The C&C poll

[w_earle_wheeler]

I thought your problem was that you didn't like it (you got totally got a right not to like it), not that it was broken.

Why do you feel it's broken?

I thought I made my feelings on this clear:

I've avoided any specific criticisms of the game's writing and mechanics because I'm not any more interested in converting anyone away from a system than I am in converting them to a system. Anything I can say is sure to be taken the wrong way, and I don't really want to get into that.

 

[Zulgyan]

Hmmm... it's seems a bit contradictory from you part to state that C&C is broken and then claiming no wish of converting anyone away from C&C.

You say that C&C is bad, then say you don't want to tell anyone if it's good or bad. It's contradictory.

If you don't want to back up your statments it's ok for me. Really.

 

[Shadeydm]

In fairness, that kind of thing should be in the rule book. If a game can't clearly relay to the consumer how it suposed to be played, then there's a huge problem.

Yes because all the rules in 3.5 are clearly relayed for the consumer right and clearly there is no need for the rules forum here too right lol.

 

[SteveC]

Hmmm... it's seems a bit contradictory from you part to state that C&C is broken and then claiming no wish of converting anyone away from C&C.

You say that C&C is bad, then say you don't want to tell anyone if it's good or bad. It's contradictory.

If you don't want to back up your statments it's ok for me. Really.

Having been in a lot of these discussions, sometimes I think it's just better to say no to continue the discussion. I still get drawn into them sometimes myself, but most of the time, past some very basic statements about what you like or don't like about a game it's really counterproductive to argue them...it can generate a lot of anger and hurt feelings to no real purpose.

When it all comes down to it, all we're really doing is saying "I like/don't like this game," and once you get beyond some really basic discussion, telling someone they're wrong for not liking something is really pointless. So the only time you need to "back up" a statement on not liking something is when you're trying to make an objective point about it. "It didn't work for my group," is just an opinion, like anyone else's.

Just my $0.02...

--Steve

 

[Crothian]

Yes because all the rules in 3.5 are clearly relayed for the consumer right and clearly there is no need for the rules forum here too right lol.

Just because another game makes the same critical mistake doesn't make it any better.

 

[Shadeydm]

Just because another game makes the same critical mistake doesn't make it any better.

I never said it was any better, as I said in an earlier post I have never even picked up a C&C book in my life. I just find the representation that 3.5 DnD was somehow better in that department amusing.

 

[Grimstaff]

Combat is pretty effortless with C&C. Group initiative instead of individual, so that's like two rolls and combat is off and running, and everyone knows when they go next. There's no AoO's, so tricky manuevers or combat moves are, again, resolved in just 1 or 2 rolls. MOnsters just use their HD for their BtH modifier and damage modifiers are few and far between, so less time spent calculating. As a result, you can run a pretty big combat in just 5-15 minutes, as opposed to 20-60 minutes in RaW3.5.

Somewhat ironically, running a few sessions of C&C helped me see what was wrong (imo) with combat in 3.5 and make modifications accordingly, so my 3.5 game has been immensely streamlined. Streamlining combat gives my game more time for other things, like RP, logistics, world-building, exploring, etc.

I guess what I'm getting at is that C&C improved my game even though I havn't been running it anymore.

 

[Uder]

I guess what I'm getting at is that C&C improved my game even though I havn't been running it anymore.

Heh, I'm in a reverse situation... chomping at the bit to play C&C while our 3.5 campaign winds down. The spell, magic, rules, etc. etc. compendiums made the decision for us. No more math, no more faqs, no more the-character-sheet-is-the-game: The CK is right, relax and have fun!

 

[Imaro]

In fairness, that kind of thing should be in the rule book. If a game can't clearly relay to the consumer how it suposed to be played, then there's a huge problem.

I don't feel this statement is very valid. Can you cite in the rulebook where "how to play the game" is misrepresented or contradictory? The thing with all roleplaying games is that they are based in a verbal medium, and verbal mediums aren't like math. They can be misconstrued by a persons past experiences, misunderstanding of word meanings, etc. I think that this is complicated by the familiarity C&C (or for that matter alot of "d20" games that veer away from the established D&D paradigms) has with D&D 3.5, and thus certain "expectations" that players of D&D will have. Is this really a problem with the book or a problem with how a particular person interprets the information?

Furthermore, I think that forums, eratta, FAQ's serve the purpose of making sure everyone is on the same page, and are arguably necessary for rpg's in general. Wouldn't chalk it up to a failure of every game(since I haven't seen a rpg yet that didn't have at least one of these) but as a necessary component to the diversitry and adaptability of both human beings and language.

 

[w_earle_wheeler]

If you don't want to back up your statments it's ok for me. Really.

If you want to continue to attempt to troll me, do it via PM instead.

Having been in a lot of these discussions, sometimes I think it's just better to say no to continue the discussion. I still get drawn into them sometimes myself, but most of the time, past some very basic statements about what you like or don't like about a game it's really counterproductive to argue them...it can generate a lot of anger and hurt feelings to no real purpose.

Exactly. Since I'm not trying to change anyone's mind, I don't see the point in spending the time to type out a detailed critical response to an RPG ruleset.