The C&C poll

[mhacdebhandia]

I admire Castles & Crusades as a modernised incarnation of older forms of Dungeons & Dragons, but it's exactly the sort of thing which I do not want from my roleplaying games: "traditional" assumptions, hard-coded character classes, poor support for mechanical implementation of character traits, et cetera.

 

[jdrakeh]

I'm just curious...what exactly is your definition of "true conversion"?

Well, I meant "true conversion" in the sense of changing rules from one system to work in another. You know. . . uhm. . . converting them. What some folks see as "conversion from", I see more as "proprietary system modification" for the following reasons:

1. If you're simply ignoring the rules of System X in favor of the rules that already exist in C&C or BFRPG, you're not actually converting much of anything. You're just nabbing some fluff and grafting it onto another, already existant, system.

2. If you're porting in rules from System X to C&C or BFRPG without altering them, again, you're not doing much actual conversion. You're simply adding new rules to an already existant framework (i.e., you're modifying the existing system, rather than converting something to it).

I think the sum total of actual conversion that occurs when porting things to C&C (or BFRPG) tends to come in the form of recalculating AC from older editions of D&D/AD&D. Most of the current crop of d20 products don't require any conversion to be used with either system, so much as both systems require external modification (i.e., both C&C and BFRPG require you to bolt on options from full-blown d20 in order to use said options).

So, in that light, systems like C&C or BFRPG are extremely easy to modify (i.e., house rule) but the actual conversion of mechanics from other systems isn't explicitly (or implicitly) supported by either game. It's more about adding options wholesale to the systems in question, rather than mechanically altering options from other games to make them work in either system.

Granted, this is a rather minor distinction, though an important one where certain play preferences are concerned.

 

[Geron Raveneye]

So it's less about true conversion than it is about easy modification.

Don't get me wrong, I agree with most of what you said...but this one here is overly nitpicky, in my opinion. Conversion, modification, six of one or half a dozen of the other. If I "convert" something, the focus is on the thing I convert, while a "modification" is made to the game system I modify (in this context with an element of another game). In both instances, I take something of one game and try to make it work in the framework of the other game. If I'd convert the ToB system to work with C&C, I'd at the same time modify C&C since I add a new set of abilities and character classes to it.

The point in the last page or so is simply that this conversion of elements from older (A)D&D editions is extremely easy, and that the conversion of newer D&D 3.X elements is also not as complex as it might look like. It definitely is easier than trying to convert any of those into a completely different game system. In any case, I'd say supporting claims of "false advertising" with completely exaggerated examples is not helping anybody's credibility. (<-- this does not mean you, jdrakeh)

Of course, converting stuff from any edition of D&D to any d20 variety should be equally or at least similarly easy, so C&C does not corner the market on that. It's simply a nice d20 offshoot that has a slightly nostalgic flair while staying very compatible to all editions of the game we love to play. Those who like it play it, those who don't...don't. It can actually be that easy.

 

[Wraith Form]

I love to GM C&C because it stupid simple and takes me little or no time to prepare for, plus I can use my old D&D books. That said, I like playing D&D 3.5 more, but don't like all the prep work involved when DMing.

I haven't reached the point where I have DMed C&C, but I bought it, and offered to pay for the books for my players if they'd try it.

I've been DMing D&D 3.5 for merely a year & a half (after occasional forays into DMing AD&D 2), and I'm already sick to death of all the minutia. Too much petty crap to keep track of, and it seems to favor a "roll playing" style rather than a "role playing." IM-not-so-HO.

C&C appears to ditch all the minutia and annoying stuff while still retaining a mechanic if a player wants to attempt a "minutia-like thing". In fact, the perception I have of C&C is that it puts the bulk of the burden on players to be innovative, then it's the DM's job to adjudicate the DC (in 3.5 terms) of the action being attempted. That may be an incorrect perception, but...that's how it seems to me.

[Let the bashing & flaming begin. * * Later * * Or, see PirateCat's posts and don't.]

 

[Scurvy_Platypus]

Heh. I'm one of those not on the poll.... based on something my wife pointed out, I've decided to welcome D&D/d20 as my new overlord and simply strip out the bits from it that I don't like, and graft on some bits from C&C to it. Instead of adding d20 bits to C&C....

Kinda like dating some girl, and then breaking up with her and dating her sister.

So now instead of having C&C people wondering what the heck I'm doing, I'll have the d20 folks wondering the same thing. The more things change the more they stay the same.

 

[w_earle_wheeler]

I ran my first C&C game tonight.

It didn't work for us. I really wanted to like the system, but it's just not for me or my group.

 

[Dristram]

I ran my first C&C game tonight.

It didn't work for us. I really wanted to like the system, but it's just not for me or my group.

I'm not saying this is the case here, but I have noticed that some who come from 3.5 to C&C and try a miniatures combat heavy game, will be very frustrated expecting something akin to 3.5. C&C is set up to be more about the role-playing, character development, and story building with the combat being a piece of it all, but not the focus and thus all detailed out. A CK who doesn't come to the table with a well developed adventure, who relies on the combat as the focus for the game night's excitement, as I've seen many 3.5 games devolve to now a days, will find C&C a bit lacking. It will be that way until the CK gains a true grasp of the flexibility and freedom of the SEIGE engine.

That said, I would never say that C&C is a replacement for 3.5 D&D. They each serve different styles of gaming. Some prefer one while some prefer the other. And that's okay.

 

[Treebore]

I ran my first C&C game tonight.

It didn't work for us. I really wanted to like the system, but it's just not for me or my group.

Thats cool. As a counter type of example the Wed group I play in are all 3E players. They have all liked it enough to make level 4. We are still going. Besides, if they quit when we just started "Ghost Tower of Inverness" I might have to get violent, since I have never had the opportunity to play through this before.

Like has been said before, C&C is not for everyone. Just like 3E isn't for everyone. However, if your looking for something different because of whatever reason, its worth checking out.

Hopefully those Quickstart Rules will be available as a free download on Monday. Thats the "hopeful plan" anyhow.

 

[Dragon-Slayer]

Many humans enjoy needlessly overcomplicating their lives in a variety of ways, hence the results of the poll thus far. I like to keep it simple, C&C and WFRP2 all the way.

 

[w_earle_wheeler]

I'm not saying this is the case here, but I have noticed that some who come from 3.5 to C&C and try a miniatures combat heavy game, will be very frustrated expecting something akin to 3.5.

I think that is partially the case in my scenario. While I have been playing 3.5, I started with 1e and the Molvay basic set, then I moved to 2e and then to 2e revised. So, while I have come most recently from 3.5, that's not my only background.

However, as you noted, going from 3.5 to C&C can be frustrating for people. I found that the lack of specifics and certain rules just ended up causing more work for me as the DM, and the players didn't really like the open-ended nature of it (two of them are also old schoolers).

It was nice to use my old Monster Manual and Fiend Folio and Dungeon Master's Guide, but the content wasn't as compatible with C&C as I had hoped it would be. I'll probably be sticking with OSRIC products for my "old school" stuff.

I guess we're more of a Necromancer games catchphrase kinda group. You know, third editon rules with first edition feel