Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Dristram" data-source="post: 3916042" data-attributes="member: 1639">C&amp;C FanI voted Yes.&nbsp; When I read the books, I liked it, and I switched…sort of.&nbsp; I switched as a GM.&nbsp; But not as a player.&nbsp; I have yet to play C&amp;C as any gamers I play with that GM, GM other game systems like D&amp;D 3.5, HackMaster, Home-Brewed D&amp;D, d6 Star Wars, Shadowrun, etc.&nbsp; So it’s kind of a silly poll, because it mostly applies to GMs.&nbsp; As players, you can easily play a multitude of rpgs and every player I personally know does or has.&nbsp; But as a GM, usually one system is chosen because it takes a lot of time and energy to prepare and run even one game per week.I have noticed that there are some elements of C&amp;C that players of 3.5 that have never played older editions are seen as strange “changes” when in actually, they are “throw-backs”.&nbsp; Mainly different XP progressions for classes and 6 Saves instead of 3.&nbsp; I remember having similar reactions to 3e’s single XP progression and only 3 Saves!&nbsp; LOL&nbsp; As for C&amp;C, what seemed strange to me was the Attribute bonus progression.&nbsp; I thought it was strange until I looked back at Basic D&amp;D and found the same progression there.&nbsp; So C&amp;C really seemed to combine elements of OD&amp;D, AD&amp;D, and 3eD&amp;D.I was a player of 1st Ed. AD&amp;D and didn’t really like 2nd Ed.&nbsp; I switched to 3e mainly because it streamlined the rules and added a standard way for the GM to rule various Skills of a character.&nbsp; After 3.5 came out, that version of D&amp;D quickly started looking to me like too much of a good thing.&nbsp; There were just too many rules and too many options that diluted what I considered the focus of a D&amp;D game which was the story in the form of a campaign, with the rules being in the background.&nbsp;&nbsp; From my DM’s view, keeping up with all the player’s options became a headache.&nbsp; I kept being surprised by some new Feat or Class Ability combo that would turn my challenging encounter into a mundane one.&nbsp; And from a player’s view, my flavorful characters were way under-powered by the min-maxed characters.&nbsp; The focus of the game seemed to have changed.&nbsp; 3.5 is a good game for what it is, but to me it did not capture the feel of the older editions.&nbsp; C&amp;C captured the feel of the older editions for me and still allowed the DM, or CK, a standard way to handle the various situations that arise in a game in a unified manner through the SEIGE mechanic.&nbsp; That was one thing that sold me on C&amp;C.&nbsp; The other was the Prime and Secondary Attributes as a way to further differentiate the Attributes in a meaningful way. All that said, I don’t understand why such a distinction of switching needs to be made.&nbsp; Why can’t players be fine with playing multiple rpg systems?&nbsp; Why does it have to be one?&nbsp; From playing so many different systems, I can see strengths in them all.&nbsp; I mainly stick with C&amp;C because of its familiar feel to what I played as my first rpg and I haven’t gone back to AD&amp;D because to me it fixes some things I had issues with in AD&amp;D.&nbsp; I would expect players who learned D&amp;D through 3e to feel the same way about 3e that I do about AD&amp;D.&nbsp; I would bet that most who really enjoy C&amp;C used to play AD&amp;D.&nbsp; And I’d be surprised that a player who likes and who has only ever played 3.5 to give it up for C&amp;C.&nbsp; Mainly because I think it would feel incomplete to them and lacking in familiar details.Anyways, I think I’ve written quite enough.&nbsp;&nbsp; <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f600.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":D" title="Big grin&nbsp; &nbsp; :D"&nbsp; data-smilie="8"data-shortname=":D" /></blockquote>

[QUOTE="Dristram, post: 3916042, member: 1639"] [b]C&C Fan[/b] I voted Yes. When I read the books, I liked it, and I switched…sort of. I switched as a GM. But not as a player. I have yet to play C&C as any gamers I play with that GM, GM other game systems like D&D 3.5, HackMaster, Home-Brewed D&D, d6 Star Wars, Shadowrun, etc. So it’s kind of a silly poll, because it mostly applies to GMs. As players, you can easily play a multitude of rpgs and every player I personally know does or has. But as a GM, usually one system is chosen because it takes a lot of time and energy to prepare and run even one game per week. I have noticed that there are some elements of C&C that players of 3.5 that have never played older editions are seen as strange “changes” when in actually, they are “throw-backs”. Mainly different XP progressions for classes and 6 Saves instead of 3. I remember having similar reactions to 3e’s single XP progression and only 3 Saves! LOL As for C&C, what seemed strange to me was the Attribute bonus progression. I thought it was strange until I looked back at Basic D&D and found the same progression there. So C&C really seemed to combine elements of OD&D, AD&D, and 3eD&D. I was a player of 1st Ed. AD&D and didn’t really like 2nd Ed. I switched to 3e mainly because it streamlined the rules and added a standard way for the GM to rule various Skills of a character. After 3.5 came out, that version of D&D quickly started looking to me like too much of a good thing. There were just too many rules and too many options that diluted what I considered the focus of a D&D game which was the story in the form of a campaign, with the rules being in the background. From my DM’s view, keeping up with all the player’s options became a headache. I kept being surprised by some new Feat or Class Ability combo that would turn my challenging encounter into a mundane one. And from a player’s view, my flavorful characters were way under-powered by the min-maxed characters. The focus of the game seemed to have changed. 3.5 is a good game for what it is, but to me it did not capture the feel of the older editions. C&C captured the feel of the older editions for me and still allowed the DM, or CK, a standard way to handle the various situations that arise in a game in a unified manner through the SEIGE mechanic. That was one thing that sold me on C&C. The other was the Prime and Secondary Attributes as a way to further differentiate the Attributes in a meaningful way. All that said, I don’t understand why such a distinction of switching needs to be made. Why can’t players be fine with playing multiple rpg systems? Why does it have to be one? From playing so many different systems, I can see strengths in them all. I mainly stick with C&C because of its familiar feel to what I played as my first rpg and I haven’t gone back to AD&D because to me it fixes some things I had issues with in AD&D. I would expect players who learned D&D through 3e to feel the same way about 3e that I do about AD&D. I would bet that most who really enjoy C&C used to play AD&D. And I’d be surprised that a player who likes and who has only ever played 3.5 to give it up for C&C. Mainly because I think it would feel incomplete to them and lacking in familiar details. Anyways, I think I’ve written quite enough. :D [/QUOTE]

Verification