The C&C poll

[RFisher]

This is something I've questioned quite a bit, and I'd like to get other opinions on it as well. Is it easier to take a stripped-down system like C&C and add in the things you want, or is it easier to strip out the things of D&D that you don't like (i.e. attacks of opportunity, the crit system, etc.)?

I've found both difficult at different times. It depends upon exactly what you want to change. One person says game X is hard to house-rule because it's hard to change the things they want to change about game X. Another person says, no, game X is easy to house-rule because it's easy to change the things they want to change about game X.

I felt that, like most fantasy heartbreakers, the game was attempting to appeal to everyone and in the process failed to achieve any sort of focus.

Well, one of the reasons I got on-board the C&C playtest was that it was made clear to me that C&C was--in the end--the product of one person. He wanted input from lots of other people, but he was focused on creating the game he wanted.

On the other hand, one of my problems with the playtesting was that it seemed like everyone was playtesting different games. They all (including my own playtests) looked more like some-edition-of-(A)D&D + some C&C-based house-rules to me. But the Trolls seemed to like it that way.

(But--of course--I think being a "fantasy heartbreaker" is a good thing. Go fig.)

Hey here's a post from Bash Man on the Goodman forums about how he converts 3.5 modules to C&C (it also contains notes for AD&D and BD&D as well).

That's pretty good stuff. Although, I think it confirms what I've said all along about converting to C&C: It is as easy to convert from earlier editions to C&C as it is to convert between earlier editions. It is as hard to convert to C&C from 3e as it is to convert from 3e to previous editions.

I may have to try using Bash's tips to convert from 3e to classic D&D.

I would add to his tips that many skill checks in d20 modules should be dropped when converting, but to each his own.

 

[Kaladhan]

I think DnD 3.5E could use some simplification, but I prefer the way True20 did them. They kept the good things from 3.5E and got rid of the rest. C&C went into a completely different that I really don't like.

 

[S'mon]

But, yes for a rules light replacement that plays like D&D, I wouldn't play WFRP. I would play a combo of D&D Red Box Basic and D&D Blue Box Expert for that.

Moldvay-Cook B/X D&D is a favourite of mine, also. Probably the best-written and clearest iteration of D&D ever.

 

[Imaro]

That's pretty good stuff. Although, I think it confirms what I've said all along about converting to C&C: It is as easy to convert from earlier editions to C&C as it is to convert between earlier editions. It is as hard to convert to C&C from 3e as it is to convert from 3e to previous editions.

I may have to try using Bash's tips to convert from 3e to classic D&D.

I would add to his tips that many skill checks in d20 modules should be dropped when converting, but to each his own.

One of the things I found hard, when I was trying to convert AD&D stuff over to D&D 3.5 was the monsters...it was alot of work. Monsters in D&D 3.5 have just as much fiddly bits as a player character. So I had to assign feats, skills, etc. The Prime system in C&C is, for me, a happy middle ground. A monster either has physical, mental or both as primes, I can judge that just by the descriptions and tactics of the monster in either edition. Feats & skills, being more granular, take a little more time IMHO.

 

[Edena_of_Neith]

It seems like a lot of D&Ders tried C&C, found it not their cup of tea, and returned to D&D.
But some D&Ders just really liked C&C, adopted it, and primarily play it now.
A lot of hybrid games out there: various editions of D&D combined with C&C and d20 and d20 modern and other systems.

 

[Chainsaw Mage]

Just curious. A lot of you are mentioning C&C. So I'm putting up this poll.

EDIT: Option 3 should read: Am a D&Der, playing a lot of C&C as well

You've made a common mistake among people who create polls here: too many options, which ends up diluting your results.

 

[Dristram]

DM C&C but will still play 3.5 D&D

I think it’s silly when gamers argue D&D vs. C&C. To me, there are two aspects to a game, feel and mechanics. And feel is more important to me because we’re talking about a role-playing game, not a miniatures combat game. As for the feel of the game, D&D and C&C are the same. It’s only the mechanics that differ, and really not by much. But when you talk about mechanics, even taking C&C out of the equation, D&D has many different mechanics for it in its many incarnations (OD&D, AD&D, 3e, etc.). To me, C&C is another incarnation of D&D it’s just that the company that owns the rights to D&D didn’t come up with it so a different name had to be chosen. Heck, C&C could have easily been 3rd Edition AD&D. Though I think HackMater lays claim to that title.

The way I see things, those D&Ders who have never played the pre-3e versions of D&D might find C&C very odd or even incomplete. I find that GM’s like C&C more than pure players like it. Especially players who love to tweak every little aspect of their character mechanically. C&C puts the GM back into the driver’s seat of the game as it was with the older versions of D&D, allowing the GM to use his imagination more and worry less about the rules. And the SEIGE Engine mechanic allows the GM to better handle the plethora of odd situations that may come up in a game in a fluid manner to keep the game flowing.

All that said, I’ve played D&D since 1983, with AD&D being my main game. I happily moved to 3e when it came out. I was actually one of the original members of Eric Noah's 3e site. As a player, I found the various 3e source books very useful for me to mechanically represent my character, but as a DM, I found the sheer number of source books and rules overwhelming and restricting, causing me to have to spend more time on rules and less time on the designing of the adventure and role-playing. And as a role-player first, I found that when playing, my characters were vastly under-powered compared to the other character builds, lessening my fun as my characters seemed less useful and finding myself having to tweak in more powerful combos just to fit in, lessening my enjoyment overall. Role-playing seemed to be taking a back-seat to super-hero character building.

So now, I will play 3.5 D&D and have fun as long as the DM keeps role-playing a part of the game instead of just going from one combat to the next. But I have given up DMing 3.5 and much prefer CKing C&C. In my current C&C game, my players consist of three who never made the switch to 3e and four who happily play 3.5 and still enjoy C&C just the same. For after all, a role-playing game is a role-playing game. The mechanics should be secondary and not keep you from having fun.

BTW, FYI, on the Troll Lord Games site, there is page where those who like C&C expressed why.
http://www.trolllord.com/newsite/cnc/why_play_cnc.html

 

[Philotomy Jurament]

...one of my problems with the [C&C] playtesting was that it seemed like everyone was playtesting different games. They all (including my own playtests) looked more like some-edition-of-(A)D&D + some C&C-based house-rules to me.

I think that's right on the money; and not just with playtests, but with C&C campaigns, in general. Just from browsing the C&C-oriented boards, you can see that there's a huge amount of house ruling and variety going on. My C&C games are pretty close to "by the book," but I have a few house-rules, too (initiative and surprise). Others have codified skill or feat systems (beyond just using the SIEGE engine), changes to the character classes, XP tables, et cetera.

C&C reminds me of OD&D(1974) in this: it's a system that seems to invite tinkering and customization. And individual GMs are running C&C games that are recognizably C&C, but also have noticeable rules differences from campaign-to-campaign. To me, this isn't a problem, but rather an asset.

 

[an_idol_mind]

I'm curious about C&C, but not curious enough to buy the books. I've flipped through the condensed version and the quick-play rules, and it seems like a decent system. The sticking point, for me, is that the draw of the game seems to assume that I play D&D differently than I do. Since I play fast and loose with the 3.5 rules, C&C doesn't hold as much for me. It's simply not different enough from my version of D&D to justify me buying an entirely new game.

 

[Doug McCrae]

You've made a common mistake among people who create polls here: too many options, which ends up diluting your results.

Yeah, but if you don't put the options in, every second post is "All of the above", "None of the above" or "Should've been multiple choice".