who else loves the C&C...?

[Treebore]

Well, I used my 1E DMG almost the whole time we played C&C. Wandering monster charts, city encounters, NPC stuff, environmental stuff, names, titles, random towns and hamlets, etc, etc.

Maybe I'm unique in this, but everything that happens "in-between" modules in my campaigns comes from the DMG. So perhaps I felt its absence more than most, but I never really thought I was so unique in my use of such an iconic tome.

I had also hoped for some missing C&C content like extensive SIEGE difficulty matrices, how commoners should be handled (1E-style 0-lvl's or 3E-style NPC classes?), official multi-classing rules, some cool optional rule stuff, and even some cool flavor stuff, like artifacts, pre-made NPCs, dungeon dressings, and so on.

I'm an experienced enough (is 20 years enough?) DM to wing all that stuff or pull it from other rulebooks and sources, heck I even published multi-class rules for C&C on Dragonsfoot, but I can't imagine everyone is willing to do that kind of legwork to play a new game when there are much better supported (3.5) and free (OSRIC, BASIC, Microlite20) games out there.

Don't get me wrong, I love C&C, but you have to admit it seems like the PHB and M&T were produced by two different companies with conflicting agendas, and the lack of DM-material seems unnecessarily inadept from both a gaming standpoint and a business standpoint.

C&C is certainly wonderfully supported module-wise, with a great selection of available adventures, some even for free. A0, A1, and A2, all played very well, despite not reading very well, whereas Dark Chateau read well but played like crap. The two Goodman Games addies read and played beautifully. But such a huge pile of published adventures makes one wonder even more fervently, "but where is my DMG? Where is my Screen?" Ok, so maybe the screen finally came out a couple of weeks ago, but unfortunately not during the 9 months my group devoted solely to the game.

So, its really up to the individual to decide whether C&C is "Wonderfully Customizable" or "Woefully Undersupported".

But I can cetainly vouch for "fun" either way!

Yeah, I guess my problem is degrees of separation. Like you I have been DMing 20+ years and I do most things automatically out of my head. My kids remind me that those "other" books are useful to newer DM's and players. So coming into it new, or far less experienced and comfortable, I would see and understand the desire better.

 

[erc1971]

I loved the C&C PHB, and my group was happy to test run it for a few sessions. Where it came up lacking to me, as a DM, was the lack of support material, ie a DM's guide and screen. I'm not sure why the game was promoted so heavily without having the basic tools for a DM to run the game sans modules ready to go. And they still have not arrived.

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.

From there, I was left with the option of doing without a DMG, screen, and using a monster manual I hated, or using my 1E DMG and MM with the C&C rulebook.

But then I had to ask myself, "why don't I just use my 1E PHB, too? Or OSRIC, its free?"

SO, while I recommend C&C, you may want to wait until some decent basic supposrt products come out for it...

In today's age, most gamers out there have been playing for many, many years (I know I have!). This was most likely a factor in the design of the books for C&C.

I liked having the treasure listed in the back of the monster book - this meant 1 less book I had to buy - heck, with 28 years of gaming experience, I have no need on how to make adventures, cities, etc. Just give me the rules, monster stats, and treasure tables - which is what Troll Lord did.

I have literally hundreds of old adventure modules at my disposal - with just a few seconds to convert THAC0 to BtH and AC over to the new way, I am set to go.

The game plays so easily, I have no need for a screen - I just put up my 3.5 screen to hide my notes and die rolls, and I am good to go.

I went from playing D&D 3.5 and spending half the gaming session arguing over rules to using C&C, and now we reference the books every so often when an unusual spell is cast. Things run fast and smooth, giving us much more time to focus on the game and story.

I am very happy with the game, it gives me everything I need, and with very little monetary investment.

Eric

 

[Greg K]

anybody else digging it?

I don't dig it. Then again, I have no love for 1e or interest in recapturing it.

 

[Treebore]

I don't dig it. Then again, I have no love for 1e or interest in recapturing it.

I don't see it as recapturing 1E. I see it as recapturing every edition of D&D with one system. That is what it does for me. Plus giving me back the level of fun I haven't had since 1E. That is what it does recapture from 1E for me.

 

[Dragonhelm]

I don't see it as recapturing 1E. I see it as recapturing every edition of D&D with one system. That is what it does for me. Plus giving me back the level of fun I haven't had since 1E. That is what it does recapture from 1E for me.

From what I've gathered from the Trolls (and this is just my impression), it seems they were trying to get the feel of 1e, while creating an easy-to-use game system that takes some of the basic mechanics from 3e and is usable with any edition.

Most C&C fans that I know seem to use a lot of AD&D materials and are probably the old schoolers for the most part. There does seem to be a few out there who use some 3e-isms, but they are a minority for the most part.

I'm sure I'm in the minority here, but I don't think that C&C has to be labeled an old school game. Now I admit, it has some old school flavor to it (in a good way), but if it takes the best of all editions, then you would think more people would adapt more from 3e.

When I switched my last game over to C&C from 3.5, I was not only using the same 3e books I had been using, I was also using some old AD&D books I hadn't used in a while. It was great, because I was using materials from all editions to make my game better. Which is part of the point, right?

 

[Blackwind]

Update: I picked up the C&C Player's Handbook on Friday and have read about half of it. In general I like what I see so far and I'm excited to try it out. It has really renewed my enthusiasm for the game -- I'm working on a mini-setting and a couple of short adventures, and I'm actually having fun! I'm free to focus on world-building, history, NPCs, etc. without worrying about stats. I feel giddy when I think about playing -- imagining combats and how PCs could use the SIEGE engine to pull off stunts, etc. Honestly, I probably haven't been this stoked about D&D since I was 12.

That said, there are a couple of things that bug me so far:

1. The barbarian seems kind of lame, especially the Primal Fury ability, which sounds weak.

2. The monk seems somewhat overpowered, especially when compared to, say, the fighter.

3. You'd think that a 2nd printing wouldn't have so many typos, but it is positively riddled with them! Isn't there someone editing these books? Also, there are a few errors of grammar and usage, and some words are repeated over and over. The writing style is evocative and, if you will, Gygaxian... I like it, actually, much better than the dry textbook-style prose of the 3E books, but they need a good editor. Heck, if you're listening, Troll Lords, I'll do it, and I'm a college student so I'd work dirt cheap.

If I were TLG, and I was going to release a revised, updated edition of the C&C books, say, four or five years down the line, here's what I'd do:

1. The Player's Handook would be more or less as it is (with better editing), but include advice on character development, roleplaying, how to survive in combat, the wilderness, dungeon environments, etc. The idea is to make the game more accessible to new roleplayers. C&C seems like such a great system for new gamers, it would be really cool to reach out to them and offer them a leg up and into the hobby.

2. There would be no "Monsters and Treasure" book. Instead, the CKG would include not just optional rules but also extensive information on how to run a game, world-building, adventure design, random encounter tables, etc... all the things people loved about the 1E DMG. Of course, it would also include treasure tables, magic items, and a small selection of the most important 'core' monsters, traps, and other challenges in the game. Best of all, it would be co-authored by E. Gary Gygax.

3. Follow up with a series of slim, themed Monstrous Compendiums. While not necessary for older players with access to 1E and 2E monster books, they would sell like hotcakes and you know it.

Okay, okay, this is just my little fantasy of how TLG could rise up and take on the 'one-eyed giants,' heroically restoring the true spirit of D&D and bringing joy to millions of wide-eyed children-at-heart all over the world, but hey... there's no reason why it couldn't happen.

What do you think?

 

[S'mon]

I haven't number-crunched the monk, but the barbarian is terribly lame, yup. Primal Fury is ridiculously weak, it's not usable as written. I'd have preferred a more 1e style barbarian than this 3e-derived version.

Your revision suggestions sound like what you'd get if you put Moldvay/Cook B/X D&D into 1 book (which would only take about 80 pages at C&C font size) then expanded it to C&C size. It sounds like a dream product to me. The C&C PHB could lose some of the 'guff' wording without harm; actually it could lose the level 7+ spells which only seem there for nostalgia, the whole game is pretty clearly designed around 1-12 level range (except for the M&T dragon stats). You could get what's in the current PHB down to 64 pages, then add in 64 pages of monsters, treasure, encounter tables and GM advice.

Voila - the perfect game.

 

[Greg K]

I don't see it as recapturing 1E. I see it as recapturing every edition of D&D with one system. That is what it does for me. Plus giving me back the level of fun I haven't had since 1E. That is what it does recapture from 1E for me.

The loss of skills, different experience advancements, the monster format, and the additional save categories for starters are step backwards towards previous additions, my opinion of course. As non-weapon proficiencies were core in 2e, the lack of skills gives the iimpression that the game is trying to recapture 1e (again my opinion, but I have seen reviews and comments that also share this view), but with the benefit of a unified system.

 

[Treebore]

The loss of skills, different experience advancements, the monster format, and the additional save categories for starters are step backwards towards previous additions, my opinion of course. As non-weapon proficiencies were core in 2e, the lack of skills gives the iimpression that the game is trying to recapture 1e (again my opinion, but I have seen reviews and comments that also share this view), but with the benefit of a unified system.

Skills are only lost if you want the SIEGE engine to handle skill type issues. Otherwise you can get the pdf download with the skills from G. Gygax's Yggsburgh setting, fully compatible with C&C.

Personally I just gave each class the full skills list from their equivelant class in 3E. Then skill checks are treated as Prime and get their level added, plus relevant stat bonus or penalty.

I've never found skills to be game breaking, so I don't care about thieves having so many skills, etc...

 

[Philotomy Jurament]

As non-weapon proficiencies were core in 2e, the lack of skills gives the iimpression that the game is trying to recapture 1e (again my opinion, but I have seen reviews and comments that also share this view), but with the benefit of a unified system.

Even with just the SIEGE engine (i.e. not adding any house-ruled or optional skill systems), I'd argue that skills aren't gone. You can handle it with primes and archetypes, instead of detailed lists of individual skills. That is, your PC can still perform the same actions as he could under a skill system, is still better at the actions that are appropriate to his class/concept, and still continues to improve at those actions. It's not like there's simply no defined system for handling those actions. There's still a structure/system in place, it's just simpler and less granular, sacrificing detail for simplicity.

Now, whether you prefer a more fine-grained approach is another question. I find that C&C gains more than it loses. Others may disagree. :shrugs: