The C&C poll

[Shadeydm]

Please go reread my warning on the previous page. I have asked people to stop threadcrapping, and that requires that everyone stops responding to the earlier negative comments.

Hint, hint.

My apologies, I was actually reading the thread in order believe it or not and didn't see you post until after the fact.

 

[Grimstaff]

My group tried C&C and loved it, but we played it as a break from our usual 3.5 campaign and went back to that after. I'd have no prob running C&C.

Some folks seem to have a little difficulty accepting the "C&C is easy to use with materials from all other editions" (someone called it "false advertising" iirc?), but I can vouch for it, having used the 1E DMG, Basic monsters, and 3.5 DCC's all during our short run, and all "on the fly". Maybe it would help to state a little more clearly that the *C&C Players Handbook* is easily compatible with all other editions' non-phb materials. As C&C is really little more than a PHB with a few modules, I don't see why anyone would be worried about running characters from other editions with C&C support materials. But C&C bases almost everything off of Hit Dice and Challenge level. For instance, if you use a 3.5 monster, all you need is its HD to determine its attack bonus, saving throws, and skills. If you use a spell or trap all you need is the relative level of the weilder or setter or caster or whatever, and there's your challenge rating to apply to your SIEGE check.

So the difference is instead of doing a technical "conversion" you're really for the most part omitting stuff that doesn't apply. Pretty simple.

That said, I've found a "happy place" with 3.5 by eliminating some things (AoO's anyone?) and modifying some other things (xp, 10th level "cap" instead of 20th) and don't really need C&C anymore, but I would still recommend it. Also looking at Ry's 6th lvl epic stuff, pretty cool!

I think C&C would become a more viable option for a lot of gamers if it became a more "complete" system, with an extensive DM's guide and MM's. There's already a Monsters and Treasures book, but it is oddly different in tone from the PHB, as if the writer of PHB were a huge 1E fan and the writer of the M&T book were more of a 2E fan. They just done mesh well, which is why I think a lot of folks prefer to dig out the stuff from other editions.

 

[Ranes]

Nah, gawd bless ya! Read C&C. Sticking with 3.5. The reason is the same reason I'm not going back to OD&D. If I played a system like C&C or OD&D, I'd end up, after enough years, augmenting it to the extent that I'd be playing something akin to 3.5.

I'm glad people are getting enjoyment out of it but it's not for me. I feel, in fact, that I've already played it.

 

[Jefe Bergenstein]

Well, I guess it does depend how you go about it or what material you're using. Trying to throw a bunch of characters from other editions together for a C&C adventure is one thing. Those examples given are certainly not typical run-of-the-mill so ... yes... it would take work just like bringing them into any other game (like Rifts for example).

Man, now theres a joke in search for a punchline. An red box elf and a Glitterboy walk into a bar....

On the other hand, with characters created with the C&C ruleset, give me *any* D&D 3.x, OD&D, AD&D adventure and it can pretty much be run 'on-the-fly'. Is this a great and wonderful achievement? Absolutely not! Is it 'actually advertised as such' ... er... not last I checked. At best, people who use the system have remarked how much easier it was to port older AD&D material to C&C than D&D 3.x -- and as an added bonus how they are also able to incorporate some d20 material. Why? Because when incorporating from AD&D to C&C, there's so little to actually change. This is also why some people also hate C&C (mechanically speaking) because in some ways... it's too similar to the older AD&D stuff.

See, for me, its easier to go to 3rd edition (largely because most of the monsters are already converted). My first campaign for 3e was an Al-Quadim game, and it worked great. C&C's conversion also creates odd issues w 3rd edition material, since theres no con bonus for HP (thus undead with their huge HD to CR ratio get ramped up). Though honestly thats more an issue with the way undead were done in 3.0 than a fault of C&C. Either way, converting stuff to 1st - 3rd, C&C, or Over the Edge requires you to roll up your sleeves.

 

[Cabled]

C&C turned out to be the game my players were looking for...or looking to get back to as the case may be. Most of my players go back to at least 1st edition, a couple back to basic/expert, and a couple came in during 3.x. After playing 3.x into the mid teens, everyone was looking for something a little simpler, and that includes me as a DM. I just did not enjoy running what third edition was. So far, though the characters are only 2nd-3rd level, everyone is enjoying C&C immensely.

But I will be honest, and I have seen it in this thread already...if 4 of my 6 players didn't go back to 1st edition or farther back, I'm not sure how well it would have worked. I definitely DID see the difficulty the 3.x players had with "getting out of the rules" or "winging it" or whatever you want to call the more freeform (ad-hoc?) system. They got the hang of it over the first couple of adventures, but it would have been longer and more painful I think, without the older players "showing them the ropes" as it were. This exchange must have happened 100 times in the first couple adventures... "There's a skill for that? No, but you can try it anyways"

 

[rkwoodard]

C&Cer but....

I have recently converted over. Frankly, I don't buy most of the 3.x flaws. I just like the simple elegance and the writing style of C&C.

As for conversion. Converting any edition core stuff into C&C seems to be as easy as advertised. But, converting the supplement books from 3.x looks to be nightmarish. I have and love Magic of the Incarnum. I would not know where to begin to convert that into C&C.

I think C&C is great for two groups. A group of all beginners to RPGs. And real old hats (like myself) who have a good grasp of throwing rules to the wind, and a goodly level of trust in each other.

Just my view though,

RK

 

[VictorC]

It is not my cup of tea, nothing about it really did any thing for me. I think if I was to look for a rules light fantasy game I'd probably go for WFRP. But that's just me.

 

[Treebore]

I have recently converted over. Frankly, I don't buy most of the 3.x flaws. I just like the simple elegance and the writing style of C&C.

As for conversion. Converting any edition core stuff into C&C seems to be as easy as advertised. But, converting the supplement books from 3.x looks to be nightmarish. I have and love Magic of the Incarnum. I would not know where to begin to convert that into C&C.

I think C&C is great for two groups. A group of all beginners to RPGs. And real old hats (like myself) who have a good grasp of throwing rules to the wind, and a goodly level of trust in each other.

Just my view though,

RK

3X isn't nightmarish. I can help you see how easy it can be. PM me or catch me at the C&C boards. If you have, or can download SKYPE, it would be easier for me to help you since we can talk live.

 

[w_earle_wheeler]

Hopefully I'll b running a one-shot of C&C this weekend. My desire to play more of it after that will depend completely on what my players think of it.

I'll be using a house rule for skill checks that I saw somewhere on the net. Instead of having DC of 12 for primes and 18 for non-primes, I'll keep the same DC but give primes a +6.

 

[Dyne]

I'm curious about C&C. While I like D&D I don't like how rules-focused it is, how the goal of the game seems to be to abuse the rules to make yourself as powerful as possible. It seems like the entire D&D community is chock full of munchkins now, but maybe that's just my bad experiences at the WotC boards. There's no story anymore, it's not even a fantasy RPG but more an exercise in number-crunching.