Once you go C&C, you never go back

[Particle_Man]

Yahoo!

Actually, yes. I haven't forgotten your initial request that you made. I have a work in progress for that very thing for the forthcoming CKG.

You have just sold a copy of CKG!

 

[gideon_thorne]

His review criticizes the 12/18 approach for target numbers, instead of using a single target number.

I recall the review myself. And in answer to that critique thats been mentioned a time or two, I can say with assurance that there is only one target number, 18. Perhaps it might have been easier to phrase it as "Primes give you a +6 to your roll when factoring against the target number of 18", but it still gets you to the same place. And has no real factor during play.

 

[Treebore]

His review criticizes the 12/18 approach for target numbers, instead of using a single target number.

Which I find very funny considering how many target numbers other games have. Which one is it that has 10 and 15?

SIEGE engine complicated? I see it it as simple, incredibly flexible, and therefore extremely powerful.

Just another example of how widely opinions can differ.

 

[Dragonhelm]

Well the easy fix for that is TN=18, primes give +6 on rolls, right?

Yes it is. That's how I tackle it. What I've done recently is modify that to have a base TN of 15 with a +5 modifier. Keeps the math a bit simpler.

 

[Clavis]

"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).

I wouldn't compare C&C's art to 3rd edition's silly "spiky bits, mismatched armor, and clothing made of belts" look. Sure, C&C's art isn't exactly like 1st edition's, but times (and artists) change. I love the old art; most of all it was fun. But it's not 1979 any more. That doesn't mean that we need to have the silly, excessive art of 3rd edition. But art, like a game, can progress while still being firmly linked to its history. IMHO 3rd edition's art (and rules) failed to do that; C&C's art (and rules) succeed.

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.

I hope he's getting paid, just like anybody else who produces creative work that gets sold. Gary didn't found TSR because he wanted to give away his creative work! This is America, and there's absolutely nothing wrong with a mutually beneficial business relationship.

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).

C&C is all about GM prerogative. In fact, it's far easier to GM (or CK, rather) C&C than it was 1st edition AD&D. I stopped DMing 1st Edition (for Vampire, and later Rules Cyclopedia D&D) because I wanted a simpler, cleaner system. As for video game feel, I don't see it. 3rd Edition is video-gamey because the entire focus is on excessively increasing character abilities and absurdly large inventories of magical items. C&C's light, streamlined rules free up the GM and players to focus on roleplaying. C&C doesn't bear some sort of mystical "taint" because it's D20. I wish 3rd edition's implementation of D20 had turned out like C&C's.

 

[Treebore]

Gary Gygax has made it abundantly clear that he only does what he wants to do. Being paid doesn't change that, and is a little bit insulting to indicate that it does.

 

[Matthew_]

I quite like some of the Elmore stuff that has turned up recently for White Silver Publishing. However, much like Bradley's current work, they do seem very 'clean'. In general, I prefer them to what Wizards have been putting out (though there are exceptions, such as the Marilith that graces the cover of Fiendish Codex I: Hordes of the Abyss), but something about them just doesn't sit quite right with me. Maybe it's the lack of moustaches and eighties perms, I don't know...

 

[GVDammerung]

Played it. On its own terms its a fine game. But is was not sufficient to make me give up 3x. Still, I eagerly await any and all Castle Zagig materials.

 

[T. Foster]

Still, I eagerly await any and all Castle Zagig materials.

Even though the whole thing's now being "co-written" by a team of freelancers?

 

[Henry]

Even though the whole thing's now being "co-written" by a team of freelancers?

I guess getting it co-written with Gary's notes and blessing as a guide is better than him taking it with him. I'm just sorry he never got a chance to really write the whole thing up himself (or with Rob) as a major project.