The C&C poll

[Imaro]

But but... you can play any edition of D&D in it! All you have to do is convert it. And if the archetype you want to play isnt there, just make up some rules!

Gee... sort of like any game.

...must...maintain...control...will...not...reply...

See, C&C fans can be civil.

 

[skinnydwarf]

I like C&C. It's a nice simple system, character creation is a snap, as is adventure preparation.

I do long for the complexity of 3E, but C&C really fits my needs right now. I'm a law student running a biweekly (in theory) game (insane, I know), and the simplicity really helps. That and pre-made adventures. Although a warning- Assault on Blacktooth Ridge, while fun and full of inspiration, is one of those "you do a lot of the work" pre-made adventures.

Someday, when I have more time (ha!), I'll go back to running/playing 3E.

edit: corrected adventure title

 

[Jefe Bergenstein]

...must...maintain...control...will...not...reply...

See, C&C fans can be civil.

No seriously. I've yet to hear anything about C&C that amounts to more than "Its great because I like it, and I like it because its great!" C&C'ers frequently tout that you can play any edition of D&D in it, like its novel. I can play a 2nd edition module ising 3.5. Or Unknown Armies. Or....

 

[Flexor the Mighty!]

No seriously. I've yet to hear anything about C&C that amounts to more than "Its great because I like it, and I like it because its great!" C&C'ers frequently tout that you can play any edition of D&D in it, like its novel. I can play a 2nd edition module ising 3.5. Or Unknown Armies. Or....

Damn those C&C'ers!

 

[Edena_of_Neith]

I myself prefer D&D 3.0, with a lot of material from other editions thrown in.

 

[moriarty777]

I believe that you don't build a fan base around a game system by tearing down another system. It's just a put-off. I hear a lot of C&C fans talk about how C&C works with AD&D, but I think there needs to be even more outreach to D&D fans without putting down d20 in the process.

I agree with you Dragonhelm and I think a lot of the problems end up being reactionary in nature and a bit too defensive. I know I have been critical about WOTC's direction with D&D in the past, but since I've picked up C&C, I've *still* buy and maybe I buy even more of the d20 material that does appeal to me.

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.)?

Personally, I found it easier to build up than strip down but I think it all depends on what you're doing or modifying. I'll use FEATS as an example, it's easier to integrate it into C&C and give it to the classes uniformly than it is to strip from D&D where some classes gain feats at different speeds.

A few things in Star Wars SAGA also interested me and it's simplified skill list was one of them. If only one thing got ported to D&D, that would be it -- course a couple of skills would change slightly... Use Computer to Use Device... Pilot would probably disappear but Spellcraft would go in...

Overall, I like to think of C&C as somewhere in the middle of D&D 3.x and AD&D 1e. Sure, it has a tendency to lean towards one end, but it's become my current game of choice because of how easy I can port the old stuff and the new in with ease.

Moriarty the Red

 

[Flynn]

I grew up playing Mentzer D&D and AD&D and eventually switched over to D&D 3x when I could no longer find 2nd edition games. I like C&C in part because it reminds me of my old gaming days but mostly because it is so simple to run. I'll still play in 3x games, but sometimes the complexity and the power levels are too much for me. When I run games, I prefer to use C&C nowadays.

If there's one thing that C&C does have over v3.5, it's that it is generally easier on the DM to prep for a game. The burn-out aspect of DM Prepwork for v3.5 is the one thing that would cause me to leave that game for something simpler, and I'm getting close. While C&C is no longer the game I'd choose to replace v3.5, it can provide a model for certain aspects of what would be a simpler gaming system in terms of DM Prepwork.

With Regards,
Flynn

 

[Philotomy Jurament]

I'm running C&C and OD&D(1974).

 

[Ourph]

I'm not a big fan of 3e D&D, even less of a fan of C&C (for different reasons). I purchased the C&C rulebook when it first came out and quickly returned it to my FLGS after reading through it. 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.

 

[moriarty777]

No seriously. I've yet to hear anything about C&C that amounts to more than "Its great because I like it, and I like it because its great!" C&C'ers frequently tout that you can play any edition of D&D in it, like its novel. I can play a 2nd edition module ising 3.5. Or Unknown Armies. Or....

Well, because C&C is hardly original and since it seeks to emulate AD&D with some of the perks of a unified d20 system, it's only natural that this is what is frequently said. Maybe some might consider that to be its greatest failing as a system.

Of course, you can port an older edition module into 3.x -- but you'll also have at least a few extra minutes of work to do in order to do it. I'm sure you could also port a 3.x module straight into AD&D with some work too. I think C&C just lends itself to the task by its very design. I don't think it's a big coincidence that a lot of C&C fans are people who have also played a lot of AD&D too but recognize some of the concepts in D&D 3.x that were also quite good.

But... had I never been exposed to AD&D or D&D 3.x before hand... I would certainly be saying: "Its great because I like it, and I like it because its great!"



Moriarty the Red