Once you go C&C, you never go back

[Valiant]

And the same is true in every incarnation of D&D. I fail to see the point being made.

True, the difference though is with 1E the player doesn't know his chances or the rules related to saves, the DM is left (per absense of rules) to figure it out using common sense. Fewer rules (or better yet lots of rules options and ideas) make for a more unpredictable and exciting experiance (it just feels less like a formal game when you don't have a clue whats going on and just focus on immersion, tactics etc.).

 

[Jim Hague]

I can totally agree with you. But you left one out. If you want to play a game with old-school feel and nostalgia, and that's 3.x friendly, there is C&C.

Or you could just play some of Goodman Games' Dungeon Crawl Classics.

Seriously, the much-touted 'ease of use' between C&C and 3.x just isn't there. We tried a dozen sessions of it and ended up going to True20. Why? Because C&C seems to simply shrug and say for a lot of conversions 'handwave it'. If I wanted to handwave things, I would, but as my gaming and prep time is limited...well, when a system advertises less work and 'less work' turns out to be 'handwave it', that's irksome. YMMV.

 

[danzig138]

Having done a thing, one is better informed of the process, than one who hasn't, yes or no?

Sure. And?



Sometimes, it is the destination that matters, not the journey.

 

[Dragonhelm]

Now, C&C is an OK system, but I see it as just another d20 derived fantasy system...one which serves no purpose at my table. I have 3.x for the feats, the skill system, the templates and all that whacky stuff, etc..., I have B/X and 1e for the old-school feel and nostalgia, and if I really want something different in a FRPG, I have RQ sitting on the shelf.

"C&C is too much in the middle."

That really seems like a strange argument to me. It just seems weird that there is criticism for it not being a polarized view. Yet that's where a lot of criticism lies.

I can see the point, don't get me wrong. Some people want more old school games and others want more new school games. For me, I kind of want a place where the two meet. It's cool, then, that we have room for all sorts of points of view.

I do think that one's experiences can influence how one views C&C, though this isn't an absolute. We talk a lot about 1e and 3e fans with C&C, but I have to wonder too how starting out in 2e affects a person's view of C&C.

 

[gideon_thorne]

True, the difference though is with 1E the player doesn't know his chances or the rules related to saves, the DM is left (per absense of rules) to figure it out using common sense. Fewer rules (or better yet lots of rules options and ideas) make for a more unpredictable and exciting experiance (it just feels less like a formal game when you don't have a clue whats going on and just focus on immersion, tactics etc.).

Neither does the C&C player. The CK can keep the final target number to himself, and figure it out using common sense. But I am sure glad that C&C has few rules thereby giving free reign for folks to make an unpredictable and exciting experience. ^_~`

 

[gideon_thorne]

Sure. And?

Sometimes, it is the destination that matters, not the journey.

"And" I, personally, am more apt to accept an informed opinion than an uninformed one. Clearly the millage of other folks varies. But thats OK! Be a bloody boring world if everyone thought (or gamed) alike. ^_~`

 

[Uder]

Okay, I've got a few more minutes to post some thoughts, but I'm just going blather on a bit instead.

The main reason I like C&C is that it is more compatible with all editions (so far) of D&D than any other edition of D&D (and we don't call it C&C at the table any more - it's D&D to us now). Since I have a large library of books from every edition, I really appreciate the simplistic and open approach of C&C that allows "plug-ins". I won't say that I do full conversions, since I see no point in most of the hard fiddly rules for many subsystems... and I also don't want the usual suspects to jump in and try to define for me what I consider a conversion to be.

 

[francisca]

Besides which, that (the bolded part, courtesy of me) isn't even true.

Of course, I have a nice stack of OSRIC stuff on my shelf.

 

[francisca]

I suspect he refers to RuneQuest.

Yup.

RQ2, specifically. I have Mongoose's version as well.

Looking forward to Chaosium's new BRP book as well.

 

[francisca]

I can totally agree with you. But you left one out. If you want to play a game with old-school feel and nostalgia, and that's 3.x friendly, there is C&C.

That isn't a product I'm interested in. Actually, I could mish-mash 3e and 1e on my own, but I prefer not too.

I have actually spent some time pulling in some of the d20 mechanics into 1e AD&D, and it just didn't feel right to me and my group, so we decided the twain meeting was not a good option for our table.