Once you go C&C, you never go back

[S'mon]

For online play, I suggest using the AD&D approach to movement and engagement. It's very well-suited to an abstract approach (more so than any other edition, IMO), with its definition of engaged in melee (within 10'), closing to striking range, "who strikes whom" (DMG pg 70), et cetera. The flank/rear position diagrams from the DMG are not used as examples of precise positioning in combat, but rather as guides to how many enemies can attack one person in an abstract melee where the combatants are maneuvering and fighting within the 10' engagement range.

Yeah, that's exactly what I do.

 

[S'mon]

The use of SIEGE (basically D20 light/defacto skills system) is why C&C is a great game for those pre-disposed to the sort of "push button" video gamey feel we see in 3E, and who prefer a less powerful GM, a story teller (with a few target numbers).

The C&C GMing advice specifically says "The rules are your servant, not your master!". The game is very much geared towards GM judgement and fiat; unlike with 3e there is no hint of 'player entitlement' - and indeed players who routinely query GM calls in 3e seem to have no trouble with going-with-the-flow in C&C. The SIEGE engine is a handy mechanic, but unlike with 3e C&C seems fine with, say, using B/X's "roll-6-on-d6+STR bonus-to-open-doors" rule, or similar micro-systems. It explicitly leaves it up to the GM when to use SIEGE, when to add Level to the roll (other than for class abilities), what DC/CC to set, and so on. Personally I find this fits my GMing style very well, but it's the opposite of videogame-simulating or Monte Cook's 'taking the GM out of the equation'. With a poor GM it will likely lead to a much worse game than would 3e.

 

[S'mon]

I The SIEGE Engine fit that purpose nicely for me. I understand that non-standard rolling methods does not bug everyone, but for those that do, there is the simple add of SIEGE.

SIEGE, like the 3e d20 'roll vs DC' mechanism from which it is derived, is good for either/or tests, but isn't great for finding eg exactly how far the PC jumped; 3e's "skill result = feet jumped" can give very unlikely results - roll 1 you jump a pathetic 1', 20 and you jump 20' - close to the real-world limit. You'd get a better result IMO rolling 1d6 or 2d4 and adding relevant mods - for C&C that'd be eg Level + stat bonus (STR or DEX), +6 if Prime, plus whatever a reasonable minimum is, maybe 5.

 

[trollwad]

This whole thread seems out of whack. If you are reading this thread and want a prediction of whether you will like C&C read the following.

I've played every edition of D&D (and C&C) as well as a host of other ancient games (star frontiers, top secret, gamma world, metamorphosis alpha) and I will happily PLAY any of them -- I love playing 3.5e (at least up to about 10th level). However, I will only dm C&C or OD&D or low level 3e.

Your preferences will dictate whether you want to play or dm C&C.

As a DM if you simply obsess over details, "fairness", "balance", hate pulling in things from other systems for no reason other than they are "cool" and aren't comfortable flying by the seat of your pants, stick with 3e -- you'll be happier. If you want ease of use or preparation, a game that respects the archetypes of conan etc, a fast game where you have confidence in your DM, and a system where you can port in small subsystems and options from od&d, 1e, 2e, monte cook, and others, play or dm C&C as well. It really is that simple.

I can't emphasize how much C&C encourages you to tinker with it -- for example, I have a C&C game with hybrid weapon mastery from Basic D&D and Arcana Unearthed, segments and the helmet rule from 1e, the thief acrobat character class from Arcana Unearthed, Specialty Priests from 2e, the Mind Witch character class from Monte Cook's Arcana Evolved system, the Gem Witch character class from the Diamond Throne website, the Crimson Mist feat and a couple of other things for barbarian characters from the Conan system, death at variable negative hp from some online poster, my own grappling and overrunning system which is much simpler than the 3e system, the harsher d20 Modern massive damage threshhold, the concept of damage with exploding dice under certain circumstances from another game, and about 20 generally very simple feats from various sources (including some 3e feats and the Enworld 1e Feats pdf). I've assembled all of my favorite spells from all of the systems that I just mentioned including forty or fifty from Monte Cook's Arcana Evolved with different spells open to priests of various deities, the illusionist class, and the two witch classes. This whole massive system of choices, etc. is at most one-third as complex as 3e. The point is that C&C is such a simple engine that you may decide that you want to add x or y to that.

Finally, I think the 3e and 3.5e modules are largely pathetic (red hand of doom and the paizo APs are noble exceptions). I've read the first part of the first installment of Castle Zagyg (Mouths of Madness) and I'd rather play or dm that or one of the 1e classics. That is another major appeal to me. A living system with real old school adventures.

 

[Treebore]

I can't emphasize how much C&C encourages you to tinker with it -- for example, I have a C&C game with hybrid weapon mastery from Basic D&D and Arcana Unearthed, segments and the helmet rule from 1e, the thief acrobat character class from Arcana Unearthed, Specialty Priests from 2e, the Mind Witch character class from Monte Cook's Arcana Evolved system, the Gem Witch character class from the Diamond Throne website, the Crimson Mist feat and a couple of other things for barbarian characters from the Conan system, death at variable negative hp from some online poster, my own grappling and overrunning system which is much simpler than the 3e system, the harsher d20 Modern massive damage threshhold, the concept of damage with exploding dice under certain circumstances from another game, and about 20 generally very simple feats from various sources (including some 3e feats and the Enworld 1e Feats pdf). I've assembled all of my favorite spells from all of the systems that I just mentioned including forty or fifty from Monte Cook's Arcana Evolved with different spells open to priests of various deities, the illusionist class, and the two witch classes. This whole massive system of choices, etc. is at most one-third as complex as 3e. The point is that C&C is such a simple engine that you may decide that you want to add x or y to that.

Now THAT is a C&C game!! Well done.

 

[mhensley]

I can't emphasize how much C&C requires you to tinker with it

Fixed that for you.

 

[Valiant]

The C&C GMing advice specifically says "The rules are your servant, not your master!". The game is very much geared towards GM judgement and fiat; unlike with 3e there is no hint of 'player entitlement' - and indeed players who routinely query GM calls in 3e seem to have no trouble with going-with-the-flow in C&C. The SIEGE engine is a handy mechanic, but unlike with 3e C&C seems fine with, say, using B/X's "roll-6-on-d6+STR bonus-to-open-doors" rule, or similar micro-systems. It explicitly leaves it up to the GM when to use SIEGE, when to add Level to the roll (other than for class abilities), what DC/CC to set, and so on. Personally I find this fits my GMing style very well, but it's the opposite of videogame-simulating or Monte Cook's 'taking the GM out of the equation'. With a poor GM it will likely lead to a much worse game than would 3e.

The problem is the only presented option (the default) is SIEGE, unless you've played AD&D and DMed it you'd never know to do anything different. Thats not going to give anyone coming from 3E an old school feeling game (but then I don't think that was the Trolls objective).

 

[gideon_thorne]

The "final target number" is not enough of a mystery in 3E or C&C to keep the player from hedging his bets (it quickly becomes a question of "is this more or less difficult than the typical stuck door, trap, rope to climb etc.). In AD&D one pit trap might be crossed by rolling Dex (3d6) the next pit trap petrification, the next pit trap a d100 (with some target number the DM makes up in his head), using tables, no tables etc....and this could all be along the same corridor. Flexibility for the DM in determining outcomes using any method he chose) and ignorance (or lack of focus) of the rules by players (as well as the heavy reliance on tables by DM) were the halmarks of 1E/OD&D.

Its still no different in C&C. The absence of rules still allows the CK to make up their own. Non sequiturs notwithstanding.

 

[gideon_thorne]

The problem is the only presented option (the default) is SIEGE, unless you've played AD&D and DMed it you'd never know to do anything different. Thats not going to give anyone coming from 3E an old school feeling game (but then I don't think that was the Trolls objective).

There was only one presented option in AD&D as well.

And the trolls objective is to give people the opportunity to play a fun game. Which is a lot more important than some nebulous subjective fuzzy feeling that no two people on the internets seem to be able to agree on the definition of.

 

[Dragonhelm]

I can't emphasize how much C&C encourages you to tinker with it...

I figured someone had to quote you correctly.

One of C&C's criticisms is that it is an "incomplete" game. Now, I can see people wanting more options out of it like a skill system and multiclassing rules, but C&C can be played as-is.

One of the design philosophies behind this game was the ability to customize it to your personal tastes. So if you don't like skills, don't use them. Or you can add in non-weapon proficiencies or skills and feats. And so on and so forth.

Of course, what you've done is an amazing use of house rules! Wow!