Once you go C&C, you never go back

[slimykuotoan]

I totally realized why I gravitated away from D20, after I was youtubing and came across this game of mutants and masterminds -they recorded their whole session:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M7XV21u4gR4&feature=related

For me, as new D20 player accessories came out, characters became more mutanty, with powers more and more bizarre, untill my games lost their fantasy flavour, eventually becoming more akin to Rifts, etc.

While I liked the content of the stuff, I didn't feel it belonged in a fantasy campaign.

That said, I may give mutants/masterminds a go.

 

[prosfilaes]

How can one reasonably expect to offer an even handed assessment of the merits of a given work if they don't have at least some experience to understand what went into the creation thereof?

I think that having real experience may actually be a drawback in some cases. It leads you to empathize with the creator rather than the general audience. Someone with real experience is less likely to critique minor failures in hard stuff and more likely to critique minor failures in easy stuff, whereas the important thing for a general review is the impact on the audience, hard or not.

 

[prosfilaes]

This is why it should be tried, if for no other reason than to say you actually know what it is you're not liking.

Personally, if I were to be playing a wide variety of games, I might well give C&C a shot. Being however that my playing time is limited, and my money to buy new material is limited, like many of us, I find it important to prejudge my purchases based on other's opinions.

From what I've heard, C&C is old-school in ways that I don't particularly desire, and a simpler D&D has never really been on my wish-list. (I still remember reading TMNT and my awe at my first point-based system, no matter how limited. A simpler GURPS, now that's what I want.) So no, I really don't think it's worth my time to try it.

(Not that this is meant as an attack on C&C; more on the concept that we have to try everything.)

 

[Jackelope King]

Has anyone tried Mutants and Masterminds?

Sorry to be off topic again but those gaming geek reviews are addictive.

Best superhero RPG on the market, and for my money, my RPG of choice. I'm working on tweaking it into a more open, genre-neutral, toolbox game.

 

[S'mon]

Ooo, I remember the Lone Wolf books!

Has anyone tried the Lone Wolf rpg?

I wanted to get it, but it seems to be OOP, at least there are no cheap copies available.

 

[Valiant]

I have to disagree in the strongest possible terms with your assessment of C&C's art. I think it has a perfect "modern classic" feel that evokes exactly what makes C&C great.

The editing is indefensible, however.

For the record I'm a AD&D player & DM who found exactly the update of D&D I was looking for in C&C. As a matter of fact, it looks like Mr. Gygax is also far from unhappy with C&C.

"Modern classic" is the problem. This is a fantasy game set in a sword and sorcery period, not the local tatoo shop or thespian guild, modern elements only pull you out of that setting (btw 3E was just as bad). C&C's artists are skilled enough to have painted or drawn classic images (the kind we see in the 1E DMG and PH) but choose (or are told) not to. Also, the bulk of the art seems posed and stiff, and doesn't focus on the setting or action (which IMHO is the point of art in RPGs).

As for Gygax and his association with C&C, my understanding is that he is payed for his association, and in return the Troll Lords get the benefit of his name associated with their product.

In any case C&C (with its SIEGE system) is 3E/D20 light; no tables, no GM perogative on what to role to save etc., it still has the video game feel (role jump to get over this, climb to get up that, only with SIEGE).

 

[Fifth Element]

Well, in my opinion that is the case. I think its reasonable, that in order to offer an opinion one must be able to provide a better example in a manner that at least appears informed.

Okay, when you say "provide a better example", does that include an example produced by another artist? Could I compare your work with Larry Elmore to critique it? Or does it have to be something I did myself?

Your initial post implies that it should be something I did myself.

 

[Philotomy Jurament]

"Modern classic" is the problem. This is a fantasy game set in a sword and sorcery period, not the local tatoo shop or thespian guild, modern elements only pull you out of that setting (btw 3E was just as bad).

For the most part, I think the characters are depicted with classic elements (NOT a lot of tattoos, piercings, huge weapons, et cetera); I think 3E is a far greater "offender" as far as that goes. The style C&C uses often has a more modern look to it, but I don't think it's the way the PCs are dressed/groomed that makes it so.

Also...the art...doesn't focus on the setting or action (which IMHO is the point of art in RPGs)

Be careful with the action criticism. Many, many 3E images focus heavily on action (so much so that I get tired of seeing another over-the-top action image with screaming faces, et cetera).

(FWIW, I generally prefer story/action art over pin-ups, too.)

In any case C&C (with its SIEGE system) is 3E/D20 light; no tables, no GM perogative on what to role to save etc., it still has the video game feel (role jump to get over this, climb to get up that, only with SIEGE).

Rolling for various actions depends entirely on the DM, actually. Since C&C doesn't specify what actions require checks*, and doesn't have a table of standard "target numbers" for actions, the DM makes the call on whether a roll is needed. It's very possible to play C&C without using such rolls; the system doesn't even suggest them (contrasted with 3E, which does suggest them just by having a list of skills). Common advice on the C&C forums is to not call for SIEGE engine checks for most tasks -- only when the danger of failure is significant in some way. (Of course, it's also possible to play C&C with a "roll for everything" approach, but that's up to the DM.)

Your table criticism is accurate; C&C is more like 2E or 3E, in this respect. Your saving throw criticism is interesting; I've never considered C&C's use of the SIEGE engine for saving throws as limiting the DM. Can you elaborate on what you mean? (In my case, I found that I preferred the AD&D approach to saving throws, and house-ruled that in, but it wasn't because I felt limited, it was the way the probabilities/level/prime thing worked.)

I agree with you that C&C isn't an old-school system like AD&D. It can be played in an old-school manner, but if you move very far in that direction, you might as well play an older edition, instead. (My C&C game has done this, over time -- it's basically AD&D, at this point.) As I mentioned in a previous post, I think the new "options" book that is coming out may change some peoples' perspective on C&C; right now it's usually seen as an just an old-school system, which isn't really the case, IMO.

C&C's strength isn't that it's "old school;" it's strength is that it's a system that lends itself to tweaking in one direction or the other along that scale, and making the game your own. Hard-core old-school fans are better off with a REAL old school system. Hard-core skills/feats/crunchy-options fans are better off with 3.X or 4E. C&C is good for gamers who might fall somewhere in the middle, or who are exploring exactly where they want to be on that scale.

(IMO, of course. -- )

* Edit -- I'm speaking of general actions like climbing a tree or jumping over a crevasse or bargaining for a better price, of course, not things like saving throws or class abilities like a thief moving silently or a ranger tracking.

 

[Greylock]

"Modern classic" is the problem. This is a fantasy game set in a sword and sorcery period, not the local tatoo shop or thespian guild...

The C&C art is modern classic only insofar as it tries to make the characters look like real people. What you've stated at the end there is a gross mis-characterization.

 

[gideon_thorne]

As for Gygax and his association with C&C, my understanding is that he is payed for his association, and in return the Troll Lords get the benefit of his name associated with their product.

In any case C&C (with its SIEGE system) is 3E/D20 light; no tables, no GM perogative on what to role to save etc., it still has the video game feel (role jump to get over this, climb to get up that, only with SIEGE).

Both of these statements are incorrect and incomplete.

Gary works with TLG because he and Steve are good friends. That, first and foremost centers the core of the relationship between the two.

As for the second broad critique, this is also incorrect. It states quite clearly in the C&C rules that rolls for any given action should only be undertaken should the CK feel it engages in a real turning point for the action itself. One does not need to roll for every little thing. And certainly one doesn't require tables for every little thing either. Clearly I've heard the latter argument many times, and it fails to hold any more water than a sieve. ^_^

This is a fantasy game set in a sword and sorcery period

This is also incorrect. C&C itself is not set in any specific period. While the Troll's write their own setting material in a S&S setting, Gary uses an early renaissance flavor, and other players use the core rules for settings that cross a wide variety of genre.