Once you go C&C, you never go back

[slimykuotoan]

mmm, slurp, slurp...tasty dragon/dungeon mags...

Reverent goddess Blipdoolpoolp...send us more bubbly goodness.

 

[Greylock]

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).
At this point, somebody will point out that houserules and handwaving aren't something that the game does out of the box and that these are things which the consumer must do themselves. That is, these aren't actual rules in C&C. This is typically followed by much gnashing of teeth and name-calling. Things only tend to go downhill from there.

As one of the designers, I could say all kinds of things, but I won't...

By the way: C&C never meant to replace any game you are using now - it was meant to bridge them, so you could have all of what you liked from them, but under the same umbrella, to make them easier to combine, and play. It was also meant to bring new players into gaming with something simple, and easy to pick up, without the daunting task of memorizing 300 pages of Player material first.

Did you not read serleran's post? I personally get tired of people saying C&C is a sub-par system simply because the designers didn't feel the need to write a rule for every single aspect of the game. Fact is, they did that on purpose and the game is very open in actual play. House rules are encouraged, but often not all that terribly needed. I know that Treebore has house ruled the heck out of his game, but my group has not. We have fewer house rules in C&C than we did playing 3.5.

 

[jdrakeh]

Did you not read serleran's post? I personally get tired of people saying C&C is a sub-par system. . .

Did you read my post? I never said that C&C was a sub-par system. Not once. I never even suggested this. My post was about certain fans making untrue or disingenuous claims about C&C, not about the value of C&C as a game system.

Fact is, they did that on purpose and the game is very open in actual play.

Yes, I know.

House rules are encouraged, but often not all that terribly needed.

Not to play base C&C but, again, that's not what my post was about. My post was about C&C fans who claim that the game can do anything out of the box (i.e., without alteration) and then get pissy when that claim is proven false.

 

[slimykuotoan]

Not to play base C&C but, again, that's not what my post was about. My post was about C&C fans who claim that the game can do anything out of the box (i.e., without alteration) and then get pissy when that claim is proven false.

I think I'm probably new to this argument, and I can understand that C&C isn't for everyone, but I'm not sure I understand your meaning.

The SEIGE system does kinda handle everything.

 

[Scurvy_Platypus]

I've got a like/dislike thing with C&C.

I like the overall system. I tend to prefer lighter game systems (although I am running a BESMd20 derived game), and an awful lot of what C&C does is right up my alley.

I like that I can basically grab pretty much anything and nudge it a bit, and it's good to go.

I dislike the fact that there's not an easy system for creating custom classes. I don't feel the need to obsessively balance everything, but I do like there to be a consistent method. In theory the official one will be released in the Castle Keeper's Guide, but that's some unknown time in the future.

I dislike the fact that the game seems to be stuck in the "grim-n-gritty-fantasy" mode. The system is actually capable of being a lot more than it is, but the community in general seems determined to relive the glory days of 20 years ago. Been there, done that, still got the dice. I've moved on.

The biggest killer for me is a number of the fans. I play in part for social reasons, and if a game seems to attract a particular type of person I don't like and wouldn't want to play with, that means the game isn't for me. I realize that Treebore (and others like him) don't understand that, and there's no way I'm going to be able to explain it.

I could list out all the complaints I've got, but it wouldn't serve much purpose.

If you want a system that's really light, don't care about mechanical differentiation of characters (most of what your character can do you get at 1st level), don't mind each class having its own seperate XP track, have a variety of different editions stuff you'd like to use, it's a great way to go. If you're into houserules, it's a pretty good way to go too, although you can run into some scorn from some of the fans if you start adding in d20isms.

 

[Dragonhelm]

You politely offer personal experience and don't try to sell C&C as The Be All End All fantasy RPG experience, going so far as to make ludicrous (and easily disproveable) claims, then launching into a volley of adhominem attacks when said claims are disproven. This latter thing, I think, understandably drives people away from C&C.

I agree. Many C&C fans are not helping their cause as much as they could. They're putting off a sizable portion of the potential audience with the d20-bashing. In my mind, C&C can both serve as a new way to do old school gaming, and as a way of doing "d20 lite."

I have stopped participating over at Troll Lord Games' boards because of the negativity I was encountering at one point. When 4e was announced, the reaction was...distasteful. One person even posted a graphic of a guy crying gallons of blood. It was just awful. I reported all of this to the mods, but it took quite a bit to rope it all in. By this point, I was so put off that I left.

You know, I can understand preferring C&C to d20. That's fine. Some of us, though, actually like both d20 and C&C, as well as AD&D and other systems. It's okay to like your system, but it's not cool bashing someone else's system. This has turned me off to some C&C vocalists, as well as some d20 die-hards, d20 psionics fans, and so on and so forth.

Like Treebore says, though, you shouldn't judge a game by its fans (or at least the vocal ones). It's hard to at times, especially if a group of fans is being obnoxious. However, you might miss something really good.

 

[Scurvy_Platypus]

I think I'm probably new to this argument, and I can understand that C&C isn't for everyone, but I'm not sure I understand your meaning.

The SEIGE system does kinda handle everything.

And this is how the flamewars/edition wars start.

Briefly, here's the deal:

Using the default resolution system of C&C, yes you can do quite a bit.

The problem is, that there's a lot of stuff that's just left up to "by guess and by golly". Multiclassing rules? Well, there's a number of different ones out there, and there's the set that Gygax wrote. Are any of them "official"? No. The Gygax rules are the closest, but they're not the "official" way to do it.

Skills? Sure, you can do the attribute check thing. But a lot of people don't like it, because it doesn't provide a fine enough resolution. How do you portray a character that's generally pretty clumsy (Dex 9) but has studied and trained extensives on some physical dexterity skill? If your answer is any version of "Well, you can always use the skill system from d20" or you start to make up a skill system... that's a problem. It's a problem because it's just inconsistent.

It might not make sense to you, but some people do feel that way. They _like_ the game aspect of things (the rules) and feel there should be enough of a framework there to actually put all the players on a level playing field, instead of hoping the DM will see things your way.

 

[Greylock]

I have stopped participating over at Troll Lord Games' boards because of the negativity I was encountering at one point. When 4e was announced, the reaction was...distasteful.

Uh huh. I suppose the flip side of that is the large number of my friends who no longer post here. Matter of fact, I'm the only person in my game group that still does, in spite of the fact that most were members here long before I was.

See, I still think of ENWorld as a D&D forum. The preeminent pen and paper roleplaying forum. But frankly, most people I know, in real life, feel like discussion other systems and editions is simply no longer allowed here by the vocal majority of posters. Or criticism of the Golden Lamb of the moment.

 

[Scurvy_Platypus]

They're putting off a sizable portion of the potential audience with the d20-bashing. In my mind, C&C can both serve as a new way to do old school gaming, and as a way of doing "d20 lite."

I don't think they really care. If they did, they'd spend more time being ambassador types, rather than proudly posting about how they found C&C because they hate d20.

You know, I can understand preferring C&C to d20. That's fine. Some of us, though, actually like both d20 and C&C, as well as AD&D and other systems. It's okay to like your system, but it's not cool bashing someone else's system. This has turned me off to some C&C vocalists, as well as some d20 die-hards, d20 psionics fans, and so on and so forth.

I agree. I like a heck of a lot of systems, for all sorts of different reasons. I was turned off to d20 for years because every time I turned around, I saw some person or another slagging off about how much better D&D/d20 was, and how people should get with the program and quit playing "dead games" blah blah blah.

But as time has gone on, I've found that there's a rather large contingency of d20 folks that like playing other games, and seem kind of embarrassed when one of the aggressive people shows up. In fact, ENWorld has contributed to revising my opinion.

Like Treebore says, though, you shouldn't judge a game by its fans (or at least the vocal ones). It's hard to at times, especially if a group of fans is being obnoxious. However, you might miss something really good.

I'm what would be considered by many to be one of those annoying "casual gamers". I can't ignore the social component, and if the majority of the voices aren't ones I'd be willing to play with, it's not a game for me. There might be a massive force of fans that are all groovy folks and they're just quiet, but that doesn't really help things.

For better or worse, the fans are at least a part of the "face" of a game for me.

 

[Scurvy_Platypus]

See, I still think of ENWorld as a D&D forum. The preeminent pen and paper roleplaying forum. But frankly, most people I know, in real life, feel like discussion other systems and editions is simply no longer allowed here by the vocal majority of posters. Or criticism of the Golden Lamb of the moment.

Oh I don't know... it seems nice enough from what I've seen. But then again I refuse to go into the 4E section, so it probably means I'm missing all of the flames from the "you must convert!!!" crowd.