The C&C poll

[Dristram]

Where it falls short for me is that it's not enough of a system, and hearkens back to the days when GM fiat effectively ruled the table.

And to me, those were the good 'ol days.

 

[Mycanid]

I had to vote "DnD'er and playing some C&C" but in truth it should not be this one ... there was no option for "can't find anyone to play C&C living nearby". Heck - folks around here barely know about DnD. C&C? Good luck.

 

[RFisher]

To me "ease of conversion" means can you do it "on the fly" (easy) or do you need to sit down with a stack of rule books and go through everything line by line to make it playable (not easy).

Of course, the funny thing about the whole discussion to me is that--since we first started regularly playing games besides classic Traveller & AD&D--my groups have always "converted" stuff on-the-fly to whatever system we were into that year.

 

[Imaro]

What? Taking a rule and dropping it into another system whole hog isn't conversion. Conversion is the mapping of one system's rules to another system's rules. As you yourself note, this often isn't possible in C&C as the game doesn't contain rules equivalent to things such as feats, skills, etc. Let's look at your example that supposedly proves my assertions wrong. . .

This makes no sense, so even if I'm not taking the rules wholesale, from D&D 3.5...but instead modifying the mechanic they present so that it produces an equivalent effect in my C&C game...I'm not converting?????

In none of these examples are you converting anything from D&D 3.5, you're modifying the proprietary C&C system to mimic D&D 3.5 mechanics. Not the same thing.

No, I'm modifying the function of a feat from D&D 3.5 so that it works in my C&C game. Not dropping it in as is. The C&C system isn't modified, various races get a +2 to certain checks, so this is actually a part of C&C. What I've done is modify the mechanics of the feat from D&D 3.5 so that it can be used in C&C.

When you have a specific ability(actually the closest things to feats in the game) all checks with that ability add your level to them, this is part of the game. It is also another way I could modify the feats, I listed, to work in C&C, without changing the rules of the game or adopting them wholesale.

Actually, it seems that you're the one who is ignoring things. You're using the term "conversion" to cover proprietary system modification, rather than the actual mapping of D&D 3.5 elements to C&C rules (which, again, isn't possible in many cases as there are no equivalent rules in C&C to map to).

Just showed you two "equivalent" rules for feats. I mean your nitpicking with "proprietary system modification" but that isn't the only way to convert things.

 

[Imaro]

Where it falls short for me is that it's not enough of a system, and hearkens back to the days when GM fiat effectively ruled the table.

YMMV.

You know I haven't run into this problem, only because when I run C&C I have what I like to call an "open table" game. If someone wants to try something that I or my players feel some discrepancy on whether they should be, or shouldn't be allowed to do...we vote on it. If the vote is yes, then it can be done...if majority is no then it can't. This is all with the caveat that once something is voted as yes, anyone(player or GM) can have a character do it.

I found this approach interesting because...
1.) It allows the players to shape the type of world they want to play in. Want a wuxia flavored campaign...everybody votes yes to Dex check to run up walls, Str check to leap enormous gulfs, etc.

2.) It makes them think about the consequences of saying they want to be able to do a particular thing...since later in the campaign it can come back to bite them.

3.) Keeps them more intrested in what's going on through being able to exspress creativity, by thinking up new things to do.

I'm not saying you can't do this with another system, just giving an example of how it doesn't have to be just GM fiat.

 

[Treebore]

You know I haven't run into this problem, only because when I run C&C I have what I like to call an "open table" game. If someone wants to try something that I or my players feel some discrepancy on whether they should be, or shouldn't be allowed to do...we vote on it. If the vote is yes, then it can be done...if majority is no then it can't. This is all with the caveat that once something is voted as yes, anyone(player or GM) can have a character do it.

I found this approach interesting because...
1.) It allows the players to shape the type of world they want to play in. Want a wuxia flavored campaign...everybody votes yes to Dex check to run up walls, Str check to leap enormous gulfs, etc.

2.) It makes them think about the consequences of saying they want to be able to do a particular thing...since later in the campaign it can come back to bite them.

3.) Keeps them more intrested in what's going on through being able to exspress creativity, by thinking up new things to do.

I'm not saying you can't do this with another system, just giving an example of how it doesn't have to be just GM fiat.

I have never "thought about it before", but I run my table the same way. I collaberate with my players.

Plus GM fiat is not a bad thing. Only bad GM's are. If a player thinks they should "run the game" then they need to be the GM.

Nothing irritates me more than a player who has never, or only briefly, GMed a game telling me how I should interpret the rules. You can only really understand the needs of running a solid game once you have done it for a year or three. Or 20+ in my case.

Even 3E rules and using modules doesn't change that.

 

[Zulgyan]

A system open to GM fiat is awesome when run by an awesome GM. If DM ain't awesome, his freedom and responsability will make him awesome with time. If not, he would never be a good GM, regardless wich system he'd run.

Systems with no space for GM fiat are straight jackets, that bog down creativity, become mechanical, monotonus and promote meta-gaming. Sense of wonder and mystery are lost. Players are thinking mainly about rules and how to exploit them for their advantage, since the GM is a slave of his own rules-set.

Player and character thinking and knowlegde are too much separated. You got a player thinking about rules and the character in the imaginary world who should not think in rules terms such as standart and move actions, skill ranks, synergies, DC catalogs and menues.
Systems with GM fiat help the player to unite player and character thinking, cause the GM is in control of the rules and rulings. In that way, player describes his accions with imagination, getting into his character and uniting himself with it in a much deeper and close way.

In combat he'll say: "I run up to the gnoll and hit him with my axe" - GM says based on common sense "Ok, you reach the gnoll and you have an opportunity to strike.

In 3.x he'll say: "Ok, as a move accion I leave this position, provoking an AoO from this enemy, moving 1, 2, 3, 4, 6 (cause diagonal movement) squares and then as a standart action I attack the gnoll".

You can see the divorce bewteen player and character thinking in the actual edition. Player thinks all in rules terms when he should be using his imagination to get in character and experience the world of wonder and fantasy in wich he is adventuring.

Rules thinking is for the GM who is trying to get his player's into an imaginary world. Not merely controlling the right application of a computer-like set of rules the constitute player rights.

My way and opinion in regards D&D and roleplaying games in general.


As a bonus, systems open to GM fiat run much faster and smothly, and enable a much better control of the game's pace.

 

[Imperialus]

I switched to C&C after a session where it took 4 hours to finish off a single combat. The next session we figured it must have been because we hadn't taken the time to properly detail our character sheets so we decided to do a mass character audit of 14th level characters. It turned out that every single player had miss-stacked bonus's incompatable feats/class abilities ect. Different abilities that shouldn't stack stacked or visa-versa, the list goes on. By the time we were finished almost 5 hours later our characters were almost unrecognisable.

Unfortunatly a few other members of my group swore off D20 and anything resembleing it altogether. We've been playing Shadowrun and Serenity since, both good games but I'd really like to get back into fantasy gaming again.

 

[Jim Hague]

Yes, but a few times, for me, was two or three high level monsters. Most creatures that are "simple" in 3E, meaning they don't have a lot of special powers and abilities, can be done on the fly. Its only when it has a lot of "special powers" that you have to take any time to do it. Even then I just pencil in a dot next to what I want to keep for the game. The rest is just thrown away.

Sure, and that works for you; it's your playstyle. Obviously, it's not to everyone's tastes - my own group tends to be a mix of rules types and collaborators, with a serious hankering for consistency, so it doesn't work for them.

So I think its as easy as your saying you'd like it to be, but we are different people.

Again - different groups, different styles. I've never said that C&C was a bad game; it's not. I think that some proponents misadvertise it...but if it was the only game out there that suffered from such, it'd be the only game out there, right? We all have our preferences, and it colors our viewpoints. In the end, it's about finding the game that works for you and oyur group - some like fiat and handwaving, some don't, most fall somewhere in between. It's all good, if it's fun.

Plus, C&C is not for people who still love 3E and are happy with it. Its ideally for people who have old and new stuff and would like to be able to use it all together. I guess you could say C&C is a "linch pin" system that allows you to easily mix and match. Or if you just want a simple system. Or want a simple system that has a flexible core mechanic to which you can mix and match rules you like onto it.

3e, True 20, and other ssytems are all good systems. They all allow people to have fun games. C&C is just a possible alternative if other systems aren't keeping you happy anymore.

QFT.

 

[FATDRAGONGAMES]

I switched to C&C after a session where it took 4 hours to finish off a single combat. The next session we figured it must have been because we hadn't taken the time to properly detail our character sheets so we decided to do a mass character audit of 14th level characters. It turned out that every single player had miss-stacked bonus's incompatable feats/class abilities ect. Different abilities that shouldn't stack stacked or visa-versa, the list goes on. By the time we were finished almost 5 hours later our characters were almost unrecognisable.

We had a very similar experience which is why my group is in the process of switching to C&C. I also ran a C&C one-shot for some buddies who came to town a few weeks ago and 2 of them went out and bought C&C after that single five hour session for their home groups. I'm not trashing 3.5, but for me C&C makes the game fun again. We spend more time gaming and less time looking through books. Is it for everyone? No. The rules lawyer in our group misses his stacks of books, but everyone else loves it. No more dreading to level their characters, faster combats, more accomplished in each game session (which for us is very important as we simply do not have the time to game we once did.)