from games because of how fans talked it up I would never have played 3E, let alone run it for almost 5 years.

Same for RIFTS and Paladium in general.

Same for GURPS.


So, when I think how glad I am I didn't ignore games based on its fans, it baffles me how others do.

In fact, I have actually looked at more systems because of how badly people complained about it.

Thankfully I discovered Shadowrun and Legend of the 5 Rings because of them. Plus C&C. Crothian knocked it pretty bad in his review, but it prompted me to look anyways. Simply because a couple of things he complained about appealed to me. Then I found out he misunderstood a couple oof things, which he graciously corrected in his review. Plus won my admiration for doing so, for whatever that is worth.

Plus there are a lot of 3E WOTC books I would not have bought if I listened to the negative reviews/opinions posted on these boards and others. Fortunately I bought Libris Mortis and other books anyways, and liked them, a lot.

So letting "fans", or "haters", completely determine your choices baffles me. I realized a long time ago everyone has different opinions, diffferent preferences, different many things, and find it very amazing when groups of such people can get together to play any one RPG.

Fortunately it does happen. A lot. Or none of us would be here.

ITs all D&D to me, so even though I don't expect to be a fan of 4E, and don't use 3E as my rules base, I have found plenty of "gaming" to still be in common with everyone to still hang out on these boards.

Which is why I don't get why people feel only one edition is appropriate for any RPG board.


I hope that ENWorld becomes like DF, even more so, in that ENWorld will support D&D in general, let alone only one or two editions. WE are all gamers with one thing in common. Dungeons and Dragons. The edition only matters because people make it a point of contention. We all share the commonality of the experience. The creativity. The fun. How we go about having that experience shouldn't be a point of division.

 

[Breakdaddy]

I play it and enjoy the game, so I voted yes.

 

[slimykuotoan]

re:

I tried it after playing D&D for twenty years or so, and then made the switch to C&C for all of my fantasy games.

The SEIGE system actually gets addictive after a while.

 

[JediOre]

I got dragged kicking and screaming into 3.X after twenty years of AD&D. My group promised they would adventure through Gygax's Necropolis (which I drooled over in a game store) if I'd DM the new version of the game. That was in 2001.

By 2005 the characters had risen to 10th level (we all have busy lives sadly) and my brain could no longer handle the complexity of high level play. All the fun I'd had as DM since '81 was gone in a stream of rules and number crunching.

Since most didn't want to return to AD&D I was within a month of "hanging up the DM spurs" when I caught wind of C&C.

This RPG clicked. It allowed me to be a game master again instead of a rules referee. I prefer it to AD&D for the same reason given by Treebore. I can easily use TSR modules or Goodman Game modules with almost no effort.

I'm enjoying my past time of role playing again for the first time in years.

 

[pawsplay]

C&C gave me hives. I would sooner play Palladium fantasy.