who else loves the C&C...?

[S'mon]

I don't like how codified 3E is. I was being strangled by it on several levels. C&C doesn't make me feel that way, so I am happy with it.

Yeah, me too. I started out loving 3e, but eventually I felt suffocated by it. The more I understood about its intention to be an all-encompassing ruleset with everything mechanically defined, the more I grew cold. C&C acts as a crutch to the GM & players' imaginations, the rules do not attempt to define the entirety of the game world.

I will agree that C&C editing is poor. The equipment lists are bad - no missile fire rates, weapons and armour are a mess in the 2nd printing. It's not a ruleset you can trust to get everything right on your behalf, whereas 3.5e comes pretty close to that ideal, at least at levels 1-4.

 

[S'mon]

Here's an example I like to use from Classic D&D... it as well to C&C:

Assume all players have Level 1 Fighters with no ability bonuses and 8 HP.

Player 1: My Fighter is a woodlands tracker who explores the vastness of the northern wastes.
Player 2: My Fighter is a grizzled mercenary out for fame and fortune.
Player 3: My Fighter is an aristocrat from Politeia and thus an accomplished horseman.
Player 4: My Fighter is a sailor and privateer with strong personal loyalties.

All 4 of these statistically identical characters are different. Not only that, but since background can be a determiner of your skill set, each one can do different things: #1 can track and knows the wild lands, #2 is streetwise and is familiar with military matters and contractual negotiations, #3 knows horsebackriding and etiquette and has some society connections, #4 can man a ship and climb rigging and interact with salts in seedy dockside taverns. Very different!

All that, and no feats or skills required.

In C&C they'd probably have different Primes, but I take your point. I don't know why anyone objects to letting background determine 'secondary skills', as 1e called this stuff. It does take a slightly reasonable GM, who will not try to nerf players - let them succeed at anything that looks reasonable, let them roll for anything that doesn't, is my motto.

 

[mhacdebhandia]

If you want me to be DM you would have to be willing to play C&C. Maybe with my house rules you would actually like it.

It's quite possible.

The thing is, I'm absolutely certain there are Castles & Crusades campaigns which would satisfy my desire to have mechanical implementation of the things my character is supposed to be able to do.

The problem for me, which is entirely personal of course, is that I don't like games where I have to write those mechanical implementations myself, or persuade the GM to do so . . .

. . . and if they're not there at all, then the traits of the characters don't exist as far as I'm concerned. If I'm supposed to be able to track because of my background, but there are no rules for tracking because the GM can't be bothered coming up with them, or if the rules the GM comes up with don't really operate by any logic other than "Sure, this time I think it's okay that you can follow the guy, why not?", then I'm wasting my time even coming up with the background.

I could still play that game - I have - but I wouldn't bother to declare that my character could do anything to distinguish himself. His background wouldn't affect his abilities, all it would do is determine personality.

Sometimes - most of the time - I find that unsatisfying.

 

[S'mon]

It's quite possible.

The thing is, I'm absolutely certain there are Castles & Crusades campaigns which would satisfy my desire to have mechanical implementation of the things my character is supposed to be able to do.

The problem for me, which is entirely personal of course, is that I don't like games where I have to write those mechanical implementations myself, or persuade the GM to do so . . .

. . . and if they're not there at all, then the traits of the characters don't exist as far as I'm concerned. If I'm supposed to be able to track because of my background, but there are no rules for tracking because the GM can't be bothered coming up with them, or if the rules the GM comes up with don't really operate by any logic other than "Sure, this time I think it's okay that you can follow the guy, why not?", then I'm wasting my time even coming up with the background.

I could still play that game - I have - but I wouldn't bother to declare that my character could do anything to distinguish himself. His background wouldn't affect his abilities, all it would do is determine personality.

Sometimes - most of the time - I find that unsatisfying.

Well, 3e (or a skill-based system like Runequest) is clearly the game for you; and C&C is not. I think it would be foolish for you to play a lite game like C&C with an attitude like that, or for a C&C GM to take you into his group. That's ok, there are plenty of keen 3e GMs around.

 

[Philotomy Jurament]

. . . and if they're not there at all, then the traits of the characters don't exist as far as I'm concerned...I could still play that game - I have - but I wouldn't bother to declare that my character could do anything to distinguish himself. His background wouldn't affect his abilities, all it would do is determine personality.

Given this, I agree you've made the right choice to steer clear of C&C. 3E is probably more to your liking, but I'd also recommend Rolemaster for the ultimate in making sure the trait exists on your character sheet.

 

[Xyanthon]

SILENCE!

Don't forget about my Necromancer collaboration with Lance Hawvermale and the stuff I'm working on for Joe Browning. (Honest, Joe, I'll have it to you soon!)

Heh, I'm looking foreward to all of the old school love you guys are putting out. I'm finishing up some art for XRP as well and then back to the OSRIC Companion. Now if only I could get the guys at Goodman, Troll Lords and Necro to have a look at my stuff... Heh, XRP rocks anyway and I'm excited to be working with them.

Now, if the Trolls would just get their stuff out sooner! It kills me to look at the product list and have to wait for so long.

 

[Melan]

Yggsburgh

Sooo, people, how would you sell these Yggsburgh supplements to someone who likes things like the 1e DMG city encounter chart and City State of the Invincible Overlord, but didn't care for Yggsburgh, or The Village of Hommlet? Inquiring minds want to know!

 

[Shadowslayer]

There was a company talking about releasing all kinds of Wilderlands stuff for C&C. Has any more been made on that, or was that just dreamy-talk?

 

[Korgoth]

.
. . . and if they're not there at all, then the traits of the characters don't exist as far as I'm concerned. If I'm supposed to be able to track because of my background, but there are no rules for tracking because the GM can't be bothered coming up with them, or if the rules the GM comes up with don't really operate by any logic other than "Sure, this time I think it's okay that you can follow the guy, why not?", then I'm wasting my time even coming up with the background.

I could still play that game - I have - but I wouldn't bother to declare that my character could do anything to distinguish himself. His background wouldn't affect his abilities, all it would do is determine personality.

Well, with that kind of attitude you wouldn't be welcome at my table.

FWIW, I don't even require a roll most of the time. If you're a sailor then you can climb rigging, no roll required (unless it's during a storm, or you're encumbered, then it's a Dex roll). If you're a woodsman you can track things, no roll required (unless there's something problematic with the trail, such as that they target has been making an effort to coneal its movements... then roll your Wis).

I don't need a system that makes me decide between spending points on Track Small Game (Specialization: Scrub Plain) vs. Wipe Body [Own] (Specialization: Butt). Just as long as we're throwing around realistic examples.

 

[S'mon]

Well, with that kind of attitude you wouldn't be welcome at my table.

That's what I was trying to say, only more politely.