who else loves the C&C...?

[Treebore]

Yeah, I used the 3E skill system. Apparently someone in game designs think skills can "break" a game. It doesn't. So I allow players in my game to have every skill available to them on the 3E class list that most closely parallels the C&C class. The only limit I instituted was in Knowledge, Craft, and Professions. They can have only one of each, +1 in each for every INT bonus. Except for in cases like the Wizard.

Plus I actually have "down times" in my campaigns. They can use this time to learn even more skills using my house rules, as well as increase stats.

My group is 9th level now and its working pretty darn well. You know the other cool part? Its taken over a year of regular play (once to twice a week) for them to just now be knocking on 10th level. My kids now know what it means for a character to have "history".

 

[S'mon]

True, but how do you handle improving at tasks which fall outside the strict scope of your class?

Like a fighter with a piratical background. Climbing isn't strictly a warrior's skill, but if he can do it because of his background, how would he get better at it if he wanted to?

Of course, in D&D proper I favour eliminating class skill lists and therefore the extra expense of cross-class skills, which makes customising your character easier.

In C&C, two options.

1. He is a Fighter with a piratical background. He isn't a pirate any more, but his Climb skill is anyway good (STR based, he has a STR Prime), he will add his level to regular climb checks on rigging etc, but not to thief-style 'climb walls'.

2. If you want your PC to still be a real Pirate, use the Freebooter class from the netbook.

 

[S'mon]

I think it's unfair to attack C&C as incomplete; the C&C PHB actually contains full rules for GMing the game _except_ for monster & magic item stats. M&T is basically just monster & magic item stats. It's not the greatest work ever (that would be 1981 Moldvay Basic D&D) , but it's cheap and handy.

I would say, I think the best way to use C&C if you have the option is to use the PHB alongside an old 1e or 2e Monster Manual and a 1e DMG. Gygax's 'flavour' is much more inspirational, and you get full rules for encounter tables, territory development and such, which aren't in M&T. The 1981 D&D Expert book also would do at a pinch (has monsters, magic, encounter tables, GMing advice & territory development).

BUT C&C's streamlined ruleset is far superior to 1e or 2e AD&D in my opinion, the unified mechanic for me works much better than Thief % skills ("My Hide in Shadows is 15%?! I roll up another PC, *sigh*..."), and the unified stat bonuses (from B/X D&D) are much better than AD&D's wacky ones, where STR 18 is +1/+2 but STR 19 is +3/+7.

 

[S'mon]

Furthermore, I was very disappointed in the Monster and Treasure Guide. If the C&C PHB reflected strong 1E roots, than the M&T book was strongly 2E, replete with overpowered dragons and bad imitations of "IP" D&D monsters.

I do have to concur re the M&T C&C dragons. I don't think they came out as the designer intended. Their ACs are too high for C&C PCs in the core 1-12 level range, and their BTHs too low - adult red per RAW has AC 30, BTH +9 - he needs a natural 20 just to hit another adult red dragon! Plus he has 18 d12 hd and does 18d10 fire damage on a breath, too high for my tastes.

I've settled on using adapted BECMI D&D dragon stats, which have reasonable ACs, and hd = BTH works out fine. I give them 8 hp per die, and breath damage = half max hp, so a Large Red is 15d8, AC 23, 120 hp, breathes fire 3/day for 60 hp damage. A tough fight for 10th level C&C PCs, a fair challenge for 15th. BECMI 'small' dragons are functionally identical to 1e AD&D dragons BTW, eg a Small Red is 10d8, AC 20, 80 hp, breathes fire 3/day for 40 hp damage. A tough fight for 6th level PCs (well, possibly suicidal unless they have fire resistance), a fair fight for 10th. BECMI Huge Reds have 20d8, AC 25, 160 hp, breathes fire 3/day for 80 hp, a good threat for C&C PCs in the 16th-20th range.

 

[Shadowslayer]

I've heard the arguments saying "Well, the CKG isn't necessary for gameplay" and I'll go along with that. I've been playing a pretty long time and have the tools to create a campaign. Those old AD&D books are proving their worth once again.

But I still think a CKG should've been some kind of priority. If you look at what's been said about it, C&C has largely been a grassroots movement. Its basically been created by players for players, and it shows in its presentation. Most of the C&C fans posting on the boards, here and at the Troll Lord and Dragonsfoot boards are experienced gamers who are looking for a lighter option to 3x. These are the guys who don't need a CKG.

I look through my C&C PH and M&T, and I don't see anything about running a campaign. I don't see anything about adventure creation, dungeon creation or encounter creation. I don't see any lists, noble titles, how to create a city, forms of government, creating villains...not even a random harlot table. There's nothing here to advance the storytelling aspect of the game.

Now, if this is only intended as a grassroots game that will only ever be a grassroots game, then fine...I suppose telling new CKs to scour the internet for fan-created material and to go to Ebay looking for old AD&D books works. (I'd say it's a crummy business model, but then again, I'm not a businessman.)

What they seem to be missing the boat on is that C&C is a good game. Its simple. It's flexible enough to expand upon. But more importantly, its a great introductory RPG with an awesome entry cost...the 2 books cost me less than a 3x players handbook. So you've got this great game, but its only rules so far. Running a campaign is more than just rules, and newbie CKs should have a little hand in crafting thir games....without being told they have to the net, or to buy books for a different game to get what they need.

That's all I'm saying.

And as a side note, I'm concerned that, from what I've read, that the CKG is shaping up as some sort of "Bucket 'O' House Rules" rather than an actual campaign guide. (Please tell me if I'm wrong...I hope I am.)

I'm a C&C fan. I run it whenever I can. I'm a member of the "Crusade" and will shout it from the rooftops. But from the outside looking in, there's still a few important pieces missing IMO.

 

[Philotomy Jurament]

Most of the C&C fans posting on the boards, here and at the Troll Lord and Dragonsfoot boards are experienced gamers who are looking for a lighter option to 3x. These are the guys who don't need a CKG.

True. That's a good point.

I look through my C&C PH and M&T, and I don't see anything about running a campaign. I don't see anything about adventure creation, dungeon creation or encounter creation. I don't see any lists, noble titles, how to create a city, forms of government, creating villains...not even a random harlot table. There's nothing here to advance the storytelling aspect of the game.

Well, there's some of that in the Players Handbook -- specifically the "Castle Keeper and the Game" section (starting on pg 105 in the 2nd printing). Admittedly, it's not much, though.

Incidentally, I highly recommend Gary Gygax's World Builder for lists and such. It's like that section from the 1E DMG expanded to fill an entire book. Gary Gygax's Living Fantasy is also very good; it's a description of a fantasy medieval society, looking at things like the impact of magical healing, et cetera. I also like Gary Gygax's Insidiae, which is subtitled "the brainstormers guide to adventure writing."

 

[eyebeams]

I think the task resolution system is brilliant. I also think that variable XP tables by class and nonstandard attribute bonus schemes are goofy. I've heard the justifications, and they just don't wash with me.

If you're using a comparative value system behind the XP charts, why not make the values even out to allow people to tinker with the rules on an even keel? I can't port in easy multi or splitclass rules, which for me gets rid of part of the appeal. Why have box set style D&D attribute mods when you can just adjust the Prime difficulties? 14/20 bases work fine with the standard charting *and* allow porting from many other systems.

But the Primes system is great -- so great it takes a second to absorb just because you expect a convoluted rule to get out there, but it never happens. C&C bards and monks are well done -- so much so that one of my own products is part homage to the C&C martial bard, rendered core OGL style. The Knight is a great class, too.

The only thing I'd say is missing is a clear listing of niche-protected class abilities and abilities that any character can use with comparable chances of success.

 

[PapersAndPaychecks]

I agree the Dragons are very tough, and I am glad of it. 6 HD Ancient White Dragons like they had in 1E was pathetic.

Well, OSRIC will have 1e-style dragons.

Three reasons for that:

1) The basic OSRIC philosophy;
2) The fact that anyone who wants to can use 2e-style or C&C-style dragons if they want;
3) I wanted dragons to be realistic enemies for a mid-level or high-level party, with even low-level players being able to fight a small dragon.

If they're super-high level, which in OSRIC terms is above about 12, there can be a mated pair or even a mated pair with offspring; it says "Number Appearing: 1-4".

The 2e-style or C&C-style dragons are basically confined to being super-tough NPCs for the typical party, and I thought that wasn't right. I wanted OSRIC to be heavy on the dungeons and the dragons.

 

[Shadowslayer]

Incidentally, I highly recommend Gary Gygax's World Builder for lists and such. It's like that section from the 1E DMG expanded to fill an entire book. Gary Gygax's Living Fantasy is also very good; it's a description of a fantasy medieval society, looking at things like the impact of magical healing, et cetera. I also like Gary Gygax's Insidiae, which is subtitled "the brainstormers guide to adventure writing."

Agreed. I own the first and last one you mention. Escellent stuff. But that's 3 books, and IIRC, they're not cheap ones either. Maybe they could compile the best stuff from that line into one book and put the C&C logo on it. Now that'd be a CKG that a rookie could sink his teeth into.

 

[S'mon]

Now, if this is only intended as a grassroots game that will only ever be a grassroots game, then fine...I suppose telling new CKs to scour the internet for fan-created material and to go to Ebay looking for old AD&D books works. (I'd say it's a crummy business model, but then again, I'm not a businessman.)

I agree about the lack of GM campaign advice and the targetting at us jaded grognards, but you may underestimate the wisdom of the Troll Lords re their business model. Frankly, it has some eerie resemblances to WotC's 3e OGL model based off the D&D PHB.
What happens in C&C is, the GM buys the C&C PHB dirt cheap, likes it, tells his players to buy them too. They all buy C&C PHBs (because it's dirt cheap), like it, recommend it to their friends, possibly other groups they play in, and the circle grows...

I like OGL Conan, but that's a circa £28 buy-in, people aren't dropping that on a whim. £8 for a C&C PHB, conversely, is a very easy purchase. People will buy them even on a stranger's recommendation, because it's so cheap. Which means a virtuous circle of increased sales, big print runs, and big profits.