Once you go C&C, you never go back

[Gundark]

Our group tried it. It was fine, however it didn't turn us.

The thing for me was the look....the print was too 1st ed. I understand this is a feature rather than a mistake, however the book was a chore to go thru as a result.

 

[Treebore]

This, despite being told many times, that this assessment is incorrect. Read a couple pages back and you'll find the actual market that TLG is going for. One without which no hobby survives.

Even with OD&D, the original creators expected people to house rule the game. Once again, the oft held criticism holds no merit. These same original creators will also tell folks, and have repeatedly, that AD&D was written for the sole purpose of having a common set of rules to be used at conventions and tournaments. And thats it.

I'm playing or running 4 different C&C games, each with its own house rules, etc...


I played in several 3E games at the same time, they each had their own house rules.

I played in many 2E, 1E, and OD&D games, and they all had their own house rules.

So whats the difference?

To go even further, I have played in various Paladium Fantasy, RIFTS, GURPS, Traveller, Pendragon, Chivalry and Sorcery, MERP, and Rolemaster games. Everyone had their own house rules.

So, to me, house rules are an expected part of RPG's.

What separates C&C from the rest, is those house rules are expected, allowed for, and are able to work easily when imported into C&C.

Want the 3E feat system, but no AoO? Easily done. Want the skill system from 3E, Paladium Fanatasy, or some other RPG you like better? Easy to do.

C&C is completely playable on its own, even skills are in there, just the fact that you use your own judgement to do what makes sense seems to scare some people. Fine, incorporate a system you like from another game, or simply say everyone can have 10 skills, give a write up of the skills or show me what source the skill is taken from. Skills will be modified by class level and applicable stat, and whether its Prime or not.

There, you have a skill system.

So C&C is not "3E lite", its a rules lite RPG period. One that also allows for you to house rule and complicate it up to a level that is exactly the degree you want. Make what you want of it, If you can't make it into something you like play something else that fits your style better.

 

[gideon_thorne]

Our group tried it. It was fine, however it didn't turn us.

The thing for me was the look....the print was too 1st ed. I understand this is a feature rather than a mistake, however the book was a chore to go thru as a result.

Would you be so kind as to clarify this thought? I'm not looking for a fight, honest. I'm just trying to understand your comment.

 

[moriarty777]

Castles & Crusades is a fine game which can certainly stand on its own two feet. Some people will liken aspects of it to D&D 3.x ... others to AD&D. Then again, a lot of people who do so are coming from those games -- it's only natural. However, I'm left pondering Valiant's statement:

To repeat, its not incomplete if you only consider the rule book, what I said was that it lacks a strong identity of its own (mostly generic D20 light) with its core system being secondary to house imports (ie 3E players bringing in feats etc.).

Open question: What differentiates D&D 3.x from AD&D 2nd Edition? The biggest change could arguably be that the Weapon and Non-Weapon Proficiencies were replaced in favor of Feats and Skills. The other significant change was 'cleaning up' the system to adopt a more unified mechanic using a d20 and even then, it was a matter of standardizing a few things.

Really though, when it comes down to it, D&D 3.x and C&C both borrow and depend on the identity of earlier incarnations of Dungeons & Dragons (whether you prefer the AD&D editions or the various older D&D Editions). In the end, it shouldn't matter.

M

 

[DonTadow]

op
NO Most people who try out a new system on do so because it is a system they want to run. It has nothing to do with how good the system is. I tried it out because its my job to do so and was not very impressed. THe feeling just didn't feel d and d. Now, I've tried other alternative systems and they felt a lot better.

 

[Dristram]

All thats needed to play D&D or any FRPG is a way to determine who goes first, who hits who, who saves and how you advance. Keep those things core and your set. C&C doesn't do that,

Wow, that is totally an untrue statement. I've played C&C as is btb and it's just fine on its own.

it allows for (and encourages) importing core rules from other systems. It essentially allows for each table to invent its own game, so much so that its no longer C&C.

When I was first introduced to C&C, it had nothing to do with importing rules from other systems. I think the reason it can though, as compared to older D&D versions, is that today there are many versions of D&D and FRPGs for that matter where players may want to use rules they liked from other systems. When the older D&D versions came out, it was not so. Thus there was no real value in a system that is friendly to adding other rule. But that did not stop DMs from creating notebooks full of their house rules. Back in the day, no one AD&D game I played in was the same. I'm actually playing in a friend's home brew game created from AD&D that is hardly recognizable as AD&D anymore. It's hardly D&D for that matter. But he still calls it D&D.

 

[slimykuotoan]

I pretty much play C&C btb with the exception of using critical hit/fumble tables.

 

[wolfpunk]

I think my vote would be best placed in the "Now I play both" category.

I like 3.5 for the ability to powergame. The level of customization is awesome, I can create pretty much anything I can think of by mixing races, templates, classes and prestige classes. Sure it is a lot of book work at high level, but it is worth it in my opinion to be able to have a character as good as any I have read about in works of fiction.

Two things that frustrate me with 3.5 is the page flipping that happens with high level casters casting spells on a round by round basis and grappling, whenever someone in our groups attempts to grapple whether it is the DM or a player, we call a "party foul" because it slows the game way way down. That being said, not much to complain about, and I will continue to play 3.5 more than likely even after 4e comes out.

I like C&C because I don't have to worry about all the concern for balance and having to review every book to decide what I am going to allow and what I am going to disallow because of balance issues. I have never seen a C&C thread dedicated to making a munchkin character (not saying there has never ever been one, I just have never seen one). C&C doesn't seem to attract powergamers. Furthermore, I can easily integrate any sort of homebrew setting with the necessary house rules. For example, I was thinking of the Hexblade class and wanted to set up something like it in C&C, so I took a look at the Hexblade class, considered what it was similar to in C&C and settled on the Bard, so I threw together a Bard that imposes penalties to enemies instead of bonuses to allies and I was pretty much ready to go. To me that was a great exercise and I know that if I am playing it and it is too powerful or too weak I can adjust the class' XP Table to make it fall in line.
For me, I don't have any real frustrations with C&C.

For me, I think it comes down to this, choose the right system for the style you want to play. Don't ask either system to do things it is not designed to do. If you keep that in mind I think you and your group will be happy with the gaming experience, and in my book, that matters more than anything else.

 

[gideon_thorne]

I have never seen a C&C thread dedicated to making a munchkin character (not saying there has never ever been one, I just have never seen one).

Now thats a hell of an idea. I think I'll go start such a thread on the TLG forums and give these clever folks something to screwball around with for some silly fun.

 

[Valiant]

Wow, that is totally an untrue statement. I've played C&C as is btb and it's just fine on its own.

.

Dris, you chopped my paragraph and it makes it sound as if I'm saying C&C is not a complete system "as is", what I said was this:

"OD&D is a complete and destinct game, the number of rules you have (ie. not covering every situation) has nothing to do with that (as I'm sure you know, there is alot more to determining if a game is complete then the number of rules or situations covered. All thats needed to play D&D or any FRPG is a way to determine who goes first, who hits who, who saves and how you advance. Keep those things core and your set. C&C doesn't do that, it allows for (and encourages) importing core rules from other systems. It essentially allows for each table to invent its own game, so much so that its no longer C&C."


The point of C&C was for it to be a platform one could easily customize (or you could leave it as is and play d20 light). It allows its core systems (see above) to be drastically changed from table to table, something 3E and 1E does not easily do. Both 3E and 1E are "best" when their core systems are left intact with only minor changes (in other words, you can't just dump skills or feats in 3E or dump the tables in 1E). Yes, C&C is a complete game in and of itself, its D20 light. C&Cs flavor and power (as Treebore pointed out to us) comes from each player importing rules (or making them up) to create his unique game. Thats what I mean when I say, C&C has an problem with identity: if you sit at one table it feels like your playing 3E at another 1E. If this is the case, why not just play 3E, D20 light or 1E/OD&D?