Once you go C&C, you never go back

[Jim Hague]

I've seen both. I recall a fellow who retooled a few things in AD&D to where everything ran off of the combat system. This was back in the 80's. Class abilities, saves, background checks, all of it was modified to a 'to hit' variable AC number. He wanted less to keep track of.

I've also played in games with folks who ran 3e with a completely redone rules system where feats and skills were more abstract.

I listen to people at local game shops and conventions all the time offer forth phrases like "I know you have all these books, but we're sticking to whats in this players book, plus some of my own modifications to make life easier on the DM. Me!"

It really isn't all that hard to do.

And OD&D and AD&D also encourage modification to suit. Again, the oft repeated mantra is readily debunked.

Ok, first - your experience doesn't equal objective fact. Experiences vary. Nothing's been debunked here.

I counter your argument that the systems mentioned 'encourage' modification by design. Rather they demanded it, due to the fact that there were parts where the rules didn't make sense (save vs. wand/death/whatever) or simply didn't cover relatively common situations (does my character know how to swim?). Modifications were made to suit tables' playstyles because, more often than not, the early systems were simply lacking.

As for ease of houseruling...again, that's entirely subjective. Some people're rules-oriented, others not. Me, I prefer a system that does what I want it to do out of the box. C&C, sadly, did not do that, and required modifications that ended up making it a step back to 3e. YMMV.

 

[gideon_thorne]

Ok, first - your experience doesn't equal objective fact. Experiences vary. Nothing's been debunked here.

Hence mentioning a wide example of experience garnered from over 25 years of role playing. What's been 'debunked', is the oft repeated mantra that C&C is any different in regards to the optional use of house rules than any other game system.

I counter your argument that the systems mentioned 'encourage' modification by design. Rather they demanded it, due to the fact that there were parts where the rules didn't make sense (save vs. wand/death/whatever) or simply didn't cover relatively common situations (does my character know how to swim?). Modifications were made to suit tables' play styles because, more often than not, the early systems were simply lacking.

In order to run 3e, to my play style, it required extensive modification. But thats not the fault of the system. So even the type of games that cover many more common basis, don't always have all the answers. Funny thing. I don't understand why you commented, since what you're saying basically agrees with what I've been getting at all along.

Modifications to early games were made, because that was the point. The rules, as intended, were supposed to be a fluid system because there is no game that can realistically cover all the bases for the wide variety of people that play them.

I counter your argument with the same logic. Your experience also doesn't translate to objective fact, and that no game system 'requires' alteration to play. Folks just often elect too.

As for ease of houseruling...again, that's entirely subjective. Some people're rules-oriented, others not. Me, I prefer a system that does what I want it to do out of the box. C&C, sadly, did not do that, and required modifications that ended up making it a step back to 3e. YMMV.

So do I. But I've never encountered any single game system that does. And I've explored many. Again, C&C may have required modification for your game, but that doesn't make the system at fault. Style preference does not a 'flawed' system make.

I certainly have no subjective beef against 3e. If the system is to your preference, bravo.

 

[Jim Hague]

Hence mentioning a wide example of experience garnered from over 25 years of role playing. What's been 'debunked', is the oft repeated mantra that C&C is any different in regards to the optional use of house rules than any other game system.

I'd say C&C is more prone to houseruling than a lot of systems out there, simply because it tries to be too much to too many. That's a laudable goal, but I think that after a year of playing the system with and without houserules, it does fall short on its own.

In order to run 3e, to my play style, it required extensive modification. But thats not the fault of the system. So even the type of games that cover many more common basis, don't always have all the answers. Funny thing. I don't understand why you commented, since what you're saying basically agrees with what I've been getting at all along.

See above. C&C seems to tread a middle ground between generic system and one with a focused playstyle; and to quote They Live - "Middle of the road's the worst place to walk."

Modifications to early games were made, because that was the point. The rules, as intended, were supposed to be a fluid system because there is no game that can realistically cover all the bases for the wide variety of people that play them.

And IMO they fall short of that goal. C&C could honestly use with more focus on the 'old school' feel and less on trying to be fluid.

I counter your argument with the same logic. Your experience also doesn't translate to objective fact, and that no game system 'requires' alteration to play. Folks just often elect too.

There's plenty of systems out there that require modification as part and parcel of the design goal. There's games that're simply shoddily done or outright broken. All require exactly what I described.

So do I. But I've never encountered any single game system that does. And I've explored many. Again, C&C may have required modification for your game, but that doesn't make the system at fault. Style preference does not a 'flawed' system make.

Again, I think the flaw is that it didn't go far enough - it's weakly-oriented. Too much generic feel, not enough focus. Go more earlier edition, I say. OSRIC, a system I'm not fond of in the least for a number of reasons, accomplishes its goal of being very old-school by adopting old systems, warts and all. While the outcome mechanics-wise isn't great, it does get a distinctive 'feel', something I think C&C lacks.

 

[gideon_thorne]

Again, I think the flaw is that it didn't go far enough - it's weakly-oriented. Too much generic feel, not enough focus.

Well, fair enough. We could go round and round about this all day. Your welcome to your opinion, naturally. Its obvious that perspectives differ. Its all good.

 

[gideon_thorne]

GT: "Otherwise C&C would not have been possible to invent. ^_~`"

GT, this statement is idiotic... What the hell does house ruling AD&D or 3E have to do with the Trolls making a game!

A great deal. Since AD&D and 3d were just someone's house rules being made into a game. C&C did something similar, just more abstract. Might as well ask what the hell the sun has to do with keeping the planet warm. ^_~`

Also, if you think the creators of 3E intended for "house ruling" out skills and feats, or AD&Ds creator intended house ruling out the tables...your out of your mind. Like I said, the house rules seen in these 2 games are relatively minor. If you house rule past a certain point your no longer playing the game (and thats true with any game, be it D&D or Monopoly).

No matter how many house rules one puts in a game, the title on the book cover doesn't change. And if 'house rules' weren't part of the equation, there wouldn't be so many 'house rules' being published as books.

Course, specifically, on AD&D, the creators themselves state without equivocation, one can house rule in or out anything they pleased to make the game their own. It even says so in the books. ^_~`

 

[Valiant]

I play C&C because it has that old AD&D feeling to me. I don't play AD&D because I like the streamlined SIEGE mechanic.

I see the tables and save system key to the "old AD&D feeling/experiance", D20 just doesn't mesh with Old School IMO.

Gideon, your arguements continue to be completely wacked.

 

[Dragonhelm]

I see the tables and save system key to the "old AD&D feeling/experiance", D20 just doesn't mesh with Old School IMO.

At this point, I would say that we have a few different opinions on what constitutes old school. Everybody's definition may differ.

Gideon, your arguements continue to be completely wacked.

I would say that at this point, you guys might want to agree to disagree.

 

[Treebore]

For me its a good thing C&C is as "fluid" as it is, or I likely wouldn't be using it.

Its fluidity is what allows me to use every book I own of every edition plus books/rules from several other systems.

So C&C allows you to play it very simplistic, to as complicated as you want. Perfect as far as I am concerned.

 

[gideon_thorne]

At this point, I would say that we have a few different opinions on what constitutes old school. Everybody's definition may differ.

And clearly does. There's no absolute definition that anyone can legitimately point too.

I would say that at this point, you guys might want to agree to disagree.

*chuckles* Don't include me in this. I'm not the one descending into histrionics to make my case.

 

[Piratecat]

Gideon, your arguements continue to be completely wacked.

You know, when a moderator specifically warns you not to use terms like 'idiotic' just a few posts above, I'd think you'd evaluate your own posts a little better.

Insults aren't cool. Valiant, please don't post in this thread from this point forward.