The C&C poll

[der_kluge]

I played in two separate C&C campaigns by two different GMs. The first ran it by the book. I hated it. The second GM at least added in feats, and used some of the other options from Castle Zagyg, so it was at least more tolerable, though we still had our differences of opinion regarding the system.


It seems to me, and I'm not trying to troll with this statement, that if you want to play a game *like* C&C, you might as well just stick with first edition.

D&D 3.5 is a pretty simple game if you stick to just the PHB. I mean, if you're going to compare 3rd edition to C&C, the only fair way to do it is to compare it using just 1 book - the PHB. The fact that there are probably 1,000 other books that are compatible with d20 is just gravy. If you're moving to C&C, you've got probably less than 5.

So, add me to the "tried it, didn't care for it" camp.

 

[MoogleEmpMog]

It seems to me, and I'm not trying to troll with this statement, that if you want to play a game *like* C&C, you might as well just stick with first edition.

As much as I dislike C&C for what it *is* like, I absolutely disagree with this.

I can see making a case for Red Box/BECMI D&D, which is *even simpler* than C&C and therefore serves a somewhat different market, but not either version of AD&D.

I have a hard time seeing any way in which C&C is *inferior* to 1e AD&D. What's even *different,* aside from AD&D's wonky level limits, narrower class selection, lack of a universal mechanic, inversed AC and poor organization? I suppose if any of those bugs are features to a given reader, AD&D would be preferrable. But that opens up the question of what sort of person actually *wants* poor organization, inversed AC, etc.

For for the type of game it is, C&C seems all but strictly better than the alternatives.

 

[Treebore]

I played in two separate C&C campaigns by two different GMs. The first ran it by the book. I hated it. The second GM at least added in feats, and used some of the other options from Castle Zagyg, so it was at least more tolerable, though we still had our differences of opinion regarding the system.


It seems to me, and I'm not trying to troll with this statement, that if you want to play a game *like* C&C, you might as well just stick with first edition.

D&D 3.5 is a pretty simple game if you stick to just the PHB. I mean, if you're going to compare 3rd edition to C&C, the only fair way to do it is to compare it using just 1 book - the PHB. The fact that there are probably 1,000 other books that are compatible with d20 is just gravy. If you're moving to C&C, you've got probably less than 5.

So, add me to the "tried it, didn't care for it" camp.

See, thats a major difference in how we look at it. Every "d20 game" is compatible with C&C.

C&C is the system that allows you to patchwork together multiple systems that are even based on the d20, let alone d20 games. So I look at it as all my books from every edition and version of d20 games is interchangeably compatible due to the flexibility of the SIEGE Engine.

 

[jdrakeh]

See, thats a major difference in how we look at it. Every "d20 game" is compatible with C&C.

Well, this is true, but the degree of compatibility is often misrepresented -- C&C as written doesn't, without substantial house rulings, let you use Feats, the CR system, or many other aspects of d20. That is, the compatability comes about, not because C&C specifically supports it via written rules but because C&C lets you make up your own rules for these things -- so, in the end, it's just as compatible with the full range of d20 products as any other product that uses the 'd20+adds versus target number' mechanic is (including games like Kult).

 

[PapersAndPaychecks]

I have a hard time seeing any way in which C&C is *inferior* to 1e AD&D. What's even *different,* aside from AD&D's wonky level limits, narrower class selection, lack of a universal mechanic, inversed AC and poor organization? I suppose if any of those bugs are features to a given reader, AD&D would be preferrable. But that opens up the question of what sort of person actually *wants* poor organization, inversed AC, etc.

Now that you've lit the blue touch paper, you should retire to a safe distance.

 

[Philotomy Jurament]

What's even *different*...[between C&C and AD&D]

C&C's has a built-in system for handling skill and feat-like actions (i.e. the "SIEGE engine")
Classes are slightly different (e.g. class abilities, level progression, Bard, Knight, etc)
Ability bonuses are different (more like B/X than AD&D)
Initiative rules are different (similar to 2E AD&D, I guess)
Surprise rules are different (uses the SIEGE engine instead of a separate subsystem)
No weapon vs. Armor type tables
No weapon damage by opponent size
Movement rules are different (more like B/X movement than AD&D)
XP awards are different

Other minor differences here and there, too, I suppose. IMO, all the pre-3.0 editions are in the same basic family (the core rules, anyway -- not including 2E stuff like S&P). I'd group them like this, which doesn't really illustrate all the relationships, but is a decent generalization, I think:

OD&D(1974)
Holmes

OD&D(1974) + Supplements
AD&D 1E
AD&D 2E

B/X
BECM
RC

If you think of those three groups as "brothers," then C&C is a first cousin (or maybe a half-brother), and 3E is a brother-in-law from the Rolemaster family.

 

[S'mon]

Well, this is true, but the degree of compatibility is often misrepresented -- C&C as written doesn't, without substantial house rulings, let you use Feats, the CR system, or many other aspects of d20.

I don't see any problem with importing the CR system as written, or feats as written, into C&C. It's not like the game would fall apart. CR isn't even really a 'system' anyway since there's no underlying structure, just "Monster X is a moderate challenge for 4 PCs of level Y".

 

[Thanee]

No intention to try it.

Bye
Thanee

 

[Treebore]

Well, this is true, but the degree of compatibility is often misrepresented -- C&C as written doesn't, without substantial house rulings, let you use Feats, the CR system, or many other aspects of d20. That is, the compatability comes about, not because C&C specifically supports it via written rules but because C&C lets you make up your own rules for these things -- so, in the end, it's just as compatible with the full range of d20 products as any other product that uses the 'd20+adds versus target number' mechanic is (including games like Kult).

So what are you defining as substantial though? It can be as simple as saying, "I am using feats as written in 3E, which also means we will keep the classes as written in 3E, which will in turn allow for us to keep a uniform XP chart."

Or you can say. "I want to keep the concept of feats from 3E, but I want to use them as an "award". So to be awarded a feat you must make a succesful SIEGE check to try and perform the feat 20 times. Then the character will be awarded the feat, negating the need for all future SIEGE checks."

Or "I like the to hit progression of 3E, So the Fighter will get a second attack at 6th level, then the "fighter types" will get second attacks at 7th level, then the rest get it when their BtH reaches +6".

I don't know about you, but I don't consider that "hard", "difficult", etc...

So can you give examples of why you say its a challenge?

 

[RFisher]

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.

& I should say that what bothered me about this is that when you're playtesting a game, I think you should avoid house rules. & I never really felt that we had enough to really playtest C&C without having to fill in gaps with bits from (A)D&D.

In regular play (i.e. not playtesting), I'd agree that such variety is good.

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".

Just ignore 'em.