The C&C poll

[S'mon]

Except there really arent rules for MC characters of various editions, since it works differently. The incarnate, with his skill boosting abilities is another odd duck. The monks from various editions are wildly different in power level, etc.

Or lets throw a martial adept in the mix. Since not everyone gets multiple attacks, the warblades comparative power level shoots through the roof, since there isnt a tradeoff between standard attack and full attack.

Obviously the characters won't be of identical power; but they can adventure together ok using the listed stats (discarding extraneous stuff like skills & feats in the case of the 3e/3.5e PCs), certainly good enough for a one-shot. There's no problem with the 1e MC PC; you just treat it as a single class with the summed XP and powers of the MC. Converting from 3/3.5e is rougher since the 3e power level is different; C&C is best for converting from older editions.

 

[S'mon]

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.

Converting to C&C from 3e results in differences in power (whereas converting from earlier editions causes no appreciable difference IME - I guess C&C spellcasters may be a bit more powerful). 3e heavily ramped up the power of melee brute monsters, C&C ramps their power down again, which I find beneficial since it restores the utility of Fighter type PCs relative to Wizards & Clerics. Re undead, with no '50% miss incorporeal' rule in C&C AFAICR, that keeps the resilience of incorporeal undead about the same as in 3e.

 

[Uder]

I like the easy prep of AD&D. My players like the crunchy tactical combat of 3E. C&C is the perfect mix.

 

[Maggan]

I think if I was to look for a rules light fantasy game I'd probably go for WFRP. But that's just me.

Nope, it's not just you.

/M

 

[S'mon]

Nope, it's not just you.

/M

I find this a bit odd since the feel of WFRP, exemplified in the rules, is very different from that of the D&D-C&C line. It's a different sort of game, not one geared towards the killing of numerous monsters and the amassing of magic items. If anything it's more like Call of Cthulu than D&D.

 

[Melan]

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.

Interesting -- I never read the C&C monster book properly because I started with the 1e MM1 when Monsters&Treasures wasn't out yet and didn't stop.

Seriously, good stuff. What I appreciate about C&C is the casualness, the "it is not perfectly balanced but we don't care"sentiment. Scribbling a few numbers on your paper and wham, you have a first level fighter NPC. Scribbling a few more and you have a 10th level fighter (still under three lines of handwriting). Among other things.

 

[Akrasia]

One inherent difficulty with polls like this is that they take on a skew...

Internet polls are fundamentally unreliable (pretty much meaningless). It's naive to think that they are anything but that, or that they can be 'skewed'.

... But this sort of scouting has another (normally unintended) effect, which is to bring in troops for combat.

Um, yeah. This comment is ... deeply ironic.

 

[Maggan]

I find this a bit odd since the feel of WFRP, exemplified in the rules, is very different from that of the D&D-C&C line. It's a different sort of game, not one geared towards the killing of numerous monsters and the amassing of magic items. If anything it's more like Call of Cthulu than D&D.

Odd? Why odd? WFRP is a rules light system for fantasy gaming, with a CoC feel to it. And I love it for being both. And a lot more besides.

Sure, it aint rules light D&D ... but I don't think that such a similarity was stated. There is more fantasy under the sun than D&D, after all.

But, yes for a rules light replacement that plays like D&D, I wouldn't play WFRP. I would play a combo of D&D Red Box Basic and D&D Blue Box Expert for that.

/M

 

[Akrasia]

What I like about C&C:

1. It is very easy to prep as a GM.
2. It gets rid of some of the things that bugged me about 1e AD&D and B/RC D&D (viz. descending ACs, racial level limits, the absence of a general task resolution mechanic).
3. I can convert pre-3e A/D&D material in one second (just switch the ACs).
4. It just 'feels right' for a somewhat gritty 'swords-and-sorcery' campaign (e.g. The Wilderlands).

 

[Breakdaddy]

I can honestly say vis a vis the WFRP comments in this thread that I can't fault those cats for going that route. WFRP has a very different feel for me than D&D or C&C, but it's one of the most fun fantasy games I've ever had the pleasure of playing. I still do one-offs when I get a chance and it's an itch that I can't ever get fully scratched. I LOVE me some WFRP, but my players slightly prefer C&C for its more D&D like feel. It can be a damned tough call at times, though. Ask many of my players and you will hear some pretty tall tales set in the Empire.