The C&C poll

[S'mon]

So you're saying that a 7th level elf from BD&D, a 7th level monk from 1st edition, a 7/7/7 fighter/cleric/mage from 2nd edition, a 7th level monk from 3rd edition and a 7th level incarnate from 3.5 can all be ready to go on a 1st edition adventure together in this system with minimum work? I call schennigans. .

Hm, all you'd have to do is get the players to assign Primes, flip AC, and the PCs could be used with the listed stats.

If you wanted to you could do more conversion work - the 1e and 2e characters' stat bonuses would be different - but this isn't vital: since 1e/2e characters have higher stats than BD&D/C&C, but the stat bonuses start at 15 not 13, you're not really harming play balance by using them as written. I'd probably harmonise STR to-hit and damage bonuses though; so STR 18 (+1/+2) became STR 16 (+2), STR 18/01-50 (+1/+3) became STR 17 (+2), STR 18/51-90 became STR 18 (+3) and STR 18/91-00 became STR 19 (+3). This kind of effort isn't necessary for a one-shot but probably a good idea if running a long-term campaign.

 

[jdrakeh]

Hmm. You missed one -- "Was a C&Cer, converted to D&D" I really tried my best to avoid D&D 3x for years, my only significant purchases being the Scarred Lands books released in 2000/2001 and the core D&D 3.5 books in 2003. I played in a few games but never ran anything longterm until more recently.

I ran a full-blown C&C campaign over the Summer last year and the lack of mechanical options failed to hold the interest of my players, which ultimately frustrated me (I like light systems, though if my players don't, I need to make some adjustments). So. . . I switched to D&D 3.5 and, honestly, I'm not sure that I would switch back.

Now I can find players regularly

 

[Hjorimir]

I was close to buying C&C, but read a lot of reviews for it and other systems and ended up landing on True20, for which I'm thankful as I love that game.

 

[Imaro]

So you're saying that a 7th level elf from BD&D, a 7th level monk from 1st edition, a 7/7/7 fighter/cleric/mage from 2nd edition, a 7th level monk from 3rd edition and a 7th level incarnate from 3.5 can all be ready to go on a 1st edition adventure together in this system with minimum work? I call schennigans. What bugs me is the constant cheerleading of C&C'ers that its the magical missing link. no its not. Any system can use material from other systems if you're willing to do the work. Its not the selling point people here are misrepresenting it as.

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). The charcater thing has already been covered in a previous post so I'll leave it alone.

The easiest thing to convert is the monsters. All you need to do is look up the same monster in the C&C Monsters and Treasure book! You can mark the pages in the module and your M&T book with color coded sticky notes so that you always know what page to turn to in a hurry and don't have to bother with making notes.

If the monster you want to convert is not in the Monsters and Treasure Book, I would consult an older edition of D&D-- my personal favorite being the Basic D&D Rules Cyclopedia. If you don't have it you can buy the pdf for 5 dollars at rpgnow.com or buy a used one on ebay.

The monsters presented in the RC are 90% compatable with C&C rules. The only thing that you would need to actively convert is armor class and saving throws. To convert D&DRC armor class to C&C, simply subtract the given AC from 19. Remember that subtracting a negative number is the same thing as addition. So a D&D monster listed as AC 5 would be AC 14 in C&C (19-5= 14). A monster with AC -3 would become AC 22 in C&C (19+3 =22). Saves are easier to convert. If the creature saves as a fighter, thief, dwarf, or halfling it is Physical prime. If it saves as an elf, cleric, or wizard it is mental prime. Use the creatures HD as the bonus to all rolls (including saves, attacks, etc). Simple, eh?

If using 1st or 2nd Edition AD&D as a resource, armor class is also easy to manage. Simply subtract the listed AC from 20. So an AC 5 creature would be AC 15 in C&C and an AC -3 character would be AC 23 in C&C. Saves convert the same as in basic D&D.

If you want to convert DIRECTLY from d20 system, use the same Hit Dice and die type as the creature already has, but get rid of the bonus hit points. So a creature listed as 5d10+15 HD in d20 would convert to 5d10 in C&C. You should also take away any bonuses to the damage dice listed. If the bonus listed is higher than the die, just make the attack use the die type, and double it. So a creature listed as doing d4+5 damage, change it to 2d4. If a creature had d6+3 dmg, just convert it to d6. These changes are because hit points and damage are harder to come by in C&C than they are in d20. If a creature's good saves are FORT or REF, it is Physical prime. If it is WILL the creature is mental prime. If they are all good saves, it is physical and mental prime.

Converting Saves
Older editions of D&D had 5 saving throws. C&C has 6 and they are just about the same, except the C&C saves are directly linked to stats. The old D&D saves were as follows and converts to C&C as presented below:

Paralysis-- Str
Breath Weapon (and area of affect spells like fireball)-- Dex
Poison, Death-- Con
Wands, Staves, Wands (and Illusions)-- INT
Spells (except illusions and area of affect spells like fireball and charm or sleep spells)-- WIS
Enchantment spells (sleep, charm, etc) and fear= CHA

Converting d20 saves is a little trickier and involves a judgement call by the CK converting it. You just have to use some logic as to which converts to what.

FORT-- STR or CON (depending on the effect)
REF-- DEX
WILL--INT, WIS, or CHA (Depending on the source of the spell/effect, CK's call)

Converting DCs to Challenge Levels.

I use a simple formula for this. I assume that DC 15 is the average DC of a check in d20. In C&C, the average difficulty of a task is CL 0. So every 1 the DC is higher than 15 in D20, the CL is 1 higher. So a DC 19 check would convert to a CL 4 check. For every 1 the DC is lower than 15 in D&D, the CL is -1. So a DC 12 check would be CL -3 in C&C. The CL of course is added to the base of 12/18 depending on if the character is prime in the required stat.

Converting Skill Checks
Simply make the skill check into an attribute check for the skill that is normally tied to that attribute. You may want to give certain classes a bonus in this, or even restrict who can try based on class. For instance a Search check would simply convert to an INT check, which anybody can do, but a Survival check to track somebody should be limited to rangers or maybe druids (with a penalty as it is not a class ability for them).

Converting damage from traps--
If the trap is related to a spell, look up the C&C equivilent and adjust the effect accordingly.

If the damage is related to a weapon, look up that weapons damage in C&C and convert it.

If damage is listed as a die with a damage bonus exceeding the die types, add another die to the damage instead. If it has a damage bonus less than the die type, get rid of the bonus damage.

So if a trap is listed as doing 5d6+7 damage, convert it to 6d6 damage for C&C. If it does 5d6+4 damage, it just does 5d6.

Well, that is all that comes to mind for now. Let me know if you think of any other questions about conversion.
_________________

 

[Midknightsun]

I picked up C&C after dealing with high level d20 characters that were beginning to give me a headache, besides being nigh invulnerable, it starts to feel like I'm taking my work home with me. (I still like it, but the system can get pretty heavy at high levels). Combats started to take far too long.

I was thinking of delving into something that didn't take up so much of my free time to set up, with combats that don't drag on forever. I looked through it, and found it interesting. The system is simple, but does require a not inconsiderable amount of DM arbitration on the fly. I can see how that may be good in some situations, and not so good in others. Its definitely DM friendly, but I don't think that implies that its intended to allow the DM to "Rule mercilessly over his players". That's just nonsense. I certainly wouldn't mind playing in such a campaign if it was offered, but part of me seems to like the fine granularity if 3.5 . . . . just wish it didn't become such a bugger at high levels.

Of course, I'm a gaming slut, so I'll pretty much try just about any system . . . .at least once. Maybe more if someone springs for the Mountain Dew and Doritos

 

[Jackelope King]

I gave C&C a shot, but it went back towards inflexible character archetypes (something I strongly dislike), seperate XP charts for some reason I couldn't fathom, and a whole bunch of other AD&Disms that I just disliked (like the strange breakdown of saves). Then they went back and cut out the d20isms that I did like, such as feats and skills.

It's a shame, because the SEIGE engine is pretty simple and elegant, and it's something that I feel could work very well seperately, apart from all of the "old school feel" that tends to detract from the nice simplicity and smoothness of the SEIGE engine. Indeed, I felt like a lot of the complexity of the game was moved to exactly the wrong places (gameplay itself) instead of the right places (parts of the game that take place away from the table, like character creation).

The other selling point of the system never became apparent to me. I never could see just how it was easier to convert old adventures over to C&C as opposed to 3.Xe. A lot of what was posted above converts just as easily into 3.Xe or d20 in general. I've sat in on a game at my girlfriend's college where the DM had an old 1E Monster Manual that she'd just flip open to a random page when she wanted a random encounter, then converted everything right then and there on the fly. And not to knock her, but she definitely wasn't a master of 3E rules, but she had absolutely no problem doing these conversions on the fly. There was no mythical "crown of d20" that descended onto her head. It was just an average DM running a game across editions without much problem.

(Admittedly, this selling point also wasn't very relevant to me, since I tend to loathe published adventures in general, and the oldest product I still own is the 2E Complete Priest's Handbook (because the section on religion building was really pretty useful) and PHB. I don't have old editions or adventures to convert, and I wouldn't want to.)

Rather than deal with duct-taping together I did like from the ground up with C&C (which essentially was just the SEIGE engine), I got True20 instead. Rules-light with plenty of flexibility, making it my rules-light fantasy game of choice. Between True20 for rules-light, Mutants & Masterminds for flexibility, Iron Heroes for the sheer cool factor, and D&D 3.X for the ease of finding groups, I've got all the gaming I could want for a long time. I might harvest the SEIGE engine at some point crossed with Saga Edition skills for a fast-and-dirty skills system, but that'd be the only thing that I'd consider salvaging from C&C.

 

[Agamon]

I bought it, considering the 'hype' here (which is more like a vociferous minority). It's not too bad, but I'm not put off by the so-called complexity of D&D, so no need to convince my players to change. A couple of them get angry at the very thought of 4E as it is. If I'm going to play something besides D&D, it's not going to be a simplified version of it, it'll be MnM, WHFRP, Scion or something else different enough to make the change.

 

[FATDRAGONGAMES]

We're in the process of switching from 3.5 to C&C. I first played C&C about a year ago and absolutely love it.

 

[gideon_thorne]

A game is a game is a game. What it all boils down too is what 'does it' for a particular group. Objectively, there is no right answer to the oft debated 'which is the best system'.

Clearly the profusion of game systems out there appeal to a variety of tastes. Some like detail in their games, some prefer more abstract systems. Debating over 'whats the best' is just silly.

For my part, having done the 'complex' game system thing, ala Hero System/Champions and the like, I find myself headed toward more abstract, and simpler, methods. When a system is simple enough that even a hack writer like myself can quickly put together new classes, races, abilities and so forth, then its acomplished its goal.

Personally, I like to wing it, and I dont generally care for a lot of codification via someone elses idea of what is 'fair and balanced'. Too much structure limits my creativity. But thats just how my mind works, when it works. ^_~`

Not that I wont sit down in any group of decent folks and play whatever's offered. But I do have my preferences. Doesn't mean my way is the only way to go.

Those folks who want to get into C&C, your welcome. If we ever see each other at a game convention or what not, lets grab a table and toss some dice around. If people prefer other game systems, thats also fine. There's lots of room in this world for all kinds of gamers and certainly a lot more important issues worth getting all hot under the collar about. ^_~`

 

[Jupp]

We switched one of our two gaming groups over to C&C and so far everybody is very happy with it. Reasons:

It's much faster than D&D (the other group is still a D&D game). Combat is very fast and fluent. The players where quite surprised about how fast combat is. But they liked it because for them that meant they where able to explore the next room already.

It's easy to understand. Everybody did understand all the rules within the first two hours of gameplay, including combat et al. To me this is the biggest plus of C&C compared to other systems I play. Because the easier a ruleset is the less rules discussions you have and everybody is able to fully concentrate on the adventure.

It is easier to DM. I am much faster in DMing the game because there are fewer rules to look up. And so far my players do not feel that I am using the "freedom of the DM" against them. And up to now I have not seen any moment where I had to suck something out of my thumbs in regards to player actions. the SIEGE system pretty much has everything you need to rule the game. The DM of the other group (3E) is a player in my group and he really likes the game very much so far.

The adaptability towards other editions is a no-brainer. Someone in another post said that its easy to use 2e content, like adventures and monster stats, in 3E. That might be true, but it is nowhere as easy as with C&C. On the fly conversions of 2e to 3E, or vice versa, is a (big) tad more complex than to C&C. At least for me. So C&C acts as a very good man-in-the-middle ruleset that is open to each side for conversions. That means I have to spend less time for preparation.

Cheers