who else loves the C&C...?

[Treebore]

Maybe I didn't mention "with released products"?
Seriously, I know about it and hope to get the products once released. But I am also about the general principle. Small, inexpensible, done with love and COOL. Thse are the products I want.

Thanks to eBay I now have all the JG material I want. Thanks to C&C its still just as easy to use as it ever was in 1E. Easier, if I am remembering my old JG/1E experience correctly.

 

[Breakdaddy]

I care for C&C a great deal.

 

[Agamon]

This might deserve its own thread, but I have a hankering to play a D&D Rules Cyclopedia game. How does C&C differ, or does it much?

 

[Philotomy Jurament]

This might deserve its own thread, but I have a hankering to play a D&D Rules Cyclopedia game. How does C&C differ, or does it much?

Let's see:
Class and race are separate in C&C. C&C classes are more like 1E than like RC (e.g. fighters use d10 HD instead of d8, clerics start off casting spells, etc).

No level limits, but level scale is different in C&C. RC is 1-36, C&C is 1-12+ (meaning, you can still progress beyond level 12, but 12 is considered high level).

In C&C, higher AC is better, and you use an attack bonus, much like 3E.

C&C uses the SIEGE engine for skills and saving throws, instead of the general skill system in the RC or the standard RC saving throws. Saving throw categories are the same in C&C, but the mechanics for handling it are different. The SIEGE engine is also used for stuff like surprise, rather than the standard d6 surprise check in RC D&D. Initiative uses a d10 (like 2E). Movement in combat is somewhat different (e.g. if your move is 30', you can only move 15' and still attack), but it's more like RC than like 1E.

RC has detailed (and optional) Weapons Mastery rules that aren't present in C&C.

I'm a big fan of B/X and BECMI/RC D&D, so much so that I've house-ruled some things in C&C to be more like it. (Movement-in-combat, surprise, etc). I would very happily run RC D&D, again. C&C works great, too. I'd be hard-pressed to pick a favorite between the two.

(You might enjoy browsing around RFisher's Classic D&D site)

 

[T. Foster]

This might deserve its own thread, but I have a hankering to play a D&D Rules Cyclopedia game. How does C&C differ, or does it much?

C&C goes for more of the AD&D feel in a lot of areas -- it has separate classes and races, 9 alignments instead of 3, includes AD&Dish subclasses (rangers, bards, illusionists, assassins, etc.) and races (gnomes, half-elves, half-orcs), and has more of AD&D's implied 12-15 level power curve than the RC's explicit 36 level curve. That said, the ability score adjustment table in C&C (+1 for 13-15, +2 for 16-17, +3 for 18) comes straight out of the RC, and combat in C&C probably resembles RC D&D moreso than AD&D (1E AD&D, at least -- C&C has no multi-segment surprise, weapon speed factors vs. casting times, weapon vs. AC chart, etc.). The "SIEGE engine" mechanic (a simplified version of d20 resolution that forms the basis of all non-combat skill/ability checks and saving throws in C&C) and associated use of "prime stats" is quite a bit different from the assorted ad-hoc resolution mechanics of both AD&D and RC D&D and IMO changes the feel of the game quite a bit. Some people either don't see this change as being as significant as I do, or prefer the C&C system, so YMMV.

If you want to play an actual RC D&D game, you should skip C&C and use the RC itself, which may be "outdated" but still works fine. But if you want something that feel-wise is pretty close to the RC but ruleswise owes more to d20 (specifically with regard to unified task resolution and saving throws) then C&C might fit the bill. Or you might want to check out Basic Fantasy.

 

[ivocaliban]

I've only discovered C&C recently myself, but I for one love it. I know that my players would not love it, however, as they've grown dependent on a thousand books for feats and skills. D&D without feats and skills? Inconceivable!!

I think it's much better for the casual gamer, however. I have a friend who used to play D&D, but hasn't in years. He has a girlfriend who is a good sport and will play along, but it isn't something she would probably choose to do on her own. For these two, it's the perfect game. I tried introducing them both to 3.5e last year and they were pretty much overwhelmed by the character sheet alone...not to mention the vast array of options.

Next time around I'm going to try C&C. I think my friend will be fine with the lack of customization and I'm certain it will be less of headache for his girlfriend. Sometimes less is more and C&C is the game that proves it. While I won't be giving up D&D, I'm glad I have C&C as an option.

 

[S'mon]

Re RC vs C&C, I'm actually running both a Moldvay B/X pbem and a C&C PBEM in tandem right now, so I can compare quite easily.

C&C is definitely more of an AD&D feel, though it uses the B/X stat bonuses (13-15 +1, 16-17 +2, etc). 1st level C&C PCs are much more powerful than in B/X; I start B/X PCs at 3rd with high average hp vs C&C 1st level with max hp, and they work out pretty similar - slightly more hp in B/X, but magic & combat power about identical. A 1st level C&C Wizard starts with 4 0th and (normally) 3 1st level spells; compared to a B/X M-U 3's 2 1st & 1 2nd.
A B/X C3 gets 2 1st level spells, a C&C C1 gets 3 0th & 2 1st.

Power progression by level is faster too - C&C combat classes get +1 to hit every level instead of B/X's 2/3 levels. Hit dice are as AD&D, 1 step up from B/X.

C&C is definitely designed for a 1-12 level range, this is particularly obvious with saving throws. They go up 1/level, instead of 3e's 1/2 (good) or 1/3 (poor). And save difficulty vs monsters & spellcasters is also +1 per level/hd, so high level casters are exceptionally dangerous. Unlike AD&D you cannot put a 20th level Lich vs 10th level PCs & expect them to survive.

Finally, beyond 'name' level (C&C 10th, B/X 9th), both give fixed hit points, C&C are generally about _twice_ B/X, - B/X Fighter gets 2/level, C&C gets 4/level (d10), 3/level (d8), 2/level (d6), 1/level (d4).

Experience - about the same to 9th level, but C&C keeps doubling to 1 level later, so as with AD&D a Name Level Fighter needs 250,000 to level up, compared to B/X's 125,000. Since the C&C Name Level Fighter gets twice the hp and 50% faster attack progression, plus Combat Dominance, this seems fair enough.

 

[Theron]

I am full of theoretical love, nay LURVE for C&C.

In about four hours, I'll find out if it survives contact with actual players. I'm really looking forward to it.

 

[Imaro]

A sort of fairy tales infused fantasy... no, that's not right... say, something very 1e, but not the earliest (White Plume Mountain, Tomb of Horrors, Giants Series) kind, rather something later - maybe Mystara? It is very hard to put on paper (err, bytes). It is mossy forests, trolls, goblins and kobolds, say, and not godforsaken wastelands with weird temples and cities where you will be mugged by assassins in the night. The kind of fantasy where rangers and druids woud feel home in, and where there are "forces of good" and villages where you know the stout locals are basically good people. If you liked Village of Hommlet, you will probably like TLG modules, and Yggsburgh especially.

(Now that I think of it, BTW, Haunted Highlands is my favourite C&C module. Go figure.)

You actually just made me more interested, it's like it's so "classical" in feel it's almost original. Is that possible Definitely want to give them a look now.

I've only discovered C&C recently myself, but I for one love it. I know that my players would not love it, however, as they've grown dependent on a thousand books for feats and skills. D&D without feats and skills? Inconceivable!!

I think it's much better for the casual gamer, however. I have a friend who used to play D&D, but hasn't in years. He has a girlfriend who is a good sport and will play along, but it isn't something she would probably choose to do on her own. For these two, it's the perfect game. I tried introducing them both to 3.5e last year and they were pretty much overwhelmed by the character sheet alone...not to mention the vast array of options.

Next time around I'm going to try C&C. I think my friend will be fine with the lack of customization and I'm certain it will be less of headache for his girlfriend. Sometimes less is more and C&C is the game that proves it. While I won't be giving up D&D, I'm glad I have C&C as an option.

Didn't know if you we're aware but there are optional skill rules for C&C for free on the internet that were written by Gary Gygax. Also I think that through DM and PC cooperation you can basically create feat-like abilities in C&C, especially if you have former experience with 3.x. The game is still simpler(IMHO) because instead of optomizing a PC by going through each and every feat, the player will have to discuss what exactly he wants his PC to do which imparts a better understanding for GM and player during play without straight-jacketing options. Just my 2 cents.

 

[Dragonhelm]

You actually just made me more interested, it's like it's so "classical" in feel it's almost original. Is that possible

I got the same impression. Something old, something new, something borrowed...and I'm not feeling blue!

Also I think that through DM and PC cooperation you can basically create feat-like abilities in C&C, especially if you have former experience with 3.x. The game is still simpler(IMHO) because instead of optomizing a PC by going through each and every feat, the player will have to discuss what exactly he wants his PC to do which imparts a better understanding for GM and player during play without straight-jacketing options. Just my 2 cents.

Yes, agreed. The way I heard it once is that with D&D asks what do you do, while C&C asks how you do it. In other words, D&D lays down the line on what your abilities are. This is cool in that it is well-defined, but it doesn't allow for spontaneously coming up with new abilities. You have to wait until you've gained the appropriate level. With C&C, you come up with your character concept, talk it over with the DM, then figure out how you want to do it.

If you want to do a power attack or cleave, you might make a Str check. If you meet your target number, you get to do it. So this also allows for a bit of chance. Or, the DM might say you cleave on a natural 20.

It's a very different mindset to get used to, but it can be a lot of fun.