# How Quickly is C&C Catching on?



## Mythmere1 (Jan 17, 2005)

I've seen a lot of internet discussion of Castles & Crusades - I bought it and am converting our group over.

Who else is playing it, what do you think, and do you have the sense that it's grabbing lots of people?

It seems like there's a real trend to the 1E "feel" and rules lite movement these days (someone already did a thread about the rules-lite phenomenon)...


----------



## Crothian (Jan 17, 2005)

I have a sense that it some general positve buzz, but it really isn't grabbing a lot of people.


----------



## Keeper of Secrets (Jan 17, 2005)

Maybe I am out of the loop but I don't know a whole lot about it.


----------



## IronWolf (Jan 17, 2005)

I have heard the buzz, but haven't looked into it too much.


----------



## Mythmere1 (Jan 17, 2005)

Iron Wolf, I love your Snarf avatar.
It's like a fusion of 1E with d20 to get a rules lite game that plays like streamlined 1E.  It's cool.


----------



## wingsandsword (Jan 17, 2005)

I've never heard of it outside of ENWorld.  Remember that who posts here isn't exactly a represenative sample of D&D players, the people who post and read here are the subset that are online, interested enough in D&D to read message boards about it, read more than just the WotC boards, and probably care about 3rd party products.  While we are a fairly dedicated, and decent sized group, we aren't even close to being all of D&D players.

Any fad or trend here isn't inherently indicative of the larger gaming world.  It just shows what one particularly dedicated but small subset is going with.

From purely anecdotal evidence in my life, C&C is another highly niche product that the vast majority of gamers will never see or probably even hear of.  It's not in stock at my FLGS (which is still the main way I know people to get gaming books).  Nobody else in my own gaming group of 7 players had ever heard of it (I brought it up in conversation out of curiosity), and in the two dozen or so of my university gaming group, only the 2 others who read ENWorld and keep up with 3rd party releases had ever heard of it.   The vast majority of D&D gamers I know aren't interested in "rules light", they devour the new base classes in the Complete books and still love to come up with powerful character builds, or they just play the game and don't think too much about whether the system is too complicated or simple.  

Most D&D gamers I know still think that 3.5 is a lot simpler than 1st or 2nd Edition (including 2 veteran 1st edition players playing in their first 3.x game under me), and while you can come up with fine rules points to complicate things, it's still a helluva lot simpler than what came before, and a whole lot simpler to teach to newbies than 1st Edition.

Now, that's strictly anecdotal, but it's how things look from this person's perspective.


----------



## Ry (Jan 17, 2005)

I came really close to buying it, but when it became clear that not all decisions were made to achieve rules-lightness, I decided not to.


----------



## RithTheAwakener (Jan 17, 2005)

the only C&C ive heard of is Command and Conquer


----------



## DaveMage (Jan 17, 2005)

I think that C&C will get a boost once they start to release the Castle Zagyg dungeon books.  (And I don't mean the first book - which is just the surrounding areas of the dungeon.)  If the first part of the Castle can get to market in a reasonable amount of time (say, within 3-6 months), then it has a chance to succeed. 

If not, then we'll know by Gencon if anyone is still interested (based on sales of the C&C books there).  Somehow I have a feeling that there will be a major release for the game at the con (e.g., one of the dungeon parts).

I hope C&C does succeed - although I'm very unlikely to play it - becasue I want to see Castle Zagyg completed.


----------



## cignus_pfaccari (Jan 17, 2005)

wingsandsword said:
			
		

> Now, that's strictly anecdotal, but it's how things look from this person's perspective.




I agree.  This is the only place I've heard anything about C&C, and I can't imagine that any of my group would consider "rules-light" to be a good thing.

Brad


----------



## mattcolville (Jan 17, 2005)

I'm interested and skeptical.

I'm interested because it does seem simpler than D&D3.

Then, I think, "D&D3 is pretty simple. It's just got a lot of rules." I *like* the fact that I can find a rule that tells me the radius of light shed by a torch. It's not complex, it just has answers for all the questions players have asked over 30 years. Complex is Champions where I have to do cube roots and vectors to figure out how much damage my hero does when he slams into you 1/3 of the way toward reaching his full velocity, as opposed to 1/2 way toward that same limit.


----------



## Breakdaddy (Jan 17, 2005)

I've become increasingly disenchanted with the weight of the rules in 3.x D&D. I recently purchased the C&C PHB and instantly loved it. I showed it to my group and all of them have bought the C&C PHB and we are switching for a while. I will never give up 3.x entirely, but the flavor and rules light nature of C&C have grabbed me. It's also nice to be able to grab my old 1e AD&D modules and convert them on the fly in C&C. I've been playing D&D in various forms for over 17 years, so I have quite a bit of this stuff accumulated. It's nice to know I can still get some mileage from it in an in-print product. It also "feels" a lot less generic than the base D&D 3.x system. I'm certain this product is not for everyone, but I feel that most would find themselves pleasantly surprised by it's capacity to cover a wide variety of situations with a minimum of rules.


----------



## TroyXavier (Jan 17, 2005)

I'm interested in it but haven't found it yet.


----------



## Mythmere1 (Jan 17, 2005)

It only hit stores recently, and I imagine that lots of stores don't carry it (my nearest store only stocks WotC).

I got mine from the Troll Lords site http://www.trolllord.com/order.htm 
I ordered by phone - the site's not great for navigation - it arrived in three days.


----------



## (Psi)SeveredHead (Jan 17, 2005)

I'm skeptical, sine what I heard indicated it's too close to 2e.

The ability score system of C&C is at it's core, and I don't like it. (No bonuses until 15... ew.) Plus I'm spoiled by feats... even if it's just core feats.


----------



## Breakdaddy (Jan 17, 2005)

(Psi)SeveredHead said:
			
		

> I'm skeptical, sine what I heard indicated it's too close to 2e.
> 
> The ability score system of C&C is at it's core, and I don't like it. (No bonuses until 15... ew.) Plus I'm spoiled by feats... even if it's just core feats.




Its closer to 1e than 2e from what I can determine. Also, I dont have my players guide in front of me, but Im pretty certain that bonuses start at 13+, not 15+.


----------



## jester47 (Jan 17, 2005)

I am finding that C&C would be great for beer and pretzels D&D.  Its awesome for the casual game.  It is also a better system for running adventures that are not 3.5, as you can convert to C&C almost on the fly.  I will probably stick to both.  The problem with me though is that I really like to customise everything if I have to convert it.  Like the Ogre in ToA.  It was sort of a normal Ogre, but when he stepped out into 3.5 he was really a baddass.  With C&C I can make him a baddass in short order.  

I like both and I think C&C is going to spread the best way a game can spread - Word of mouth.  Its the most powerful version of advertising, and its what got people to go see star wars.  

Aaron.


----------



## Akrasia (Jan 17, 2005)

Well, there are a few things to keep in mind with respect to the question of this thread.

*(1.)  * The PHB book simply has not arrived at most gamestores yet.  The books are still working their way through the distribution system.  
*(2.)  * It will probably never arrive at some gamestores for the simple fact that, based on last year's sales, many gamestores are reluctant to stock new d20 3rd-party material -- despite the fact that C&C is *not* a d20 game (many gamestore owners simply do not know this).
*(3.)  * Some of the main support material for C&C has yet to be published: e.g. the Monsters and Treasures book, and the first installment of Castle Zagyg (the original Castle Greyhawk).  (As DaveMage indicated, the game might receive a boost once people see that the original Greyhawk dungeon campaign has finally been published, and it uses C&C).

It will be too bad if (2.) is significant enough to undermine C&C's chances, as that is a factor that has nothing to do with the quality of the game itself.   :\ 

Here is another important thing to keep in mind when assessing the extent to which C&C is 'catching on':

C&C is a _niche_ game.  It will appeal only to players who want a 'rules light' system (e.g. no feats, skills, attacks of opportunity, etc., though they can be added as options) and/or a game with an 'old school' feel (e.g. clear and definite class 'archetypes'; no half-illithid PCs with uber-prestige classes, etc.).  Consequently, it will _not_ 'rival' 3.5 D&D -- not even close.  At best, it will occupy a position alongside, say, the Conan RPG in terms of popularity -- an 'alternative' game for those who want a FRPG other than 3.x D&D.

Having said all that, C&C does have a few things going for it that make me cautiously optimistic that it will succeed in its particular market niche:

*(a.)  * A considerable amount of upcoming support material (the Castle Zagyg series from EGG; a number of other 'old school' modules; a fantasy adventure magazine in the style of the early Dragon called 'the Crusader' [the first issue has articles by Darlene of Greyhawk map fame, Rob Kuntz, and others]; and possible C&C versions of Goodman Games' "Dungeon Crawl" modules).   
*(b.)*  Broad compatibility with ALL editions of D&D.  I would say that C&C is, roughly, 90-95 percent compatible with pre-3e material (you can 'convert on the fly' by changing the ACs only); and 75 percent compatible with 3e material (you can usually 'convert on the fly', but certain multiclass combinations or feat abilities may require some thought, and higher level adventures and monsters will need to be 'toned down' somewhat).
*(c.)*  Good art -- the cover for the PHB is quite attractive and striking.  (I actually think that this is an important factor in getting casual consumers to open the book and look at it.  In addition, players tend to have more positive feelings with respect to products that they fine aesthetically pleasing.)  Moreover, art that is quite distinctive -- definitely not like WotC's predominant style.
*(d.)  *  A devoted core of 'grognard fans' over at places like Dragonsfoot that seem eager to support and proselytize the system.  (This not a big factor, of course, but it certainly cannot hurt a game to have a devoted core group of supporters in place even before the game has been published).

In short, I think it is too early to tell whether C&C is 'caching on'.  Moreovoer, I also think that we have to have appropriately modest expectations as to what 'catching on' would constitute for C&C (namely, establishing itself in a particular market niche, not rivalling 3E).  Finally, I am cautiously optimistic that C&C will in fact 'catch on' and establish itself as the preferred system for a particular segment of the market.


----------



## Akrasia (Jan 17, 2005)

rycanada said:
			
		

> I came really close to buying it, but when it became clear that not all decisions were made to achieve rules-lightness, I decided not to.




I am not sure what you are referring to here.  The _only_ two respects in which C&C is arguably less 'rules light' than 3E are: (a.) the saving throws system (every ability score is relevant in C&C); and (b.) the experience point progression charts (rather than try to achieve complete balance among the classes at every level, as in 3E, balance is achieved through differential experience point progressions).

These are minor things, IMO, and I actually prefer C&C's approach to saving throws over 3E (as it ensures that there are no obvious 'dump stats' for any character, regardless of class).  

But in _every other _ respect -- combat, PC & NPC generation, task resolution, etc. -- C&C is more 'rules light' than 3E.


----------



## Ry (Jan 17, 2005)

Akrasia said:
			
		

> despite the fact that C&C is *not* a d20 game (many gamestore owners simply do not know this).




I think that was the clincher; if C&C had been a d20 game, then it would have got me, despite some of the quirkiness.


----------



## Ry (Jan 17, 2005)

Akrasia said:
			
		

> I am not sure what you are referring to here.




Well, it was more reading the reviews and things said by the authors.  Namely, that they weren't looking to make a rules-light d20 - just a nice, clean new take on 1st ed / Rule Cyclopedia D&D, inspired by a few things from d20.


----------



## Akrasia (Jan 17, 2005)

(Psi)SeveredHead said:
			
		

> ... The ability score system of C&C is at it's core, and I don't like it. (No bonuses until 15... ew.) Plus I'm spoiled by feats... even if it's just core feats.




As Breakdaddy pointed out, bonuses start at 13.  However, if the ability score progression of C&C annoys you, you can _simply replace it with the 3E system _ (the game will remain balanced, so long as you use the 3E ability score modifiers across the board). 

As for feats, you can add them to C&C (either in part or in whole), and in fact many C&C players have been doing this.  More generally, C&C is designed to be modular -- you can add certain rules to the system without 'breaking it' (e.g. feats but not skills, or vice versa; more tactical combat; etc.).

(Of course, _if _ you want to add _everything_ that 3E has, then just play it, as C&C is not the game for you.      )


----------



## Akrasia (Jan 17, 2005)

rycanada said:
			
		

> Well, it was more reading the reviews and things said by the authors.  Namely, that they weren't looking to make a rules-light d20 - just a nice, clean new take on 1st ed / Rule Cyclopedia D&D, inspired by a few things from d20.




Okay, it is correct that C&C is not meant to be a 'rules light' version of d20.  Nonetheless, it _is_ a 'rules light' game, and I think that it can appeal to people who want a rules light game very similar to, and compatible with, d20 material.

More generally, the game is aimed at two (often overlapping) sets of players:

(a.) Rules light players (people who want a game that is fast to prep and play); and
(b.) 'Old school' players (people who want a game that 'feels' more like OD&D and/or OAD&D).

If you are only a member of (a.), it is still certainly worth looking at IMO.


----------



## Ry (Jan 17, 2005)

Darr... I wish I could get more info then before I purchased it (chances of it being stocked locally are slim).  I'm a bit cost-averse at the moment (starting a new job tomorrow!) and I really want to know more about how spells and monsters work, and whether I'd be starting back at the beginning of the "DM needs to memorize the thousand spells allowed" un-fun game.

Are spell effects and monster special abilities just more uniform?


----------



## Mythmere1 (Jan 17, 2005)

Just because it's rules-lite doesn't mean it's beer and pretzels.  It's a fantastic springboard for a full scale game, just with a simpler mechanism.  To my mind, the simpler mechanism leaves more room for roleplaying.


----------



## Breakdaddy (Jan 17, 2005)

rycanada said:
			
		

> Darr... I wish I could get more info then before I purchased it (chances of it being stocked locally are slim).  I'm a bit cost-averse at the moment (starting a new job tomorrow!) and I really want to know more about how spells and monsters work, and whether I'd be starting back at the beginning of the "DM needs to memorize the thousand spells allowed" un-fun game. Are spell effects and monster special abilities just more uniform?




I can really only answer your question on spells. The spell lists are a LOT slimmer than D&D 3.x but mainly consist of similar or the same spells. Where applicable, they have tried to make the spells more intuitive or, in some places, just more like old school AD&D/D&D.


----------



## Ry (Jan 17, 2005)

Could you give me an example of a spell that is slimmer in C&C than in D&D, and how it works in-game?  Because my players and I have a decent handle on the combat system of 3E, but none of us have a great handle (or like) complex spell descriptions, or complex spell results (i.e. roll 3d6 for how much damage you do, then the enemy is shaggered, which means they're staggered for 1 round and then shaken for 3, but not stirred.  Now get some tea leaves and a goat's bladder, and a lightly toasted loaf of bread to determine the psionic aftereffect which is of benefit to the caster.  See pages 10, 26, 192, 74, and 6 of the PHB).


----------



## jester47 (Jan 17, 2005)

Mythmere1 said:
			
		

> Just because it's rules-lite doesn't mean it's beer and pretzels.  It's a fantastic springboard for a full scale game, just with a simpler mechanism.  To my mind, the simpler mechanism leaves more room for roleplaying.




By beer and pretzels I meant that you could show up, have a game and have it be done at the end of an evening.  Its just a lot easier to use.  It was not meant to say that the keep track of every detail game that takes 2 hours for a major combat is one choice whereas the "Hey lets play a game of D&D" is another.  Both are rewarding in thier own right and both can be just as roleplay intensive.  Both are full scale games, just one lends itself to spontaneous evenings of gaming.


----------



## Ry (Jan 17, 2005)

Looking for the last hour at reviews and forum posts over at RPG.net and here, and the lack of info on the magic system gives me a serious sinking feeling.  I'm starting to think that C&C features a simplified D&D combat system, simpler classes, and no feats, but not a simplified spell / monster special ability system.  Is this the case?


----------



## Lucias (Jan 17, 2005)

I picked it up the other day and have been nothing but impressed.  I was a playtester early in the process, but my group split up when I moved and we didn't see some of the later versions.  The game came a long way from it's early days and, as I said, I'm impressed.

My favorite version of D&D has always been the Rules Cyclopedia, but I've always been a bit chafed by some of the restrictions imposed (such as races as classes).  C&C takes everything I loved about RC and cut out all the fat.  

This is D&D how I've always liked it...fast and loose with a lot to play around with.  There's really no needed rule missing, but adding on extra rules would be a snap.  You don't have to worry about messing the balance of the game up if you tinker a lot, something that can't be said for 3E.

Now some people aren't going to like the lack of defined skills and even a percieved lack of customization.  It all comes down to personal preference.  Old-school games relied a lot on imagination and DM interpretation which modern games have shifted the focus away from.  C&C brings it back.  For a lot of people I think it's going to be a love it or hate it situation.


----------



## Akrasia (Jan 17, 2005)

rycanada said:
			
		

> ...  I'm starting to think that C&C features a simplified D&D combat system, simpler classes, and no feats, but not a simplified spell / monster special ability system.  Is this the case?




_No it is not the case! _  

Spells and monsters (special abilities) _are_ simplier in C&C than they are in 3E D&D.  I have DM'ed two 3E campaigns, and have run 3 sessions of C&C.  I can assure you of this feature of the game.

To explain all the various ways that this is the case would take too much time, but a quick answer is that there is just a smaller range of different kinds of modifiers (variables) in C&C, hence there is less worry about how these modifiers (variables) interact with each other in any given situation (e.g. whether they stack or not, etc.).

It might also be worth mentioning that there are fewer spellcasting classes in C&C (rangers, paladins, and bards do not cast spells -- they have other abilities), so spellcasting will be slightly rarer in a C&C campaign.


----------



## Greylock (Jan 17, 2005)

mattcolville said:
			
		

> I'm interested and skeptical.
> 
> I'm interested because it does seem simpler than D&D3.
> 
> Then, I think, "D&D3 is pretty simple. It's just got a lot of rules." I *like* the fact that I can find a rule that tells me the radius of light shed by a torch. It's not complex, it just has answers for all the questions players have asked over 30 years. Complex is Champions where I have to do cube roots and vectors to figure out how much damage my hero does when he slams into you 1/3 of the way toward reaching his full velocity, as opposed to 1/2 way toward that same limit.




Sorry for the odd edit, but your remark is one I agree with and I only want to call out one part without diregarding the rest....

The heavy math rpg's aren't some modern RPing fancy. The type games you describe there  have been around all my life. Thankfully the worst of them died out in the '80s. But they are not some modern bastardisation of DnD. They have been around for some  25 years now  as "creative reinterpretations" of DnD. Usually for a non-fantasy setting. 

Uber geek knowledge check,


----------



## Frostmarrow (Jan 17, 2005)

I bought the box and tried it with my friends for one session. We didn't complete the module from the box but had a good time nevertheless. My friends liked it and they thought it was quaint. We are now back on our previously scheduled 3.5 game.

Even though we don't play C&C regularly it has made it's mark on our group. We are not as anal-retentive about the 3.5 rules as we were before we tried C&C. That's a very good thing!


----------



## Akrasia (Jan 17, 2005)

mattcolville said:
			
		

> I'm interested and skeptical.
> 
> I'm interested because it does seem simpler than D&D3.
> 
> Then, I think, "D&D3 is pretty simple. It's just got a lot of rules." I *like* the fact that I can find a rule that tells me the radius of light shed by a torch. It's not complex, it just has answers for all the questions players have asked over 30 years.  ....




While I agree that 3E D&D is not as complex or rules heavy as, say, Champions, I disagree that 3E is 'simple'.  Or rather, it _does have _ a 'simple core', but that theoretical simplicity is IME buried _in practice _ by the endless number of modifiers that might or might affect any given situation (combat, spell casting, etc.).  And I completely disagree that all these additional modifiers and rules are necessary in order for the game to 'answer' any questions that players might have concerning any given situation.

From another thread, shurai said:

"When was the last time you had to cast a save-able 4d6 damage spell on the defensive at a spell-resistant character? Does turning undead provoke attacks of opportunity? Let's see, 2d6 plus cha, then a d20 check . . . uh, right. Bluff to sneak attack? Lemme see, my bluff vs. his sense motive, then the attack roll, uh, yeah. Remember how long it took each of us to figure out how attacks of opportunity works? Time to roll an attack . . .wait, he gets a 20% miss chance, is that before or after the attack roll? Wait, I threatened, better roll again. Now time to roll damage, which is 2d10+6+d6(fire)+2d8(spirited charge) . . . wait, does the spirited charge bonus get doubled too? Hang on, have to recalculate the damage bonus from strength, because I'm wielding two-handed this round. Whoops, forgot I was fighting defensively, I missed. Oh, forgot the flanking bonus, guess I hit after all. Has Bless worn off yet? That stacks with Bardic Music right? Oh yeah, it doesn't, because it doesn't stack unless they're dodge or circumstance bonuses, right? Or was it luck bonuses? When I cast Aid as a domain spell for the Good domain, does it count as a Good spell because that's not in the description. Nevermind, I'll just polymorph him into a frog. Oh, that's been erratta'd four times since Tuesday? Is that a Full Attack or a Partial Charge?

I think those of us who still think d20 is simple need to get a grip . . . a [monkey] grip."    -- shurai
http://www.enworld.org/forums/showthread.php?t=112844&page=2&pp=20

That certainly coheres with my experience.

I have DM'ed two 3E D&D campaigns.  Maybe I'm simple  :\  , but I frequently found that things ground to a halt because of rules questions.  And the prep time involved in statting up a high level NPC or complex monster was a major pain.  (The campaigns were great, and the players enjoyed them.  But as a DM I just found the work and rules involved rather grating.)

Ultimately, whether a system is 'rules heavy' or 'rules light' depends on how _you _ experience the rules.  If 3E D&D feels too 'rules heavy' for you, then it is.  It doesn't matter how hard people try to argue that your perception is incorrect.

In my case, 3E D&D feels too rules heavy (at least to DM -- I'm happy to be a player in a 3E campaign).  Given the frequency with which complaints about the 'heaviness' of 3E rules emerge on these boards -- along with proposals for 'simplifying' 3E -- I am not alone here.  (Though I suspect that I belong a minority of gamers on this question.)

By contrast, as a GM, I find games like Unisystem and C&C to be 'just right' in terms 'rules weight'.


----------



## MonsterMash (Jan 17, 2005)

I've now seen my brothers copy of the Players Handbook for C&C, and so far I'm favourably impressed - so far mainly layout and art, but a simpler system does appeal and I may end up converting my 3.5 Wilderlands campaign over.


----------



## Steverooo (Jan 17, 2005)

I don't get the impression that Castles and Crusades is grabbing a lot of people, or that it ever will.  No more so than Cyborg Commandos or Lejendary Adventures.  Rules Light IS a niche market... and probably always will be.

One of the problems with the latter is that the players complain "everything is too GM-dependent!" (while the "lite" crowd complains "everything is too rules-dependent!")  Myself, I like being able to calculate my chances, without having to ask the GM every time that I want to do something!

So it's all about "What's more important to you?"  For me, I'd rather have rules for how far light goes and whether or not bonuses stack (which we can then ignore, if we choose to) than to have no rules for it, and have it all depend upon the overworked GM's perception.  YMMV.

As for me, I have less and less interest in C&C, the more I read about it.  If I ever saw the rules book, it would probably kill all my interest, for good!


----------



## ivocaliban (Jan 17, 2005)

Akrasia said:
			
		

> It will probably never arrive at some gamestores for the simple fact that, based on last year's sales, many gamestores are reluctant to stock new d20 3rd-party material -- despite the fact that C&C is *not* a d20 game (many gamestore owners simply do not know this).




True enough. The best and nearest gaming store to me (a brisk 4 hour drive) was hit very hard after the 3.5e conversion. Sales dropped off dramatically and so they've stopped re-ordering d20 products. It seems like they're eventually going to phase out RPGs altogether.


----------



## Treebore (Jan 17, 2005)

C&C games are going to be like the older D&D games, if you have a good DM you are going to have good games. 3E being rules heavy makes it easier for good DM's to be good and harder for bad DM's to be bad DM's.

Me, I want a rules system that helps me run a game, not hold my hand and tell my what I can and cannot do as we take each step down the corridor.


----------



## Akrasia (Jan 17, 2005)

Steverooo said:
			
		

> ...
> One of the problems with the latter is that the players complain "everything is too GM-dependent!" (while the "lite" crowd complains "everything is too rules-dependent!")  Myself, I like being able to calculate my chances, without having to ask the GM every time that I want to do something!
> 
> So it's all about "What's more important to you?"  For me, I'd rather have rules for how far light goes and whether or not bonuses stack (which we can then ignore, if we choose to) than to have no rules for it, and have it all depend upon the overworked GM's perception.  YMMV.
> ...




Leaving aside the fact that your post appears to make unwarranted generalizations based purely on your own tastes, the main claim that you make here is based on a flawed premise.  While there _is_ more room for GM _discretion_ in a rules light game (and hence less need to bring the game to a grinding stop and look something up in the encyclopedia of rules), it is _not_ necessarily the case that a rules light game leaves the adjudication of most tasks to mere GM whim.

The fact of the matter is that you can have a very parsimonious and consistent rules system.  E.g. Imagine a game in which all mental tasks are resolved by making a "mind" ability score roll, and all physical tasks are resolved by making a "body" ability score roll.  There are set 'difficulty levels' for different tasks (10 for average tasks, 15 for moderately hard, 20 for hard, and 25 for extremely hard).  Here we have a very simple system -- two ability scores, and two ways in which these scores are used to resolve different tasks of four different levels of difficulty.   (C&C is _not_ this rules light, btw.    )

I fail to see why such a system is any less "consistent" than 3E D&D. Sure, I suppose you have to make a "judgement call" as to whether breaking down a door is a "mental" or "physical" task, or whether the door is weak (DC 10) or tough (DC 20) -- but you also have to make these kinds of (usually obvious) judgement calls in 3E.

In any case, aside from making that important point, I don't want to get into a 'rules light' versus 'rules heavy' argument here.  The simple fact is that C&C is a (relatively) rules light game, and so if that is not the kind of game you like, do not purchase the PHB.  Not every game has to appeal to every player.  I have zero interest in a game like Exalted, but I certainly recognize that that game will appeal to other reasonable gamers.

I agree that the 'old school' and 'rules light' niches are small relative to the overall RPG market.  As I stated earlier, there is no chance of C&C 'overtaking' 3E (or anything close).  At the same time, though, I think that those niches are nonetheless large enough for C&C to be a very viable and successful system.  (I mean, the Angel and Buffy RPGs are 'rules light' niche games, yet they seem to be perfoming quite well for Eden studios.)


----------



## Jackal42 (Jan 17, 2005)

I actually found that 3e made good DMs pull out their hair and bad DMs just changed what they didn't like and were still bad DMs, but that's just my experience and, as Akrasia says, that's all that counts when talking about how "good" your game of choice is. 

So, of course, C&C isn't going to be for everyone any more than 3e is for everyone. It's all in what you're looking for. C&C does have a rules light mechanic at its core and it does have an old school feel but there is also a lot more going for it if the above is your type of thing. Some of those things would be:

Price: It's only $20 for a saddle-stiched hard-back that has everything a player will ever need. No need to shell out lots of money for complete this or sword and this, etc.

Complete Rules: C&C answers all needed questions without trying to answer every possible question so it retains its rules light status without skipping the important questions. While it doesn't tell you what you need to roll in order to do a backflip over the orcs chasing you down a dungeon hallway (though it does go into how to handle such things on the fly) it does answer questions like how many languages a character can speak, how far you can see in different lighting conditions (as someone mentioned that above), how fast a character can move while climbing, what happens to your armor class or bonus to hit while concealed or taking cover, etc.

Great Unified Systems: Not only does C&C have only three types of rolls (combat, damage, and everything else) which keeps things really simple but the mechanics are easy to use and allow for a lot of depth. From the new encumbrance system (which is the best I've ever seen) to the siege engine itself the game does everything I've ever wanted and then some.

So as said before, the game isn't for everyone but if any of the above are for you then I'd give C&C a try. Oh, and Rycanada, if you'll post a spell from the 3.0 or 3.5 SRD here that you've always had trouble with (ie: just wished it was simpler) I'll post the C&C version (assuming there is one, but most of the SRD spells were carried over) for you to look at. And I'm pretty confident that you'll find the C&C version to be easier to read and use.


----------



## Griffin Moss (Jan 17, 2005)

Jackal42 said:
			
		

> Price: It's only $20 for a saddle-stiched hard-back that has everything a player will ever need.




I haven't seen the book so far, but ... is it really a hardcover book that is saddle-stitched?
Are you sure you didn't mean "perfect bound" or just "stitched" (as in "sewn")?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bookbinding 

Griffin Moss


----------



## Frostmarrow (Jan 17, 2005)

Please tell me about the encumberance system. What makes it so fantastic?


----------



## Jackal42 (Jan 17, 2005)

I've heard that the phb is saddle stiched but, honestly, beyond that I don't have the knowledge to back it up. One of the playtesters passed this information around (not the Trolls, so if it's not accurate don't give them grief) and it's a source I trust which is the best I can do really. Well, other than tell you, no matter how the book is bound, it's done very well and is more durable than most books you see on the market today. So, either way, it's a bargain at $20.

The encumbrance system gives each character an enecumbrance value based on strength (8 + str modifier) and each item an encumbrance number. This number takes into account weight as well as how large something is, etc. So while you are told how much weight your character can carry or lift the weight of an item doesn't determine encumbrance (so no more str 18 warriors walking around with a chest of gold, two sets of armor, and a dozen weapons all without any penalty). Wearable items have a reduced encumbrance when they are actually being worn and items made to carry other items reduce the total encumbrance they are carrying.

For example, cloth gloves are enc 1 but if you are wearing them they are reduced to enc 0. And a small pouch can hold 1 enc worth of material but as it reduces the enc total it carries by 1 anything you put into a small pouch (rogue's tools or holy symbol for example) becomes enc 0.

It's simple, fast, generates low numbers that are easier to keep track of, and it works better than just basing what you can carry on weight. Now I will note that it still requires the use of common sense by the CK but to a much smaller degree than any other system I've ever encountered.


----------



## Turanil (Jan 17, 2005)

I think that someday I will throw money in the C&C PHB, that and Hackmaster. So I will have a rule-light and a rule-heavy D&D.    (Except that I am tired of D&D and now play only d20 something...).


----------



## jmucchiello (Jan 17, 2005)

mattcolville said:
			
		

> Then, I think, "D&D3 is pretty simple. It's just got a lot of rules." I *like* the fact that I can find a rule that tells me the radius of light shed by a torch. It's not complex, it just has answers for all the questions players have asked over 30 years.



1e PHB p 102: torch 40 ft radius, lasts for an hour
2e PHB (early printing) pg 118, 15 foot radius, 1/2 hour duration


----------



## jmucchiello (Jan 17, 2005)

rycanada said:
			
		

> I think that was the clincher; if C&C had been a d20 game, then it would have got me, despite some of the quirkiness.



What does this mean? C&C is a game based on the d20 rules. It is not, however, licensed under the d20 logo. What part of being a d20 game would have preferred?


----------



## Henry (Jan 17, 2005)

I may wind up picking it up myself; I'm suitably interested in C&C, and the Greyhawk (Zagyg) castle series, so it may yet find use, at a gameday if nothing else.


----------



## VorpalBunny (Jan 17, 2005)

Henry said:
			
		

> I may wind up picking it up myself; I'm suitably interested in C&C, and the Greyhawk (Zagyg) castle series, so it may yet find use, at a gameday if nothing else.




I bought it originally because I was very interested in Castle Zagyg, and wanted the rules set behind the adventure.  Now, after reading through it I want to run this RIGHT NOW, Zagyg not withstanding.


----------



## cleaverthepit (Jan 17, 2005)

As this is not the place for me, I am only going to comment on a few things. The harback PHB is smythe sewn. This means that each signature is sewn onto the case and the case glued onto the backboard. It has significant durability. The cover is glossy to increase durability. For the second printing, we are considering a matte cover and even better stiching - stitched to the backboard. However, these raise the price of the production so will have to examine potential sales befor going this route as we will _not_ increase the price of the book itself.

As a second point, the game, from our perspective (meaning TLG) already has legs and will continue to be supported. 

Davis Chenault


----------



## National Acrobat (Jan 17, 2005)

*Not at all like 2E*



			
				(Psi)SeveredHead said:
			
		

> I'm skeptical, sine what I heard indicated it's too close to 2e.
> 
> The ability score system of C&C is at it's core, and I don't like it. (No bonuses until 15... ew.) Plus I'm spoiled by feats... even if it's just core feats.




It's not even remotely like 2E at all. Not even close. No proficiencies, no weapon slots, no specialist wizards or specialist clerics, etc. It's an OGL version of 1E. The ability score bonuses start at 13, not 15.

My whole group devoured the PHB when I got it, and all six of them got their own. Both my campaign, and the campaign of the other DM in the group (we alternate running) have switched from 3.0 DnD to C&C, everyone loves it.


----------



## Jackal42 (Jan 17, 2005)

Thanks for the binding information Davis, and sorry to everyone for passing out the wrong (at least I assume) information. But, my point still stands, the binding is the best I've seen in a rpg book in years.


----------



## cleaverthepit (Jan 17, 2005)

No problem 

To increase the sell of spare parts, a certain american car company institute a five year durability test for those parts. Meaning, their desire was for the part to cease functioning after five years. Toyota wanted a ten year durability. Hence, Toyota broke into a virtully closed market. 

The PHB is made to last a long time. This does not mean you can't destroy it, you can but Steve gave a good deal of thought to durability. 

Two things we can promise.

1: the basic rules will never change. there will be no 2.x or 3.x or 4.x. It will always be Castles & Crusades. We will fix a few things (javelin damage may have been too low), clarify a few things (I have a list somehwere but this results from unclear explanations or examples) but that is it.

2: the books will be made to last. I still have the very first 1e PHB, DMG and MM I bought. I can still use them though they are 20 years old (though they are a bit ragged).

Davis


----------



## Ry (Jan 17, 2005)

Treebore said:
			
		

> 3E being rules heavy makes it easier for good DM's to be good and harder for bad DM's to be bad DM's.




I passionately disagree with this statement.  I've run some fantastic rules-light games, and I'm definitely a good DM.  Since 3E, I've gamed more, but the system has never made it easier for me to be a good DM.  Often it's made it harder, because your concentration isn't on things like pacing via watching the players' reactions and interest level.  I've also played in some bad games, and 3E didn't do a thing to help them.

That's why I'm so interested in C&C, to see if there's something here to keep me playing D&D-style fantasy, but still run good games.


----------



## Jackal42 (Jan 17, 2005)

So post a 3e spell you want to see the C&C version of and, as promised, I'll help you with your questions.


----------



## nsruf (Jan 17, 2005)

Last year, I gave up on my mid-to-high level D&D 3.5 campaign because preparation took too long and dealt almost exclusively with NPC and monster stats instead of story development. Since then, I have been looking for a rules-lite fantasy game. Savage Worlds works for me, but my players don't like it very much. So I hope C&C will appeal to them, as it is closer to the d20 D&D they know. I'm a little afraid they will complain about the lack of options, though.

Anyway, I'm eagerly awaiting my copy of the PHB...


----------



## Ry (Jan 17, 2005)

jmucchiello said:
			
		

> What does this mean? C&C is a game based on the d20 rules. It is not, however, licensed under the d20 logo. What part of being a d20 game would have preferred?




Well, as I said above, if C&C had been a d20 game, it would have been a rules-lite d20.  This is what I"m looking for.  Also, if it had kept certain things from d20 (like the attribute rolls, only 3 saves, not using the somewhat strange 12/18 rule) then it would eliminate certain barriers to entry on the part of new players.  That would have probably pushed the game over the line from "not buy" to "buy."

I _know_ I can house-rule these things.  But even if I just change the saves back, that means I'd have to choose saves for every spell and magic item, rather than using the ones that are detailed from the book.  I'd like to have something designed to be rules-light d20 right from the beginning, without having to re-write so many specifics.


----------



## Ry (Jan 17, 2005)

Jackal42 said:
			
		

> So post a 3e spell you want to see the C&C version of and, as promised, I'll help you with your questions.




How about Righteous Might?  Straight from the 3.5 SRD.

Righteous Might
Transmutation
Level: Clr 5, Strength 5
Components: V, S, DF
Casting Time: 1 standard action
Range: Personal
Target: You
Duration: 1 round/level (D)
Your height immediately doubles, and your weight increases by a factor of eight. This increase changes your size category to the next larger one, and you gain a +8 size bonus to Strength and a +4 size bonus to Constitution. You gain a +4 enhancement bonus to your natural armor. You gain damage reduction 5/evil (if you normally channel positive energy) or damage reduction 5/good (if you normally channel negative energy). At 12th level this damage reduction becomes 10/evil or 10/good, and at 15th level it becomes 15/evil or 15/good (the maximum). Your size modifier for AC and attacks changes as appropriate to your new size category. This spell doesn’t change your speed.  Determine space and reach as appropriate to your new size.
If insufficient room is available for the desired growth, you attain the maximum possible size and may make a Strength check (using your increased Strength) to burst any enclosures in the process. If you fail, you are constrained without harm by the materials enclosing you— the spell cannot crush you by increasing your size.
All equipment you wear or carry is similarly enlarged by the spell. Melee and projectile weapons deal more damage. Other magical properties are not affected by this spell. Any enlarged item that leaves your possession (including a projectile or thrown weapon) instantly returns to its normal size. This means that thrown weapons deal their normal damage (projectiles deal damage based on the size of the weapon that fired them).
Multiple magical effects that increase size do not stack.


----------



## Breakdaddy (Jan 17, 2005)

rycanada said:
			
		

> But even if I just change the saves back, that means I'd have to choose saves for every spell and magic item, rather than using the ones that are detailed from the book.  I'd like to have something designed to be rules-light d20 right from the beginning, without having to re-write so many specifics.




Sounds like youve already decided not to try C&C. However, to address your spell comment, you could absolutely change the saves back to D20 with  minimal fuss and just use the 3.x spell description for the saves. This will mean zero conversion for you.


----------



## Flexor the Mighty! (Jan 17, 2005)

I love this game.  My group is going to do PC generation and a small into adventure this weekend with the full campaign going from there.  The game is very simple and address a lot of my dislikes with 3.x while still maintaining the nice d20+mods>TN mechanic that I like out of 3e.  I can't see ever running D&D again.  This is perfect for my Greyhawk campaign.  It's a BD&D/1e mix done with the OGL and that is just what I have been waiting for.   

I love the design as well.  No pictures and color patterns under the text making it more difficult to read.  Nice black text on white pages.  Excellent!


----------



## Ry (Jan 17, 2005)

As committed and cost-averse as I sound, a world in which I buy two C&C players' handbooks, an old 3.0 PHB, scissors, and a glue stick, is not really an impossible world.  I'm just grappling with whether it's the best of all possible worlds.


----------



## Dragonhelm (Jan 17, 2005)

*My two steel.*

I have both the boxed set and C&C PHB, and both are great.  I love the look, and the art inside is more of what I like to see in fantasy than some of the art pieces that are in 3e (Mialee comes to mind...).

I don't think I'm going to make any mass conversions to C&C, but I do like the system.  I think it is something I would run once in a while.  It does have an air of nostalgia to it, especially the boxed set with the dice and crayon.


----------



## Mythmere1 (Jan 17, 2005)

Lots of people have mentioned that rules lite + old style feel is a limited market.  I'm not completely sure of that.  I'm going to teach my kids (ages 8 and 10) C&C, not 3E.  Why?  Because you can learn the essential game rules in 20 minutes.

It's like chess - a few basic rules give you an almost infinitely flexible game.  If it catches on with younger kids (and the price point will help, since it's half as expensive as D&D hardcovers), it could pick up a reasonably broad market.  No rival to D&D, but significant.

I repeat: you can teach this game to your kids, and they'll essentially be playing D&D.


----------



## trollwad (Jan 17, 2005)

*c&c*

When you discuss the merits of C&C vs. 3.5e or 1e etc., I think it is important to remember that most people on these boards by definition are huge role-playing game fans and have at least dabbled in numerous versions of d&d, c&c, and other similar systems.  I love playing C&C but then again I also really enjoyed 1e d&d and 3.5e d&d.  The fact that I enjoy at least some aspects of each of these permutations of our favorite RPG does not mean that the versions are totally parallel.  Given that many individuals have preferences to style, content, speed of play etc., I think it is desirable that many will gravitate towards one form or the other.  The question is what type of game best suits your personal preferences as a player or a dm.  Factors to consider when you analyze your preferred style of play (and which game you ought to consider) include:

1) SPEED OF PLAY.  How do you enjoy spending the bulk of your time when you are actually in session?  On a scale where basic d&d is the simplest and fastest version of d&d and 3.5e (particularly at high levels) is by far the slowest, C&C is in the middle.  Having played all of the versions extensively, I'd say C&C is a bit faster than 1e or 2e because there are no tables to look up, there is a unified saving throw system and a much easier to use AC system (ACs go 'up' like in 3.5e).  Complexity tends to be the antithesis of speed so see item #2 below.

2)  WARGAMING VS. ROLEPLAYING.  If you want more of a 'wargamey optimizing' feel, with long moments spent savoring combat options and the intricacies of various types of movement in combat, setting up potential AoOs for your comrades, and carefully measuring spell radii, then 3.5e is better for you.  The extra combat complexity of 3.5e can easily give a greater 'war game' feel.  C&C has many more combat/spell options than basic d&d, and a bit more than 1e, but its speed of play vis a vis 3.5e comes from having somewhat fewer combat options/calculations/richness in AoO scenarios.  

3)  MODULARITY.  If you are someone who wants a ready-made core system, then 3.5e is fine.  If you love to house rule, then C&C is probably significantly superior.  For example, I like some aspects of the feat system in 3.5e.  I will port over a much scaled down version of the feat system to C&C and I may create a slightly more elaborate grappling system than C&C currently has.  This can be accomplished with zero effort.  C&C is incredibly modular and very easy to add to.  In my experience, 3.5e is very complex and very interrelated in its rules.  You really need to think carefully about these interrelationships in 3.5e before you add house rules.

4)  DIMENSIONALITY.  Early versions of D&D, from basic to 2e have had a 'dump stat' phenomenon.  Some believe that 3.5e went partways towards fixing this by creating an elaborate skill system that is partly tied to attributes.  C&C designed a far simpler system that uses all six attributes as the base for its attribute checks and saving throws.  For this reason, a player in C&C should be very wary of 'writing off' wisdom or charisma because he is a fighter.  In other words, C&C players should be wary of becoming completely one dimensional whereas the proliferation of specialized prestige classes, path dependent feat chains etc. seems to argue the opposite for 3.5e.

5)  DM PREPARATION. DMs can spend an enormous amount of time preparing and converting adventures between sessions.  My biggest knock on 3.5e is that I find that when I am the DM it takes an incredible investment of time to create the stat blocks of basic creatures.  C&C is similar to Basic, 1e and 2e in that the time spend on creating stat blocks is very modest.  In addition, C&C is more similar to each edition of D&D than they are to each other, for this reason, it is much easier to translate a 1e or 3.5e module into C&C terms than it is to translate a 1e module into 3.5e terms.  In a similar vein, C&C is much easier to 'wing it' for a dm rather than a player.

6)  FLAVOR. Because there is less time spent looking up rules in C&C as opposed to 3.5e, it is easier to stay in character (assuming that the player is any good at it to begin with).

7)  CHARACTER CUSTOMIZATION.  C&C is much more customizable than Basic D&D or 1e -- there are more character classes, feats are incredibly easy to port into the game, etc.  On the other hand, 3.5e has an almost mind-boggling area of classes, races, prestige classes, feats, splat books, etc.  If you really want that half-tiefling shadowdancer/thief-acrobat than 3.5e just seems to have more resources.  Again, given C&C's modularity it would be easy to port into the game a few of your favorite character races (say goliaths) or classes (say sorceror or swashbuckler) or feats (say your 20 favorite), but it would require a great deal of effort to recreate the vast richness of customization possibilities already available in 3.5e.  The cost of the advantage for 3.5e in character customization is that it slows down the game and the richness in options can interact in surprising ways and 'break' the game if the dm is not extremely vigilant -- e.g. someone showed me a high level halfling thief/master thrower/xxx who might be able to kill Thor in a couple of rounds with halfling skiprocks.  I cant imagine how youd create that character in C&C, even with some power enhancing house rules.

8)  ZAGYG IN C&C.  This may not mean much for younger players, but Zagyg (i.e. Gygax's original Castle) will be published under C&C rules.  many older players have been waiting 20 years for this adventure.

In summary, C&C is a middle ground between editions, that is much better constructed than early D&D editions.  It is much richer than D&D Basic in combat options and spells, it is much less clunky than 1e (which had complex to hit and save tables and really odd weapon speed and weapon type vs. armor concepts), and it is far faster to run or prepare an adventure than in 3.5e.  It gives up a bit of the 'wargaming optionality' and some of the incredible character customization potential of 3.5e splatbooks to accomplish its far faster pace.  Your choice of whether you purchase C&C should depend on the extent to which you value speed and modularity vs. wargaming optionality.


----------



## Jackal42 (Jan 17, 2005)

Whoops....righteous might wasn't carried over to C&C I'm afraid. Perhaps it would be a little easier if you just gave me a small list of the spells which annoy you most and I'll pick one and post both the 3e version from the SRD and the C&C version. That way you don't have to keep guessing and I don't have to type up the full list of all the spells that made it into the phb. 

Sorry about that.


----------



## Acid_crash (Jan 17, 2005)

I find it funny that only 4 years of d20 have caused a lot of people to either forget or not remember that D&D for over 20 years was a rules-lite system when compared to rules-heavy systems, as far as I see them, and I see C&C (in my own way) as a real D&D 3rd edition than the current one we have.  

C&C keeps all of what was good in 1e and 2e and adds in what's good in d20 and making it easier to understand and simplifies it.  I like C&C, plan on getting it, and plan on getting Crusader when it is released.


----------



## Doug McCrae (Jan 17, 2005)

How does C&C handle Fireball?


----------



## Flexor the Mighty! (Jan 17, 2005)

I don't think the spell system is that changed.  It's the same as most editions of D&D and has most of the same spells.  It's probably a bit simpler than 3.x as it has less types of modifies to worry about, but that's about it as far as I can tell, but I haven't finished reading the book and all the spells yet.  

And yes it does mention that spells are MEMORIZED!!!


----------



## RFisher (Jan 17, 2005)

National Acrobat said:
			
		

> It's not even remotely like 2E at all. Not even close. No proficiencies, no weapon slots, no specialist wizards or specialist clerics, etc. It's an OGL version of 1E.




IIRC, proficiencies (both weapon & non-weapon), specialist wizards, & specialist clerics were all explicitly _optional_ in AD&D2e. C&C might actually be closer to AD&D2e sans optional rules than it is to OAD&D.

It is true that if you consider some of those optional bits key features of AD&D2e, you may consider C&C very unlike 2e because you're not going to find them in the C&C PHB.


----------



## Sammael (Jan 17, 2005)

From what I've read in this thread, I'd absolutely _hate_ C&C.


----------



## Breakdaddy (Jan 17, 2005)

Doug McCrae said:
			
		

> How does C&C handle Fireball?




It does 1d6 per level with no upper limit listed. It has a 40' radius. Range is 450 ft. It ignites combustibles, damages objects, and melts anything with a low melting point like bronze, silver, lead, etc. The explosion creates almost no pressure. If the fireball follows a straight path and impacts a solid barrier prior to reaching its intended target, the impact causes early detonation. If the caster attempt to send the ball through a narrow passage (such as an arrow slit) then a ranged attack must be made to hit the intended target or the bead strikes the barrier and detonates prematurely.


----------



## MerricB (Jan 17, 2005)

Actually, I'd probably classify C&C as "preparation-light" and 3e D&D as "preparation-heavy".

For me, the one thing that always takes the longest in 3e D&D is the creation of NPCs and advanced monsters. This is in no small part due to ability modifiers' influence on every part of character creation.

3e D&D is much less complicated to prepare for if you just use the basic monsters from the manuals, and don't have many NPCs.

However, the power gained from the 3e monster/character systems is one that I don't really want to give up.

D&D 3e could also be described as "modifier-heavy"; I don't yet know what C&C is like in that regard.

Cheers!


----------



## Breakdaddy (Jan 17, 2005)

Sammael said:
			
		

> From what I've read in this thread, I'd absolutely _hate_ C&C.




Then you are probably not their target market. It bears repeating since not everyone seems to "get it" but this game is there to fill the niche in the market for a rules-light and/or old school (feel) game. If this isnt your bag, then you will probably pass on it. Not everyone loves the bloated rules system of 3.xe as-is though, and for those people, C&C is worth a look.


----------



## MoogleEmpMog (Jan 17, 2005)

I have no problem with a rules-lite system (or lite-er than 3.x, anyway), but everything I've read about C&C just rubs me the wrong way.

Keeping the most clunky and time-consuming element of D&D (the spell system), playing to nostalgia for a system they don't own, suggesting race/class limitations, and that downright wonky ability score system? :\ 

C&C seems terribly, terribly _inelegant_ to me.  I'd be hard pressed to describe what I mean by elegance as a game design principle, but C&C violates it on almost every level.  Maybe if I got the actual box or book in hand and looked it over, I'd get a better vibe from it, but I'm certainly not going to buy it just to see.


----------



## Henry (Jan 17, 2005)

> It does 1d6 per level with no upper limit listed. It has a 40' radius. Range is 450 ft. It ignites combustibles, damages objects, and melts...




*hurriedly* Yes, yes, man, but DOES IT EXPAND IN SMALL SPACES LIKE 1E?!?!

If so: YAY!!!!

If not: BOOO! 

It and lightning bolt would be my first house rule for it. Why play old-school if you don't get to play with fire?


----------



## Breakdaddy (Jan 17, 2005)

Henry said:
			
		

> *hurriedly* Yes, yes, man, but DOES IT EXPAND IN SMALL SPACES LIKE 1E?!?!
> 
> If so: YAY!!!!
> 
> ...




LOL, it doesnt state either way. So if you want it to expand in small spaces, then YES!


----------



## Breakdaddy (Jan 17, 2005)

MoogleEmpMog said:
			
		

> I have no problem with a rules-lite system (or lite-er than 3.x, anyway), but everything I've read about C&C just rubs me the wrong way.
> 
> Keeping the most clunky and time-consuming element of D&D (the spell system), playing to nostalgia for a system they don't own, suggesting race/class limitations, and that downright wonky ability score system? :\
> 
> C&C seems terribly, terribly _inelegant_ to me.  I'd be hard pressed to describe what I mean by elegance as a game design principle, but C&C violates it on almost every level.  Maybe if I got the actual box or book in hand and looked it over, I'd get a better vibe from it, but I'm certainly not going to buy it just to see.




Kinda sounds like you don't like D&D much either. Since C&C is OGL (therefore D&D based) it makes sense that you don't like it. I am, of course, making an assumption which might be incorrect, but you just took jabs at elements that are integral to every iteration of D&D, so it's perhaps an educated assumption    
As far as C&C playing to nostalgia for a system they dont own... guilty as charged, I suspect. Of course, everyone who ever created any sort of supplement, adventure, system, or setting with a D20 or OGL logo on it is doing the EXACT same thing, so how is this wrong?


----------



## bolie (Jan 17, 2005)

*Ambivalent*

I've just started playing C&C and I have mixed feelings about it.

The complexity of 3.5 does take some time, but I personally like the options.  All else being equal, I'd prefer it.

Having said that, C&C is an acceptable substitute and I'm happy to play it.  I found the book difficult to navigate, though.  I also found some of the descriptions a bit unclear.  I'm not sure I like how extremely simple monsters are.  From a hack and slash standpoint, that's fine.  But developing monsters as anything other than just something to kill would be harder in C&C than in D&D3.5.  In 3.5, you can vary monster stats and add classes, skills, and feats to give an otherwise generic monster a unique feel.  In C&C, a kobold is a kobold is a kobold.

I like that all stats are used for saves using an identical mechanic.  So there are "no saving throws" but at the same time, there are six.


----------



## Jupp (Jan 17, 2005)

Doug McCrae said:
			
		

> In Italy for 30 years under the Borgias they had warfare, terror, murder, and bloodshed, but they produced Michelangelo, Leonardo da Vinci, and the Renaissance. In Switzerland they had brotherly love - they had 500 years of democracy and peace, and what did that produce? The cuckoo clock. – Harry Lime, The Third Man




Mr. Welles got it totally wrong, really, at least by about 50 kilometers. cuckoo clocks come from the black forest in South Germany. But "Emmentaler cheese" probably doesnt sound cool enough in such a movie.....

Errm...sorry for being off-topic. But I had to get this straight


----------



## scadgrad (Jan 17, 2005)

What Trollwad said!

I think C&C stands a good chance of hanging around and making a splash. Why? Well it does have a lot of appeal for DMs who like the stream-lined preparation and the ease of on-the-fly conversions making every module you've ever purchased a piece of cake to run for your group. DMs are the type of people who get others involved in a campaign and often are instrumental in the sales of PHBs in general. Make a system that GMs will flock to and you've got a good chance at "catching on."

There are many things about the system that appeals to me as a GM and the fact that it meshes so well w/ older versions of D&D is certainly a selling point. But I also appreciate the fact that I can easily port in the things I like about 3.X (feats for instance) and the game goes along just fine. I've been playing C&C for over 4 months now with most of the core feats from 3.5 and a few other elements that we all like. We've had over 20 some-odd sessions and I can hardly put into words how much more enjoyable and less of a chore that the game is for me now (as the DM/CK). I'm currently running Lost City of Barakus in one campaign and the original I6 Ravenloft in another. Converting both of them on-the-fly is child's play. 

I just can't see me ever running a straight 3.X game, that's how much I like this system. The cool thing is though, I can pick up whatever supplements for 3.5 and whatever modules I like since the system is so adaptable. 

I'll put it this way, if you DM a game, you really should drop the $20 and give it a try. Especially so if you ever intend to run any of those old adventures you've got lying around in your closet. Why bother spending countless hours (as I did) converting Bone Hill or White Plume Mountain to 3.5 when you can just add feats to C&C and off you go?


----------



## Breakdaddy (Jan 17, 2005)

bolie said:
			
		

> In 3.5, you can vary monster stats and add classes, skills, and feats to give an otherwise generic monster a unique feel.  In C&C, a kobold is a kobold is a kobold.



Of course, one of the coolest aspects of C&C is that you can bolt the level adjustment system from 3.x right in to C&C with little trouble. Personally, I see little problem with simply adding levels to a creature whenever I feel like it.


----------



## Jupp (Jan 17, 2005)

bolie said:
			
		

> I've just started playing C&C and I have mixed feelings about it.
> 
> The complexity of 3.5 does take some time, but I personally like the options.  All else being equal, I'd prefer it.
> 
> ...




I think monsters and NPCs are not defined by their stats like classes, feats and whatnot but by how the DM describes and plays them. The players will never see the stats anyway but they see how you describe the monsters and how you play them.  And if the monster has a special attack, well, then you let it make that attack in C&C. I dont think you need stats for this to make it work. Perhaps a little note on your campaign sheet to remember it, but thats it.


----------



## scadgrad (Jan 17, 2005)

bolie said:
			
		

> I've just started playing C&C and I have mixed feelings about it.
> 
> The complexity of 3.5 does take some time, but I personally like the options.  All else being equal, I'd prefer it.
> 
> ...




If I want a 7th level Kobold Assassin in either of my C&C campaigns I can make one in 5 minutes. I'll just use the stats from the 3.5 MM give him 3 feats (we use feats in my campaigns) and some logical gear. Done.

The game is totally modular. Use whatever parts of 3.X (or anything else d20 you've got lying around) you like. Or use the 3.X MM straight up and convert as you go.

As a DM, I absolutely love the brief monster stats, but hey to each his own.


----------



## MoogleEmpMog (Jan 17, 2005)

Breakdaddy said:
			
		

> Kinda sounds like you don't like D&D much either. Since C&C is OGL (therefore D&D based) it makes sense that you don't like it. I am, of course, making an assumption which might be incorrect, but you just took jabs at elements that are integral to every iteration of D&D, so it's perhaps an educated assumption
> As far as C&C playing to nostalgia for a system they dont own... guilty as charged, I suspect. Of course, everyone who ever created any sort of supplement, adventure, system, or setting with a D20 or OGL logo on it is doing the EXACT same thing, so how is this wrong?




I like D&D a lot, but I like the d20 system better than D&D.  Given the choice between a 3.x D&D campaign and an OGL Steampunk, d20 Modern, Grim Tales or Conan campaign, I'll take the latter - but I still like, and play, D&D.

I've always disliked D&D's spell system.  Basic D&D was tolerable, though I was unlikely to play a spellcaster myself.  Spells got worse in AD&D (more spells, and more complex spells), worse in 2e (even more spells), still worse in 3e (you mean there's this many spells here, and there's still MORE?), and marginally better in 3.5 (slightly more refined and explained spells, and a handful of removed contradictions or broken options).  I'll agree this is integral... which is perhaps the main reason I prefer d20/OGL sources that go further afield.

D&D nostalgia doesn't do much for me.  I've enjoyed basic D&D and D&D 3.x the most system-wise, and Spelljammer the most setting-wise.  No nostalgia for 'Jammer in C&C, last I checked.  I also find it somewhat unseemly that C&C plays so heavily to nostalgia for another company's material, but that's just a gut reaction.

Race/class limitations?  Aside from a few PrCs (and the "Races of" series or DM fiat provide ways out even for those), those were removed from 3e, and good riddance.  Hardly integral anymore.

By the ability score system, I meant the whole 12/18 mechanic.  I'd sooner see ability modifiers than ability scores, but otherwise D&D's abilities are probably the thing I like best about the system.  C&C's usage is nothing like D&Ds past, so I wouldn't call that integral.

And the lack of detail in monsters/monsters not being created in a similar manner to characters.  Ugh.  I can write a perfectly valid hack-n-slash stat line for a 3e monster that's only a bit longer than the C&C ones I've seen, but know that the monster's full, character-valid stats are available if I happen to need them.

How is, for example, Mongoose's Conan the RPG playing to D&D nostalgia?  Rules familiarity, perhaps, and the educated gamer's knowledge that a game bearing the OGL logo runs off a modified version of the 3e rules - that I can understand.  Nostalgia is something else entirely.


----------



## Breakdaddy (Jan 17, 2005)

MoogleEmpMog said:
			
		

> How is, for example, Mongoose's Conan the RPG playing to D&D nostalgia?  Rules familiarity, perhaps, and the educated gamer's knowledge that a game bearing the OGL logo runs off a modified version of the 3e rules - that I can understand.  Nostalgia is something else entirely.




You make some valid points. As far as Conan or any other RPG playing to D&D nostalgia, its simply a matter of logical progression. If OD&D/AD&D hadnt been so popular back in the day, then the re-release of the new 3.0 wouldnt have been as well received, and thus, the market for D20/OGL would be a heck of a lot flatter. All I am saying here is that the nostalgia value of old school D&D *IS* the reason that such nifty stuff can now be released under the D20/OGL and have a decent market. Nostalgia has its place. The other point is that Conan plays off of nostalgia for the old books/movies. The people who wrote the game didnt write either the books or the movie script, but they are catering to the audience's nostalgia for them. How does this make the game less valid or fun?


----------



## Doug McCrae (Jan 17, 2005)

bolie said:
			
		

> From a hack and slash standpoint, that's fine.  But developing monsters as anything other than just something to kill would be harder in C&C than in D&D3.5.  In 3.5, you can vary monster stats and add classes, skills, and feats to give an otherwise generic monster a unique feel.  In C&C, a kobold is a kobold is a kobold.



I think hack & slash is precisely the genre for which you want crunchy combat with tons of stats and options. If combat's boring in a hack & slash game, you don't have much else. OTOH a game more focused on character interaction doesn't need detailed stats. You make the monsters interesting thru cultural and behavioural detail.


----------



## MoogleEmpMog (Jan 17, 2005)

Breakdaddy said:
			
		

> You make some valid points. As far as Conan or any other RPG playing to D&D nostalgia, its simply a matter of logical progression. If OD&D/AD&D hadnt been so popular back in the day, then the re-release of the new 3.0 wouldnt have been as well received, and thus, the market for D20/OGL would be a heck of a lot flatter. All I am saying here is that the nostalgia value of old school D&D *IS* the reason that such nifty stuff can now be released under the D20/OGL and have a decent market. Nostalgia has its place. The other point is that Conan plays off of nostalgia for the old books/movies. The people who wrote the game didnt write either the books or the movie script, but they are catering to the audience's nostalgia for them. How does this make the game less valid or fun?




_Star Trek II_ took in a good portion of its box office returns due to the nostalgia factor (which isn't to say it wasn't a good movie).  _Matrix 2_ took in a good portion of _its_ box office returns because it was the sequel to a popular film (which isn't to say _it_ wasn't a good movie... that it wasn't speaks for itself  )

D&D 3.x was, in essence, the "sequel" to AD&D 2e, which was in turn the sequel to AD&D 1e.  Its popularity does derive, at least in part, from the fact that people liked the last version and were either playing it currently or had played it in the past.  That doesn't mean it was nostalgia, though - nostalgia connotates a longing for something that was active and then ceased to be (or significantly slowed down), not something that was active immediately prior to the release of a new version.

The OGL plays less to nostalgia, more to current popularity (and even more to familiarity).  Almost every reasonably experienced roleplayer knows how to play d20, whether they like it or not - and many do like it.  As such they know the gist of how to play an OGL game.

Also, if WotC, as current owners of the D&D name, decided to play to nostalgia, I wouldn't have a problem with it - nor if an individual GM's homebrew did so.  It just bugs me at a gut level to see another company doing so.

Mongoose bought a license to use Conan, as far as I know (or else it's not copywrighted; many Mongoose games are licensed).


----------



## Thyrkill (Jan 18, 2005)

As a DM who already "simplifies" the 3.X rules and enjoys converting older material to that system, C & C sounds very intiguing. That said, I just ordered it from my local FLGS so that I can give it a look. 

Thanks for a great thread!

Matt


----------



## Acid_crash (Jan 18, 2005)

For those using C&C and adding Feats to it, what feats are you primarily using and have you made any rule modifications to them?

My one other question regarding C&C, and this is something I have been confused on, is how is multiclassing done?  It's the one thing I do really like about d20 is how easy multiclassing is and how each class uses the same xp chart...gain 1000, gain a level and choose the class you want... but with each class getting different xp charts, it seems that multiclassing in this way would be more difficult.

Other than that, this game looks pretty damn cool.  I like how they took away spellcasting from Paladins, Rangers and Bards, and put in a Assassin as a core class.  Now, all I would need to do is add in the new classes from Black Company (like Noble, Jack of all Trades, and Acadimecian and Scout) and run BC using C&C.

The other thing that has me excited is that they are releasing their own Unearthed Arcana version right off the bat with the Castle Keeper Guide...a fully optional rules book to use with C&C, and hopefully a good spellpoint system to get rid of fire and forget magic.  

I wonder how using the BC magic system would port to C&C.


----------



## MoogleEmpMog (Jan 18, 2005)

Doug McCrae said:
			
		

> I think hack & slash is precisely the genre for which you want crunchy combat with tons of stats and options. If combat's boring in a hack & slash game, you don't have much else. OTOH a game more focused on character interaction doesn't need detailed stats. You make the monsters interesting thru cultural and behavioural detail.




I have to disagree, at least with what a hack & slash game needs.

Compare the stat line of a d20 (or even C&C) creature to that of a Warhammer creature.  GW's finest has a simpler, much more compact stat block.

Hack & slash requires streamlined rules because there's a lot of combat and often lots of creatures involved in it.  A character interaction-based game can get away with somewhat clunkier combat mechanics.


----------



## Doug McCrae (Jan 18, 2005)

MoogleEmpMog said:
			
		

> Compare the stat line of a d20 (or even C&C) creature to that of a Warhammer creature.  GW's finest has a simpler, much more compact stat block.



I prefer 3rd ed combat to Warhammer. WFRP, anyway. I'm not familiar with the tabletop miniatures battle game version. In fact I prefer 3rd ed combat to any other rpg's.


----------



## Breakdaddy (Jan 18, 2005)

MoogleEmpMog said:
			
		

> Mongoose bought a license to use Conan, as far as I know (or else it's not copywrighted; many Mongoose games are licensed).




It kind of seems like just because Mongoose gave money to license Conan and C&C Licensed OGL at no charge that you feel Troll Lord isn't morally entitled to release C&C. The problem with that logic is that the OGL expressly PERMITS Troll Lord to use the system free of charge! Would it seem more valid to you if cash somehow changed hands? I dont mean that in a snippy manner, it is a serious inquiry. If you feel that TLG has a moral obligation to pay for the use of the OGL in this manner then I kind of understand where you are coming from, but it's a free use license, which is good for everyone, IMO!


----------



## Treebore (Jan 18, 2005)

rycanada said:
			
		

> I passionately disagree with this statement.  I've run some fantastic rules-light games, and I'm definitely a good DM.  Since 3E, I've gamed more, but the system has never made it easier for me to be a good DM.  Often it's made it harder, because your concentration isn't on things like pacing via watching the players' reactions and interest level.  I've also played in some bad games, and 3E didn't do a thing to help them.
> 
> That's why I'm so interested in C&C, to see if there's something here to keep me playing D&D-style fantasy, but still run good games.





I used to agree with you, but I recently went back to playing a 2E game under a really good DM. This really showed me what about 3E makes the game better. Yes, there are a lot of things that make 3E a "burden" at times, but it is an improvement over 2E in terms of determining what characters can do, how well they can do them, the movement rules, etc....  So in that regard it helps a DM be a better DM, because the rules do make it easier for you to adjudicate, consistantly, how things get resolved in the course of a game session.

Does it add to the complexity and have the potential to slow down the game and effect roleplaying? Yes, but it definitely can help a DM to DM better.

As for helping bad DM's to DM better, clearer rules force bad DM's to at least meet a minimum standard. Eventually, they may even get the clue on how to become a better DM, so I will stay with my statement.


----------



## Desdichado (Jan 18, 2005)

Mythmere1 said:
			
		

> Who else is playing it, what do you think, and do you have the sense that it's grabbing lots of people?
> 
> It seems like there's a real trend to the 1E "feel" and rules lite movement these days (someone already did a thread about the rules-lite phenomenon)...



I have the sense that there's a handful of really vocal supporters online, and other than that, it's just another d20/OGL product -- nothing particularly exciting to your average Joe Blow gamer.


----------



## ColonelHardisson (Jan 18, 2005)

Joshua Dyal said:
			
		

> I have the sense that there's a handful of really vocal supporters online, and other than that, it's just another d20/OGL product -- nothing particularly exciting to your average Joe Blow gamer.




I think you are right about this, and I think this is also true of games like HackMaster. It doesn't mean the games are _bad_, just very niche-focused. Matter of fact, the online support for such games helps them to actually exist, or at least remain alive for longer than they would have otherwise. 25 years ago, or heck, _10_ years ago, such games would likely either never have been published, or would have died quick, quiet deaths. I agree that the online game community is a small element of gemerdom in general, but the internet does help gamers connect with others of like mind, and I'm betting this will increase as the years go by and the internet gets into more households. Gamers can be a stubborn bunch; I'm sure there are still Morrow Project (for example) players out there, who somehow kept the game alive before the internet existed, so imagine how many games will be kept alive now that a unifying tool like the internet is around.


----------



## Flexor the Mighty! (Jan 18, 2005)

MoogleEmpMog said:
			
		

> Also, if WotC, as current owners of the D&D name, decided to play to nostalgia, I wouldn't have a problem with it - nor if an individual GM's homebrew did so.  It just bugs me at a gut level to see another company doing so.
> 
> Mongoose bought a license to use Conan, as far as I know (or else it's not copywrighted; many Mongoose games are licensed).




WOTC never made a game that felt like D&D to me, so I'm glad they gave other companies the ability to do so.  Like others have said, this is more like 3e should have been for my taste.  3.x just isn't my bag.  So hats off to WOTC for the OGL!


----------



## Henry (Jan 18, 2005)

MoogleEmpMog said:
			
		

> The OGL plays less to nostalgia, more to current popularity (and even more to familiarity). Almost every reasonably experienced roleplayer knows how to play d20, whether they like it or not - and many do like it. As such they know the gist of how to play an OGL game.
> 
> Also, if WotC, as current owners of the D&D name, decided to play to nostalgia, I wouldn't have a problem with it - nor if an individual GM's homebrew did so. It just bugs me at a gut level to see another company doing so.
> 
> Mongoose bought a license to use Conan, as far as I know (or else it's not copywrighted; many Mongoose games are licensed.




Actually, the OGL was designed for JUST this sort of purpose, IMO. There's a market for tons of niche product, but only in smaller runs of each individual niche. Since WotC can't market to it all, be it genres, settings, advice, nostalgia, or what have you, it's up to smaller publishers to do it. A score of smaller publishers are doing their support work for them, and they reap the benefits of keeping people in the hobby.


----------



## MoogleEmpMog (Jan 18, 2005)

Breakdaddy said:
			
		

> It kind of seems like just because Mongoose gave money to license Conan and C&C Licensed OGL at no charge that you feel Troll Lord isn't morally entitled to release C&C. The problem with that logic is that the OGL expressly PERMITS Troll Lord to use the system free of charge! Would it seem more valid to you if cash somehow changed hands? I dont mean that in a snippy manner, it is a serious inquiry. If you feel that TLG has a moral obligation to pay for the use of the OGL in this manner then I kind of understand where you are coming from, but it's a free use license, which is good for everyone, IMO!




I don't think Troll Lord is doing anything the least bit unethical or immoral, certainly not illegal; I just find it personally exasperating.  IMO, C&C is the GoBots to D&D's Transformers.  

I do have to clarify one thing, though: the OGL lets Troll Lord base rules of the d20 system (and as such, 3.x).  It doesn't include the exact flavor of D&D, or anything from past editions.  If Troll Lord were to actually release a copy of Basic D&D or 1e, they'd be outside their legal rights.  They haven't.  They've just tried to capture the flavor of those older editions, using rules based off the d20 system.

If Troll Lord licensed D&D (like Kenzer & Co. did, for example), it wouldn't bother me a bit.

The inelegant rules still would, though.


----------



## Steverooo (Jan 18, 2005)

cleaverthepit said:
			
		

> As this is not the place for me...




???

Enter, and be welcome!...


----------



## Ry (Jan 18, 2005)

How about Polymorph?


----------



## The Sophist (Jan 18, 2005)

MoogleEmpMog said:
			
		

> ... Race/class limitations?  Aside from a few PrCs (and the "Races of" series or DM fiat provide ways out even for those), those were removed from 3e, and good riddance.  Hardly integral anymore.
> ...




Dude, you've mentioned this a few times, but it is completely wrong.

There are no race/class limitations in C&C.  The C&C PHB only lists "typical classes" for each race.


----------



## The Sophist (Jan 18, 2005)

Joshua Dyal said:
			
		

> I have the sense that there's a handful of really vocal supporters online, and other than that, it's just another d20/OGL product -- nothing particularly exciting to your average Joe Blow gamer.




I don't think TLG is claiming that C&C is going to replace 3.5 D&D in the market.


----------



## cleaverthepit (Jan 18, 2005)

I occasionally feel a wee bit uncomfortable posting about our products outside the publishers forum. But, I -f-e-e-l-c-o-m-p-e-l-l-e-d!!! (I just watched the whole of the new Battlestar Galactica  series, sorta cool)

First, I want to dispel a few things that continue to haunt C&C:

1. There are no level limits for any class/race combination
2. Races are not restricted to particular classes or from classes
3. AC is positive
4. Ability modifier progression begins at 13 (13-15 = +1, 16-17 = +2, 18-19 = +3)
5. A torch casts a 40ft ball of macabre light that brings forth dancing shadows and colors everything else in eerie hues of red and orange. 
6: There are 13 classes including bard and assassin

hmmm and no speed factors, weapons vs armor type tables, percentile rolls....

I think that covers some issues that continue to arise.

Now on to more general subjects. 

Rules lite vs rules heavy. There are two aspects to this. The first concerns the sheer number of rules and second the complexity of those rules. I think on the number of rules C&C hits about a 4 (on a 1 to 10 with one being tic-tac-toe and 10 being, well something played at the Command General Staff College and 3.5 being about a 6). This is, of course, up for debate but, I am just trying to make a point not create a law of game complexity measurement. As for complexity, I would give C&C a 3.5 and D&D3.5 a 6.5 (ditto previous comment).

Which one prefers to play is entirely based upon taste. I like my spinach raw, my wife likes it boiled or something. I will point out though, both my wife and I start out with raw spinach. I can't unboil it. 

Which plays to the issue of modification. I think, or am of the opinion, that it is easier to add to a simple system than to subtract from a complex system. It is not impossible. And, considering both the level of intelligence and education of many games (not to mention the unnatural predisposition many have to crunching numbers), even complex systems can be altered with a little dedication, experimentation and persistence. That said, the same can be applied to a simple system and one would find it both easier and quicker. In this respect, C&C has a modification/tinkering quotient that is very high.

The game was, in fact, designed with this in mind. It was intended to bridge the various editions of The Game and find those elements which underlie all its various manifestations. Further, we know (being gamers) that most people who play RPGs enjoy tinkering and houseruling. No two games are run in the same manner. (Though I do find more consistency in 3.5 games than I ever did in 1e games - but then, our nation seems to moving to the right  ). we want, encourage and desire the players to tinker, develop, change, augment and manipulate C&C. Make it your game. I think we have supplied the tools so that one who feels so inclined can manage this.

This does not mean that C&C is little more than a canvas upon which the players must place the final strokes. It is a viable and complete game system within itself. It never need be augmented or changed. It is a perfectly workable system and stands alone by itself without reference to any other game. For a person just beginning the often time consuming hobby of RPGing, no knowledge of any other game system need be had to understand and enjoy playing it (well, some people take to gaming, others don't).

Its nostalgic value is only meaningful to a certain subset of gamers. For them, Castles & Crusades does indeed harken to and recalls a type of gaming that one rarely encounters today or, at least, one I rarely encounter (and yes, I meet about 1000+ gamers a year now). I  suspect its nostalgic value has less to do with the rules themselves than with the nature of the 'rules set.' We have introduced primary and secondary attributes -- which did not exist, the SIEGE engine -- which did not exist and other rules that have reference to all editions of the game but are not parcel with them. They are extrapolations of The Games principles rather than redefinitions of it. (In the old days these last two sentences would have been a great footnote.)

To get back on track. The nostalgic nature of the game references a time when the game was designed outside of reference to its own mythos or its own internally generated literature and needs. This is why 'old schoolers' often react negatively to mohawk wearing tabooed halflings casting powerful magics or waylaying into hordes of goblins like Conan. It because the halfling is JRR Tolkein's Hobbits and, I really don't imagine Tolkein envisioned his hobbits like mini-Conans. However, the games logic and mythos resulted in this. Which is fine. We have chosen to move away from this as much as possible. Of course, we could not so this in all cases, but we tried.

Further, the nostalgic nature of the project appeals to a system where there are not rules that cover every aspect of the game - or as many as are now covered. It is a fluid and open game. One where doors are opened unto rooms the contents of which are yours to fill. This is how I felt when I first started gaming and I think, from talks with others who gamed back in those days before Iran became known to us, it’s the way many others felt.

Are we gearing the game as a nostalgic piece. A reckoning and remembrance perhaps? A Classic Coke? Are we preying upon the current nostalgia for nostalgia? No, not really. We did release the Nostalgia Edition of C&C. But this was not released into distribution. It was only available through us. It was imperfect but workable none-the-less. It was essentially made for and a thank you to those who helped us create the system. Many are old schoolers. Many, including myself, have fond memories of the Brown Box (the lingerie edition can not be beat). That was a nod and a thank you. 

We also name the game Castles & Crusades after Gary's original gaming society - or that early Lake Geneva gaming group. This is a nod and thank you to that group. For those of you who know us, you know we know Gary. We consider Gary one of our best of friends and have great respect for what he has done for gaming. It is a nod of recognition. A thank you if you will. 

But this is really only meaningful to those in the gaming loop, not to those outside it. It is from these 'old schoolers,' (both yound and old) that we have drawn our greatest inspiration and whose support has encouraged us to continue forging ahead. But, though the game appeals to this often unruly, cantankerous, opinionated crowd, it is not geared only for them.

Its ease of play, ease of learning, ease of use, ease of manipulation can have broad appeal. Its low price point allows for ease of entry. Its appeal, I am certain, will grow with time. And I am willing to wait. 

That is the end of essay #1

next up - monsters and a cup of coffee.

davis chenault


----------



## Jackal42 (Jan 18, 2005)

Ok that one works. 

First off we have polymorph from the 3.5 SRD:

Polymorph
Transmutation
Level: Sor/Wiz 4
Components: V, S, M
Casting Time: 1 standard action
Range: Touch
Target: Willing living creature touched
Duration: 1 min./level (D)
Saving Throw: None
Spell Resistance: No
This spell functions like alter self, except that you change the willing subject into another form of living creature. The new form may be of the same type as the subject or any of the following types: aberration, animal, dragon, fey, giant, humanoid, magical beast, monstrous humanoid, ooze, plant, or vermin. The assumed form can’t have more Hit Dice than your caster level (or the subject’s HD, whichever is lower), to a maximum of 15 HD at 15th level. You can’t cause a subject to assume a form smaller than Fine, nor can you cause a subject to assume an incorporeal or gaseous form. The subject’s creature type and subtype (if any) change to match the new form.
Upon changing, the subject regains lost hit points as if it had rested for a night (though this healing does not restore temporary ability damage and provide other benefits of resting; and changing back does not heal the subject further). If slain, the subject reverts to its original form, though it remains dead.
The subject gains the Strength, Dexterity, and Constitution scores of the new form but retains its own Intelligence, Wisdom, and Charisma scores. It also gains all extraordinary special attacks possessed by the form but does not gain the extraordinary special qualities possessed by the new form or any supernatural or spell-like abilities.
Incorporeal or gaseous creatures are immune to being polymorphed, and a creature with the shapechanger subtype can revert to its natural form as a standard action.
Material Component: An empty cocoon.

And here is the C&C version:

Polymorph: This spell has two versions, polymorph self or polymorph other.
Polymorph Self: The caster takes the form of another creature. The new form can range in size from as small as a hummingbird to a size up to twice the caster's normal height. The caster can change his or her form as often as desired during the spell's duration. Each transformation takes one round.
The polymorphed character acquires the physical and natural abilities of the creature polymorphed into while retaining his or her own mind. Physical and natural abilities include natural size, armor, natural weapons, and similar physical qualities. A body with extra limbs does not allow a character to make more attacks (or more advantageous two-weapon attacks) than normal. Natural abilities also include mundane movement capabilities, but not magical flight and other magical forms of travel. Other nonmagical abilities, such as vision, are considered natural abilities. The caster does not gain the spell-like abilities of the new form. The character does not gain the supernatural abilities or the extraordinary abilities of the new creature.
The character can freely designate the new form's minor physical qualities (such as hair color, hair texture, and skin color) within the normal rangers for a creature of that type. The new form's significant physical qualities (such as height, weight, and gender) are also under the character's control, but must fall within the norms for the new form's species. The character can be changed into a member of his or her own species.
The caster retains his mental abilities, prime attribute designations, level and class, hit points, alignment, and base to hit bonus. New strength, dexterity, and constitution scores may affect final attack bonuses. The character retains his or her own type, extraordinary abilities, spells, and spell-like abilities. The character can cast spells, but needs a humanlike voice for verbal components and humanlike hands for somatic components.
When the polymorph occurs, the caster's equipment, if any, transforms to match the new form. If the new form is a creature that does not use equipment, the equipment melds into the new form and becomes nonfunctional. Components and foci melded in this way cannot be used to cast spells. If the new form uses equipment, the caster's equipment changes to match the new form and retains its properties. Incorporeal or gaseous forms cannot be assumed.
Upon changing, the character regains 1d4 hit points. If slain, the character reverts to his or her original form, but remains dead.
CT 1, D 10min/lvl, Comp V.
Polymorph Other: The caster causes another creature to assume the body, abilities and potentially the consciousness of another form of another creature. An unwilling target gets a Wis save to resist the spell. Additionally, a creature polymorphed into the form of another risks assuming the consciousness of the new form. For every 12 hours spent in the new form, the creature must succeed at a Wis save or become a member of the species in question in both form and consciousness, forgetting everything associated with the prior form, including friends, family, experiences, and training. If the magic is dispelled, any creature surviving the reverse transformation regains its former memories and personality.
In all other regards, this spell acts like polymorph self. Size can be no larger than twice the creature's normal height. The caster retains control over minor physical qualities and significant physical qualities Upon changing, the creature regains 1d4 hit points. If slain, the creature reverts to his or her original form, but remains dead. CT 1, R 50 ft, T one creature, D permanent, Sv Wis negates (h), SR yes, Comp V, S, M (butterfly wings).

So you actually picked one that is longer and more detailed but, in this case, I like the more detailed version as it answeres questions the 3.5 version does not. Of course, the fact that it's more like the 2e version of polymorph is also nice for me. In any case, generally speaking, spells in C&C are shorter than their 3e counterparts but this is one of the exceptions. Of course, also keep in mind that this spell is also two spells from 3e.


----------



## Thunhus (Jan 18, 2005)

Good points:
-No miniatures/battlemat needed
-Short prepation time (NPCs)
-Nostalgia
-Adventure modules in pipeline

Bad points:
-It's not Dungeons&Dragons (harder to get players)

Thunhus


----------



## scadgrad (Jan 18, 2005)

Thunus said:
			
		

> Bad points:
> -It's not Dungeons&Dragons (harder to get players)




Sure it is, if you want it to be. I consider the C&C PHB to be my Official House Rules for 3.5 D&D. I use the 3.5 DMG & MM quite frequently IMC.


----------



## scadgrad (Jan 18, 2005)

Acid_crash said:
			
		

> For those using C&C and adding Feats to it, what feats are you primarily using and have you made any rule modifications to them?
> 
> My one other question regarding C&C, and this is something I have been confused on, is how is multiclassing done?  It's the one thing I do really like about d20 is how easy multiclassing is and how each class uses the same xp chart...gain 1000, gain a level and choose the class you want... but with each class getting different xp charts, it seems that multiclassing in this way would be more difficult.
> 
> ...




We're using feats drawn primarily from the PHB and the Complete_________ series and yes, they do occasionally require modification. For example, Improved Initiative gives PCs a +2 rather than a +4 due to the d10 that C&C uses for initiative. Since C&C doesn't add dex to initiative the +2 comes in quite handy and is a popular feat (which is is in 3.X already). Dodge is also a popular feat (in both 3.X editions and my C&C games) and we just use a flat +1 to your AC which seems suitably rules lite. Some feats, those that depend on AoO like Mobility for example, don't work as well or just don't apply at all. I've removed them from their respective feat chains for those who are pursuing say Whirlwind attack.

Multiclassing is still having the kinks worked out. It will appear in the CKG and as a PDF download from the Trolls in the coming days. The current system, or what we have left over from the playtest document, is similar to 1st ed. The resulting characters are a bit more "juiced" than their single class counterparts, but I'm confident that the Trolls and the members of the C&C Society will come up with a fix very soon.

Great idea on the Black Company, I've been looking forward to that relase myself. I haven't picked it up yet, but I feel confident that I can cobble a C&C version together w/ very little effort.


----------



## (Psi)SeveredHead (Jan 18, 2005)

cleaverthepit said:
			
		

> I occasionally feel a wee bit uncomfortable posting about our products outside the publishers forum. But, I -f-e-e-l-c-o-m-p-e-l-l-e-d!!! (I just watched the whole of the new Battlestar Galactica  series, sorta cool)
> 
> First, I want to dispel a few things that continue to haunt C&C:
> 
> 1. There are no level limits for any class/race combination




Woot.



> 2. Races are not restricted to particular classes or from classes




Woot.



> 3. AC is positive




Woot.



> 4. Ability modifier progression begins at 13 (13-15 = +1, 16-17 = +2, 18-19 = +3)




Not woot. This is hardly better than in 2e.

When I first heard about C&C, it was in a playtest thread. I recalled at the time that bonuses did not start until 15, but I believed things had gotten better because of the playtest (eg bonuses starting until 13).

However, these kinds of bonuses mean players are required to have quite high stats to be good at things. Why the higher ceiling?


----------



## Desdichado (Jan 18, 2005)

The Sophist said:
			
		

> I don't think TLG is claiming that C&C is going to replace 3.5 D&D in the market.



Neither do I, so your post is pretty much a _non sequiter_.  I think there's an implication amongst many of its fans, though, that it's going to take a lot of D&D players and turn them into C&C players instead.


----------



## Henry (Jan 18, 2005)

(Psi)SeveredHead said:
			
		

> When I first heard about C&C, it was in a playtest thread. I recalled at the time that bonuses did not start until 15, but I believed things had gotten better because of the playtest (eg bonuses starting until 13).
> 
> However, these kinds of bonuses mean players are required to have quite high stats to be good at things. Why the higher ceiling?




From another outside perspective (don't have the rules yet), this is ten times better than 1E and 2E. In fact, this is the progression from the Basic D&D (Holmes/Moldvay/Cook) sets. What it means is that bonuses are not common, but they are not rarefied, either. In 1E, bonuses required 15 and up; when the most powerful generation method until 1985 was 4d6 drop lowest, this meant that most characters didn't have a single plus unless the DM was just handing out high scores. (Like the Unearthed Arcana method seemed to do - its method was basically roll 9d6, 8d6, 7d6, etc. down the line, and arrange according to class. Why not just tell the player they had an 18,17,16,15,14,13, and just do what they wished?)

With C&C, ability scores are lower, I'm GUESSING that hit points are lower (don't know for sure), AC's are lower, pretty much all numbers across the board are slightly lower than their 3E counterparts. Lower means not as much need for high stats.


----------



## (Psi)SeveredHead (Jan 18, 2005)

Henry said:
			
		

> From another outside perspective (don't have the rules yet), this is ten times better than 1E and 2E. In fact, this is the progression from the Basic D&D (Holmes/Moldvay/Cook) sets. What it means is that bonuses are not common, but they are not rarefied, either. In 1E, bonuses required 15 and up; when the most powerful generation method until 1985 was 4d6 drop lowest, this meant that most characters didn't have a single plus unless the DM was just handing out high scores. (Like the Unearthed Arcana method seemed to do - its method was basically roll 9d6, 8d6, 7d6, etc. down the line, and arrange according to class. Why not just tell the player they had an 18,17,16,15,14,13, and just do what they wished?)
> 
> With C&C, ability scores are lower, I'm GUESSING that hit points are lower (don't know for sure), AC's are lower, pretty much all numbers across the board are slightly lower than their 3E counterparts. Lower means not as much need for high stats.




I've only played 2e, not 1e or basic.

Have you ever played Alternity? I preferred it to 2e, and there were reasons for that. One was the ability score system. In Alternity, no matter what your ability score was, it was important. If you had a Dex of 10, this was different from having a Dex of 11, and was different from having a Dex of 12, and so forth, since even a single point affected your skills. (I'm not including damage or resistance modifiers... you needed two points to affect those.) You didn't need high stats at all (but, of course, they helped). Too bad Alternity didn't have a weighed point buy.

In 3e stats were given half the importance they were given in Alternity. Nonetheless having a low stat hurt, having a high stat helped, and you could get a decent stat mod without having to take a 16 or so. A stat difference of only 2 points contributes to skills, not to mention AC, saves, damage, etc.

In C&C they have 1/3rd the importance of Alternity stats. I don't think that's a good thing, and I certainly don't want to see an overabundance of 13s for no good reason. It also causes me to wonder how they balanced the races. If an elf with Con -2 takes a Con of 15, it drops to 13, giving _no penalty whatsoever_! Did elves take -3 Con?


----------



## Akrasia (Jan 18, 2005)

Joshua Dyal said:
			
		

> I have the sense that there's a handful of really vocal supporters online, and other than that, it's just another d20/OGL product -- nothing particularly exciting to your average Joe Blow gamer.
> ...
> I think there's an implication amongst many of its fans, though, that it's going to take a lot of D&D players and turn them into C&C players instead.




I think it will appeal to many people who: (a.) never liked 3.x D&D in the first place; (b.) have grown dissatisfied with 3.x; or (c.) want an occasional 'beer and pretzels' or 'old school' alternative to 3.x .  

It does not seem unreasonable to think that the combined size of (a.), (b.), and (c.) is large enough to ensure the viability of C&C.  Whether that constitutes "excitement" for "Joe Blow gamer" depends on whether "Joe Blow" belongs to one of thes groups.


----------



## Akrasia (Jan 18, 2005)

(Psi)SeveredHead said:
			
		

> ... Not woot. This is hardly better than in 2e.
> 
> When I first heard about C&C, it was in a playtest thread. I recalled at the time that bonuses did not start until 15, but I believed things had gotten better because of the playtest (eg bonuses starting until 13).
> 
> However, these kinds of bonuses mean players are required to have quite high stats to be good at things. Why the higher ceiling?




If you want to use the 3E modifiers to ability scores, _go ahead and use them _ (so long as you apply them across the board).  It will not cause a problem for the game at all.


----------



## Jackal42 (Jan 18, 2005)

The reason C&C doesn't make each attribute point different (11 to a 12 for example) is for simplicity. I'm not saying the Alternity system was a lot more complex but it was more complex and C&C is trying to trim the fat so to speak. Keep in mind that also only applies to bonuses. In a way, each attribute point in C&C IS different. Each point of strength allows a character to lift or carry more weight (not for encumbrance), and a higher dexterity (not dex bonus) breaks initiative ties. Also there is a nice section which tells you when you should make attribute checks (not as often as in most versions of D&D) and when you should just decide what happens based on the situation or attribute. For instance, if two characters want to throw the same rock in a contest to see which can throw it farther there is no need for strength checks. Just see which has the highest strength and that character wins. The same can be done for each attribute in several cases making each point in C&C important but not to the degree that it takes over the game.

Also, you have to keep primes in mind. Because of the prime system attribute bonuses are actually less important than they ever were in any version of D&D. That isn't to say it's not nice to have that +1 to your armor class or +2 to break that chain with your hands, etc but you don't need high scores to have good characters in C&C. In addition to primes there are other small reasons for this, like dexterity modifier not being applied to your initiative roll, etc.

My group findes that, for the first time, they enjoy a high score but they don't feel the need for one and I think that's exactly what the Trolls were going for.


----------



## Flexor the Mighty! (Jan 18, 2005)

(Psi)SeveredHead said:
			
		

> In C&C they have 1/3rd the importance of Alternity stats. I don't think that's a good thing, and I certainly don't want to see an overabundance of 13s for no good reason. It also causes me to wonder how they balanced the races. If an elf with Con -2 takes a Con of 15, it drops to 13, giving _no penalty whatsoever_! Did elves take -3 Con?




None of the races get a +2 to any stat if I remember, its all +1's.  The Elf gets a +1 to Dex and -1 to Con, and I can't remember if they get a mod to Cha.  The ability system is straight out of the Rules Cyclopedia version of D&D as far as I can tell.  It works for me.


----------



## Sammael (Jan 18, 2005)

In other words, the system encourages the min/maxing of attributes. Feh. I thought this was one of the greatest accomplishments of 3.x.


----------



## Henry (Jan 18, 2005)

However, keep in mind that the min-maxing doesn't get you a whole lot.

The thing that I'm most disappointed to hear (and which worries me most) is that multi-classing is not covered in the CPHB. If using the old multi-classing, or too close to it, multiclassers will have the larger advantage.


----------



## Akrasia (Jan 18, 2005)

Players who approach this game with a min/max mentality are unlikely to like it very much in any case.


----------



## Akrasia (Jan 18, 2005)

Henry said:
			
		

> ... The thing that I'm most disappointed to hear (and which worries me most) is that multi-classing is not covered in the CPHB. If using the old multi-classing, or too close to it, multiclassers will have the larger advantage.




Henry -- why would this be the case?

(I am not disagreeing with you here, I am just curious about your reasons for making this claim.  I don't recall multiclass characters in OAD&D or elves in RC D&D having any clear advantage over single class characters beyond level 1, given their slower progression rates.)

I was disappointed by the absence of these rules as well, though I have some house rules cooked up that seem to work okay (or so I hope!).


----------



## National Acrobat (Jan 18, 2005)

*Maybe in the Short Term*



			
				Henry said:
			
		

> However, keep in mind that the min-maxing doesn't get you a whole lot.
> 
> The thing that I'm most disappointed to hear (and which worries me most) is that multi-classing is not covered in the CPHB. If using the old multi-classing, or too close to it, multiclassers will have the larger advantage.




Maybe in the short term, but I think once the xp starts to pile up and the single classed characters progress farther, you see that the multi-classed characters will fall behind in levels. Certainly what they can do at their levels is probably loaded with more options, but still, since the xp charts are like the old 1E charts, eventually a party with 3 12th level characters and one 9/9 character is going to favor the 12th level characters. Which is the same way it was when I ran 1E Campaigns. Eventually the multi-classed characters begin to fall behind a bit, as it should be.

I use the old 1E rules for multi-classing and my group is comprised of 6 characters. I have a Ranger 5, Cleric 5, Paladin 5, Wizard 5, Thief 5 and Fighter/Thief 4/3.

It really hasn't presented a problem yet, except that the multi-classed character has a lot less hit points on average, and he isn't a terribly good front line fighter due to his armor restrictions.



			
				Sammael said:
			
		

> In other words, the system encourages the min/maxing of attributes. Feh. I thought this was one of the greatest accomplishments of 3.x.




I haven't seen this at all in my group, but never have. I've been dming the same bunch for over 15 years, and no matter what the version of the game, we've always rolled 4d6, drop the lowest for scores, no modifications, and no one ever gripes. Switching to C&C hasn't changed that a bit.

Heck, the 5th Level thief in my group has stats of 9, 13, 8, 14, 8, 13. He does just fine and likes his character.


----------



## scadgrad (Jan 18, 2005)

Sammael said:
			
		

> In other words, the system encourages the min/maxing of attributes. Feh. I thought this was one of the greatest accomplishments of 3.x.




Actually no. Since all 6 abilities are tied to a distinct save, min/maxing will lead to one, two, or even three dreadfully bad saves. Plus, the standard ability generation method is 3d6 arranged to suit. It's pretty hard to min/max with the kinds of numbers that are typically generated w/ this method. Of course you could use whatever method you want to generate stats.

From my experience 3.5 campaigns feature a more than healthy dose of min/maxing which is only made worse by the addition of feats tailored made to exasperate the min/max effect. Could you please clarify what you mean by "the greatest accomplishments of 3.x?"


----------



## Dragonhelm (Jan 18, 2005)

Thunhus said:
			
		

> Bad points:
> -It's not Dungeons&Dragons (harder to get players)




Yes and no.  It doesn't have the D&D name, so that'll be a strike against it.  

Looking at the game, though, it is at its heart D&D.  It takes from all editions of the game to create what is essentially a new "edition".  

While not having the D&D logo on it will be a strike against it, having the very heart of D&D will be a bonus.  I think that alone will bring in a few players.


----------



## scadgrad (Jan 18, 2005)

Henry said:
			
		

> However, keep in mind that the min-maxing doesn't get you a whole lot.
> 
> The thing that I'm most disappointed to hear (and which worries me most) is that multi-classing is not covered in the CPHB. If using the old multi-classing, or too close to it, multiclassers will have the larger advantage.





Yeah, I was disappointed w/ the exclusion of multiclass rules too, but the Trolls assured us that it would appear very soon. There was just a considerable amount of disagreement over the best ruleset for multiclass and duel class characters. They should appear as a free pdf in the very near future and IIRC, they'll be featured in the CKG.

We're currently using the old playtest rules for the time being, but you could easily house rule your own. The game is meant to be houseruled after all.


----------



## Flexor the Mighty! (Jan 18, 2005)

scadgrad said:
			
		

> Actually no. Since all 6 abilities are tied to a distinct save, min/maxing will lead to one, two, or even three dreadfully bad saves. Plus, the standard ability generation method is 3d6 arranged to suit. It's pretty hard to min/max with the kinds of numbers that are typically generated w/ this method. Of course you could use whatever method you want to generate stats.
> 
> From my experience 3.5 campaigns feature a more than healthy dose of min/maxing which is only made worse by the addition of feats tailored made to exasperate the min/max effect. Could you please clarify what you mean by "the greatest accomplishments of 3.x?"



 I'd like to hear too.  3.x can be a min/maxers dream system.  

But with prime attributes a high score isn't always better in C&C.  If you look at pure modifier it seems that way but on closer examination it isn't necessarily going to be better if the stat isn't a prime stat.


----------



## Desdichado (Jan 18, 2005)

Akrasia said:
			
		

> I think it will appeal to many people who: (a.) never liked 3.x D&D in the first place; (b.) have grown dissatisfied with 3.x; or (c.) want an occasional 'beer and pretzels' or 'old school' alternative to 3.x .
> 
> It does not seem unreasonable to think that the combined size of (a.), (b.), and (c.) is large enough to ensure the viability of C&C.  Whether that constitutes "excitement" for "Joe Blow gamer" depends on whether "Joe Blow" belongs to one of thes groups.



Viability is one thing.  However, there are folks out there, yourself included (no offense) who seem to believe that C&C will take the world by storm.  I'm just saying I find that incredibly unlikely.

Maybe that's only my personal preference, because I have little interest in, or need of, something like C&C.  It seems like it's built primarily to cater to the nostalgia of gamers who didn't like the way 3e went with D&D.  Seems to me like that's the constraint on the size of its market, to a large degree.  Most D&D players seem to prefer 3e to any other previous edition, and many (myself included) wouldn't be playing D&D at all if it wasn't for 3e, as we had left the game entirely, frustrated with how badly designed it was.

Now, I know that C&C isn't just the nostalgia angle.  Seems to me, though, that that's its main marketing schtick, and the majority of players who like it seem to be much more "old skool" in their preferences.


----------



## scadgrad (Jan 18, 2005)

Henry said:
			
		

> From another outside perspective (don't have the rules yet), this is ten times better than 1E and 2E. In fact, this is the progression from the Basic D&D (Holmes/Moldvay/Cook) sets. What it means is that bonuses are not common, but they are not rarefied, either. In 1E, bonuses required 15 and up; when the most powerful generation method until 1985 was 4d6 drop lowest, this meant that most characters didn't have a single plus unless the DM was just handing out high scores. (Like the Unearthed Arcana method seemed to do - its method was basically roll 9d6, 8d6, 7d6, etc. down the line, and arrange according to class. Why not just tell the player they had an 18,17,16,15,14,13, and just do what they wished?)
> 
> With C&C, ability scores are lower, I'm GUESSING that hit points are lower (don't know for sure), AC's are lower, pretty much all numbers across the board are slightly lower than their 3E counterparts. Lower means not as much need for high stats.




Yeah, even in my feat-enhanced campaign, HPs tend to be lower, even more so for the bad guys (monsters). ACs seem to be about the same, perhaps just slightly less because of the absence of PC-made magic armor and other goodies.

Both of these apply directly to the monsters as well. They don't have a con bonus and as such have significantly less HPs than in 3.X and since they typically have no bonus to damage (most do straight up damage dice w/ no bonus) you don't take quite as much damage.

But yes your assessment is pretty accurate. C&C just did away with a lot of the Power Creep that's been going on since the introduction of 2nd ed.


----------



## Henry (Jan 18, 2005)

National Acrobat said:
			
		

> ...the xp charts are like the old 1E charts, eventually a party with 3 12th level characters and one 9/9 character is going to favor the 12th level characters.




Not quite so true. In a party of any characters up until 10th level and using geometric experience tables, the two-classed multi-classer will only be one to two levels behind, and this means that they will have access to all but the highest powers of the single-classers. It's only at high levels that the evened-out xp charts make the level progression fall steadily behind. In a party of 9th level pc's (the max for 70% of the D&D campaigns out there), the multi-classers will be 7th to 9th. In a group of 6th level PC's, they'll be about 5th level. 

The arithmetic tables of 3E would actually be a better fit in this regard, because the level gap gets larger quicker.

Now, if the multi-class system is somewhat different from 1E ("best of this, best of that, average of the other") I'll be happier, but the 3E system as is well known would tend to shaft the spell-casters.


----------



## scadgrad (Jan 18, 2005)

*Hey National Acrobat...*

National Acrobat,

Hey, what part of Virginia are you in? If you're anywhere near Richmond (us C&C types need to stick together), drop me a line at:

scadgrad@comcast.net


----------



## Jackal42 (Jan 18, 2005)

I'll be living in the Richmond, VA area myself in a few months. 

As for multiclassing rules the following are my house rules. They're based on the last playtest version of C&C but I tinkered with them to fix certain problems and came up with something that more matches my playstyle. My group isn't seeing multiclass characters becoming more powerful than single class characters. In fact, many people are staying away from multiclass characters because you have to add your xp charts together before you advance in anything (a balancing change from the 1e/2e system). And dual-class characters are limited to only two classes (as are true-multiclass characters) so that keeps people from taking a few levels in each class (dual-class in my version represents more of a life change). Anyway, here you go:

Multiclassing: Two types of multiclassing are possible; true multiclassing and dual-classing.

When a player wishes to have a true multiclass character he must abide by the following restrictions:

1- No more than two classes may be taken.

2- To advance a level the character must earn enough experience points to advance in both classes at the same time. For example, a 1st level fighter/rogue would require 3252 experience points to advance to a 2nd level fighter/rogue.

3- The character must take the prime from both of his classes. For example a fighter/rogue must have both strength and dexterity as prime attributes. Human characters may still choose their third attribute as they wish.

4- The character uses the best bonus to hit chart available to him. A 2nd level fighter/rogue would use the fighter's +2 bonus to hit.

5- The character averages his hit points by rolling for both classes, dividing each result in half (rounding fractions up), and then adding the two together. Any constitution modifer the character may have is applied to the final total. For example a fighter/rogue rolls 1d10 and gets a result of 8 for his fighter class. The player also rolls 1d6 for his rogue class and gets a 4. Both results are divided in half and then added together for a total of 6. If the character has a constitution of 16 (+2 modifier) the final total would become 8 hit points.

6- The character may use any armor and weapons available to both of his classes (though they still suffer class related penalties if wearing armor not permitted to both classes) unless one class is restricted in the use of either due to spiritual or honorable reasons, such as the cleric, druid, and knight classes. In such a case the character must still abide by these restrictions or risk breaking his spiritual or honorable vows.

7- The character gains all other benefits and penalties of both classes such as a fighter's extra attack and a wizard's inability to wear armor while casting spells.

When a player wishes to have a dual-class character he must abide by the following restrictions:

1- No more than two classes may be taken.

2- The character must advance to at least 2nd level in his first class before switching to his second class.

3- The character's second class must be one for which he already has a prime attribute.

4- If all of the above criteria are met then the character may abandon his first class and begin to gain experience points in his second class. He may not, however, return to his original class at a later date since such class changes usually stem from life altering events.

5- The character uses the best bonus to hit chart available to him. A 2nd level fighter who begins to advance as a druid would continue to use the fighter's +2 bonus to hit until he became a 6th level druid, at which point he would begin to use the druid's +3 bonus to hit.

6- The character may use any armor and weapons available to both of his classes (though they still suffer class related penalties if wearing armor not permitted to both classes) unless one class is restricted in the use of either due to spiritual or honorable reasons, such as the cleric, druid, and knight classes. In such a case the character must still abide by these restrictions or risk breaking his spiritual or honorable vows.

7- The character gains all other benefits and penalties of both classes such as a fighter's extra attack and a wizard's inability to wear armor while casting spells.

8- The character adds his hit dice from both classes together but may still never have more than ten total hit dice. A 2nd level fighter/6th level druid, for example, would have 2d10 hit dice from his fighter class as well as the 6d8 from his druid class. Once the character reaches a total of ten levels (2nd level fighter/8th level druid) he would begin to gain hit points according to his current class upon attaining the next level of experience. 

If you like them, tell the Trolls, maybe they'll go in the CKG.


----------



## Particle_Man (Jan 18, 2005)

For what it is worth, since C&C's ease of introducing house rules is one of its strengths, here is my house rule:

Races with ability adjustments don't adjust the ability: they adjust the ability modifier.  Thus a gnome with an INt of 13 with a +1 to Int doesn't get a 14 int, but gets a 13 int with a +2 modifier instead of the standard +1.  This was my effort to stop people "cheesing out" with their bonuses and penalties by trying to find ways to gain a bonus an "lose" a penalty in the shuffle, like taking one 12 to 13 (getting a bonus) and another 11 to 10 (losing nothing, pretty much).

In addition, I say that all challenge levels start at 18 (rather than either 12 or 18).  Primes give certain stats a +6 bonus to their modifiers for most non-combat actions (so a human with 13 str that is prime would have a modifier of +1/+7, where the former is used in meelee to hit and damage, and a few other things I don't remember right now, and the latter is used for most other things (attribute rolls, str. saves, etc.).  Mechanically that is the same, but it is more intuitive to me, somehow.

By the way, the encumbrance rules are interesting, but I don't get how strength and pure weight of items works.  I saw that you can military press X, or dead lift Y, where X and Y are based on strength, but is there a list for the maximum that you can simply carry around?  Or is that all subsumed in encumbrance?


----------



## National Acrobat (Jan 18, 2005)

scadgrad said:
			
		

> National Acrobat,
> 
> Hey, what part of Virginia are you in? If you're anywhere near Richmond (us C&C types need to stick together), drop me a line at:
> 
> scadgrad@comcast.net




I'm in Glen Allen. I run a C&C game on Wednesday Nights.

Where in Richmond are you?


----------



## Jackal42 (Jan 18, 2005)

That's an interesting house rule for attribute modifiers. Have you thought about joining the C&CS so you can get in on the CKG talks? If nothing else I'd run over to the TLG boards and post that...assuming you don't mind the Trolls throwing it into the CKG if they choose. 

As for weight carried around, that's all taken care of by encumbrance. The weight of an item is figured into its encumbrance value. So you don't ever calculate weight carried unless you're talking about how much an animal can carry around (at least so far). The encumbrance rules will ensure that you don't carry too much weight.


----------



## Particle_Man (Jan 18, 2005)

Jackal42 said:
			
		

> That's an interesting house rule for attribute modifiers. Have you thought about joining the C&CS so you can get in on the CKG talks? If nothing else I'd run over to the TLG boards and post that...assuming you don't mind the Trolls throwing it into the CKG if they choose.




I have tried, seriously.  I e-mailed them, etc.  But they don't return my emails saying "Of COURSE you can join!" or give me the secret password.  Always a bridesmaid...  

Anyhow, I hereby not only give you permission, but officially deputize you to put the attribute mod. idea on the CKG section of the troll boards in my name (Alex Boston, for the nifty contributor book credit and associated egoboo).

Hmmm...I guess animal encumbrance could be simulated by giving each monster a "Base" encumbrance number (with humans, et al., that base is 8).


----------



## National Acrobat (Jan 18, 2005)

Henry said:
			
		

> Now, if the multi-class system is somewhat different from 1E ("best of this, best of that, average of the other") I'll be happier, but the 3E system as is well known would tend to shaft the spell-casters.




Multi-Class isn't the best of everything. You still have armor and weapon restrictions based upon your class choices. Fighter/Mages still can't wear armor if they are casting, Clerics still can't use weapons not on their list, etc. I play it that way, because it balances it out. Yeah, the Fighter/Thief in the group fights with a two-handed sword, unless he's trying to backstab. 

The spellcasters still get hurt in C&C if they multiclass, because the target number for your spells still adds your level to the check, so if you are a lower level spell caster (multi-classed) going up against foes of the same xp range, your spells still will be easier to resist, not unlike the 3E mechanic. In C&C it still is better to be a single classed caster.

Also, the xp charts aren't a direct copy of 1E. Clerics for instance, need to gain as many xp as the arcanists do. Gone is the easy xp progression of the cleric and druid.


----------



## Akrasia (Jan 18, 2005)

Joshua Dyal said:
			
		

> Viability is one thing.  However, there are folks out there, yourself included (no offense) who seem to believe that C&C will take the world by storm.  I'm just saying I find that incredibly unlikely.




Umm ... I have _never_ claimed that "C&C will take the world by storm."   :\   In fact, earlier in this thread (and elsewhere) I stated that C&C should be considered a success if it does as well as, say, Mongoose's Conan RPG.  (Also, I think that some of the C&C supplements, e.g. the Castle Zagyg series, will do extremely well because they will appeal to gamers outside of C&C.)



			
				Joshua Dyal said:
			
		

> Maybe that's only my personal preference, because I have little interest in, or need of, something like C&C.  It seems like it's built primarily to cater to the nostalgia of gamers who didn't like the way 3e went with D&D.  Seems to me like that's the constraint on the size of its market, to a large degree.  Most D&D players seem to prefer 3e to any other previous edition, and many (myself included) wouldn't be playing D&D at all if it wasn't for 3e, as we had left the game entirely, frustrated with how badly designed it was.




3E brought me back to D&D as well.  After DMing two (rather successful) campaigns, I have come to realize that it just does not suit my DM style at all.  C&C fixes the things I didn't like about RC D&D, but without introducing the things I don't like about 3E.  This is of course my personal preference -- but I think there are many other people like me.

Moreover, most gaming groups are _not_ monolithic.  In my group, for example, I am not the only GM.  One of the other GMs is keen to run 3E (or rather, the Midnight version), and I am happy to play it.  The third GM in our group also likes 3E, but is eager to try some alternative systems like Ars Magica and Burning Wheel.  And aside from C&C, I am keen to run a minicampaign for Angel/Buffy.  

Many people in this thread have expressed interest in using C&C for an occasional 'pick up' or 'beer and pretzel' game, while sticking to 3E for their 'main' campaigns.  

In short, C&C might appeal to may gamers who will not convert 'wholesale' to the system.   



			
				Joshua Dyal said:
			
		

> Now, I know that C&C isn't just the nostalgia angle.  Seems to me, though, that that's its main marketing schtick, and the majority of players who like it seem to be much more "old skool" in their preferences.




I agree that TLG needs to emphasize the 'rules light' and 'modular' aspects of C&C more (apparently they do this, with some success, at conventions).  Perhaps future advertising will be along these lines.


----------



## Akrasia (Jan 18, 2005)

Particle_Man said:
			
		

> For what it is worth, since C&C's ease of introducing house rules is one of its strengths, here is my house rule:
> 
> Races with ability adjustments don't adjust the ability: they adjust the ability modifier.  ....




I like this idea.  Did you play MERP back in the day by any chance?  (The same rule was used there.)


----------



## RFisher (Jan 18, 2005)

scadgrad said:
			
		

> If I want a 7th level Kobold Assassin in either of my C&C campaigns I can make one in 5 minutes. I'll just use the stats from the 3.5 MM give him 3 feats (we use feats in my campaigns) and some logical gear. Done.




5 minutes is a long time.

I'll just note that he operates as a 7th level assassin. When attribute scores become important, I'll make them up on the fly: Since he's a kobold, I'll give him low enough Str, Con, & Cha for a -1 mod for each. Since he's an assassin, I'll give him a high enough Dex for a +1 mod. I'll leave Int & Wis in the zero mod range.

Of course, if he's suppossed to be the world's greatest kobold assassin, perhaps I'd give him an 18 Dex instead.

Gear will be made up on-the-fly as needed. (When he attacks, I'll decide what weapon I think he'd have. When he is attacked, I'll decide what armor & AC I think he'd have. When the PCs search his body, I'll decide what other stuff I think he'd have.)

You don't need rules to make monsters interesting. You just have to realize that the monsters stats in the rules are only examples. Plus they give you a starting point from which to tweak in order to create unique individuals with no effort.


----------



## Particle_Man (Jan 18, 2005)

Akrasia said:
			
		

> I like this idea.  Did you play MERP back in the day by any chance?  (The same rule was used there.)




Naw, though I dimly remember seeing things for Arms Law, Claw Law, the Iron Wind, in old (OLD!) dragon magazine advertisements, and I did buy HARP recently.  But this idea was just something I came up with to stop min/maxers (frankly, if I don't watch myself I tend to min/max, so it's a concern I look out for when I might run a game).

Personally, I am happy with C&C although I am waiting to see what they do with the M&T.  I am also trying to figure out modifying the Warlock for C&C (what to tone down, what to leave in), and also maybe Arthurian Adventures: Legends of Excalibur (although maybe not the latter - I am dming it right now and my players might revolt on me if I do a mid-campaign massive rules changes).

I think illusion adjudication needs a bit of work, but I think that about every gaming system I have ever come across that uses illusions.  I swear, someday I will write up something on this.  Maybe not for a particular game system, but something that breaks down illusions into various components and effects (hallucination/hologram, what "partially real" amounts to, whether one person disbelieving it successfully influences what another person sees, illusions of various senses, how easy it is for spellcasters to detect illusions, etc., etc., oh god etc.,  and then allows the game master to build up exactly what works for them.  An illusions encyclopedia/toolkit.  But that is a topic for another thread.

I think it will catch on, but unless it is marketed more agressively, it will not catch on that quickly.  Word of mouth only goes so far.

As for whether C&C will catch on more quickly than word of mouth would warrant, well, I think a lot of it will come down to FLGSs wanting to risk it or not.  I mean, word of mouth is good, but for a lot of new gamers, if it ain't in the store, then they won't even know it exists.  So while I think the product is solid, a big factor will be how well this product is marketed.  Trolllord games could perhaps sell the book in non-standard places, like Wallmart, Big bookstores, Big Grocery/Drug Stores (which often have small book sections), etc.  It is inexpensive, and that is an advantage, but people have to know about the product to take advantage of this.

But measures of success are relative.  On one level, I think that Trolllord Games will make a profit on C&C (that is, they will make more money than their expenses amount to, including salaries for their employees).  On another level, it certainly won't overtake D&D (and no one thinks it would or could).  If there is a standard of "success" that fits in-between these two points, that standard needs to be defined before we can talk about whether or not C&C will be a "success".


----------



## RFisher (Jan 18, 2005)

I understand your point of view, Moogle. (Indeed, I held similar views in the past.) There are people, however, who find many of the things you find inelegant to be elegant. It's not only nostaglia. It's also different criteria.

I don't think C&C is for you.


----------



## Breakdaddy (Jan 18, 2005)

RFisher said:
			
		

> I understand your point of view, Moogle. (Indeed, I held similar views in the past.) There are people, however, who find many of the things you find inelegant to be elegant. It's not only nostaglia. It's also different criteria.




This is a good way to look at it. I find the piles and piles of rules in 3.x to be terribly inelegant (functional, however anything but elegant).


----------



## Desdichado (Jan 18, 2005)

Akrasia said:
			
		

> Umm ... I have _never_ claimed that "C&C will take the world by storm."   :\   In fact, earlier in this thread (and elsewhere) I stated that C&C should be considered a success if it does as well as, say, Mongoose's Conan RPG.



Now, Akrasia, don't go confusing what you actually said with my vague impressions of your taste from some thread you posted in in Novemer or something like that.


----------



## Jackal42 (Jan 18, 2005)

Particle_Man, your idea has been posted in the CKG forum along with your name (screen and real) in case there is any credit to give. Thanks for letting me post it. I really think that's something which should go in the CKG.


----------



## Numion (Jan 18, 2005)

The interest of Dragonsfoot forums is actually a negative in my book. 

Anyway, I think that removing stuff from a game is a lot easier than adding stuff, so the argument that anything missing from C&C can be added is an empty one. "Well, you can houserule it" has always been a weak argument when it comes to discussing merits of RPG systems. I pay good money for the games I buy - I expect them to be 'complete'. 

Strike three for me about C&C is the annoying habit of people actually spending more time on 3.5e's shortcomings rather than C&Cs strengths when trying to 'sell' the game. This doesn't connect well with the large amount of stuff thats recommended to be houseruled in from 3e ..


----------



## Breakdaddy (Jan 18, 2005)

Numion said:
			
		

> The interest of Dragonsfoot forums is actually a negative in my book.
> 
> Anyway, I think that removing stuff from a game is a lot easier than adding stuff, so the argument that anything missing from C&C can be added is an empty one. "Well, you can houserule it" has always been a weak argument when it comes to discussing merits of RPG systems. I pay good money for the games I buy - I expect them to be 'complete'.
> 
> Strike three for me about C&C is the annoying habit of people actually spending more time on 3.5e's shortcomings rather than C&Cs strengths when trying to 'sell' the game. This doesn't connect well with the large amount of stuff thats recommended to be houseruled in from 3e ..




As someone who has tried to remove AoOs and some skills from 3.5e I can say from watching the domino effect of broken things that the argument is strong. You have a good point about the turn the discussion has taken in favor of discussing the 3.x weaknesses over the C&C strengths, but considering the fact that this board is heavily 3.x weighted, I suspect these arguments are more for comparative analysis then as some sort of attempt to undermine the validity of 3.x as a system. Anyone who is really interested in finding out the merits of C&C should head over to the Troll Lord Games URL and check their forums. If you like 3.x as-is and wouldnt bother taking most things out of the game to begin with then, as has been stated several times before in this thread, keep playing 3.x! I dont think anyone here wants you to do anything but enjoy your games and have fun, if 3.x D&D is how you have fun then that is excellent! I still like 3.5e D&D, but I can see a lot of merit in pacing a more streamlined game with C&C.


----------



## Akrasia (Jan 18, 2005)

Joshua Dyal said:
			
		

> Now, Akrasia, don't go confusing what you actually said with my vague impressions of your taste from some thread you posted in in Novemer or something like that.




Sorry about that.


----------



## Akrasia (Jan 18, 2005)

Numion said:
			
		

> The interest of Dragonsfoot forums is actually a negative in my book.




How sweet!  We love you too Numion!    



			
				Numion said:
			
		

> Anyway, I think that removing stuff from a game is a lot easier than adding stuff ...




This is is actually incorrect as a generalization.  Or, more precisely, it is incorrect if the various elements of the model or game that you start with are all extremely _interdependent._ 

For example, in economics (or, for that matter, any discipline that uses models) it is FAR EASIER to modify a simple model -- including introducing new variables -- than it is to modify a very complex model.

The reason is simple. The more interdependent variables that you have in the model, the harder it is to control for the unintended consequences of altering any one of those variables. In contrast, if you start with a simple model, you can generally predict the likely consequences of either altering one variable, or introducing a new one, on the model as a whole. (I'm being a bit quick and sloppy here,  but my general point is correct nonetheless.)

What applies to formal models in economics also applies to game design.  

To continue with the analogy...
3E is an extremely complex model (which is often touted as a good thing about 3E, especially how all the different elements are carefully 'balanced' with each other). Altering any single variable (e.g. removing feats) can have all kinds of consequences for the model as a whole.

In contrast, a game like C&C is a (comparatively) simple model. The theorist (or CK) can generally predict and control the consequences of adding or changing one variable.

So modularity is a genuine feature of C&C.    



			
				Numion said:
			
		

> Strike three for me about C&C is the annoying habit of people  ....




Well people have annoying habits.  And guess what -- you don't have to play with them!  What has that got to do with the game itself?  
 :\


----------



## MoogleEmpMog (Jan 18, 2005)

Breakdaddy said:
			
		

> This is a good way to look at it. I find the piles and piles of rules in 3.x to be terribly inelegant (functional, however anything but elegant).




Much of 3.x *is* inelegant:

Spells, many feats, some skills, TURNING UNDEAD (good golly, how did this survive without being converted to the actual, y'know, d20 system?), the XP charts that scale in two different ways, a handful of DCs starting at 11 rather than 10(!), ability modifiers only at half levels and starting from 10(!), AoOs and the action structure, wonky multiplication systems, monster hit dice prior to 3.5's fix...  

Like you, I find piles and piles of rules inelegant by default.  For a rules-heavy system like (A)D&D, 3.x is quite elegant and some of the d20 variants are even more so.  Considering the baggage 3.x came in with (nearly a decade of AD&D 2e, arguably the most inelegant system ever to enjoy wide popularity), its achievement is commendable.

But rules _exceptions_ are the very essence of inelegance: rules that you have to think twice about.  I suppose my biggest issue with C&C is that it's a rules-_lite_ system that is a mass of exceptions, including most of the worst offenders that D&D itself was cured of.  It may be a lighter, faster system, a more modular one (although I've brutally sliced and diced d20 with very little ill effect, so I do question that last).

I don't consider Allen Iverson terribly elegant compared to, say, Michael Jordan.  AI is certainly quicker than MJ, and possibly more maneuverable, but speed and lightness are different from elegance.

As to the modularity of 3.x... IF you assume that the CR system means much of anything outside of a controlled four-player four-archetype party in a dungeon environment, and that the game is balanced by default, then messing with the system could cause imbalances.  IF a CR 10 druid and a CR 10 dragon posed an equivalent challenge to a CR 10 ranger and a CR 10 giant, I'd be worried.  As it stands, I'll happily modify 3.x and do my own balancing, just as I have to with what WotC (and other publishers) give me.


----------



## trollwad (Jan 18, 2005)

Numion, you certainly dont have to look at C&C if you dont want to!  C&C is NOT all things to all people.  My main goal on these boards and the purpose of my lengthy description was to describe C&C to potentially interested parties, not to tell everyone that 3.5 sucks.  To the contrary, I play in and enjoy a regular 3.5e game.  On the other hand, I think I enjoy playing C&C more, and I get FAR FAR FAR more pleasure out of dming C&C than I do out of dming 3.5e (especially after about 5th level) in part due to what I perceive as the unbelievable prep time required for a 'proper' 3.5 game.

When you say that people are talking about 3e's shortcomings too much, understand that on THIS board it probably makes sense to talk about C&C vis-a-vis 3.5e, whereas on the Dragonsfoot board it makes sense to talk about C&C vis-a-vis 1e and Basic.  I just think that people are trying to consider their audience's frame of reference with their comparisons.


----------



## Akrasia (Jan 18, 2005)

MoogleEmpMog said:
			
		

> ....  I suppose my biggest issue with C&C is that it's a rules-_lite_ system that is a mass of exceptions, including most of the worst offenders that D&D itself was cured of.   ...




I am not really sure I know what you are talking about here.  Could you be more precise?

Based on some earlier incorrect things that you have said about the game (e.g. that it has race/class restrictions), I would be curious to know exactly what you are referring to here.


----------



## Treebore (Jan 19, 2005)

Numion said:
			
		

> The interest of Dragonsfoot forums is actually a negative in my book.
> 
> Anyway, I think that removing stuff from a game is a lot easier than adding stuff, so the argument that anything missing from C&C can be added is an empty one. "Well, you can houserule it" has always been a weak argument when it comes to discussing merits of RPG systems. I pay good money for the games I buy - I expect them to be 'complete'.
> 
> Strike three for me about C&C is the annoying habit of people actually spending more time on 3.5e's shortcomings rather than C&Cs strengths when trying to 'sell' the game. This doesn't connect well with the large amount of stuff thats recommended to be houseruled in from 3e ..





I believe you have seriously misinterpreted something. C&C is a "complete" game. As complete as any other game. However, if you want to import game mechanices from OD&D, 1E, 2E, or 3E you can easily do so BECAUSE C&C has been intentionally designed to do so.

So if you like C&C in its most basic form, great you have a complete game system. If you would like it better with the 3E skill system or feat system, great you can easily "houserule" it into your game. If you like the multi-classing or dual classing rules from 2E, great! You can easily "houserule" them into your game as well. Not to mention any other houserule that you think improves upon any aspect of the game. 

C&C is not designed to allow you to easily import ideas from other games. C&C does. That makes it a far more powerful system than 3E to me.

Yes, I realize that 3E can be as simple as I want it to be, I realize I can adapt anything I want to fit into the 3E rules set, but C&C is DESIGNED to make the simplification inherent and to minimize the work/effort of converting ideas. At least ideas I want to steal from any old edition of D&D, 3E, or Hackmaster.

I haven't checked into it yet, but I bet I can easily adapt some of the classes and rules that I like from Palladium, not to mention Green Ronin's skill based class books, etc...

So C&C's built in versatility has me classify it as a powerful system that allows any DM to have the "rules set" be tailored to exactly what they and their players want, with as minimal an effort as possible, even if that means no modifications.

That, to me, is C&C's over riding selling point.


As for those of you who seem to think us old time gamers are waxing nostalgic, maybe you should consider the possibility that because we have played for so long, with many different systems, that we may actually know a good thing when we see it.

Do I think C&C will "beat out" WOTC/3E? No. But I sure wouldn't be upset if it did. I just hope it is successful enough to be considered "worth doing" by the Troll Lords, and to stick around long enough to make me happy.


----------



## DMScott (Jan 19, 2005)

Mythmere1 said:
			
		

> It seems like there's a real trend to the 1E "feel" and rules lite movement these days (someone already did a thread about the rules-lite phenomenon)...




I was pretty disappointed when I saw the C&C book - some relatively important stuff seems to have not made it in. It looks like it's being marketed more as a nostalgic fad than a truly robust and complete game system. I dunno whether that's a good marketing decision or not, but I do know that it means it ain't the game for me.

OTOH, while talking with some buddies about what went wrong with C&C, we tossed around some ideas on rules-light games, and that kinda lead us to take a stab at trying a relatively rules-light, grim 'n' gritty type of game. We're using Chaosium's old Basic Role-Playing rules as the framework (with some houserules for magic and such), and Harn as the game world - had to reach deep into the wayback machine to find those. Looks like it could be fun.


----------



## Desdichado (Jan 19, 2005)

Treebore said:
			
		

> As for those of you who seem to think us old time gamers are waxing nostalgic, maybe you should consider the possibility that because we have played for so long, with many different systems, that we may actually know a good thing when we see it.



You should also consider the possibility that we're also old time gamers, who just happen to not put on such rose-colored glasses when looking at the past.


----------



## Kanegrundar (Jan 19, 2005)

I got to play in a mini-C&C game last weekend.  It really didn't impress me much.  I'm not saying that it's a bad system, it just didn't give me the experience that I enjoy at the gaming table.  That said, there are a few things that I liked:
1. It's super simple.  I had a character done within 5-10 minutes of being handed the C&C PHB.  That's nice!
2. It's easy to convert between systems.  The guy running the game used 1E, 2E, and 3E material all in the same game.  He even converted a few critters from each on the fly pretty quickly.

However, there were some things that I didn't like:
1. I didn't like how the ability scores were set up.  After playing 3E for a while, the change just didn't make a lot of sense to me.  
2. Multiple saving throws.  Why?  I just don't see the point of going back to old way of doing saving throws as opposed to 3E's 3 saves.  

I guess my main detraction from C&C was I like 3E.  There are a lot of rules, but at least I know there will likely be a rule for anything my players throw at me.  It's the right system for me, so I won't be switching over.

I hope Troll Lords does well with it, but so far it hasn't sold too well at the LGS's that I shop at, but it's still really new.  

Kane


----------



## Mythmere1 (Jan 19, 2005)

If it "hasn't sold too well" in four days on the market, as opposed to "what the heck is C&C," I'd say that bodes well.  It either hasn't arrived or has sold out in every game store I know of in Houston.  At least one of my players is looking for it and can't find it.


----------



## Breakdaddy (Jan 19, 2005)

Kanegrundar said:
			
		

> I guess my main detraction from C&C was I like 3E.  There are a lot of rules, but at least I know there will likely be a rule for anything my players throw at me.  It's the right system for me, so I won't be switching over.
> Kane




This is the most informed argument that I have seen against playing C&C so far. You've given the system a shot, found what you liked and didn't like about it, and have decided that you prefer 3e. There is absolutely nothing wrong with that. Thanks for sharing your experience!


----------



## Breakdaddy (Jan 19, 2005)

MoogleEmpMog said:
			
		

> As it stands, I'll happily modify 3.x and do my own balancing, just as I have to with what WotC (and other publishers) give me.




You've put up some good arguments. I think it all comes down to personal preference as far as these two systems go. I still wish you would give the system a shot if you ever got the opportunity. It might surprise you. I think that this set of rules covers an awful lot of contingencies and is easily adapted to most situations (combat or non combat). The C&C rules system helps me keep a faster pace in my game. This is a big bonus for me, but is very possibly completely unimportant to others. Either way, the most important thing to remember is that you should enjoy the game, whichever game you choose to play!


----------



## Psion (Jan 19, 2005)

Joshua Dyal said:
			
		

> You should also consider the possibility that we're also old time gamers, who just happen to not put on such rose-colored glasses when looking at the past.




Some do seem to forget that, yes...


----------



## Breakdaddy (Jan 19, 2005)

Psion said:
			
		

> Some do seem to forget that, yes...




Some people probably do, but that doesnt change the fact that this is a pretty fun game. I hope that you can do a review of this game in the future.


----------



## trollwad (Jan 19, 2005)

Hey mythmere1, drop me a quick email at txwad@aol.com with "C&C" in the header, I want to ask you a few questions about finding the C&C PHB in Houston (I ordered mine from Amazon)


----------



## Droogie (Jan 19, 2005)

Just want to take the opportunity to mention errata for C&C. The PHB is loaded with spelling errors; did anybody hit the spellcheck button before sending it off to print? Also, I couldn't seem to find  the ENC capacity of the various containers. Was a column left out of the equipment chart?

As for the game itself, it does give me a warm fuzzy feeling. It feels like the version of the Basic D&D RC I've always wanted. Will I run it? Not sure. Maybe I'll pick up the first C&C module, or better yet, break out my aging copy of B1: Keep on the Borderlands.

I'm glad to see that halfings are hobbits again. 

I can see this game filling an oddly vacant but oh-so-present niche, but it won't overtake 3.5 anymore than Basic D&D threatened AD&D. At least this time the games are made by separate companies.

Will a large community of C&C elitists emerge? Will C&C be the Macintosh to the bloated, buggy, yet infinitely popular Windows 3.5 ? If that were to happen, C&C would, at the very least, inspire the designers of D&D 4e to craft the most refined version of the most famous RPG yet. And thats not a bad thing.


----------



## ColonelHardisson (Jan 19, 2005)

Numion said:
			
		

> Strike three for me about C&C is the annoying habit of people actually spending more time on 3.5e's shortcomings rather than C&Cs strengths when trying to 'sell' the game.




This is something that plagues HackMaster, also. Many fans seem intent on praising the game for what it _isn't_ rather than for what it _is_. I figure that if a game is good, you don't have to define it by what it's not - "at least it's not d20!"

But it's always good to remember that a game can be good even if the fans of the game are annoying.

I just got my copy of C&C, and from what I've seen, it's a fine game. It does seem to harken back to 1e, but has enough differences to have its own feel.


----------



## Treebore (Jan 19, 2005)

Psion said:
			
		

> Some do seem to forget that, yes...



Or maybe we are looking at the past with clear vision, instead of what comes across as an argumentative and dark remembrance. If gaming was so bad back then why did you ever get into it enough to still be here all these years later?

There are no rose colored glasses. If everyone thought RPG's should be done the same there would not be Palladium, White Wolfs system, Deciphers CODA system, rolemaster, Harn, Traveller, etc...

If C&C isn't the game system for you, fine. If you are anti-C&C why are you posting on this thread? This thread is about those with positive opinions about C&C, not nay-sayers.


----------



## National Acrobat (Jan 19, 2005)

I agree, their are good things about all the games, old or new. Heck, I run a C&C campaign, and play in a 3.0 DnD Campaign. I love to do both, and it's a lot of fun.


----------



## Desdichado (Jan 19, 2005)

Treebore said:
			
		

> Or maybe we are looking at the past with clear vision, instead of what comes across as an argumentative and dark remembrance. If gaming was so bad back then why did you ever get into it enough to still be here all these years later?



I didn't.  I quit for years, and more specifically, I quit D&D for years because it was so frustrating.


			
				Treebore said:
			
		

> There are no rose colored glasses. If everyone thought RPG's should be done the same there would not be Palladium, White Wolfs system, Deciphers CODA system, rolemaster, Harn, Traveller, etc...



Quite true.


			
				Treebore said:
			
		

> If C&C isn't the game system for you, fine. If you are anti-C&C why are you posting on this thread? This thread is about those with positive opinions about C&C, not nay-sayers.



Apparently you missed the first post in the thread if that's what you think its about...


----------



## Acid_crash (Jan 19, 2005)

I was wondering, would it be possible for somebody to list the first three levels of each the Fighter class and Thief class, especially the xp required for each level.  I just want to see something about multiclassing.

Multiclassing is what I like about 3e over the previous editions.  I like that I can gain 1000 and choose my class I want to gain a level in without many requirements or disadvantages.  I hated that about pre-3e versions.  I hated that a person could gain 5 levels in Fighter, than dual-class and can now gain levels ONLY in that new class, without going back to the previous class.  That just doesn't strike me as fun.  I didn't like the multiclassing rules either, just confused me (and trying to figure hit points, attack bonuses, etc. from multiclassing was messed up to me).

I like that I can start as Fighter 1, gain a level, choose Rogue 1, and switch back and forth, and then lets say something happens and I die but get brought back and I have a change of heart, I could also take levels as a Cleric if I wanted.  I was wondering about how that would work in C&C, since each has different xp charts.  

If a person did the older multiclassing option, picking Fighter/Thief and gain xp in both and divide it, how long would it take to get a character to Fighter 4/Thief 4, and how much xp would each class need?  

Compare to the 3e option, but using C&C charts... how much xp would be required for a person in C&C to become a Fighter 4/Thief 4?  

Which option would make more sense with classes that have variant xp charts?


----------



## Anabstercorian (Jan 19, 2005)

There aren't any multiclassing rules yet.


----------



## cleaverthepit (Jan 19, 2005)

Steve did not want to go down the advertising/marketing raod we currently find ourselves travelling. He wanted "Castles & Crusades: For the Professional Gamer" or some such. In retrospect, he may have had a better idea. My marketing strategy was "here is game we came up with dudes. its short sweet and simple and so easy to manipulate i'm bringing in warhammer rules!!! take a look, you might like it."

Our marketing (and I use that word in the broadest sense possible) strategy may have needed refinement. My suggestion is, if you are curious, wait for the book to show up at a local game store or bookstore or perhaps get a copy from a friend who may drop by and have one on hand, peruse it and decide whether or not it may be worth your time to play a game or two.

You may not like it. As Kanegrundar elegently, consisely and politely pointed out, it was just not his cup of tea. (I am assuming you are male as your sig and such is that of my 2nd favorite S&S character of all time - Kane. The author, Karl Edward Wagner, penned a number of decidedly dark tales about Kane. Check them out.)

C&C will not be to everyone's liking. There are a vast number of games out their and an even more vast number of tastes and desires. It can not be everything to everyone. So don't fret, even though I have invested a bit of time an effort in the project and am quite happy and proud of it (as should be not a few members of the C&C Society), I also understand others will not take to it. I am neither offended nor put off. It a a broad world after all and enough room for all of us to play our games -- whichever those be.

On this, I think some people are taking offense at C&Cs existance. As if its very premise is an affront to 3.5. Its not. As I have said in the past, 3.x is a great system. Its level of complexity and the manner in which it comes together is an example of some profoundly good game design. In fact, I have come to think of 3.5 as a system design rather than a game design. And no, that is not to impugn it as a game. There are other games that I also have admiration for - Rolemaster, Warhammer and Exalted to name a few. 

I had a point to this post but between this and Army of Darkness I am having a difficult time concentrating and staying on course.

So here, let me make some quick points

1: C&C is a stand alone game. It can be run on its own without houseruling, without porting in other rules and without difficulty.

2: C&C has a very simple engine at its core. In fact, a simplified C&C can be run only on the SIEGE engine. One could nix attribute scores altogether and still run a game. One could nix ACs altogether. One could nix classes and still run the game. This, in my mind, makes it a powerful engine. Risk has a powerful game engine at its core. Monopoly also has a powerful game engine. The longevity and popularity of these games speaks to its core engines.

3: (midget attack in army of darkness) C&C is already, as far as TLG is concerned, a viable game that will be supported. No doubts. No ifs. No buts. it is just now arriving in stores through the normal distribution channels (we were wrong, we thought it would hit last week but our LGS distibutor told us he only shipped them this morning). Some storespre-ordered or called us up and ordered them

Sales will be spotty and localized with popular hot spots. We are already noting a few. In other areas it may not be so popular. But suffice it to say, C&C is here to stay. And, I am certain it will grow in popularity (and I am putting my money where my mouth is).

Uhh back in a minute.....

  If you have not seen Army of Darkness, please watch it. 

where was I going....  who knows?

uhh

real quick, multi-classing has not been officially dealt with yet. Its going to be difficult. If you want to help in the development of those rules,please feel free to join the discussions on our boards.

other issues....

cripes.  I'll be back much later with my post on monsters. I need to do something, something...

davis


----------



## Nathal (Jan 19, 2005)

Anabstercorian said:
			
		

> There aren't any multiclassing rules yet.




Davis, can you email me the password for the Castle Keepers Guide development forum on your message boards? I can't get in.   

Oh, and Army of Darkness is one of my wife's favorite movies (I like Evil Dead II even more).   

~Dan Cross
nathal@comcast.net


----------



## Akrasia (Jan 19, 2005)

DMScott said:
			
		

> I was pretty disappointed when I saw the C&C book - some relatively important stuff seems to have not made it in.




Ummmm .... _LIKE WHAT?_   :\ 

The only 'important thing' that I can think of that is missing are the rules for multiclassing.  

Aside from that, in terms of rules, the PHB has _everything_ that any version of the AD&D PHB had (1e, 2e, or 3e).

In fact, it has more: it includes GM advice on how to run campaigns and adventures.

I can understand if C&C is not everyone's (or even most people's) bag.  But it is annoying when people make hopelessly vague or unsubstantiated criticisms and/or comments about the game.



			
				DMScott said:
			
		

> It looks like it's being marketed more as a nostalgic fad than a truly robust and complete game system.




It seems pretty clear that it is being marketed as a very robust and _complete_ game system.  Contrary to your vague assertion to the contrary, that is precisely what it is.



			
				DMScott said:
			
		

> ... but I do know that it means it ain't the game for me.




Fair enough.  Exalted is not the game for me -- but at least if I go to a thread on Exalted and criticize it, I back my criticisms up by actually referring to the product itself, and not by making vague unjustified claims.

Sorry for being snarky, but if I posted on a thread on a 3E product and made a bunch of vague unwarranted claims about the product, people would jump all over me (and rightfully so -- sorry ENWorld for that one Eberron quip a while back    .)


----------



## Akrasia (Jan 19, 2005)

Kanegrundar said:
			
		

> ... That said, there are a few things that I liked:
> 1. It's super simple.  I had a character done within 5-10 minutes of being handed the C&C PHB.  That's nice!
> 2. It's easy to convert between systems.  The guy running the game used 1E, 2E, and 3E material all in the same game.  He even converted a few critters from each on the fly pretty quickly.




These are two huge selling points for me.

And (1.) cuts down massively on prep time for GMs.  



			
				Kanegrundar said:
			
		

> However, there were some things that I didn't like:
> 1. I didn't like how the ability scores were set up.  After playing 3E for a while, the change just didn't make a lot of sense to me.
> 2. Multiple saving throws.  Why?  I just don't see the point of going back to old way of doing saving throws as opposed to 3E's 3 saves.




I have mixed feelings about (1.).  But it is something easily modified -- you could use the 3E modifiers for the system instead with no problem.

As for (2.), I actually like this feature about C&C -- it ensures that there is no 'dump stat' for any character, regardless of class.  But again, if this one aspect of C&C really bothered you, you could use the 3E system with no problem.

My responses to your criticisms here brings me to my third reason for liking C&C, _viz._ the fact that it is eminently modular and tweakable.



			
				Kanegrundar said:
			
		

> I guess my main detraction from C&C was I like 3E.  There are a lot of rules, but at least I know there will likely be a rule for anything my players throw at me.  It's the right system for me, so I won't be switching over.




Sure.  There are different DM styles.  Some DMs like an explicit rule for every contingency.  Other DMs prefer a looser structure, where they use the game's general structure do determine how to resolve particular actions.  Neither style is 'right' -- it just depends on how you like to run your games.
 

The fact that C&C cuts down massively on my prep work, and that my group can get through a compelte adventure in a 4 hour session, is what made decide to convert my campaign over to C&C.
 

However, that just has to do with _my_ DM style.  I will be happy to _play_ once another member of my group (finally) gets his 3E Midnight campaign started...


----------



## MoogleEmpMog (Jan 19, 2005)

I take everything negative I said about C&C back.

If the designer posted while watching Army of Darkness, the system must be good.  

Okay... I still think it's inelegant, but hardly to the point I wouldn't want to play it.


----------



## Numion (Jan 19, 2005)

Treebore said:
			
		

> C&C is not designed to allow you to easily import ideas from other games. C&C does. That makes it a far more powerful system than 3E to me.
> 
> Yes, I realize that 3E can be as simple as I want it to be, I realize I can adapt anything I want to fit into the 3E rules set, but C&C is DESIGNED to make the simplification inherent and to minimize the work/effort of converting ideas. At least ideas I want to steal from any old edition of D&D, 3E, or Hackmaster.




Surely with the thousands of different rules modifications and additional materials for D&D (in form of d20), you're not hinting that D&D wasn't easily modified? I'd say adapting stuff for 3e is not only easy, but has been done in a scale far more massive than with C&C.

I've heard the argument that due to it's interconnectedness the 3e rules can't be modified without chaos and anarchy, many times, but I've never seen it. I've modified 3e, others have too, and there's never been much problems. But people still like to argue that   



> As for those of you who seem to think us old time gamers are waxing nostalgic, maybe you should consider the possibility that because we have played for so long, with many different systems, that we may actually know a good thing when we see it.




I wouldn't consider myself a noob exactly, either.


----------



## Akrasia (Jan 19, 2005)

Numion said:
			
		

> ....
> I've heard the argument that due to it's interconnectedness the 3e rules can't be modified without chaos and anarchy, many times, but I've never seen it. I've modified 3e, others have too, and there's never been much problems. But people still like to argue that
> ....




Allow me to end your confusion.    

While altering certain _aspects_ of the 3e rules (e.g. modifying feats, adding new feats, modifying skills, introducing new prestige classes, using a somewhat different spell system, etc.) might be relatively easy (though of course it is worth noting the endless threads over at the WotC boards concerning how different feats, spells, etc. are 'broken'), altering _fundamental aspects _ of 3e is not.

Try removing feats wholesale.  Or skills.  Or try radically streamlining the combat system.  Fundamental changes like those require serious work.

In contrast, with C&C, you start with a very simple structure that allows you to 'build up' as you like.  For example, the C&C rules enable you to add skills but not feats (if that is what you want for your game) without too much trouble.  It is designed to be modular in this way.

Finally, I don't understand why you seem so snarky/antagonistic with respect to C&C.  It is clear that this game is not your cup of tea.  Fine.  No one is heading over to Finland to force you to change your game.
 :\


----------



## Numion (Jan 19, 2005)

Akrasia said:
			
		

> While altering certain _aspects_ of the 3e rules (e.g. modifying feats, adding new feats, modifying skills, introducing new prestige classes, using a somewhat different spell system, etc.) might be relatively easy (though of course it is worth noting the endless threads over at the WotC boards concerning how different feats, spells, etc. are 'broken'), altering _fundamental aspects _ of 3e is not.
> 
> Try removing feats wholesale.  Or skills.  Or try radically streamlining the combat system.  Fundamental changes like those require serious work.
> 
> In contrast, with C&C, you start with a very simple structure that allows you to 'build up' as you like.  For example, the C&C rules enable you to add skills but not feats (if that is what you want for your game) without too much trouble.  It is designed to be modular in this way.




Removing aspects from 3e wouldn't require any more work than adding those aspects to another game, in my experience. Fast skilless system would be just to say (in booming DM voice) "No skills anymore! Everything is vs. DC 15 ability checks, only thieves can do thiefy stuff and wizards wizardly stuff. Anything that modified skills, now modifies these checks, and anything affected by skills is now affected by these checks", with the DM deciding on the spot the approppriate ability and either +2 or -2 for situation. 

But then again, I've always been good at avoiding serious work, just like now, posting this from work  Now, people might argue that my solution isn't balanced, but since we're arguing about a system for professionals, it shouldn't be a problem (ie nothing that good dm adjudication cant fix). 



> Finally, I don't understand why you seem so snarky/antagonistic with respect to C&C.  It is clear that this game is not your cup of tea.  Fine.  No one is heading over to Finland to force you to change your game.
> :\




Obviously 3e is not your cup of tea .. why hang out arguing about it on a 3e forum? :\


----------



## Jupp (Jan 19, 2005)

AFAIK this forum here is called "General RPG Discussion"


----------



## Numion (Jan 19, 2005)

Jupp said:
			
		

> AFAIK this forum here is called "General RPG Discussion"




Yep, but EN World is traditionally heavy on the 3e players, so if one was inclined to avoid confrontation with C&C vs. 3e threads, maybe this isn't the best place (this thread became a 'vs' thread long before I joined in).


----------



## Akrasia (Jan 19, 2005)

Numion said:
			
		

> Removing aspects from 3e wouldn't require any more work than adding those aspects to another game, in my experience. ...




Then your experience has been very special, and appears to fly in the face of that of most people in radically altering 3e.

The core elements of 3e -- feats, skills, etc. -- are all interdependent.  As I patiently explained earlier with my economics analogy, it is far harder to remove things from a complex model with many interdependent variables than it is to add things to a simple model with fewer variables.

Amazingly, your assertions to the contrary have failed to convince me otherwise.    



			
				Numion said:
			
		

> Fast skilless system would be just to say (in booming DM voice) "No skills anymore! Everything is vs. DC 15 ability checks, only thieves can do thiefy stuff and wizards wizardly stuff. Anything that modified skills, now modifies these checks, and anything affected by skills is now affected by these checks", with the DM deciding on the spot the approppriate ability and either +2 or -2 for situation.




Right ... and this wouldn't have all kinds of unintended consequences on how the game runs.  



			
				Numion said:
			
		

> ... since we're arguing about a system for professionals, it shouldn't be a problem ...




Huh?  Well maybe this is where the confusion lies, then.  C&C is meant to be a game for the nonprofessionals to tweak and modify.    



			
				Numion said:
			
		

> Obviously 3e is not your cup of tea .. why hang out arguing about it on a 3e forum? :\




Are you always this snarky, or did you just step on a d4 today?   :\ 

I wouldn't say that 3e 'is not my cup of tea', having run two 3e campaigns, and looking forward to playing in a 3e Midnight campaign in the near future.

I now prefer to DM C&C, but I am happy to play 3e.

In any case, there is discussion about many non 3e games on these boards.  And C&C draws on the OGL, so it is perfectly legitimate to for me to hang out here.

Judging by the fact that this thread is already on its 9th page after only a couple of days, others here seem to be interested in C&C as well.

Sorry, but your "my way or the highway" attitude just plain reeks.


----------



## Akrasia (Jan 19, 2005)

Droogie said:
			
		

> ... Will a large community of C&C elitists emerge? Will C&C be the Macintosh to the bloated, buggy, yet infinitely popular Windows 3.5 ? ....




  *Chuckle*


----------



## Numion (Jan 19, 2005)

Akrasia said:
			
		

> Right ... and this wouldn't have all kinds of unintended consequences on how the game runs.




And this is where the argument always stops . . just short of telling me what the awful consequences would be. My assertation would be that with the right DM there would be none, or negligible. You have failed to prove otherwise. I'm not saying my 30 second modification would suit everyone - but I could run a game like that with few difficulties.



> Huh?  Well maybe this is where the confusion lies, then.  C&C is meant to be a game for the nonprofessionals to tweak and modify.




Didn't the Troll Lord guy just say ..



			
				cleaverthepit said:
			
		

> Steve did not want to go down the advertising/marketing raod we currently find ourselves travelling. He wanted "Castles & Crusades: For the Professional Gamer" or some such. In retrospect, he may have had a better idea.






> Are you always this snarky, or did you just step on a d4 today?   :\




I wasn't that snarky .. on Dragonsfoot scale, I was maybe 1.3/10 hostile to a system thats not the favorite on the forum  



> Sorry, but your "my way or the highway" attitude just plain reeks.




No need to apologize. I didn't say you're not allowed here; I questioned the wisdom of C&C vs. D&D arguments on 3e majority boards, and said that you'd find less objections to C&C vs. D&D arguments on C&C boards, or at least thats what I tried to say. Welcome to stay, of course, it's just that people come here from time to time trying to sell their favorite game with 3e's shortcomings, or defining the game on how its not D&D. (1st GURPS, then HARP, now you, etc..) Gets a bit tiring after a while.


----------



## Henry (Jan 19, 2005)

I don't want to get into a "system war" argument, so I'll be brief: If someone does not have anything to contribute to a discussion of the merits or flaws of C&C, please don't post in this thread. There's plenty of other 3E and 3.5 threads to go around.

Second, this really belongs in the d20 & OGL Systems forum, given its current direction, so I'll slide it over there.


----------



## Akrasia (Jan 19, 2005)

Numion said:
			
		

> And this is where the argument always stops . . just short of telling me what the awful consequences would be. My assertation would be that with the right DM there would be none, or negligible. You have failed to prove otherwise. I'm not saying my 30 second modification would suit everyone - but I could run a game like that with few difficulties.....




I agree that _with the right DM _ -- i.e. one willing to improvise and hand-wave at the appropriate times -- your changes would be fine.

But one thing that people always say is a great strength of 3e is that all the rules, etc. are balanced, etc., and so there is little need for 'DM fiat' or ad hoc rulings, etc.

Personally, I am happy to rely on a large amount of DM discretion.  But this is normally not presented as one of the 'selling points' of 3e.



			
				Numion said:
			
		

> Didn't the Troll Lord guy just say ..
> ....




Yes he said that, and I think that advertising C&C as the game 'for professionals' would be ridiculous.  I am glad they did not go this route.  It runs contrary to the 'rules light' character of the game, and one of its main selling points.

Listening Trolls?!    



			
				Numion said:
			
		

> I wasn't that snarky .. on Dragonsfoot scale, I was maybe 1.3/10 hostile to a system thats not the favorite on the forum  ....




Dragonsfoot has been much friendlier ever since they got rid of the 'Edition Wars' stuff.  Positively cuddly over the past year or so.
 



			
				Numion said:
			
		

> ... I questioned the wisdom of C&C vs. D&D arguments on 3e majority boards ....




C&C draws (heavily!) on all editions of D&D -- including the OGL.  Moreover, it is broadly compatible with all editions of D&D (including 3E).  

So comparisons with 3E are going to be inevitable -- for the sake of explanation, if nothing else.  Of course, to some extent this will involve trumping certain virtues of C&C relative to 3E.  

IMO C&C and 3E both have different sets of virtues and vices.   The virtues of C&C include: it has a simple structure; it is very modular; it requires little prep time; it plays quickly (so you can get through a full adventure in a 4 hour session); and it has a certain 'old school' charm.  The virtues of 3E: it has a complex structure (thereby giving you all kinds of detail); it allows for a great degree of customization of PCs, NPCs, and even monsters; it provides detailed tactical combat that can almost be a game in itself; and there are tonnes of d20 material out there that you can draw upon to customize your game.

Some people will prefer one system over the other.  Both games are played in my group.


----------



## Akrasia (Jan 19, 2005)

Henry said:
			
		

> ... Second, this really belongs in the d20 & OGL Systems forum, given its current direction, so I'll slide it over there.




And so the thread begins to die ...


----------



## Henry (Jan 19, 2005)

One thing: I can definitely see Akrasia's point about the removal of fundamental game aspects from a system like 3E. To take Numion's example,


> "No skills anymore! Everything is vs. DC 15 ability checks, only thieves can do thiefy stuff and wizards wizardly stuff. Anything that modified skills, now modifies these checks, and anything affected by skills is now affected by these checks"...



This would require a reworking of almost ALL prestige classes. Most classes have skill rank requirements, and these would have to be reworked into a single "character level" requirement. Even then, it means that some classes who weren't meant to gain the prestige class until higher level will be allowed admittance early. A fighter/rogue or rogue entering the duelist PrC at 5th level might be fine, but how about a 5th level single classed fighter? Also, skills would the affected for crafting of some magic items, and the bonuses for synergy would have to be hand-waived on a case-by-case basis.

Want to remove feats? This requires a reworking of the fighter class, a reworking of any PrC who receives free feats, and totally alters epic level progression, because epic feats are the backbone of the system. 

Case in Point: It CAN be done, but it does require additional prep work for the game in question.

Hence a need for a product like C&C which starts with the bones of an elegant engine (d20 + abilities + mods vs. target number) and works off of that. It is what it is - yet another take on being the natural successor to 1st/2nd edition AD&D. There's room for it, same as any other d20 product.

Is it worth it? To me, yes. I just want to see how they do certain things (the saves and class abilities, for one), because if it offers enough customization, it makes an excellent option for when we want to "play D&D" without a lot of prep time. a couple of players are out, we can't play the main campaign, but the rest of the gang wants me to "run a dungeon" - C&C might work well.

Also, Gary and Rob are designing the DUNGEON I'VE WAITED 20 YEARS FOR in C&C, and just that alone is justification for existance.


----------



## Breakdaddy (Jan 19, 2005)

Henry said:
			
		

> Also, Gary and Rob are designing the DUNGEON I'VE WAITED 20 YEARS FOR in C&C, and just that alone is justification for existance.




Amen to that!


----------



## Omote (Jan 19, 2005)

While I've picked up the C&C PHB, and love the simplicity of the game, I think many D&D 3.Xers will be turned off by its simplicity, and it's ability ot stick very heavily to archtypical PC classes.

The game is good, but if you LOVE 3rd edition, I don't think C&C will tickle your fancy.

I plan on using C&C as a gateway RPG for intorducing new players to the D&D game, or just a side diversion from the complexity of 3.X.

.................................Omote
FPQ


----------



## Desdichado (Jan 19, 2005)

Akrasia said:
			
		

> Then your experience has been very special, and appears to fly in the face of that of most people in radically altering 3e.



I've pretty radically altered 3e to the point that I don't consider it D&D anymore, but rather some other d20 game.  His experience mirrors mine.

I think the 3e-Windows, C&C-Macintosh analogy is probably a good one (although its too early to say yet.)  And I still argue that C&C is clearly aiming at the nostalgic crowd, rather purposefully (or even accurately) or not, that's still my main impression of the game; that it's an updated RC/d20 hybrid.  To the question in the very first post in the thread, I'd still say the exact same thing I said earlier; it's got a small number (relatively speaking) of very vocal supporters to whom that's exactly what they were looking for, but most D&Ders are quite happy where they are, and many, in fact, would find C&C too spartan and limiting as a system.

Despite all the arguing, I think for the most part even the C&C supporters are saying almost exactly that same thing, when you get right down to it.


----------



## DMScott (Jan 19, 2005)

Akrasia said:
			
		

> Ummmm .... _LIKE WHAT?_   :\
> 
> The only 'important thing' that I can think of that is missing are the rules for multiclassing.




For any game hoping to bring back the feel of 1E AD&D (or any D&D), lack of multiclassing is pretty much a gamebreaker, IMHO. I was also disappointed not to see a full bestiary, and various other bits and pieces. That pretty much confirmed that it's a nostalgia fad product, intended only for an audience that has all that stuff already, rather than meant to be a viable game on its own.  



> I can understand if C&C is not everyone's (or even most people's) bag.  But it is annoying when people make hopelessly vague or unsubstantiated criticisms and/or comments about the game.




This is an interesting line for you to throw in, considering that you in fact substantiated my criticism. But since most of the C&C evangelists in this thread have generally affected a superior attitude to the rest of us peons, I guess you're simply acting in accordance with your peers.



> It seems pretty clear that it is being marketed as a very robust and _complete_ game system.  Contrary to your vague assertion to the contrary, that is precisely what it is.




Except for the parts that you yourself agree they left out, of course, which it appears are of no consequence when you're spreading the Way, the Truth, and the Light of the Word.



> Sorry for being snarky




No, you're clearly not. I hope you enjoy C&C, and someday manage to get over whatever huge issues you have with the fact that there are people who *gasp* don't think it's anything special. Even though the latter appears unlikely.


----------



## Henry (Jan 19, 2005)

DMScott, is it correct to say then that your main discontent with the system is over parts that haven't come out yet, and are slated for future products (the multi-class rules to be in the CKG, and the monsters to be in the TM)? Is that why you don't see it as a "complete game?"

As for the attitude of C&C proponents, I really haven't seen that much "snarkiness". What little I have seen has been quickly self-moderated. For those who don't see it as any improvement over existing 1E sources, it's not going to be anything special. However, as a source of bringing new gamers to see what has come before, and can get them into something similar by in-print and therefore available product, it's not a bad deal.


----------



## Breakdaddy (Jan 19, 2005)

Henry was right on when he said that if you have nothing to add about C&C, it's best to not post here at all. Rude comments wont do anything for either side of the debate. For my part, I enjoyed this thread immensely until it seemingly became a sounding board to air out grievances and slight others. Here is a news flash guys: Its the same hobby! We are ALL gamers here (that Im aware of), can't we be cool to each other? Is it THAT hard?


----------



## Akrasia (Jan 19, 2005)

DMScott said:
			
		

> For any game hoping to bring back the feel of 1E AD&D (or any D&D), lack of multiclassing is pretty much a gamebreaker, IMHO. ...




There will be multiclassing rules posted as a free pdf at the TLG site and a number of options included in the CKG.   In any case, the 1E/2E rules work just fine.



			
				DMScott said:
			
		

> I was also disappointed not to see a full bestiary, and various other bits and pieces.




Ummm ... there _will _ be a 'full bestiary' coming out soon.  It will be hardback book for $20 called Monsters and Treasures.

Until then you can use the fee pdf download at TLG, or the SRD.

Why is the failure to include a 'full bestiary' in the C&C PHB a knock against the system, but _not_ any other version of D&D (aside from the RC)?  Please explain ...



			
				DMScott said:
			
		

> That pretty much confirmed that it's a nostalgia fad product, intended only for an audience that has all that stuff already, rather than meant to be a viable game on its own.




Rubbish.  

Again, there _will_ be a M&T book coming out.  There _will _ be a book full of optinal rules (skills, etc.) called the Castle Keeper's Guide.  There will be a full line of modules (including the *original Castle Greyhawk*).

How is this _NOT_ a 'viable game on its own'?    :\ 

No offense, but you have absolutely no real data to back up your claim here.



			
				DMScott said:
			
		

> .... But since most of the C&C evangelists in this thread have generally affected a superior attitude to the rest of us peons, I guess you're simply acting in accordance with your peers.




Pointing out that your claims lack any substance is not the same thing as affecting 'a superior attitude.'


----------



## Akrasia (Jan 19, 2005)

Joshua Dyal said:
			
		

> I've pretty radically altered 3e to the point that I don't consider it D&D anymore, but rather some other d20 game.  His experience mirrors mine.
> ...




I have seen your website Joshua, and while you have altered the 3e system quite a bit, you still keep the 'fundamental features' of d20 intact -- namely, feats, skills, etc.

I certainly do not deny that the 'details' of 3e/d20 can be readily modified.  Indeed, I did that in my last 3e campaign.

But my claim had to do with altering/removing 'fundamental' elements of 3e/d20, like skills or feats (or the combat system, etc.).  That would require some major work.


----------



## Jackal42 (Jan 19, 2005)

I don't want to get into any system wars because I honestly don't care who likes what edition of which game but I do want to correct something I've seen pop up here a few times.

The C&C phb is not, nor was it intended to be, a nostalgia game. Nostalgia is defined as: A bittersweet longing for things, persons, or situations of the past, and that's not what C&C is about.

That idea seems to come from the fact that a lot of its gaming principles are based on older editions of D&D rather than d20 or 3e. That much is certainly true but to say that the product is nostalgia based is very inaccurate. The creators of C&C feel that such older gaming principles and methods are sorely lacking from today's market. Some agree and some don't, which is where we get to the argument of rules-lite vs rules-heavy. But C&C isn't meant to be a game for crusty old gamers who do nothing but daydream of days gone by which is what "nostalgia product" suggests. While many of C&C's fans are indeed grognards that's more because of what the system gives them, not because it was designed specifically for them. I myself have been one of C&C's strongest supporters and I've never played a game of 1e in my life and I ran 3e for about five years. If you take the time to look around you'll find quite of few C&C supporters are in the same boat.

C&C was designed with the following groups in mind, in no order:

1- Rules-Lite Gamers: Whether they are unhappy with 3e, some other system, or have never gamed before C&C targets those who want fast paced games, with fewer rolls of the dice, and more GM calls.
2- Modern Gamers: You could easily rename this one new gamers. C&C targets those who have never played before and attempts to give them an alternative (rpg and D&D) to the complex system of 3e thus filling the empty space on the market today.
3- Old-School Gamers: Call then grognards or whatever you wish but while C&C wasn't built for them it certainly targets them as part of its player base. This would include all those who have been playing OOP D&D non-stop and just want to pick up new adventures or those who have played almost all versions of D&D and always found that the best would be a balance. C&C gives both that old-school feel and that "every edition of D&D" balance.

I also don't get some of the specific arguments like "no monsters = nostalgia game." Many players’ handbooks don't have monsters. As I recall the current version of the 3e phb doesn't have any monsters. And rather than have the Trolls print monsters and then remove them for more useful content in a later printing (thus making you buy another copy) I'd rather see them do just what they're doing (ie: monsters in a pdf until the monster book comes out).

But whatever you may think of C&C, it is a complete game which stands on its own two feet and will be fully supported by TLG (and others I might add). The fact that it's modular, flexible, and harkens back to what many of us think is a better style of gaming is secondary. C&C is very much a modern, solid, and complete system.


----------



## MoogleEmpMog (Jan 19, 2005)

I don't know... in my experience, d20/OGL is extremely easy to modify.  It doesn't even seem to take huge amounts of DM fiat.


*Remove Spells*

Consequences: A fun, balanced game?   Seriously, though.  Certain high-end monsters will be even less in accordance with their alleged CRs.  Other than that, no ill effects.

Solution: None, aside from dropping any ill-placed trust in the CR system.

*Remove (or Greatly Restrict) Magic Items* 

Consequences: See spells, above.

Solution: See spells, above.

*Remove PrCs*

Consequences: None.

Solution: None.

*Remove Feats*

Consequences: PrCs require new requirements for entry.  The fighter class must either be changed or removed.  Rangers and monks need their "bonus feats" spelled out as class features.  Certain high-end monsters will be even less in accordance with their alleged CRs.

Solution: Fix rangers and monks, possibly offer certain feats as fighter class features, dispense with beating around the bush and just put a level prereq on PrCs.

*Remove Skills* 

Consequences: PrCs require new requirements for entry.  Skill checks either become level checks, ability checks, or roleplay.

Solution: Nothing major.

*Remove AoOs* 

Consequences: Spellcasters become stronger.

Solution: It's D&D.  Of course spellcasters are stronger.  Does the difference between an A-bomb and an H-bomb really MATTER to the poor non-caster at ground zero?

*Unify Actions* 

Consequences: Spellcasters become stronger.

Solution: See above.


----------



## Akrasia (Jan 19, 2005)

MoogleEmpMog said:
			
		

> I don't know... in my experience, d20/OGL is extremely easy to modify.  It doesn't even seem to take huge amounts of DM fiat.  ....




Well I do not see much point in debating this question any more, as I have already explained why I think that removing things like feats and skills wholesale (or radically altering the combat system, etc.) can have all kinds of unintended consequences for games (and heck, I even used a cool economics analogy to do so -- how can people still disagree with me?).  While I will concede that people with a lot of experience with d20 might be able to radically revise the system with little problem, I don't think it is as easy as people seem to be assuming.  At least it hasn't been in my experience, but YMMV and all that.

C&C has been designed to be modular, and in my playtest efforts, I have found it to be much easier to modify and tweak than 3E.  But if you love 3E and have no problem radically modifying it to suit your needs (if that is what you want), then all the more power to you.


----------



## Flexor the Mighty! (Jan 19, 2005)

The only glaring ommission was the lack of multiclass rules.  Since the Castle Keepers Guide may be a few months off I am going to have to wing some rules to get one players idea for a hobbit rogue/illusionist off the ground.  I just don't like the idea that I may have two seperate systems for MC going once the CKG comes out.   That's bad.  Sure I can just change the system to the "official" one if it's better but then I may have to drastically alter the PC in midgame.  I don't like that.  Rules lite is one thing I love, but MC rules are necessary.  They can be especially needed when making PC's up for a smaller group where a MC PC may be necessary to fill a hole in the party roster.


----------



## Ankh-Morpork Guard (Jan 19, 2005)

Akrasia said:
			
		

> And so the thread begins to die ...



 Welcome to the world of OGL games. Ain't it fun?  *goes back to his little Star Wars d20 corner*


----------



## DMScott (Jan 19, 2005)

Henry said:
			
		

> DMScott, is it correct to say then that your main discontent with the system is over parts that haven't come out yet, and are slated for future products (the multi-class rules to be in the CKG, and the monsters to be in the TM)?




No. That would be my main discontent with C&C as a product line - that TLG have chosen not to release a relatively complete book - but doesn't really impact on my opinion of the system. So far as I can tell the original poster wasn't asking about anybody's opinion of specific rules systems that may or may not someday be published for C&C, but rather their opinion of the product as it exists now and whether it's "grabbing lots of people".



> Is that why you don't see it as a "complete game?"




Yes, it is indeed not anywhere close to "complete", and so unsurprisingly I don't see it as a complete game.



> As for the attitude of C&C proponents, I really haven't seen that much "snarkiness".




Then take it up with Akrasia, who apparently disagrees with you.


----------



## Jackal42 (Jan 19, 2005)

Ah I did mean to address the omission of multiclassing rules. I personally agree that such rules are necessary to a class based rpg so I agree that the lack of such rules hurt.

But, having said that, the three reasons the Trolls left them out are a) they weren't quite right and were taking a while to nail down...b) many feel that such rules are not rules lite and that they are, in fact, the bane of an archetypal fantasy game and...c) because they needed the space for more important rules.

And as it's easier to add such rules (ie: giving players more options) than to take them away (Saying, sorry I know it's in the phb but you can't do it) I agree with the choice. And, of course, I'd rather have better multiclass rules than rushed multiclass rules.

The Trolls have also said such rules should be available to the playtesters sometime around late January and then, as a pdf, to everyone else not too long after. So they're not even requiring anyone to buy the CKG for the multiclass rules. While I would have liked them in the phb I agree with their reasons and the pdf (and later the CKG) is good enough for me.


----------



## jstater (Jan 19, 2005)

I might as well wade in ...

This Saturday, my gaming group and I will begin playing a hybrid C&C/3.5. I'm keeping prestige classes, because I like the options (I converted the entry requirements, which mostly involved changing skill requirements to prime attribute and character level requirements). I'm also keeping feats, which I also spent some time modifying.

We will use the SIEGE engine for attribute checks and saving throws, and the combat rules (though I will, at my discretion, allow attacks of opportunity). So, the question is, I suppose, why go to the trouble. Two reasons:

1) I was tired of the skill system in 3.5. I enjoyed it immensely at first, and then I started DM'ing. While players only need to concentrate on one character, DM's usually have quite a few NPCs running around, and it took too long to flesh out their skills. I don't have an immense amount of time to do prep work for my campaign, so I had already began combining skills (hide and move silently into sneak), and had even begun to ignore skill ranks for NPCs when I DM'd. This dovetails into reason 2 ...

2) I found that I was so tired of looking up modifiers and DC's, that I was just throwing out the numbers based on the best of my judgement. This was standard operating procedure when I DM'd first edition games.

So I found C&C, which keeps the best of 3rd edition, and makes the changes I would like to simplify 3rd edition for me. I'll let you know how the first game goes.


----------



## DMScott (Jan 19, 2005)

Akrasia said:
			
		

> There will be multiclassing rules posted as a free pdf at the TLG site and a number of options included in the CKG.   In any case, the 1E/2E rules work just fine.




That's nice. It's still not in the rulebook, and thus an omission from same rulebook. As such, I don't think it's out of bounds to note that multiclassing is not in the rulebook. 



> Ummm ... there _will _ be a 'full bestiary' coming out soon.




Again, that's nice. It's still not in the rulebook, and thus noting that you don't get a bestiary in what some folks have been billing as a "complete" game doesn't seem especially out of bounds to me. YMMV.



> Why is the failure to include a 'full bestiary' in the C&C PHB a knock against the system, but not any other version of D&D (aside from the RC)? Please explain ...




If the D&D PHB were put forward as a complete, rules-light system that captured the feel of some other game, then such critical omissions would indeed be knocks against the PHB. But of course, it hasn't been put forward in such a manner, not in this thread nor anywhere else that I've seen recently. If it had been, I most likely would've posted my opinion that such a characterization of the D&D PHB is inaccurate. What that has to do with C&C, I don't really know, but presumably it's important to you to know these things.



> Pointing out that your claims lack any substance is not the same thing as affecting 'a superior attitude.'




Well, let's see. My "claims" are that the rulebook is not complete and lacks various important rules systems. You "corrected" me by showing that the rulebook is not complete and lacks various important rules systems. And you then decided to throw in a bunch of dismissive statements about how my claims lack substance, even as you're agreeing with them. Hmm, sounds like affecting a superior attitude to me.

Unless you plan to - for the very first time - point out some factual inaccuracy in what I've said, I think it's best to just leave it at that. Have fun.


----------



## Breakdaddy (Jan 19, 2005)

Is anyone else here beginning to get the sneaking feeling that DMScott feels that C&C is incomplete and won't like it no matter what is said?  
Lets stop beating this particular dead horse, folks. Nobody is going to convince the C&C players that C&C sucks based on their perceptions that the game is incomplete. By the same token, nobody is going to convince people that are ardently opposed to C&C that it is a good or even remotely noteworthy system. Who cares? Does anyone have any more good stuff to add about C&C or is this thread now only about being the 500 lbs bully and smacking the other guy around with the biggest version of your rulebook of choice?


----------



## Akrasia (Jan 19, 2005)

DMScott said:
			
		

> That's nice. It's still not in the rulebook, and thus an omission from same rulebook. As such, I don't think it's out of bounds to note that multiclassing is not in the rulebook.




No it is not 'out of bounds' at all, and I expressed my disappointment about this fact earlier in this thread.  I also pointed to the ways in which TLG is trying to address this problem.

If this is the only 'incomplete' aspect of the rules that you can point to, then I think you are grotesquely exaggerating when you claim that C&C is 'not viable' and merely a 'fad' aimed at nostalgia.



			
				DMScott said:
			
		

> Again, that's nice. It's still not in the rulebook, and thus noting that you don't get a bestiary in what some folks have been billing as a "complete" game doesn't seem especially out of bounds to me. YMMV.




C&C is a complete game in _exactly the same way _ that D&D is.  Both systems have PHBs that lack bestiaries.  Why exactly is C&C 'incomplete' whereas D&D is 'complete'?  Please explain the difference here.

(In fact, with C&C you only need two books -- the PHB and the MT volume -- not three.)



			
				DMScott said:
			
		

> If the D&D PHB were put forward as a complete, rules-light system that captured the feel of some other game, then such critical omissions would indeed be knocks against the PHB.




Sorry, but you are just _flat out wrong _ here.   :\ 

The C&C PHB only purports to include all the rules players need to play -- plus some advice for GMs on how to run their games.  It is _no _ different than the D&D PHB in that respect (except that it also includes advice for GMs).



			
				DMScott said:
			
		

> .... What that has to do with C&C, I don't really know, but presumably it's important to you to know these things.




It is important because your criteria is either inconsistent (one standard for D&D, another for C&C), or based on faulty information.



			
				DMScott said:
			
		

> Well, let's see. My "claims" are that the rulebook is not complete and lacks various important rules systems. You "corrected" me by showing that the rulebook is not complete and lacks various important rules systems. And you then decided to throw in a bunch of dismissive statements about how my claims lack substance, even as you're agreeing with them. Hmm, sounds like affecting a superior attitude to me.
> 
> Unless you plan to - for the very first time - point out some factual inaccuracy in what I've said, I think it's best to just leave it at that. Have fun.




I agree that C&C lacks ONE important rule: viz. multiclassing rules.  If that is a 'deal breaker' for you (despite the upcoming pdf, despite the fact that it is easy to house rule this ommission, yada yada), then fair enough.  

However, I am _still_ waiting to see how your use of the plural 'rules systems' in reference to what is missing from C&C is in any way justified.   

Or why the fact that the C&C PHB lacks a bestiary is somehow a huge blow against the game, but for some reason is not a blow against the D&D PHB.  

Or how C&C is 'not a viable game' but merely a 'fad' (your words), despite being supported with a future products, including a number of modules (including the original Castle Greyhawk)...

Please feel free elaborate anytime.    

(And I apologize in advance for the snarky tone.)


----------



## Akrasia (Jan 19, 2005)

Breakdaddy said:
			
		

> ... Lets stop beating this particular dead horse, folks. ...




Sorry for the final kick I posted.      (I wrote it before I saw your post.)

You're right that it's time to move on...


----------



## Flexor the Mighty! (Jan 19, 2005)

I've heard that before, that the C&C PHB advertisements and advocates were billing it as a complete fantasy game, which to many means monsters & treasure as well as player rules.  I can understand that.  I love C&C so far and I don't really consider the PHB to be a complete game any more than I consider the D&D PHB's to be complete games.  Now the only rules I think that are missing from the PHB is the multiclassing rules, everythign else that the game "needs" is going to be covered in the appropriate books, M&T or CKG.


----------



## drnuncheon (Jan 19, 2005)

Several people have mentioned C&C's saves and how they are based on all stats.  Can someone provide a quick rundown of what they are and how they work?

 J


----------



## VorpalBunny (Jan 19, 2005)

drnuncheon said:
			
		

> Several people have mentioned C&C's saves and how they are based on all stats.  Can someone provide a quick rundown of what they are and how they work?
> 
> J




Saving throws are relegated to attribute checks (d20 + ability modifier + character level), with the type of save dependent on the attribute:

Strength: Paralysis & constriction
Dexterity: Breath Weapon & Traps
Constitution: Disease, energy drain, poison, or breath weapon
Intelligence: Magic/illusion
Wisdom: Confusion, gaze attack, petrafication, polymorph
Charisma: Charm, fear and death attack
Variable: Spells

Each character has "primary" and "secondary" attributes.  Every character has one prime attribute determined by his character class, with others picked by the player during chargen.  A check based on a prime attribute has a DC of 12, while a check based on a secondary attribute has a DC of 18.  So if I have an elf rogue (primes INT and DEX) that comes across a pit, his save DC to keep from falling in would be 12, and I'd roll a d20 plus his DEX mod (if any) plus his character level for the check (trap save is based on DEX, DEX is a prime attribute for a rogue).  On the other hand, if my dwarf fighter (primes STR and CON) comes across the same pit, I'd roll a d20 + the dwarf's DEX mod (if any) plus his level against a DC of 18.  Of course, rolls and DCs can be subjext to situational modifiers.

Pretty easy.


----------



## Breakdaddy (Jan 19, 2005)

drnuncheon said:
			
		

> Several people have mentioned C&C's saves and how they are based on all stats.  Can someone provide a quick rundown of what they are and how they work?
> 
> J




The saves are basically attribute checks. For instance, a fireball requires a DEX save for 1/2 damage. Target numbers are based on whether or not the attribute in question is one of your chosen Primes. It is harder to save versus this fireball if DEX is not a Prime than it is if you have chosen DEX as a prime. You roll a D20, add your level and other appropriate modifiers, and check to see if you meet or beat the target number. Its really quite simple and intuitive, allowing for a wide variety of scenarios to be covered without trying to address every single situation that might arise within your game with a specific rule, as the Prime system isnt just for saves, but also for "skill checks" for lack of a better term (even though skills are not integral to default C&C).


----------



## trollwad (Jan 19, 2005)

I am curious which prestige classes jstater is keeping in his c&c/3e hybrid


----------



## JRRNeiklot (Jan 19, 2005)

C&C is based on nostalgia about as much as Ford Motor Company.  After all, Ford still uses that damned outdated wheel in all it's products.  Pathetic.


----------



## jstater (Jan 19, 2005)

I might as well wade in ...

This Saturday, my gaming group and I will begin playing a hybrid C&C/3.5. I'm keeping prestige classes, because I like the options (I converted the entry requirements, which mostly involved changing skill requirements to prime attribute and character level requirements). I'm also keeping feats, which I also spent some time modifying.

We will use the SIEGE engine for attribute checks and saving throws, and the combat rules (though I will, at my discretion, allow attacks of opportunity). So, the question is, I suppose, why go to the trouble. Two reasons:

1) I was tired of the skill system in 3.5. I enjoyed it immensely at first, and then I started DM'ing. While players only need to concentrate on one character, DM's usually have quite a few NPCs running around, and it took too long to flesh out their skills. I don't have an immense amount of time to do prep work for my campaign, so I had already began combining skills (hide and move silently into sneak), and had even begun to ignore skill ranks for NPCs when I DM'd. This dovetails into reason 2 ...

2) I found that I was so tired of looking up modifiers and DC's, that I was just throwing out the numbers based on the best of my judgement. This was standard operating procedure when I DM'd first edition games.

So I found C&C, which keeps the best of 3rd edition, and makes the changes I would like to simplify 3rd edition for me. I'll let you know how the first game goes.


----------



## VorpalBunny (Jan 19, 2005)

jstater said:
			
		

> I might as well wade in ...
> 
> This Saturday, my gaming group and I will begin playing a hybrid C&C/3.5. I'm keeping prestige classes, because I like the options (I converted the entry requirements, which mostly involved changing skill requirements to prime attribute and character level requirements). I'm also keeping feats, which I also spent some time modifying.




Interesting.  One of the things that's really drawing me to C&C is the lack of PrCs.  Maybe it's the old-school in me talking, but I've always felt that if I want to play a "deepwod sniper" or a "frenzied beserker" or some such I can accomplish 99% of my goal through developing a character background, role-playing and working with my GM.


----------



## jstater (Jan 19, 2005)

I agree that you don't need prestige classes. I like them, as a DM, because I can throw them at the PCs and suprise them a bit - they think they're tangling with a basic ranger, but then he shows off some powers/abilities they've never seen before. 

Now that I think about it, only one of my player's has shown the slightest interest in a prestige class so far.


----------



## Desdichado (Jan 19, 2005)

JRRNeiklot said:
			
		

> C&C is based on nostalgia about as much as Ford Motor Company.  After all, Ford still uses that damned outdated wheel in all it's products.  Pathetic.



That's cute, but not particularly insightful.  A game that harks back to the RC is hardly equivalent to your cute little analogy, because its an outdated (and, in my opinion) outclassed and obsolete rule system.  If you're trying to say that I'm wrong and C&C isn't an old skool rule set resembling a RC/d20 hybrid, then say so, and maybe you can find some specific examples while your at it.


----------



## cleaverthepit (Jan 20, 2005)

Joshua -- I think you would have to look at it yourself to get a good idea on that. and I don't mean buy it. But, if you have a chance peruse it. In cases like this we all (myslef certainly) have notions of what is or is not and old school rules set. 

I mean is HD equaling the to hit bonus old skool, new skool or no skool?

Are primes old skool, new skool or no skool?

Are saves being rolled into attributes checks and bundled with class ability checks old skool, new skool or no skool?

Are ACs being positive old skool, new skool or no skool? (I can tell you this about positive ACs, Gary's first renditions of the game all had positive ACs. Which is why you have +1 shields that subtract one from an AC).

That would have to be a matter of opinion and interpretation. I can tell you a lot of 'old schoolers' who started with this project dumped it and were disgusted with it because it was too new skool. 

I'll discuss muti-classing later and monsters and PrCs (as I can roll them up into one concept - which is old skool) but I have a game to run this evening.

And, I can say this about my upcoming game - no preparation has been done but I also know I don't need to spend much time prepping - now that is old skool.

davis


----------



## cleaverthepit (Jan 20, 2005)

and one quick post concerning whether or not C&C is catching on - if sales continue at the rate they are we will be sold out in 15 days but, we think we have neough for 60 but, we planned on a 6-12 month supply.

ugggg maybe we can afford to fix our website then - routinely vote one of te worst in the industry


----------



## Breakdaddy (Jan 20, 2005)

cleaverthepit said:
			
		

> ...I'll discuss muti-classing later and monsters and PrCs (as I can roll them up into one concept - which is old skool) but I have a game to run this evening...
> davis




Davis, that Warhammer module kicks a ton of ass. I need to chat you up sometime about possible conversion techniques between WHFRP and C&C (if you cats already have hooked something up on that).


----------



## Karl Green (Jan 20, 2005)

So I have a question and did not read it in the first couple of pages of this thread and don't want to read forever 
How big is C&C Players Guild? Is it really rules-light or just rules-different? Sure dropping AOO, Feats and Skills is a good chunk of 3.5 PHB so I am wondering


----------



## Breakdaddy (Jan 20, 2005)

Karl Green said:
			
		

> So I have a question and did not read it in the first couple of pages of this thread and don't want to read forever
> How big is C&C Players Guild? Is it really rules-light or just rules-different? Sure dropping AOO, Feats and Skills is a good chunk of 3.5 PHB so I am wondering




Pagecount is 128, including ToC, intro, and the requisite OGL page.


----------



## Karl Green (Jan 20, 2005)

Price? Is it color?? (cover, inside)


----------



## Breakdaddy (Jan 20, 2005)

Karl Green said:
			
		

> Price? Is it color?? (cover, inside)




20 dollars, Full color glossy cover, black and white interior


----------



## JRRNeiklot (Jan 20, 2005)

Joshua Dyal said:
			
		

> That's cute, but not particularly insightful.  A game that harks back to the RC is hardly equivalent to your cute little analogy, because its an outdated (and, in my opinion) outclassed and obsolete rule system.  If you're trying to say that I'm wrong and C&C isn't an old skool rule set resembling a RC/d20 hybrid, then say so, and maybe you can find some specific examples while your at it.





I keep hearing (not just from you) that C&C''s drawbacks are because it uses mechanics from or similar to OAD&D.  To some of us, those "drawbacks" are the strength of the system.  Just because something is old does not mean we like it because of nostalgia.  We like it because it works.  Thus the wheel analogy.  If it ain't broke, don't fix it.  Unfortunately 3e took a lot of ideas that weren't broken and "fixed" them anyway.  C&C goes a long way toward restoring that.


----------



## Acid_crash (Jan 20, 2005)

jstater said:
			
		

> I might as well wade in ...
> 
> This Saturday, my gaming group and I will begin playing a hybrid C&C/3.5. I'm keeping prestige classes, because I like the options (I converted the entry requirements, which mostly involved changing skill requirements to prime attribute and character level requirements). I'm also keeping feats, which I also spent some time modifying.
> 
> ...




When you get the Feats converted and the PrC converted to C&C, would it be possible for me to get a copy of your notes to use?  Both of your reasons are reasons that I am leaning towards C&C myself.


----------



## Krieg (Jan 20, 2005)

Akrasia said:
			
		

> Sorry, but you are just _flat out wrong _ here.   :\
> 
> The C&C PHB only purports to include all the rules players need to play -- plus some advice for GMs on how to run their games.  It is _no _ different than the D&D PHB in that respect (except that it also includes advice for GMs).




Where exactly are you getting your information that it merely claims to be all the rules *players only* need to play?

The following quotes are from Troll Lord's website:



> _This book, some paper, pencil, and a few dice* is all you're going to need* to unleash the power of your imagination to create tales of high adventure for your friends and compatriots._






> _The Castles & Crusades Players Handbook *contains everything you need to know and all the rules necessary* to launch your own campaign of high adventure._






> _The Castles & Crusades Players Handbook* is a complete manual* for Fantasy Role Playing. _




Where _exactly_ does it state that it only has the rules for players?



			
				JRRNeiklot said:
			
		

> C&C is based on nostalgia about as much as Ford Motor Company.  After all, Ford still uses that damned outdated wheel in all it's products.  Pathetic.




Hmmm...



> _Castles & Crusades *harkens back to a time* when role playing was not constrained by rules but rather, when the rules unleashed the power of the imagination.  and tell a tale of wondrous, high adventure, where the fantastic never becomes mundane. _




Nope no appeals to nostalgia there.  :\ 


While I don't really agree with Joshua's criticisms I wish that C&C's self appointed proselytizers would be a bit less disingenuous.

From the beginning C&C's designers have stated that it is primarily targeted for the OD&D/AD&D players who felt that 3.x was needlessly complex. Yes nostalgia for the "old days" is a large part of that demographic.

That is not necessarily a bad thing, it does not mean that the "new" D&D is better nor does it mean that the "old" D&D's only value is nostalgia. 

Virtually every advertizing blurb for C&C has implied that it is a complete RPG in and of itself.  
While that is probably more a bit of poorly worded advertizing on the part of Troll Lords rather than intentional deception, it is an undeniable fact. 

That does not mean that it is a non viable game nor does it mean that Troll Lords failed in their mission.

The Orthodoxy wars get really old after awhile.


----------



## (Psi)SeveredHead (Jan 20, 2005)

JRRNeiklot said:
			
		

> I keep hearing (not just from you) that C&C''s drawbacks are because it uses mechanics from or similar to OAD&D.  To some of us, those "drawbacks" are the strength of the system.  Just because something is old does not mean we like it because of nostalgia.  We like it because it works.  Thus the wheel analogy.  If it ain't broke, don't fix it.  Unfortunately 3e took a lot of ideas that weren't broken and "fixed" them anyway.  C&C goes a long way toward restoring that.






> C&C is based on nostalgia about as much as Ford Motor Company. After all, Ford still uses that damned outdated wheel in all it's products. Pathetic.




You're contradicting yourself. Sure no one stole your account?

Do you think using the old mechanics are good or not? You might as well post reasons for why you think each mechanic is good and which is not.

What sort of mechanics did 3e fix that it shouldn't have fixed?

IMO, C&C's main strength is it's innovative use of saving throws. (Ok, maybe not so innovative, but IMO better than more mainstream D20). And, of course, possibly the biggest selling point, that you can write creature and NPC stats many times faster.

IMO it's biggest weaknesses are less important ability scores, differential XP charts (that makes things _more_ complicated!), no feats and monsters not having Con. I can deal with monster stats being less defined, but oh please no more 2e glass ninja monsters!

At least some of these weaknesses can be dealt with house ruling (since the system does support this).

I don't know how the system handles magic item value per level and CR assumptions. Both of these are very important to me. If it's anything like 1e/2e, there will either be less expected treasure (woot!) or no guidelines for treasure (boo!). The way it handles skills are also very important to me, but for some reason my brain shuts down anytime I look at the skills discussions 

Wow, I wrote a pretty negative review there - of course, I don't have the product itself, so take it with an enormous helping of salt. It's probably just not for me.


----------



## Acid_crash (Jan 20, 2005)

I think the one nail C&C has in its coffin regarding multiclassing is its Prime system.  I love the Prime system, makes things really easy, but I think this is the restricting force against good multiclassing rules.

From what I understand, each person gets one Prime from their class and another Prime of their choice.  Humans get a third Prime.  Am I right?

If so, and if the only way to get into a class is to have its primary ability score a Prime for your character, than as you gain levels you will be pretty restricted in what classes you can multiclass into.  Not as bad for humans, but that does make sense since humans are the most versatile race in the game.


----------



## Mythmere1 (Jan 20, 2005)

Acid_crash said:
			
		

> I think the one nail C&C has in its coffin regarding multiclassing is its Prime system.  I love the Prime system, makes things really easy, but I think this is the restricting force against good multiclassing rules.
> 
> From what I understand, each person gets one Prime from their class and another Prime of their choice.  Humans get a third Prime.  Am I right?
> 
> If so, and if the only way to get into a class is to have its primary ability score a Prime for your character, than as you gain levels you will be pretty restricted in what classes you can multiclass into.  Not as bad for humans, but that does make sense since humans are the most versatile race in the game.




I don't think the Prime system is a nail in the coffin - as you say, it makes things really easy.  But I agree with you that if the system doesn't offer a good multiclassing system - especially when the system has already cut down player options significantly - then the system will have serious trouble catching on outside of the grognard set.  As one of the C&C convert-fanatics, I'm waiting to see how the multiclassing system works.  If it's like the way you've said (restricted to a player's prime attributes), then I think it will work pretty well.  Humans have 3 of 6 attributes as primes, and non-humans have 2 of 6.

I think that's flexible enough to work - waiting to see what the final results are.


----------



## JRRNeiklot (Jan 20, 2005)

(Psi)SeveredHead said:
			
		

> You're contradicting yourself. Sure no one stole your account?
> 
> Do you think using the old mechanics are good or not? You might as well post reasons for why you think each mechanic is good and which is not.





Where did I contradict myself?  To clarify, I think the older mechanics of multiclassing (which C&C lacks, but will undoubtedly be similar to OAD&D)  are much preferrable to 3e's system.  The lack of skills, feats, and prestige classes is also a plus.  AOOS, rogues who stomp fighter's butts , attributes in the 40s and ac in the 60s all are things 3e introduced that I can't stand.

Now, don't get me wrong, I jumped on the 3e bandwagon before it ever came out, and I happily played it for a while, but the hour long combats just completely turned me off of 3e.

I have ran some encounters in both systems - 3e, and C&C, and C&C gets it done in half the time - at worst.  

Now, I know some will say I'm yet again bringing up the bad parts (imo) of 3e and yet saying nothing of what's so great about C&C.  But they are one and the same to me.  That's not to say I don't wish those of you playing 3e loads of fun, I hope you have a blast.  I just would rather sit through an insurance seminar than DM another session of 3e.


Now I've gotten completely off track in this post, sigh.


----------



## Von Ether (Jan 20, 2005)

Breakdaddy said:
			
		

> Is anyone else here beginning to get the sneaking feeling that DMScott feels that C&C is incomplete and won't like it no matter what is said?
> Lets stop beating this particular dead horse, folks. Nobody is going to convince the C&C players that C&C sucks based on their perceptions that the game is incomplete. By the same token, nobody is going to convince people that are ardently opposed to C&C that it is a good or even remotely noteworthy system. Who cares? Does anyone have any more good stuff to add about C&C or is this thread now only about being the 500 lbs bully and smacking the other guy around with the biggest version of your rulebook of choice?



 I'm waiting until the GM book is out since it will have the errata and multiclassing rules (there's some old school flavor for you.)

For my two cents, I prefer multiclassing the 3.0 way. It always seemed to me that it was backwards in previous editions. The flexible humans should have been able to dabble in two classes at once and the demi-humans should have been dual classing ... sort of creates natural class caps anyway.


----------



## Akrasia (Jan 20, 2005)

Krieg said:
			
		

> Where exactly are you getting your information that it merely claims to be all the rules *players only* need to play?
> 
> The following quotes are from Troll Lord's website:
> 
> ...




Well, since those blurbs are about the player's book (the PHB), I guess I read them as addressing _players_.  

But you are right that they are vague, and so could lead people to think that the PHB is more like the Rules Cyclopedia  than the traditional AD&D/D&D Players' Handbook.

(Although, of course, one could run a complete C&C campaign with the PHB -- and just have the party fight NPCs!  Or use the free monster download as well, and never buy anything else.  Or the free SRD.  But yes, the PHB does not cover monsters...     )

Frankly, I would have preferred it if TLG had gone the RC route, and produced a larger (though no doubt more expensive) 'all-in-one' book.

But the fact that the PHB follows the AD&D and 3E tradition does not mean that it is not a 'viable' game, or that it is merely a 'fad' product.

In any case, given how inexpensive the PHB is ($20 for a well bound hardback book), it is a great deal.  The Monsters and Treasures book will be $20 as well.  That means the entire (complete) system will be around $40.  (Since the CKG will be purely optional.)  Most 3E books cost almost that much now ($30-40 range), and the main 'stand alone' OGL fantasy game aside from D&D, Mongoose's Conan RPG, costs $50 (for one book).



			
				Krieg said:
			
		

> Hmmm...
> 
> Nope no appeals to nostalgia there.  :\
> 
> ...




While nostalgia might be _part _ of the appeal of C&C, what I object to (and, I assume, other fans of the system as well) is the idea that it is the game's _only_ or _primary_ appeal. 

'Nostalgia' is not a necessary condition -- and certainly not a sufficient condition -- for liking the C&C system.  That the fact that is resembles 'old school' D&D will appeal to some players is undeniable.  But the game is more than some kind of 'Return to ... X' one-short gimmick.

A person could have never played any version of pre-3E D&D, and still like the system.


----------



## Jackal42 (Jan 20, 2005)

Krieg, like many, you're reading those statements wrong. As Akrasia pointed out they were directed at players for the most part. However, the phb does indeed have all you need to get started on your campaigns. The ads don't say it's everything you'll ever need...just all you need to get started and that's very much the case. The only thing left out (monsters) was because they had no choice (either up the price or drop the monsters). So they left the price the same and gave you the monsters for free. And I can't see how anyone can complain that they got something for free. But the phb is certainly as advertised. The problem comes in for those who were reading a lot more into those statements than was ever there.

Joshua Dyal, I'd also like to address your statement which reads...

"That's cute, but not particularly insightful. A game that harks back to the RC is hardly equivalent to your cute little analogy, because it’s an outdated (and, in my opinion) outclassed and obsolete rule system. If you're trying to say that I'm wrong and C&C isn't an old school rule set resembling a RC/d20 hybrid, then say so, and maybe you can find some specific examples while your at it."

First of all, the idea that the RC (or any OOP game, D&D or otherwise) is "outdated outclassed and obsolete..." is foolish in the extreme. Outclassed is an opinion so I can't (and will not) argue with that. If you feel it's outclassed no worries. However, outdated and obsolete are so ridiculous as to be laughable. Which is easily proved by the large amount of players each game still has (old AND new so don't give me that crusty old grognards still hanging on junk).

As I've said in the past, I don't care which game people enjoy and I don't care if they hate everything about C&C. I'm very much of the mind that everybody should play what they want and leave everybody else the heck alone. The only thing that gets my goat is the ignorant thought process which states if it's OOP then it's outdated or obsolete. Taking that statement further and saying that games which think old school ideals (more GM control, etc) are nothing but nostalgia products because they are using "outdated" or "obsolete" ideas is even more ridiculous. Especially in the case of C&C which is at least 50% modern style and new mechanical content.

I also notice nobody bothered to argue with my earlier post on the subject so to make it easier for you...I'll repost much of it here:

"The C&C phb is not, nor was it intended to be, a nostalgia game. Nostalgia is defined as: A bittersweet longing for things, persons, or situations of the past, and that's not what C&C is about.

That idea seems to come from the fact that a lot of its gaming principles are based on older editions of D&D rather than d20 or 3e. That much is certainly true but to say that the product is nostalgia based is very inaccurate. The creators of C&C feel that such older gaming principles and methods are sorely lacking from today's market. Some agree and some don't, which is where we get to the argument of rules-lite vs rules-heavy. But C&C isn't meant to be a game for crusty old gamers who do nothing but daydream of days gone by which is what "nostalgia product" suggests. While many of C&C's fans are indeed grognards that's more because of what the system gives them, not because it was designed specifically for them. I myself have been one of C&C's strongest supporters and I've never played a game of 1e in my life and I ran 3e for about five years. If you take the time to look around you'll find quite of few C&C supporters are in the same boat.

C&C was designed with the following groups in mind, in no order:

1- Rules-Lite Gamers: Whether they are unhappy with 3e, some other system, or have never gamed before C&C targets those who want fast paced games, with fewer rolls of the dice, and more GM calls.
2- Modern Gamers: You could easily rename this one new gamers. C&C targets those who have never played before and attempts to give them an alternative (rpg and D&D) to the complex system of 3e thus filling the empty space on the market today.
3- Old-School Gamers: Call then grognards or whatever you wish but while C&C wasn't built for them it certainly targets them as part of its player base. This would include all those who have been playing OOP D&D non-stop and just want to pick up new adventures or those who have played almost all versions of D&D and always found that the best would be a balance. C&C gives both that old-school feel and that "every edition of D&D" balance.

I also don't get some of the specific arguments like "no monsters = nostalgia game." Many players’ handbooks don't have monsters. As I recall the current version of the 3e phb doesn't have any monsters. And rather than have the Trolls print monsters and then remove them for more useful content in a later printing (thus making you buy another copy) I'd rather see them do just what they're doing (ie: monsters in a pdf until the monster book comes out)."

Now if you can't see the difference between "nostalgia product" and product which the market is lacking (ie: the difference between the C&C boxed set and the C&C phb) that's because you've got blinders on. But there is no need to tell people C&C is nostalgia based because it's using outdated or obsolete ideas. That's the biggest joke I think I've ever heard. That's like telling Bobby Fisher he needs to start playing kung-fu chess (www.icq.com) because standard chess is outdated and obsolete.


----------



## cleaverthepit (Jan 20, 2005)

Just to hit a few points

The following are old school rules

1: positive ACs (from the late 60s early 70s by EGG)
2: prestige classes (bard 1e)
3: skills (1e intro, 2e expansion)
4: feats (just class abilities that cross class lines, introed in 1e, developed in UA and hits a stride in 2e)
5: crits (uhh Arduin Grimoire)

and the list goes on. 3e refined some of the concepts to points where they are nearly unrecognizable as they once were. 3e unified, codified and made them all work together. and the designers did an astounding job of it. ASTOUNDING

old skool, new skool???

here is what works, all editions are built on similar principles and concepts. we just boiled them down to as little as possible and, following the design principles of 3e, created a unifying mechanic.

to do this required going back to aspects of earlier editions such as 6 saving throw categories. there are good reasons for this.

old skool? new skool?

I no longer no where to begin.

Long and the short. The game is not generated for grognards only. grogs may be attracted to it for specific reasons but really, i mean, its a small portion of a tiny market.

its similarity to earlier editions of the game reflects a design philosophy not a rules set.

Oh fir ding blast. I am going to go collect some thoughts and post a real post about something real. Like .... Battlestar Galactica ( i give it a 9 out of 10 hoot hoot. but i give desperate housewives a 10 out of 10)

Breakdaddy - did i tell ya. Awesome. mac and i started conversions months ago but quit cause we do not have time but, perhaps early in the spring we can get together and start working on this. i think it would be waaaay cool.

more later.

davis - i need to stay on topic.


----------



## Desdichado (Jan 20, 2005)

JRRNeiklot said:
			
		

> I keep hearing (not just from you) that C&C''s drawbacks are because it uses mechanics from or similar to OAD&D.  To some of us, those "drawbacks" are the strength of the system.  Just because something is old does not mean we like it because of nostalgia.  We like it because it works.  Thus the wheel analogy.  If it ain't broke, don't fix it.  Unfortunately 3e took a lot of ideas that weren't broken and "fixed" them anyway.  C&C goes a long way toward restoring that.



Ah, OK.  Well that makes more sense.

In any case, I'm not sure that the rules are old school or not, but certainly the way it's presented online by its fans indicates an old school feel, if nothing else.  I'd be glad to make up my own mind by looking at it...  but my game store didn't have any copies in last time I was there.


----------



## Flexor the Mighty! (Jan 20, 2005)

I think all of use in this thread should try to form some kind of group hug situation. 

P.S. Is the M&T book out yet? Huh? HUH?


----------



## Breakdaddy (Jan 20, 2005)

cleaverthepit said:
			
		

> Oh fir ding blast. I am going to go collect some thoughts and post a real post about something real. Like .... Battlestar Galactica ( i give it a 9 out of 10 hoot hoot. but i give desperate housewives a 10 out of 10)




I've got all 11 eps of Galactica and it is truly shaping up to be a great Sci Fi show. Best thing since Firefly (imo). Ive got the first seven eps of Desperate Housewives but havent watched a one of em at this point. Time, never enough time.


----------



## Breakdaddy (Jan 20, 2005)

Flexor the Mighty! said:
			
		

> I think all of use in this thread should try to form some kind of group hug situation.
> 
> P.S. Is the M&T book out yet? Huh? HUH?




The M&T Book isnt out yet, but last I heard it was about ready to send off to the printer. Should be very soon. I'll bet Davis can hip us to his personal wisdom on when this thing is gonna drop.


----------



## Desdichado (Jan 20, 2005)

Jackal42 said:
			
		

> First of all, the idea that the RC (or any OOP game, D&D or otherwise) is "outdated outclassed and obsolete..." is foolish in the extreme. Outclassed is an opinion so I can't (and will not) argue with that. If you feel it's outclassed no worries. However, outdated and obsolete are so ridiculous as to be laughable. Which is easily proved by the large amount of players each game still has (old AND new so don't give me that crusty old grognards still hanging on junk).



And trying to make that out as more than a handful of people (relatively speaking) is even more foolish in the extreme.  Outdated and obsolete exactly describes the RC ruleset; it's out of print, it's unavailable, it's not supported, and it's been replaced by newer editions.  Is there some other definition of outdated and obsolete that you're using that I'm unaware of?    


> said in the past, I don't care which game people enjoy and I don't care if they hate everything about C&C. I'm very much of the mind that everybody should play what they want and leave everybody else the heck alone. The only thing that gets my goat is the ignorant thought process which states if it's OOP then it's outdated or obsolete. Taking that statement further and saying that games which think old school ideals (more GM control, etc) are nothing but nostalgia products because they are using "outdated" or "obsolete" ideas is even more ridiculous. Especially in the case of C&C which is at least 50% modern style and new mechanical content.



The ignorant thought process is blasting someone for using correct terminology because you feel that it somehow seems insulting.


> "The C&C phb is not, nor was it intended to be, a nostalgia game. Nostalgia is defined as: A bittersweet longing for things, persons, or situations of the past, and that's not what C&C is about.



Yeah, yeah, except that the statement on the Troll Lords website, which Krieg kindly posted here, contradicts you.  So you'll forgive me if I don't simply say, "Oh, OK, well Jackal42 cleared that up, so I guess that's a done issue."


----------



## RFisher (Jan 20, 2005)

Acid_crash said:
			
		

> I think the one nail C&C has in its coffin regarding multiclassing is its Prime system.  I love the Prime system, makes things really easy, but I think this is the restricting force against good multiclassing rules.
> 
> From what I understand, each person gets one Prime from their class and another Prime of their choice.  Humans get a third Prime.  Am I right?
> 
> If so, and if the only way to get into a class is to have its primary ability score a Prime for your character, than as you gain levels you will be pretty restricted in what classes you can multiclass into.  Not as bad for humans, but that does make sense since humans are the most versatile race in the game.




In the discussions amongst C&C Society members, I came to the conclusion that multiclassing was something that should be left out of the core rules because I didn't see a consensus forming on how it should be done.

Of course, C&C isn't a work by commitee, so consensus didn't really matter. As I understand it the MC rules didn't make it into the PHB for other reasons.

When you take the rules without MC & you add MC, you're effectively breaking the rules. So, the primes don't have to be a barrier to flexible MC.

People who like more restrictive MC rules typically come up with rules that require your primes to match all your classes.

People who like less restrictive MC rules, however, come up with ways around that. A simple way is to say that one of your classes is your "primary" class & that one of your primes must be its required prime. Your other classes' "required" prime is, however, not required. Such a system would allow you to create a Fighter/Rogue with Str & Con as primes. He may not be the most effective rogue, but he's still a more effective rogue than a straight fighter.

I expect we'll see lots of alternative MC rules for C&C. I wouldn't be surprised to have more than one option presented in the CKG. I wouldn't be surprise if _none_ of them were considered the "standard" MC rules.

& in any case, I feel certain we'll see alternative MC rules in the Crusader.


----------



## Jupp (Jan 20, 2005)

Breakdaddy said:
			
		

> Does anyone have any more good stuff to add about C&C or is this thread now only about being the 500 lbs bully and smacking the other guy around with the biggest version of your rulebook of choice?




You mean like "My rulebook is bigger than yours"?   

I think C&C is a perfect system to introduce new players to roleplaying games. I mean, it takes about 20+ minutes to explain everything the player has to know. Then he needs another 15 minutes to decide which class/race to choose and to let the dice roll. After that you can pretty much start the first game session. I think this is just grand and it would never be that easy with D&D where generating the character alone can take hours. And my opinion is that the faster people dig the rules the faster they will start to enjoy the game. There is nothing worse than drowning future players in the rules that is 3E because they will get turned off from rpgs in no time with that. And aside from playing games I think we should also try to bring fresh blood to the gaming table whenever that possibility shows up. C&C looks to be more suited to that task than D&D 3E IMO.

A very big plus for the DMs is that the prep time for the next game session is reduced tremendously with C&C. In 3E you have to create a fully fleshed out NPC/monster with Attributes, feats, skills, special abilities and the dreaded CR to make it work with the system. Compared to that creating or customizing monsters in C&C dead easy. To the DM this means that he can take the time he saved on the critters/NPCs and use it to further flesh out the story/plotline or to think about new cool encounters and happenings. I do not think all this has anything to do with nostalgia, being a grognard or whatever...its just about reallocating time from number crunching back to actual roleplaying. 

While playing the DM has another advantage. He can insert or remove monsters or encounters on the fly without breaking combat and it doesnt take much time to do this. The other thing is that he can rais or lower stats of a creature in the middle of the fight, even add new abilities. This is mainly possible because C&C has much simpler, not inter-dependant, stats that can be altered pretty fast.

my 0.2c


----------



## jstater (Jan 20, 2005)

*Converting Feats and Prestige Classes*

Converting the prestige class requirements is pretty easy. The main barrier is skills, of course. I found that the easiest way to handle that was to require class features when they match skills (move silently and hide, for example), and to require primes when they don't (Charisma for Intimidate, Intelligence for Knowledge). Since many of the skill requirements are designed to limit the prestige class to certain character levels (or class levels), I think it is reasonable to just add these as requirements, even though this is avoided in 3.5. Thus, an entry requirement of Knowledge (religion) 10 ranks could be converted into requirements of Intelligence as a prime, and class levels of Cleric 7 or Paladin 7. The CK could also just require the character to have a background in religion, and a character level (it's a 3.5 term, but without multiclassing rules I don't have a different terminology to use) of 7. The new Unearthed Arcana introduced the concept of ditching entry requirements for prestige classes and replacing them with tests of the characters abilities. This would be another way to go.

As for the feats - I'm working on an article to submit to the Crusader. If it doesn't pan out, I'll post my conversions.


----------



## Jackal42 (Jan 20, 2005)

I'm afraid you're not using correct terminology actually...or not using terminology correctly as the case may be. Outdated and obsolete both mean that a product has been replaced by something better and that the old product is no longer of any use (or not still in use). This describes the model T ford and it may describe RC D&D for YOU but it does not describe said product in general. RC D&D is still in use by a great many people (FAR more than you seem to think) and, more importantly, it still works just fine. Many think it works better than anything which has come after in fact. It's also very much available and if you'd like a copy I can easily direct you as to where to get it.

D&D 3e may have rendered RC D&D (or any other OOP game) obsolete and outdated in your case but saying this is so for gamers in general is a false statement not supported by the facts. The same goes for calling C&C a nostalgia product designed only to give a very small portion of gamers a "warm and fuzzy" feeling of a lost age. The creators of the game have come by and said as much so whether you think C&C succeeded in its goal or not, the idea was NOT to create a nostalgia product. Once more, stating that it feels like a nostalgia product to YOU does not make it fact.

Finally, I (and the Trolls) have made it quite clear where the misunderstanding regarding the advertising comes from. You can, again, disagree that the Trolls did not do a good job with their advertising but the point remains that they never intended those statements to mean the game would be 100% complete and that you would never need or want further material. That would be a rather foolish product in fact. The idea is for the C&C phb to give you enough information to get started and it does that...and then some.

So agree or not, what you are doing is stating your opinions of the game as fact. That's my only beef. So I'm not sure why you feel I'm "blasting" you as I only stated that your opinions aren't facts. They are simply how one person feels about the game. And as I said from the start, I have nothing against your opinions or the games you play. I only take issue with the way you state your opinions as facts...nothing more.


----------



## Lizard (Jan 20, 2005)

Mythmere1 said:
			
		

> I've seen a lot of internet discussion of Castles & Crusades - I bought it and am converting our group over.
> 
> Who else is playing it, what do you think, and do you have the sense that it's grabbing lots of people?
> 
> It seems like there's a real trend to the 1E "feel" and rules lite movement these days (someone already did a thread about the rules-lite phenomenon)...




Leaving aside the issue of C&C, I am still wondering in what altenrate universe AD&D 1E is 'rules lite'.

FUDGE is rules-lite. Over The Edge is rules-lite. AD&D 1E is about as rules-lite as Star Fleet Battles.


----------



## Breakdaddy (Jan 20, 2005)

Lizard said:
			
		

> Leaving aside the issue of C&C, I am still wondering in what altenrate universe AD&D 1E is 'rules lite'.
> 
> FUDGE is rules-lite. Over The Edge is rules-lite. AD&D 1E is about as rules-lite as Star Fleet Battles.




I've never played Star Fleet Battles, but am assuming you are saying that it is, in fact, rules heavy. 1e, before it got the UA treatment, was a relatively rules light system when the group didnt utilize the optional stuff. I will agree, however, that when all options were put it and houserules injected to cover various things that the rules could become weighty in a big hurry. Still, when one looks at certain games that came after AD&D (rolemaster comes to mind), even with all options in place 1e was not a rules heavy system. 2e, with all optional stuff, is an ENTIRELY different matter. That got out of control very quickly when one injected all of the Players Option books.


----------



## Particle_Man (Jan 20, 2005)

Nathal said:
			
		

> Davis, can you email me the password for the Castle Keepers Guide development forum on your message boards? I can't get in.





Me too please!
Alex Boston
ahboston@interchange.ubc.ca


----------



## Akrasia (Jan 20, 2005)

I just thought I would point out that this post from TLG pretty much answers the question posed by this thread:



			
				cleaverthepit said:
			
		

> and one quick post concerning whether or not C&C is catching on - if sales continue at the rate they are we will be sold out in 15 days but, we think we have neough for 60 but, we planned on a 6-12 month supply. ...




So at least there is a lot of initial interest in the game.    

Sure a lot of people who buy a new shiny book (especially one for only $20) will not actually become long-term players, or even try it once (I know I own a few games and books that have yet to see any game time, and probably never will).

But the fact that it is selling so well is surely a good sign.  The TLG gamble that there is a market for a game like this looks like it is proving to be a good one.


----------



## Flexor the Mighty! (Jan 21, 2005)

Particle_Man said:
			
		

> Me too please!
> Alex Boston
> ahboston@interchange.ubc.ca




I think you have to fill out a NDA.


----------



## Treebore (Jan 21, 2005)

RFisher said:
			
		

> In the discussions amongst C&C Society members, I came to the conclusion that multiclassing was something that should be left out of the core rules because I didn't see a consensus forming on how it should be done.
> 
> Of course, C&C isn't a work by commitee, so consensus didn't really matter. As I understand it the MC rules didn't make it into the PHB for other reasons.
> 
> ...




I don't have my copy of the PH yet (it is in the mail). However, it looks to me that multi-classing in C&C is going to require a mentality like the one in 3E. You'll need to start your character knowing that you are going to multi-class and pick your primes based on this "plan"

I'm sure there is a bit more to this than has been mentioned in the thread so far, but if you pick your primes to fit the classes you will most likely want to take later, wouldn't that allow for a set of MC rules that would work? Or you can simply allow prime stats to be changed to fit whatever class you are "career changing" into. Altering saves and whatever else accordingly. 

Is that a workable premise?


----------



## gideon_thorne (Jan 22, 2005)

I've been keeping track of this Q&A thread and finally have time to answer a point or two myself.

Mostly this center's around the idea of a 'complete' game. Which, naturally, is an entirely subjective opinion so there is no 'right' answer.

But a discussion my dad and I were having this evening pointed out the simple fact that the PHB' is quite efficiently complete for a game if you really dont need monsters. Not that monsters wont come out later but when your dealing with begining characters one doesnt always have to go tearing off to the nearest dungeon and go duke it out with the nearest goblin.

The adventures of characters just begining and gathering together in a town or city can provide months of entertainment.

Some simple adventure hooks.

Small town, human raiders of the local barbarian tribe come in and abscond with the mayors daughter.

Slavers waylay some poor suckers on the road and somehow various characters get involved and try and free said slaves. Hell, some of the characters could be captured slaves themselves.

The endless things one can do with pirate adventures.

Run a thief adventure.

Run a fighter/mercenary story

Run a mage school

Dark things happen in the clerics cloister.

All kinds of possibilities are contained in one 128 page book.

The phb is an 'essentials' book. Its not neccessarily best described as a 'complete' game. But a game for tinkerers, a game for professionals, a series of rules that can be used as 'building blocks' for further complexity. A solid frame work, a foundation. These terms are accurate.

There is no need to bicker over who's got the better mouse trap. Although I know as well as anyone that gamers love to discourse over quite a diverse array of mechanical fine points. Said discussions being one thing that drives such a simple soul as myself more buggy than usual. *chuckles*

I guess success of the game is going to be entirely defined by what one expects? A large company wants major returns, millions of copies sold and all that. And while that would be just lovely for TLG, methinks tens of thousands of each of the books sold would make the relatively smaller number of staff quite happy. Its all a matter of perspective.

X amount of book sales are going to be sufficient to put a haste spell on the legs this game already has. Revenue generated out of that will be more than sufficient to get better advertizing and an over all ever improvement in quality.

Its all one step at a time though. 

Peter


----------



## bolie (Jan 23, 2005)

*Those rules are there for a reason...*

Now that I've played C&C, I'm finding that many of the rules that make 3.5 complicated and time consuming to play were put in there to answer questions that come up during the game.

While our combats went fast, that was at least in part due to the fact that we didn't have a lot of things to do other than hit the bad guy with our weapon or cast a spell.

Monsters and characters are easy to create because they have so few options.  I made a wizard.  Even though we house ruled feats back in, my wizard is pretty much the same as any other wizard.

When playing, I felt like I was tactically fighting with one hand behind my back.  Our DM is good, though, so the story and the game is still fun and interesting.  Combat is just perfunctory instead of being an interesting event in itself.

Bolie IV


----------



## JRRNeiklot (Jan 24, 2005)

Personally, I find C&C allows MORE stuff in combat.  Wanna swing on a chandalier and drop down on your enemies?  Go for it.  You can't do that in 3e without half a dozen feats.  Mot well anyway.  The dm can wing it of course, but no sane character will try it, because he'll draw half a dozen AOOs and and have to look up twice that many rules.  And how many die rolls will it take - not even counting AOOs.  Jump checks which I have NEVER seen anyone do without consulting a book, tumble checks, strength check, etc.  In C&C it would be a simple action with maybe one modifier tacked on by the ck.  Due to all the rules in 3e, I seldom see anyone try anything other than straight combat besides maybe an odd grapple or something.  C&C is wide open for any off the wall action you want to try.


----------



## Akrasia (Jan 24, 2005)

Here is my review of the PHB over at RPG.net.

http://www.rpg.net/reviews/archive/11/11008.phtml

Even though I am obviously a fan of this game, I tried my best to point out the book's shortcomings.


----------



## Flexor the Mighty! (Jan 24, 2005)

bolie said:
			
		

> When playing, I felt like I was tactically fighting with one hand behind my back.  Our DM is good, though, so the story and the game is still fun and interesting.  Combat is just perfunctory instead of being an interesting event in itself.
> 
> Bolie IV




That sounds good to me.  To me the games emphasis should be on the adventure instead of the tactical combat simulator.  Smooth and fast combats are what I like.  There are still tactical concerns but not nearly as many as some games may make you address.


----------



## Desdichado (Jan 24, 2005)

JRRNeiklot said:
			
		

> Personally, I find C&C allows MORE stuff in combat.  Wanna swing on a chandalier and drop down on your enemies?  Go for it.  You can't do that in 3e without half a dozen feats.  Mot well anyway.  The dm can wing it of course, but no sane character will try it, because he'll draw half a dozen AOOs and and have to look up twice that many rules.  And how many die rolls will it take - not even counting AOOs.  Jump checks which I have NEVER seen anyone do without consulting a book, tumble checks, strength check, etc.  In C&C it would be a simple action with maybe one modifier tacked on by the ck.  Due to all the rules in 3e, I seldom see anyone try anything other than straight combat besides maybe an odd grapple or something.  C&C is wide open for any off the wall action you want to try.



That's a pretty extreme mischaracterization of 3e.


----------



## trilobite (Jan 24, 2005)

JRRNeiklot said:
			
		

> Personally, I find C&C allows MORE stuff in combat.  Wanna swing on a chandalier and drop down on your enemies?  Go for it.  You can't do that in 3e without half a dozen feats.  Mot well anyway.  The dm can wing it of course, but no sane character will try it, because he'll draw half a dozen AOOs and and have to look up twice that many rules.  And how many die rolls will it take - not even counting AOOs.  Jump checks which I have NEVER seen anyone do without consulting a book, tumble checks, strength check, etc.  In C&C it would be a simple action with maybe one modifier tacked on by the ck.  Due to all the rules in 3e, I seldom see anyone try anything other than straight combat besides maybe an odd grapple or something.  C&C is wide open for any off the wall action you want to try.




Player: I want to jump up on the table, grab the chandalier and swing to the other side of the room. 

DM: Sure. Let's see. Make a Jump check of 10 to get on the table. As your swing over the two guardsmen, they are going to take swipes at you with AOO.

Player: Can I am make a tumble attempt as I swing to keep them from getting AOO's on me?

DM: That sounds good. Make a Tumble check of 15 to swing past the guards. 


Ok that is two skill checks.  How hard or time comsuming is that?


----------



## Maggan (Jan 24, 2005)

*Sounds good for TLG*



			
				Akrasia said:
			
		

> I just thought I would point out that this post from TLG pretty much answers the question posed by this thread:
> 
> _Originally Posted by cleaverthepit
> ...and one quick post concerning whether or not C&C is catching on - if sales continue at the rate they are we will be sold out in 15 days but, we think we have neough for 60 but, we planned on a 6-12 month supply ..._
> ...




Sounds great for TLG! Any ideas on the size of the print run?

Cheers!

Maggan


----------



## Von Ether (Jan 24, 2005)

trilobite said:
			
		

> Player: I want to jump up on the table, grab the chandalier and swing to the other side of the room.
> 
> DM: Sure. Let's see. Make a Jump check of 10 to get on the table. As your swing over the two guardsmen, they are going to take swipes at you with AOO.
> 
> ...




Can you GM for me? LOL! In the games I've endured those checks would be 20 and the shear thought of making a Tumble-like check while swining would blow the GM's mind. I mean a Tumble check would be for only Tumbling. There's no way it could be used other acrobatic uses.  I'm not saying this is a "fault" of DnD 3.+. I'm sure that some of these guys are going to find ways to increase the "default" of CnC checks once players hit 10th level. 

For some GM's the idea of PCs having an easy stunt or job is anthema. It must mean their not being "firm enough."

--------
(The time I almost fainted at a Champions game)
Player: "My ninja is ducking and weaving in the danger room."
GM: "Okay, you have a DCV of 17, that covers you ducking a weaving. No need for an athletic roll."


----------



## trilobite (Jan 24, 2005)

Von Ether said:
			
		

> Can you GM for me? LOL! In the games I've endured those checks would be 20 and the shear thought of making a Tumble-like check while swining would blow the GM's mind. I mean a Tumble check would be for only Tumbling. There's no way it could be used other acrobatic uses.  I'm not saying this is a "fault" of DnD 3.+. I'm sure that some of these guys are going to find ways to increase the "default" of CnC checks once players hit 10th level.
> 
> For some GM's the idea of PCs having an easy stunt or job is anthema. It must mean their not being "firm enough."
> 
> ...




A player who comes up with a interesting or inovative idea should be rewarded in my opinion. Hey the whole idea is to have fun. Right? Though I agree some games I have seen have been a contest of will between the players and the GM. Players should be challenged but they need those "i didn't even break a sweat" moments too.


----------



## Breakdaddy (Jan 24, 2005)

trilobite said:
			
		

> A player who comes up with a interesting or inovative idea should be rewarded in my opinion. Hey the whole idea is to have fun. Right? Though I agree some games I have seen have been contests of will between the players and the GM. Players should be challenged but they need those "i didn't even break a sweat" moments too.




Agreed. As a DM, I sometimes have to stop and internalize requests made by players to do this sort of thing. I find myself more inclined to say no than to have the players find a potentially game-breaking loophole to exploit. This is my fault, not D&D's. As a GM, the onus falls upon me to keep things flowing and to make sure it's fun for all. Personally, I feel that C&C breaks some of these bonds and frees me to allow a bit more of these cool maneuvers, since I'm not as worried about it "breaking" or not being in line with this or that feat or skill, or having the player use some killer combo of feats to make it a lot more potent than it should have been. Again, I fully realize that this is on me, as a DM, not on D&D (I *AM* paranoid, stop looking at me!!!). This is just one of those small, personal things that seems more simplified to me since I can just assign a difficulty to it, check if its a player prime, and see if it worked. No other worries such as AoOs, other feats or skills that might come into play, or the PC having the "high ground" for bonuses since he is swinging from a chandelier (in this case) and is technically above the opponent. None of these things are wrong, or even particularly annoying to me, they just are easier for me to deal with under C&C (or more to the point, not to have to deal with!).


----------



## Numion (Jan 24, 2005)

JRRNeiklot said:
			
		

> Personally, I find C&C allows MORE stuff in combat.  Wanna swing on a chandalier and drop down on your enemies?  Go for it.  You can't do that in 3e without half a dozen feats.  Mot well anyway.  The dm can wing it of course, but no sane character will try it, because he'll draw half a dozen AOOs and and have to look up twice that many rules.  And how many die rolls will it take - not even counting AOOs.  Jump checks which I have NEVER seen anyone do without consulting a book, tumble checks, strength check, etc.  In C&C it would be a simple action with maybe one modifier tacked on by the ck.  Due to all the rules in 3e, I seldom see anyone try anything other than straight combat besides maybe an odd grapple or something.  C&C is wide open for any off the wall action you want to try.




If a 3.5e DM did that (screwed you out of a cool maneuver), do you really think he wouldn't screw you in C&C too? Bad DMs exist in every game, not specifically in 3.5e. You might´ve heard more horror stories about 3.5e (I haven't), but that could be because it is the most popular game around, and has the most DMs overall -> more bad DMs too. 

Your example was pretty extreme though .. I don't know a single DM that would make it as difficult as you say, but maybe your DMs are just out for PC blood. C&C isn't going to fix that.


----------



## JRRNeiklot (Jan 24, 2005)

I may have been a bit extreme, but in my experience, players go out of their way to avoide AOOS.  If an action requires them to take an AOO, they just don't do it, unless it's a ":get the druid  before he casts miasma" thing.  Same with other actions.  Why do a cool move when it's full of checks to make and penalties to hit?  I believe C&C frees the characters up for these moves simply because there ARE no rules for those kind of maneuvers.  A player will go ahead and swing from the chandelier because he's not aware of the minus 2 to hit.   And, as you said, a good dm will encourage those kind of moves and even if he rolls a bit too low, he'll hit anyway with an ad-hock ruling.  Of course that's breaking all the rules, but so what?  The point was that rules constrain your characters.  With no rules or feats that are required to do an action, I find players are doing wild, cool things like throwing chairs at their opponent, swinging on ropes,   bull rushing people off cliffs, etc.  I rarely saw any of these moves in 3e.


----------



## trilobite (Jan 24, 2005)

JRRNeiklot said:
			
		

> I may have been a bit extreme, but in my experience, players go out of their way to avoide AOOS.  If an action requires them to take an AOO, they just don't do it, unless it's a ":get the druid  before he casts miasma" thing.  Same with other actions.  Why do a cool move when it's full of checks to make and penalties to hit?  I believe C&C frees the characters up for these moves simply because there ARE no rules for those kind of maneuvers.  A player will go ahead and swing from the chandelier because he's not aware of the minus 2 to hit.   And, as you said, a good dm will encourage those kind of moves and even if he rolls a bit too low, he'll hit anyway with an ad-hock ruling.  Of course that's breaking all the rules, but so what?  The point was that rules constrain your characters.  With no rules or feats that are required to do an action, I find players are doing wild, cool things like throwing chairs at their opponent, swinging on ropes, bull rushing people off cliffs, etc.  I rarely saw any of these moves in 3e.




But if there is no limitations or guidelines on how to handle every strange manuever that a player can come up with, then that's what you will get. 

I don't believe rules constrain a player. It's like physics. You know if you throw that apple into the air it will fall to earth. If everyone knows how a bull rush works then then I don't see why it would not be used. But if the GM has to fly by the set of his pants and make up rules on the fly every time then you lose any consistancy. That bull rush the player attempted last week might be handled differently this week. And that player might be pretty peeved when the rulling is different the second time around.


----------



## Lizard (Jan 24, 2005)

JRRNeiklot said:
			
		

> I may have been a bit extreme, but in my experience, players go out of their way to avoide AOOS.  If an action requires them to take an AOO, they just don't do it, unless it's a ":get the druid  before he casts miasma" thing.  Same with other actions.  Why do a cool move when it's full of checks to make and penalties to hit?  I believe C&C frees the characters up for these moves simply because there ARE no rules for those kind of maneuvers.  A player will go ahead and swing from the chandelier because he's not aware of the minus 2 to hit.   And, as you said, a good dm will encourage those kind of moves and even if he rolls a bit too low, he'll hit anyway with an ad-hock ruling.  Of course that's breaking all the rules, but so what?  The point was that rules constrain your characters.  With no rules or feats that are required to do an action, I find players are doing wild, cool things like throwing chairs at their opponent, swinging on ropes,   bull rushing people off cliffs, etc.  I rarely saw any of these moves in 3e.




The problem here is that it's just as easy to say "OK, you grab the chandelier. It breaks, you fall into the mob of thugs, and all of them get a free attack on you." Rules cut both ways. If EVERYTHING is up to GM fiat, then players have no way to direct their improvement -- to become better at throwing furniture or bull rushing. Furthermore, it undermines niche protection.

Swishy LeFence: "I grab the chandelier, do a triple backflip, and skewer the villain with my blade!"
GM: "Sure, why not. Cool."
Throggle Blooddrinker: "Uh...I do that, too!"
GM: "Huh? You're a hulking half-ogre!"
Throggle: "So? I'm the same level and same class as Swishy, and we have the same Dexterity.  And with my strength, I'm LESS encumbered than he was! If he can do it, I can do it!"
GM: "Oh....fine. You do it too..."
Arcanos Magicallios: "I grab the chandelier next!"

I'd rather have a game system where players have to choose among Cool Stuff -- where some can swing from chandeliers and some can whack six orcs in half with their battleaxe, rather than everyone being able to do everything...or not do anything at all, depending on the GM.

"I swing from the chandelier!"
"OK, that's a -6."
"Huh? My other GM never penalizes me!"
"Tough. This is my table."


----------



## Melan (Jan 24, 2005)

I believe JRRNeiklot has shed light on something important here. Rules exist to "translate" various actions for the player characters into the context of the game system. Aside from providing mechanics for these actions, they also codify the play experience - they implicitely tell you _what_ you can do, not just _how_ you do it. This way, they often limit the choices available to a PC, leading to less out of the box thinking. With good players, this is not a serious issue. But I have still noticed that in my 3e games, the players focused more on actions that the rules told them they could accomplish, whereas in a game more heavily relying on DM arbitration and at-the-table judgement (such as C&C and OD&D - we played the first for months and the latter as a one-shot), they often tried crazy and unorthodox tactics because they knew I would come up with a simple solution right there... and what's more, reward these ideas with a fair chance of success.

I do not claim this is true for all gamers all of the time. But they are true for my group. The same goes for "crunchy bits" as well - I have observed that the mre of these the players have at their disposal, the more they use them to solve problems... instead of coming up with Baldrick's proverbial "cunning plan", they just use a feat or a PrC ability. As a reasonably rules-light and crunch-light system, C&C has solved the problem pretty well. The ability check mechanic, in particular, has turned out to be a very adaptable tool suitable for adjudicating very divergent problems without resorting to additional rules.

If you are a DM who likes codification and being able to refer to a book for rule calls, it is unlikely you will like C&C. If you like to wing it (like me), you should probably give it a look.


----------



## Melan (Jan 24, 2005)

Lizard said:
			
		

> Leaving aside the issue of C&C, I am still wondering in what altenrate universe AD&D 1E is 'rules lite'.
> 
> FUDGE is rules-lite. Over The Edge is rules-lite. AD&D 1E is about as rules-lite as Star Fleet Battles.



AD&D 1e by the book is not rules light. AD&D the way many (probably most?) people played it, however, was. Most of the complex or hard rules - such as Weapon -vs- Armour charts, surprise, speed factors, initiative - were either ignored or simplified. The remaining rules were relatively simple, although not particularly elegant in their design. Much was left to the DM's judgement, and had to be made up as he went. In my experience, players either tried "the crazy stuff" (and avoided uncomfortably complicated  actions like pummeling, wrestling and overbearing) or retreated to the comfortable sanctuary of "I attack, you attack, I attack again".

There are also different degrees of rules lightness. I would argue that many so-called rules light systems are basically systemless... at least compared to 3e. Compared to 3e by the book, both 1e and the Forge Darling of the Month are rules light, even if the latter is much more so than the former. C&C is somewhere between 1e and the Basic-Expert line... except with more streamlined mechanics.


----------



## JRRNeiklot (Jan 25, 2005)

Lizard said:
			
		

> The problem here is that it's just as easy to say "OK, you grab the chandelier. It breaks, you fall into the mob of thugs, and all of them get a free attack on you." Rules cut both ways. If EVERYTHING is up to GM fiat, then players have no way to direct their improvement -- to become better at throwing furniture or bull rushing. Furthermore, it undermines niche protection.
> "





That's not a problem at all.  If the chandelier won't hold his weight, that's life.  Part of the game.

Let theelf try it, if he makes it, the half ogre is welcome to try and, when it breaks, give him the above treatment, if you like.  I wouldn't give them free attacks, though.  Staggerring to his feat bruised and batterred, and surrounded by the enemy should be enough to teach him.  The same would apply when the halfling tries to throw a table at the charging orcs.  

Rules or no, I've seen much cooler things tried with both success and failure in C&C than I have in 5 years of 3e.  I'm not saying it HAS to be that way, just that most players won't attempt anything they don't have a feat that makes said stunt easier to do.


----------



## cleaverthepit (Jan 25, 2005)

Hallo

real quick

1: thanks for all the good words guys and gals

2: i will be addressing all password/NDA issues on our forums on wed - this is for access to CKG discussions so please bounce over to the C&C society thread there for updates -as there are issues

3: our C&C site just crashed due to high traffic volume - good sign or poor planning. I'll chock it up to both.

UGG

hey can anyone access the enworld review of C&C???

davis


----------



## Lizard (Jan 25, 2005)

JRRNeiklot said:
			
		

> Rules or no, I've seen much cooler things tried with both success and failure in C&C than I have in 5 years of 3e.  I'm not saying it HAS to be that way, just that most players won't attempt anything they don't have a feat that makes said stunt easier to do.




Shrug. I'll need to read C&C to be sure, but, based on the 'nostalgia edition', it has the same flaws which drove me away from AD&D 1/2e and which 3e corrected -- lack of character diversity. No skills, no feats, no multiclassing...to me, this seriously limits your ability to mold your character. "Anyone can just try to do anything!" tends to boil down to "Once one player finds a cool tactic, everyone else just copies him". I rather like the fact that 2 fighters in 3e can have totally different fighting styles based on their choices of feats and skills. I don't think I could go back to a game where everyone is just "a fighter", exactly the same as every other fighter.

It is easier to ignore rules than to add them. I have no problem allowing for cool stunts in 3e, and often grant a bonus if something is dramatically appropriate and fits the character concept. The strong rules framework is there to provide support for when I don't want to handwave it. It's a platform, not a cage.


----------



## nsruf (Jan 25, 2005)

Lizard said:
			
		

> Shrug. I'll need to read C&C to be sure, but, based on the 'nostalgia edition', it has the same flaws which drove me away from AD&D 1/2e and which 3e corrected -- lack of character diversity. No skills, no feats, no multiclassing...




This is the only thing that I am worried about, too: that my players will complain about a lack of options. But don't forget that multiclassing will be part of the game as soon as the Trolls decide on the rules (and I have made up my own version to get started). And the primes give you an additional way to individualize characters. 



> to me, this seriously limits your ability to mold your character. "Anyone can just try to do anything!" tends to boil down to "Once one player finds a cool tactic, everyone else just copies him".




Well, you could restrict it by class (like a disarm maneuver can only be performed by the more combat-oriented classes) or make it so difficult only a character with a prime in the relevant ability has an acceptable chance of success.



> It is easier to ignore rules than to add them. I have no problem allowing for cool stunts in 3e, and often grant a bonus if something is dramatically appropriate and fits the character concept. The strong rules framework is there to provide support for when I don't want to handwave it. It's a platform, not a cage.




What drove me away from GMing 3E is not the rules during play but the excessive prep time for npcs and monsters. I know I could just handwave this, but it doesn't feel right, and my players would probably squash any opposition that wasn't built with as much dedication as their PCs. So from a GM's standpoint, C&C looks ideal. Let's see what my players think...


----------



## Akrasia (Jan 25, 2005)

nsruf said:
			
		

> ... What drove me away from GMing 3E is not the rules during play but the excessive prep time for npcs and monsters. I know I could just handwave this, but it doesn't feel right, and my players would probably squash any opposition that wasn't built with as much dedication as their PCs. So from a GM's standpoint, C&C looks ideal. Let's see what my players think...




Same here.  (Well, the 'rules during play' also did play a factor.   But prep time was the decisive factor for me.)

My players also did not like the elimination of 'options'.

But our group couldn't always meet as a group, so we ran a few 'trial sessions' of C&C, and they loved the faster pace of the game ("WOW, we actually got through a full adventure in 4 hours!").

So they were mixed: fewer options but faster game.

Then I told them: "Look you wankers, I'm the person who has to do 90 percent of the bleedin' work here, and you think both games are fun, so my vote definitely decides."

Conclusion: when I DM, it is C&C.

But one player keeps promising to run 3E Midnight.  I love that setting and hope that he does so in the near future.  He will be DM, and so his vote should count a lot.

In short, I think DMs do a crap load of work, and so their preferences with respect to system should carry considerable weight.   DM'ing 3E was a burden for me (I still enjoyed it, but it was not as much fun as I thought it should be).  DM'ing (or, I should say, 'CK'ing') C&C is MUCH more fun for ME.  So that is the game we play when I GM.  Others can run the systems of their choice.


----------



## Melan (Jan 25, 2005)

Lizard said:
			
		

> Shrug. I'll need to read C&C to be sure, but, based on the 'nostalgia edition', it has the same flaws which drove me away from AD&D 1/2e and which 3e corrected -- lack of character diversity. No skills, no feats, no multiclassing...to me, this seriously limits your ability to mold your character.



C&C is built around strong archetypes. If you didn't like the restrictive nature of the older editions, you probably won't like this game either. 3e allows customization to your heart's content, and there is nothing wrong with that. But there are people, including myself, who don't care about molding our characters much (okay, I use skills). For us, a small number of classes is better than a multitude of choices and options... I'd even argue that if a DM allows too many feats, PrCs and other options in his campaign, he is not DMing a class based game anymore. Old editions were restrictive and didn't allow much player choice. We still played them and _liked_ them, despite all the great non-restrictive games. For us, some of 3e's changes aren't just superfluous - they are unwelcome.

Some of it can be avoided. But when new players come to your table with non-classic ideas, modules are full of weird multiclass combos (granted, Necromancer doesn't do this as often as others) and the whole _spirit_ of the game is divorced from the way you want to play it, you might as well switch to another system. It could have been something else - if it weren't for C&C, I guess I would be back to playing 1e. But hey, C&C is out and available.



> "Anyone can just try to do anything!" tends to boil down to "Once one player finds a cool tactic, everyone else just copies him". I rather like the fact that 2 fighters in 3e can have totally different fighting styles based on their choices of feats and skills. I don't think I could go back to a game where everyone is just "a fighter", exactly the same as every other fighter.



Not so sure about this. The two compeletely differently built fighters aren't just differentiated by their abilities - they are pigeonholed. Instead of everyone "copying a cool tactic" from someone else, everyone is using their own cool tactic... which gets old just as fast ("Let's see, I use disarm... again"), except in a game where these character building choices are codified, you can't just change them, because they are a part of your character's stat block. I mean, you can't reroll your hp in most campaigns either, and neither can you reassign those feats. And there are still "better" character builds - I have never seen a PC take a feat like Endurance, except as a prerequisite for PrCs.

I'd rather see out of the game customization. Two statistically identical characters are still not the same if they are played differently. You don't really need rules for this. For example, there were two human fighters in my old campaign who were more or less equals, had similar magical equipment, but still managed to be completely different from each other. They weren't "just fighters".



> It is easier to ignore rules than to add them.



I disagree. Official rules have an air of legitimacy that often takes some serious willpower to challenge. I can do it, but often, if you try to tell your players you will take away their toys, they will not accept it. For some reason, adding new rules has always seemed to be easier. And then there is still the whole modularity thing - in an integrated system like 3e, removing those fiddly bits is asking for trouble.




> The strong rules framework is there to provide support for when I don't want to handwave it. It's a platform, not a cage.



It was a cage for my players.   And I like to handwave. In fact, that's what I have been doing since I started gaming.


----------



## Breakdaddy (Jan 25, 2005)

cleaverthepit said:
			
		

> hey can anyone access the enworld review of C&C???
> 
> davis




Cant at the moment, last time I checked it was a favorable review by Akrasia, but havent looked in a week or two.


----------



## Henry (Jan 25, 2005)

Interesting aside -- in my 3.5e game Sunday, our half-elf monk and halfling rogue PCs, desparate to save their artificer ally, got into position in one round and saved the artificer from a 9 foot armored troll intent on murdering him. One did a running-back dive past an attack to get into position , and the other tumbled BETWEEN the legs of said troll, to come up flanking and dealing a backstab that nearly cut the legs out from under the troll. The monk, a second later, dealt the crushing facial blow that took the troll down. All without a single rules alteration from standard. But then, it's amazing what two guys with a +18 tumble can do. 

If one wants looser rules, there's nothing stopping them from using them - but there's also plenty of room for such feats of derring-do under 3e, too.


----------



## Flexor the Mighty! (Jan 25, 2005)

Lizard said:
			
		

> Shrug. I'll need to read C&C to be sure, but, based on the 'nostalgia edition', it has the same flaws which drove me away from AD&D 1/2e and which 3e corrected -- lack of character diversity. No skills, no feats, no multiclassing...to me, this seriously limits your ability to mold your character. "Anyone can just try to do anything!" tends to boil down to "Once one player finds a cool tactic, everyone else just copies him". I rather like the fact that 2 fighters in 3e can have totally different fighting styles based on their choices of feats and skills. I don't think I could go back to a game where everyone is just "a fighter", exactly the same as every other fighter.
> 
> It is easier to ignore rules than to add them. I have no problem allowing for cool stunts in 3e, and often grant a bonus if something is dramatically appropriate and fits the character concept. The strong rules framework is there to provide support for when I don't want to handwave it. It's a platform, not a cage.




The lack of feats, and to a lesser extent skills, is the draw of C&C for me.  I found that stripping out the feat and skill systems from 3e was too much work and fundamentally changed the game to the point where I'd be better off finding a new system.  I just found that if you love the detail and everything that is rolled up in 3e you are great, if you don't like that you are better off with a new rule system.  YMMV of course.  I'm just glad that someone created a more rules lite OGL system that captures the feel of old D&D.  I love being able to run D&D/AD&D/AD&D 2e modules that I can convert on the fly.  It's great for me.  But I understand my view is a minority one.  That's cool.  As long as they put out the Monsters & Treasure book and the Castle Keepers Guide I think I'll be set for life.  

Oh and Castle Greyhawk is a nice plus too.


----------



## Lizard (Jan 25, 2005)

Flexor the Mighty! said:
			
		

> The lack of feats, and to a lesser extent skills, is the draw of C&C for me.  I found that stripping out the feat and skill systems from 3e was too much work and fundamentally changed the game to the point where I'd be better off finding a new system.  I just found that if you love the detail and everything that is rolled up in 3e you are great, if you don't like that you are better off with a new rule system.  YMMV of course.  I'm just glad that someone created a more rules lite OGL system that captures the feel of old D&D.  I love being able to run D&D/AD&D/AD&D 2e modules that I can convert on the fly.  It's great for me.  But I understand my view is a minority one.  That's cool.  As long as they put out the Monsters & Treasure book and the Castle Keepers Guide I think I'll be set for life.
> 
> Oh and Castle Greyhawk is a nice plus too.




Shrug. I've been looking at Hackmaster as a 3e alternative, because it has that old-sk00l feel but WITH a skill system and 'feats' (in the form of Talents). I'm still wafflng, though, because monsters-with-classes are important to me, and that's harder to do with HM without a lot of handwaving. 

(My biggest gripe with 3e would be the ubiquity of magic and magical items...I'm a big fan of the "A +1 sword! And I'm only 7th level! Oh frabjous day!" school of loot. Unfortunately, everything in 3e is balanced around players being walking magic shops...but that's another thread.)


----------



## VorpalBunny (Jan 25, 2005)

Breakdaddy said:
			
		

> Cant at the moment, last time I checked it was a favorable review by Akrasia, but havent looked in a week or two.




You can read his review on RPG.net here.


----------



## Von Ether (Jan 25, 2005)

Currently C&C has some of my curiosity, the $20 price tag doesn't hurt. Truth be known, if I want a "rule lite" system that is easy to adjust on the fly, I'm pretty happy with Savage Worlds. SW seems to be just as fast and is more flexible. It's been out a year longer and has a "Common Knowledge" rule that's even simplier than C&Cs. 

Basicaly, if I'm stuck gaming with a bunch of fellows who insist that they will only play d20 and that it will only be a standard fantasy game, then I might use C&C if I can't get them to Eberron.


----------



## Breakdaddy (Jan 25, 2005)

Lizard said:
			
		

> Shrug. I've been looking at Hackmaster as a 3e alternative, because it has that old-sk00l feel but WITH a skill system and 'feats' (in the form of Talents).




Hackmaster is great, Ive had it for about a year now and like it a lot. Unfortunately, it looks as though Kenzer & Co. has all but dropped the line entirely. For this reason alone, I cannot recommend HM. It isnt as rules lite as C&C, but IS a very cool game in its own right. Beware of the cost of the complete monster collection, too. At over 100 bucks for the monster collection alone, the cost of entry is prohibitive. There is a stand alone monster guide that is inexpensive, but I found it lacking for a number of reasons that I wont go into in this thread.


----------



## nsruf (Jan 25, 2005)

Breakdaddy said:
			
		

> It isnt as rules lite as C&C, but IS a very cool game in its own right.




HM is all but rules-light. I own the PHB and GMG, and while they are a good read in parts (haven't even finished the GMG!), I don't think I'll ever run a game. The rules are just too bloated for my taste. Creating a character feels like filing a tax return claim, with the addition of randomness. And apparently you can't run combat without the fighters book because the initiative system isn't properly explained in either of the two basic books.

For me, HM requires too much effort from the GM to be worth playing. OTOH, C&C looks user-friendly and like I could start a game right away.


----------



## Breakdaddy (Jan 25, 2005)

nsruf said:
			
		

> For me, HM requires too much effort from the GM to be worth playing. OTOH, C&C looks user-friendly and like I could start a game right away.




Perhaps I was being too conservative with my statement. In many ways HM is more rules heavy than even D&D 3.x. It is still a very fun game, but not in the least rules lite. C&C is my current game of choice due to its simplicity and compatibility with most things (A)D&D.


----------



## Flexor the Mighty! (Jan 25, 2005)

Lizard said:
			
		

> Shrug. I've been looking at Hackmaster as a 3e alternative, because it has that old-sk00l feel but WITH a skill system and 'feats' (in the form of Talents). I'm still wafflng, though, because monsters-with-classes are important to me, and that's harder to do with HM without a lot of handwaving.
> 
> (My biggest gripe with 3e would be the ubiquity of magic and magical items...I'm a big fan of the "A +1 sword! And I'm only 7th level! Oh frabjous day!" school of loot. Unfortunately, everything in 3e is balanced around players being walking magic shops...but that's another thread.)




I agree on the magic issue.  

Hackmaster though, seemed like it was AD&D turned up to 11. They added even more rules and stuff to make a system with a lot of rules in the first place even more complicated.  In 1e I could jsut drop a lot of stuff and not worry about it, but if I'm going to do that with Hackmaster I'd just as soon use 1e, which we did to finish our campaign.


----------



## Lizard (Jan 25, 2005)

Flexor the Mighty! said:
			
		

> I agree on the magic issue.
> 
> Hackmaster though, seemed like it was AD&D turned up to 11. They added even more rules and stuff to make a system with a lot of rules in the first place even more complicated.  In 1e I could jsut drop a lot of stuff and not worry about it, but if I'm going to do that with Hackmaster I'd just as soon use 1e, which we did to finish our campaign.




Yeah, well, I *like* complex games.  BESM 2e is about as rules-lite as I'll ever go. My favourite systems are GURPS, Hero, and D20. I've collected all the HM rules (don't buy modules for any system), and they look like fun in a totally retro, 'turn it up to 11' way. 

I'll be picking up C&C, of course.  While my collecting habits are under a forced retrenchment due to finances, that's too iconic a book to leave out.


----------



## Numion (Jan 25, 2005)

Flexor the Mighty! said:
			
		

> Hackmaster though, seemed like it was AD&D turned up to 11. They added even more rules and stuff to make a system with a lot of rules in the first place even more complicated.  In 1e I could jsut drop a lot of stuff and not worry about it, but if I'm going to do that with Hackmaster I'd just as soon use 1e, which we did to finish our campaign.




I think that the 'right' way to play Hackmaster would be similar to the way it is portrayed in the comics. ALL the rules, even the wonky ones, are embraced, rules are lawyered to the boot, etc..  I wouldn't use it as a modernized D&D. I already have a game for that.


----------



## Wrathamon (Jan 26, 2005)

Buy.com has it for $13.26 w/ free shipping over $25 dollars

http://www.buy.com/retail/product.asp?sku=39604185&loc=106&dcaid=1688

incase anyone wanted to pick it up

EDIT: They also have  Castles and Crusades Monsters & Treasures for $16.59.
http://www.buy.com/retail/product.asp?sku=39604186&loc=106&sp=1

enjoy!


----------



## Tetsubo (Jan 26, 2005)

Wrathamon said:
			
		

> Buy.com has it for $13.26 w/ free shipping over $25 dollars
> 
> http://www.buy.com/retail/product.asp?sku=39604185&loc=106&dcaid=1688
> 
> ...




Thank you for this info.


----------



## Karl Green (Jan 26, 2005)

Von Ether said:
			
		

> Can you GM for me? LOL! In the games I've endured those checks would be 20 and the shear thought of making a Tumble-like check while swining would blow the GM's mind. I mean a Tumble check would be for only Tumbling. There's no way it could be used other acrobatic uses.  I'm not saying this is a "fault" of DnD 3.+. I'm sure that some of these guys are going to find ways to increase the "default" of CnC checks once players hit 10th level.
> 
> For some GM's the idea of PCs having an easy stunt or job is anthema. It must mean their not being "firm enough."




So it all the GM right? See I do that all the time in my 3.5 games. 

And back on topic I looked at it at my FLGS this weekend and put it back. I may pick it up later but for now it reminded me to much of what I dislike about 1st/2nd ed...ALL figthers are more or less the same, same with Rogues, etc. I will wait and see though I may still get it someday


----------



## gideon_thorne (Jan 26, 2005)

Karl Green said:
			
		

> ALL figthers are more or less the same, same with Rogues, etc. I will wait and see though I may still get it someday




See. Thats what I dont understand? Why are 'game mechanic' systems the only way to differentiate one character from another?

Seriously? I'm not trying to be difficult here, its an honest question.


----------



## Treebore (Jan 26, 2005)

I asked that same question when kits came out back in 2E. Even earlier, when they came up with specialist mages.

Now the clerics, that made sense, the specialty priest ideas, because that was more representative of the deities.


----------



## gideon_thorne (Jan 26, 2005)

Treebore said:
			
		

> I asked that same question when kits came out back in 2E. Even earlier, when they came up with specialist mages.
> 
> Now the clerics, that made sense, the specialty priest ideas, because that was more representative of the deities.




Aye. Some things made sense, although what makes sense to folks tends to differ per individual.

But I for one never needed skills, talents, feats, or whatever to do my role playing for me.   

But thats just a personal preference, clearly there are differences.


----------



## Lizard (Jan 26, 2005)

gideon_thorne said:
			
		

> See. Thats what I dont understand? Why are 'game mechanic' systems the only way to differentiate one character from another?
> 
> Seriously? I'm not trying to be difficult here, its an honest question.




They're the only way to diffrentiate characters *mechanically* -- by definition.

Any system supports diffrentation by personality, but if there's no way to tie personality into mechanics, it tends to ring hollow. For example, if there's no mechanical support for the dodging/agile fighter type versus the lumbering tank type, then, the swashbuckler who chooses to forego heavy armour is simply tossing away AC -- or he says "I'm a dashing swashbuckler, I just happen to wear heavy plate and carry a two handed sword." If there's no "Ride" skills, then a city boy who never saw a horse rides as well as a Mongol trained from birth to the saddle, provided they have the same Dexterity (or whatever 'ride' is based on). Further, there's no way to improve in a specific area, to show character evolution and change -- such as the city boy learning to ride a horse.


----------



## nsruf (Jan 26, 2005)

gideon_thorne said:
			
		

> See. Thats what I dont understand? Why are 'game mechanic' systems the only way to differentiate one character from another?




No one said it was the only way. A PCs personality does not have to be reflected in his stats, but I prefer if his background is. Lizard's swashbuckling fighter is a good example.

But C&C seems to support diversity with primes and (as yet unofficial) multiclassing. A swashbuckler could be a fighter/rogue or even a fighter with Dex prime or rogue with Str prime.

Still, compared to 3E, there are much fewer options in C&C (especially during advancement, as most choices happen during chargen), so I have to see how my players take to it.


----------



## Breakdaddy (Jan 26, 2005)

nsruf said:
			
		

> But C&C seems to support diversity with primes and (as yet unofficial) multiclassing. A swashbuckler could be a fighter/rogue or even a fighter with Dex prime or rogue with Str prime.




I was going to make this same point, well said! The primes actually help differentiate the classes quite a bit. My Ranger has a Strength and Dex prime, making him a lot more agile and swift that a Ranger with a Str/con prime. I can do those swashbuckling things with much less effort that the con Ranger. By the same token, he is much more of a tank than I am, and can take more punishment and endure harsh climates/conditions much better and longer than I. Also, my Ranger, whose background reflects that he was a trapeze artist that escaped a cruel master in a travelling circus better reflects his agility from the get-go than the same background on a level 1 3.x Ranger would, since my Dex prime makes me better at Dex related skills at level 1 than I would be if I could only spend 3 or 4 points in "tumble" at level 1. Since I had to survive in the wilderness for a good while on my own after I made my escape, I have become relatively adept at surviving in the unforgiving wilderness (thus, Ranger, level 1).


----------



## Akrasia (Jan 26, 2005)

How did this thread shrink to 8 pages?!


----------



## Henry (Jan 26, 2005)

*PSST* - count the number of posts per page. 

P-kitty changed the default from 20 to 40.


----------



## Breakdaddy (Jan 26, 2005)

Henry said:
			
		

> *PSST* - count the number of posts per page.
> 
> P-kitty changed the default from 20 to 40.




dun dun dunnNNnnnnnnnn!!!!!!!


----------



## Breakdaddy (Jan 26, 2005)

Another thing I've recently decided is that the C&C Turn Undead rules are much better than the 3.5e rules. I have already house ruled my 3.5e Turn Undead rules to reflect the C&C rules. Clerics and Paladins will automatically have WIS as primes and will use the C&C Turn Undead rules exclusively. I have seen the word elegant used to describe certain rulesets here. Some people feel that C&C is elegant and some feel it is inelegant. Personally, my military background rails against the usage of this term in regards to rulesets. I prefer to think in terms of which portions of rulesets are serviceable and which are in need of overhaul. However, for my money, not many rules are as INelegant as the 3.5e Turn Undead rules.


----------



## Akrasia (Jan 26, 2005)

Henry said:
			
		

> *PSST* - count the number of posts per page.
> 
> P-kitty changed the default from 20 to 40.




Ahhhhh ...  I see.


----------



## Von Ether (Jan 26, 2005)

gideon_thorne said:
			
		

> See. Thats what I dont understand? Why are 'game mechanic' systems the only way to differentiate one character from another?
> 
> Seriously? I'm not trying to be difficult here, its an honest question.



 It's a matter of degrees. Why did TL decide that you had to have a fighter class period as compared to needing a ranger class as well.

It's also a matter of taste. I personally prefer ways to tweak the fighter class, but I'm not a fan of seperate XP tables. As a GM, that means levels are sort irrelevent since I now have to deal with XP totals. It's nice to know that an 4th level fighter is equivlent to a 4th level paladin. Now it may be equivlient to two and a half levels of paladin.  Not my cup of tea.

You know the biggest irony of discussions about "edition" wars and C&C is that a LOT of discussion mirrors the old arguements of why people liked/disliked DnD compared to other games. i.e. It's highly amusing when the guy who used to defend the level mechanic of older editions suddenly asks, "Why don't we have 20th level fighters everywhere after a few years of war?" He had answered his own question years ago when he was trying sell leveling over a point-buy xp advancement


----------



## Breakdaddy (Jan 26, 2005)

Von Ether said:
			
		

> It's a matter of degrees. Why did TL decide that you had to have a fighter class period as compared to needing a ranger class as well.




Rangers exist in the C&C game. C&C PHB p. 11.


----------



## Mythmere1 (Jan 26, 2005)

I haven't seen a single negative review from anyone who actually *has* a copy of the game and has read it.

If you have or haven't looked at the game, mention it - with people posting mistaken statements like "there are no rangers," it's useful to know when that's a conjecture and when it's based on line-of-sight with a rulebook.

One possibility - the digest boxed set only had a few of the classes.  Maybe that's what was going on there.  I haven't got a boxed set, but maybe there weren't rangers.


----------



## Breakdaddy (Jan 26, 2005)

Mythmere1 said:
			
		

> One possibility - the digest boxed set only had a few of the classes.  Maybe that's what was going on there.  I haven't got a boxed set, but maybe there weren't rangers.




Good point. From what I understand, only Fighter, Rogue, Wizard, and Cleric are part of the boxed set. Of course, the boxed set was always touted as a basic set comparable to the old Basic D&D Moldvay boxed set, as opposed to the full hardback set which are more akin to AD&D.


----------



## Lizard (Jan 26, 2005)

Breakdaddy said:
			
		

> Good point. From what I understand, only Fighter, Rogue, Wizard, and Cleric are part of the boxed set. Of course, the boxed set was always touted as a basic set comparable to the old Basic D&D Moldvay boxed set, as opposed to the full hardback set which are more akin to AD&D.




It seems a lot has been changed, as I'm pretty sure my copy of the nostalgia edition had multiclassing...then again, with only 4 classes, it sort of had to.


----------



## Henry (Jan 26, 2005)

Actually, it seems that Von Ether wasn't saying there were no Rangers in C&C; he was saying (from what I read) that game mechanics determining flavor was a matter of degrees depending on designer. ("Why did TL decide that you had to have a fighter class period as compared to needing a ranger class as well" - meaning the Trolls decided as did Gary Gygax that ranger was sufficiently different from fighter as to need a mechanical means of differentiating them.) In other words, some stop at broad archetypes, others stop at specifics such as feats or skills.


----------



## Breakdaddy (Jan 26, 2005)

Henry said:
			
		

> Actually, it seems that Von Ether wasn't saying there were no Rangers in C&C; he was saying (from what I read) that game mechanics determining flavor was a matter of degrees depending on designer. ("Why did TL decide that you had to have a fighter class period as compared to needing a ranger class as well" - meaning the Trolls decided as did Gary Gygax that ranger was sufficiently different from fighter as to need a mechanical means of differentiating them.) In other words, some stop at broad archetypes, others stop at specifics such as feats or skills.




It certainly doesnt read that way, but if that is what he meant, then it makes more sense.


----------



## Mythmere1 (Jan 26, 2005)

Henry said:
			
		

> Actually, it seems that Von Ether wasn't saying there were no Rangers in C&C; he was saying (from what I read) that game mechanics determining flavor was a matter of degrees depending on designer. ("Why did TL decide that you had to have a fighter class period as compared to needing a ranger class as well" - meaning the Trolls decided as did Gary Gygax that ranger was sufficiently different from fighter as to need a mechanical means of differentiating them.) In other words, some stop at broad archetypes, others stop at specifics such as feats or skills.




That's a possibility if he said "Why DIDN'T TL decide to have a fighter class period..." or "Why did TL decide to have a fighter class AS WELL AS a ranger."  Asking why TL "decided to have a fighter class period as opposed to a ranger" doesn't jibe with your interpretation, Henry.  That word "period" in there indicates that he doesn't know there's a ranger in C&C - which might very well be based on reading only the basic set, in which case I've got no objection other than to correct it.

But it irks me when people read threads about rules, then make statements about those rules without having read them and without making it known that they haven't read them.  I think it's fine to comment on rules "based on what I've heard," or "based on what people are saying in this thread," or whatever, but it annoys me otherwise, because there's a big difference to the reader.  But I'm also the sort of person who reads footnotes to see where quotations come from, so maybe I'm more sensitive than the norm.

Anyway, I'm a bit off topic - sorry, everyone.  And certainly Von Ether wasn't necessarily doing what I'm complaining about, assuming he's got the boxed set.


----------



## gideon_thorne (Jan 26, 2005)

Lizard said:
			
		

> They're the only way to diffrentiate characters *mechanically* -- by definition.
> 
> Any system supports diffrentation by personality, but if there's no way to tie personality into mechanics, it tends to ring hollow. For example, if there's no mechanical support for the dodging/agile fighter type versus the lumbering tank type, then, the swashbuckler who chooses to forego heavy armour is simply tossing away AC -- or he says "I'm a dashing swashbuckler, I just happen to wear heavy plate and carry a two handed sword." If there's no "Ride" skills, then a city boy who never saw a horse rides as well as a Mongol trained from birth to the saddle, provided they have the same Dexterity (or whatever 'ride' is based on). Further, there's no way to improve in a specific area, to show character evolution and change -- such as the city boy learning to ride a horse.




Course there is. If said character wouldnt logically know how to ride a horse he can stumble along and try it at a penalty assigned by the CK. Thats what the 12/18 mechanic already covers. There does not need to be a refined skill system in the game when the seige mechanic and common sense already covers it.  

C&C is a baseline game system. Its primarily designed as a framework for those who like to come up with their own answers. Not everything is covered, _*deliberately.*_

I have come up with a method to improve in a specific area for the C&C system, that uses the seige engine with only one slight modification (and various ideas on how to do this will be covered in the CKG. So the info will be there, just not covered in the baseline game) If a player feels that his character ought to advance just in one area quicker its easy to simply make a note on the character sheet stating one ability has advanced at the cost of another. Say at a given level the thief wants to advance pick pockets at a +2 instead of the normal +1. Fine, his Open Locks, lets say, advances at a +0 that level. Nice and simple. ANd keeps the advancement progression consistent.


----------



## gideon_thorne (Jan 26, 2005)

Von Ether said:
			
		

> It's a matter of degrees. Why did TL decide that you had to have a fighter class period as compared to needing a ranger class as well.
> 
> It's also a matter of taste. I personally prefer ways to tweak the fighter class, but I'm not a fan of seperate XP tables.




Ah hah.! See? This is a good point. "its a matter of taste." Indeed. C&C is built at what we felt was a minimum baseline so people could easily add what suited their taste. Not that the base line game cant function quite efficiently on its own un modified. Ones personal taste will determine how complex the system eventually gets.

What might help, is to consider C&C a framework for those who like to tinker with rules. More suggestions on how to tinker will show up in the CKG. But the point being, a lot is being left up to how a group individually styles their games.

We're not trying to say 'our way is better.' We're giving everyone a common base to start from and enabling the gamer to expand in the directions they want to go.


----------



## bolie (Jan 26, 2005)

*Classes*

So why have Fighter, Ranger, Paladin, Knight (four combat classes), and only Wizards for Arcane spell casting?  There are only two divine casters (Druid and Cleric) and only one stealthy class (Rogue).

Since prime stats don't matter for AC and hit point bonuses, the tank v. swashbuckler issue isn't really solved by primes.  Your Con and Dex will affect your AC and Hit Points the same regardless of whether they are primes or not.  By giving up armor, a fighter is giving up AC, period.  The primes let you add some of what skills do, but not in nearly as much depth.

Saying that a house rule lets you do x or y isn't really addressing the problem.  You can house rule 3e, too.  The issue of "breaking" the system is only relevant to game designers and authors.  A given group of players with a DM can do whatever they want and a DM can disallow obvious abuse on the spot.  A reasonable player will understand.  Unreasonable players are unreasonable regardless of the system you are using.

The main advantage of C&C is that it has fewer rules to remember so the game can go more quickly.  3e does have more rules and more options.  This is by design.  Therefore, you can have more varied characters and monsters in 3e.  Which you prefer is up to you.

Overall, I prefer 3e style play to C&C style.  This is not an inherent problem with C&C, though, it's just my opinion.

Seperate from play-stile preferences, I do have some complaints about C&C.  The major one is the lack of monster stats.  I also have some things I really like about C&C, like the way saving throws and turning undead are handled.

Bolie IV


----------



## Breakdaddy (Jan 26, 2005)

bolie said:
			
		

> So why have Fighter, Ranger, Paladin, Knight (four combat classes), and only Wizards for Arcane spell casting?  There are only two divine casters (Druid and Cleric) and only one stealthy class (Rogue).




This is another case where fact checking would go a long way. Illusionists are a separate arcane class from wizards, and the other stealthy class is assassin.


----------



## Breakdaddy (Jan 26, 2005)

bolie said:
			
		

> Since prime stats don't matter for AC and hit point bonuses, the tank v. swashbuckler issue isn't really solved by primes.  Your Con and Dex will affect your AC and Hit Points the same regardless of whether they are primes or not.  By giving up armor, a fighter is giving up AC, period.  The primes let you add some of what skills do, but not in nearly as much depth.




How is a fighter in 3.5e not giving up AC just because he has 10 ranks in tumble? I fail to see a difference here. There are a few feats that help in this regard (slightly) but what you are saying has zero bearing on the differences between 3.5 and C&C. C&C uses dex prime, D&D uses tumble (or name a billion other skills here), the end result is the same.


----------



## gideon_thorne (Jan 26, 2005)

_Since prime stats don't matter for AC and hit point bonuses, the tank v. swashbuckler issue isn't really solved by primes.  Your Con and Dex will affect your AC and Hit Points the same regardless of whether they are primes or not.  By giving up armor, a fighter is giving up AC, period.  The primes let you add some of what skills do, but not in nearly as much depth_

Granted, the depth isn't there in the mechanic. BUT the depth is there if the player chooses to elaborate on the rp aspect of the character.

As for making a swashbuckler. This is simple. Simply make Dex and Cha the other two primes of a human style fighter character.  The dex bonus could be houseruled to give an extra bonus to the speed of the sword swing.

And/or... the fighter could use the characters Dex as the base AC and as a sacrefice for the armour the characters ac could go up at various levels.

These sort of things are easy to note down. And demonstrate the inherent flexability of the system.


----------



## cleaverthepit (Jan 26, 2005)

Quick not before I run off togame

Swashbuckler vs Fighter

Apply the Enc rules and everyone may become a swashbuckler type     Morelater this evening because this is a great topic.

davis


----------



## bolie (Jan 26, 2005)

Breakdaddy said:
			
		

> This is another case where fact checking would go a long way. Illusionists are a separate arcane class from wizards, and the other stealthy class is assassin.




Doh!  I'm sorry.

But that still begs the question of why Illusionists and not Enchanters or Summoners?

And why Paladins, Knights and Rangers and no Archers or Fencers?

I am not actually expecting answers to these questions.  I just am noting that by having no Prestige Classes, Feats, or Skills, C&C has a rather limited and arbitrary number of archetypes available for characters.  These have significant gaps if you are using heroic fantasy as your template.

Bolie IV


----------



## RFisher (Jan 26, 2005)

I don't know any way of telling how well it is catching on, but if you want to get _some_ idea of how it is selling, check the Amazon sales rank.

When I checked it earlier this week, the C&C PHB had a better (lower numerically) sales rank than: Ars Magica 5e, Decipher's Lord of the Rings, Spycraft, BESM d20, Exalted, Mongoose's Conan, Hackmaster PHB, Hero 5e, Feng Shui, Pendragon, BESM (tri-stat), Jadeclaw, Paranoia XP, Heroquest, d6 Adventure, Ironclaw, d6 Space, HARP, d6 Fantasy, & Savage Worlds.

(It was really sad to me to see how much better BESM d20 was doing than the tri-stat BESM.)

Of course, there's lots of things doing better than it, including: D&D PHB (WotC), Star Wars d20, T20, Mutants & Masterminds, GURPS Basic Set 1 & 2, d20 Modern, & d20 Future.

If you think you'd like something with fewer rules/complexity than d20 D&D, but C&C doesn't float your boat, maybe you should check out TLG's other recent release: *Lejendary Adventure Essentials*. EGG's latest work, IMHO, fills an interesting spot between class-based systems & skill-based systems.

Plus, unlike the C&C PHB, it includes monsters with only a few more pages overall! 

(Oh no, if I haven't before, I really must be sounding like a TLG shill now...maybe I should complain about the C&C 2WF rules... )


----------



## bolie (Jan 26, 2005)

gideon_thorne said:
			
		

> These sort of things are easy to note down. And demonstrate the inherent flexability of the system.




Not having a mechanic or rule is not the same thing as flexibility.  The C&C rules are very simple.  They do not have any way to differentiate fighters or other characters in their abilities.  It is not an advantage of the system that you have to house rule everything.  It could be seen as an advantage that is easy to make up house rules, but that only benefits people who want to make up their own rules.

C&C is only helpful to the DM who doesn't want to recreate a complex system with a lot of options.  If he does, he should use 3e, which already has that built in.  C&C is useful for the DM who wants to not have most of those rules and just use simple mechanics and/or wing it.

This is not a bad thing, it's what I understand C&C was intended for.

Each system has it's place and style.  C&C is simple and trying to add in the depth of 3e would be silly and hopelessly complex.

My comments are really directed at those who've argued that you can do everything in C&C that you can with 3e.  You can't.  You have to make up a bunch of rules to do everything.  Don't play C&C if that's what you want to do.  Play C&C if you want to not have all that stuff and then add back only a few of the things you consider most important.

Bolie IV


----------



## Von Ether (Jan 26, 2005)

I apologize about my vague wording. My comment about degrees was infering that CnC has both fighter and ranger class. Taking the "mechanics don't make the difference" argument to one extreame, one could say the ranger class isn't needed. I've read somewhere the ranger class is in the CnCPH. 

On the other hand, no rule system is perfect and people are going to drift towards optimal class combos, meaning that a lot of options to make more interesting fighters is pretty much pearls before swine. 

Tell ya what. If someone can devise some solid optional CnC rules for using one XP chart, three or four saving throws and flexible multiclassing, I'll get seriously charged for CnC. Either way, I wish Troll Lord the best, it seems they are on to something.

As an aside, I RAN d20 for a year with only the 3.0 PHB. Nothing beats having the right players with the right attitude. Having the system tweaked to your style is just icing on the cake at that point.


----------



## bolie (Jan 26, 2005)

Von Ether said:
			
		

> Tell ya what. If someone can devise some solid optional CnC rules for using one XP chart, three or four saving throws and flexible multiclassing, I'll get seriously charged for CnC. Either way, I wish Troll Lord the best, it seems they are on to something.
> 
> As an aside, I RAN d20 for a year with only the 3.0 PHB. Nothing beats having the right players with the right attitude. Having the system tweaked to your style is just icing on the cake at that point.




I would like to see one xp chart and multiclassing, but the saving throw system is awesome.  I much prefer having all ability checks handled the same way and stat bonus + level seems to work fine.

Having both a Con stat and a Fort save means having to figure out what's a Con check and what's a Fort save.  If everything is a Fort save, than why wouldn't Str checks be Str saves with an appropriate modifier?

Just my $.02.

Oh, and I agree 100% about the players and the DM mattering more than the system.  That's why I'm happy to play C&C with Mythmere.  When I'm playing, I prefer to focus on playing and the plot and such.  The rules are there to facilitate that.

Bolie IV


----------



## nsruf (Jan 26, 2005)

Breakdaddy said:
			
		

> How is a fighter in 3.5e not giving up AC just because he has 10 ranks in tumble? I fail to see a difference here. There are a few feats that help in this regard (slightly) but what you are saying has zero bearing on the differences between 3.5 and C&C. C&C uses dex prime, D&D uses tumble (or name a billion other skills here), the end result is the same.




Of course, you could use the swashbuckler class from Complete Warrior 

With C&C, you have to make it up yourself or wait for a Crusader article. I will try the following house rule to give a boost to lightly armored characters:

Anybody with a Dex prime gets +2 to AC if wearing no armor or helmet and using at most a buckler.

What it boils down to is that 3E has most of the options spelt out, while C&C is more open to creative modifications. Since I found that creating NPCs by the rules for a 3E game (even fairly low-level ones) bores me, this seems like a refreshing change of pace.


----------



## cleaverthepit (Jan 26, 2005)

Ok I have a few minutes

I am assuming that by swashbuckler you mean lightly armed and armored. A fighter, rogue  or ranger type that depends heavily on motion to get him or her through a fight.

On page 123 you'll note the enc rules. Although many people tend to skip over them they were included because I thought them an integral part to defining a character and there impact on play can be significant.

Once a character become even lightly encumbered penalties begin to kick in and they get hefty as they progress. A typicla fighter (Chain mail, large shield, several weapons, helmet, backpack and sundries) rapidly approaches a moderate to heavy encumbrance. Penalties of -2 and -4 to all physical attribute checks and AC kick in and dramatically reduce a fighters capacity to perform actions and takeadvantage of AC. I can esily envision a lightly armed and armored swashbuckler type whupping up on a heavily armed fighter.

That said, we do encourage players to rely more heavily on roleplay than mechanics to establish a character and have created simple rules to facilitate and encourage this. That's the way we do it here at the home office - but that's us and we ain't always right in the head. We do think that, as a baseline for more exciting roleplay, this is a better approach in the long term.

Now having said that, we also realize gamers do like more options and character individualization expressed in rules sets. We also respect that, hence a simple sysytem that is easily expanded. In the CKG we will demostrate how this can be accomplished through a myriad of examples and optional rules sets - add-ons if you will. It is not, however, part of the basic rules set - the baseline rules. For many, these are enough. Its Feng Shui in rules so to speak.

What we will not do in the CKG is express 'x' rules set as 'the rule.' There will be no (I should say few rules - sse last para), rules in the book. There will be options and numerous for each subject area. Criticals, for example will have at least 6 different approaches, each catering to a particular style of play. It will be up the players and CKs to choose which they like or, through examples provided, create their own.

This is done because we firmly believe most groups have there own style of play and no single set of rules is going to match them all so we encourage porting in rules, amending our rules etc. to fit your particular groups needs (sorta like the Saturn of RPGs     )

Finally, there will be some rules in the CKG that are basline rules but these are adjunct rules such as large scale combat, flight and other things that do not often make it into every game. 

davis


----------



## gideon_thorne (Jan 26, 2005)

bolie said:
			
		

> Not having a mechanic or rule is not the same thing as flexibility.  The C&C rules are very simple.  They do not have any way to differentiate fighters or other characters in their abilities.




Yes they do. The Seige engine. The core mechanic is quite efficient in differentiating characters. Its simply that not everything is spelled out in pain staking minutae. The seige engine and inventive players with a cooperative game master can produce a wide variety of character personality and type.

The game does indeed lack the 'fine detail' of a copious volume and amount of rule books. But that was sort of the point.  

The design philosophy of 'fill in the details yourself' may indeed be a niche market, but it does have sufficient appeal to do well I think. Indications in sales already point to that.


----------



## bolie (Jan 26, 2005)

gideon_thorne said:
			
		

> Yes they do. The Seige engine. The core mechanic is quite efficient in differentiating characters. Its simply that not everything is spelled out in pain staking minutae. The seige engine and inventive players with a cooperative game master can produce a wide variety of character personality and type.




ANY rule system and inventive players and a cooperative game master can produce just about any results they want.  My point was that the rule system alone does little to differentiate characters.  Prime attributes provide for a few variations, very few compared to the number of skills, feats, and prestige classes available in 3e.

My point is that C&C is simple and should be advertised that way.  It's not going to satisfy someone who likes 3e.

Bolie IV


----------



## cleaverthepit (Jan 26, 2005)

Oh and finally, I would say a swashbuckler type could either be from the fighter, ranger, rogue aspect. Also the selcetion of primes differentiates many straight fighters from swashbucking types.

And as an adendum - what the heck is a swashbuckling type  ?


----------



## cleaverthepit (Jan 26, 2005)

> My point is that C&C is simple and should be advertised that way.




We are trying desperately to get that across and that it is intentionally simple and that since many gamers are happy with the system they play - we encourage them to stick with it. That's what this is all about at the end of the day - having fun.

So now I am actuallyoff to run a game again - hmmm the lord in his manner is a wee bit upset and not a little concerned a half-orc has dared make and appearnace in his town.

davis


----------



## gideon_thorne (Jan 26, 2005)

bolie said:
			
		

> ANY rule system and inventive players and a cooperative game master can produce just about any results they want.  My point was that the rule system alone does little to differentiate characters.  Prime attributes provide for a few variations, very few compared to the number of skills, feats, and prestige classes available in 3e.
> 
> My point is that C&C is simple and should be advertised that way.  It's not going to satisfy someone who likes 3e.
> 
> Bolie IV




C&C has always been advertized as simple. No ones ever said its been advertized as complex.

I guess it depends on how one looks at the rules system. There are people out there, many of them, who dont need large numbers of skills, feats, prestiege classe or any such things to make a variety of characters. All such detail ever did for me was give me a barking headache. (poor memory for details on my part  )

Breaking all that 'stuff'' down very simply. What do all these skills and feats and whatnot do? They provide a framework or a prod to the imagination. After a while the framework becomes unneccesarry.  Sure, all these 'details' can help the mathmatically oriented add up a variety of numbers on a sheet.  But they arent doing anything that the imagination can't do. Alter the probability of a die roll certainly, but ulimately the differentiation of character comes from the player and always has, no matter what system is used. After all, the player makes the choices of what combo of gizmo's on the character is needed. 

And fyi, I have played 3rd edition and know of what I speak. Ive played all editions of the game and find that as time went on I was less interested in mechanical details as I was into  the story and evolution of the character itself.


----------



## cleaverthepit (Jan 27, 2005)

I am glad you bought the book though   

I hope that the CKG provides you and Mythmere the perfect combo.

davis


----------



## bolie (Jan 27, 2005)

For the record, I've played 1e, Basic (Expert, Advanced, Immortal), the old Blue Book version, 3e, 3.5e, as well as GURPS, Feng Shui, and a host of other games.

All of these are games.  I find that having a consistent rule set allows for me to better judge what my character can and can't do.  No game like this is going to be 100% realistic.  It would be tedious if it were.  So the rules are a balance between playability and realism.  There is no right balance, of course, so each set of rules seeks a different balance.

3e has a lot of rules and a lot of options within those rules.  That means I can find rules to cover a wide variety of situations.  It also means that the rules are more complex.

Personally, I like having rules.  I like systems.  If I don't have rules, I'll find myself trying to come up with rules.  I don't like handling each event as a form of exception.  I find it more mental effort to come up with a general solution to every problem than to look up a rule that someone else already worked out, even if it's not the best rule ever.

My comments have been addressed to those who have said something to the effect of "Not having all those rules makes it EASIER to do a lot of different things."  I find that statement to be self-contradictory.  Sure, it's easier if you want to make up rules as you go.  And there are people who prefer to do just that.  But the system doesn't do that.  You have to.  My comments have been about the system.  The system of C&C is very simple and has some good and bad features.

Anyone can come up with neat character concepts, role-playing bits, and background material for any game or any rule system.

I do very much look forward to seeing optional, modular rule sets to add more to the C&C system.  Most of my problems with C&C will likely be handled by adding rules like this.

I have been quite happy to play C&C with Mythmere as my dm even though I don't necessarily like the system as is.  Most of my enjoyment is out of the role-playing parts of the game and for the rest, we can house rule as we go.

But he's going to play 3e when one of the others of us is DM.  

Bolie IV


----------



## gideon_thorne (Jan 27, 2005)

bolie said:
			
		

> I have been quite happy to play C&C with Mythmere as my dm even though I don't necessarily like the system as is.  Most of my enjoyment is out of the role-playing parts of the game and for the rest, we can house rule as we go.
> 
> But he's going to play 3e when one of the others of us is DM.
> 
> Bolie IV




*impish grin* Fair enough.


----------



## Von Ether (Jan 27, 2005)

bolie said:
			
		

> I would like to see one xp chart and multiclassing, but the saving throw system is awesome.  I much prefer having all ability checks handled the same way and stat bonus + level seems to work fine.
> 
> Having both a Con stat and a Fort save means having to figure out what's a Con check and what's a Fort save.  If everything is a Fort save, than why wouldn't Str checks be Str saves with an appropriate modifier?
> 
> ...



 Hmmm. You'll have to sell me more on the savings throws, but hey, I am open on expanding it by one simply on the idea of giving Charisma more use. This is because I'm the opposite on the fly, to me I feel pretty confident which of the three Savings Throw I want to apply, adding more makes me nervous that my players will try to find ways to "Peterification" a Reflex roll simply for a better chance at a save. 

For me, the idea of "arcane magic and Illusion" is redundent. House rule already.  YMMV, but I get the feeling that's its one of the facets of CnC that makes me feel it plays more to the "nostaliga/reuse that old AD&D module for the 10th time in 20 years" crowd as compared to offering a simplier rule set. But it may yet grow on me.

The single XP chart and multiclassing? I'm much more stringent on those, so consider me a possible 2 out of 3 guy. I'm glad to hear that the upcoming book offer tons of options and it would even be cooler if my options were in there.  But honestly, I'd even take a PDF or an Internet fan created thing as long as it worked well and let me introduce those two items into CnC.

If they really wanted to make me buy, they could promise a Eberron conversion PDF and I'd do some pre-ordering at the FLGS tomorrow. LOL!


----------



## Breakdaddy (Jan 27, 2005)

Von Ether said:
			
		

> If they really wanted to make me buy, they could promise a Eberron conversion PDF and I'd do some pre-ordering at the FLGS tomorrow. LOL!




I dont think that they can legally do that, though I might be wrong on that.


----------



## gideon_thorne (Jan 27, 2005)

Von Ether said:
			
		

> If they really wanted to make me buy, they could promise a Eberron conversion PDF and I'd do some pre-ordering at the FLGS tomorrow. LOL!





*chuckles* Funny thing... check out Amazon and look up the Castles and Crusades book. There is a bit where some dealer offers the C&C players book and the Ebberon campaign setting as a package deal. The irony is epic. 

Sides...there is nothing to converting 3.5 stuff to C&C. Just make feats into class abilities and prestige classes into base classes. Which amounts to no more than deciding what prime is appropriate to the class needing converting.


----------



## Breakdaddy (Jan 27, 2005)

gideon_thorne said:
			
		

> Sides...there is nothing to converting 3.5 stuff to C&C. Just make feats into class abilities and prestige classes into base classes. Which amounts to no more than deciding what prime is appropriate to the class needing converting.




Dunno bout that one. If you give the monsters all of their feats as class abilities, then the PCs will be outclassed most of the time in the absence of feats for themselves. Plus you will have players that will inevitable be upset that they dont get the cool feats that the monsters are getting to use.


----------



## gideon_thorne (Jan 27, 2005)

Breakdaddy said:
			
		

> Dunno bout that one. If you give the monsters all of their feats as class abilities, then the PCs will be outclassed most of the time in the absence of feats for themselves. Plus you will have players that will inevitable be upset that they dont get the cool feats that the monsters are getting to use.




Umm...thats why I said convert _*all*_ the feats into class abilties. I just didn't mean for monsters.   

Sides. Its not sposed to be easy to beat monsters all the time. The sensable person avoids unneccessary conflict.


----------



## Breakdaddy (Jan 27, 2005)

gideon_thorne said:
			
		

> Sides. Its not sposed to be easy to beat monsters all the time. The sensable person avoids unneccessary conflict.




All that means is that you havent met my players


----------



## gideon_thorne (Jan 27, 2005)

Breakdaddy said:
			
		

> All that means is that you havent met my players




*laughs* I'll grant you that one. Although i find that people think my particular gaming style is passing strange as well.

Takes all kinds to make an rpg experience


----------



## Captain Loincloth (Jan 27, 2005)

After reading Akrasia's review of C&C on RPGnet, I am strongly thinking about buying the game.  Having just spent the past two hours reading all the posts in this thread, I decided to throw in my two cents worth.

First, I generally love having a lot of options to customize my characters.  However,  many people I play with don't.  To them skills and feats are a hassle.  They'd rather just "play a barbarian" than worry about which skills and feats they have to take.  And to be honest,  sometimes I'm the same way.

Second,  having a lot of options allows the experienced gamers to become very good at optimizing their characters.  This is not bad,  even good,  if all the players are experienced,  but when you mix in newer players,  it can be a recipe for disaster as the old-timers dominate the game,  while the newbies can feel extremely frustrated.  It also can be frustrating if you mix pure powergamers in with roleplayers as the roleplayers pick the skills and feats which best suit their conceptions,  while the powergamers pick those which allow him to be more effective,  thus the powergamers often dominate.

Third,  many gamers like to individualize their characters by choosing appropriate names,  appearances,  and personalities which give color to their individual characters.  Back in AD&D1 days this was quite common.  

I like 3.x,  don't get me wrong.  But there are things I truly dislike about the game.  Characters gain experience too fast for my taste,  the system of CR's encourages DM's to hand out magic items at a standard rate,  and the kenderized halflings make me want to throw up.  

3.x did a great thing by getting a lot of former gamers back into gaming and bringing in a lot of new blood.  But it does not suit everybody's style.  Thus we have things like Conan,  Blue Rose,  and Castles and Crusades.  Having options such as those are options I REALLY like.


----------



## Melan (Jan 27, 2005)

bolie said:
			
		

> My comments are really directed at those who've argued that you can do everything in C&C that you can with 3e.  You can't.  You have to make up a bunch of rules to do everything.  Don't play C&C if that's what you want to do.  Play C&C if you want to not have all that stuff and then add back only a few of the things you consider most important.
> Bolie IV



Give this man a cigar, he speaketh truth.


----------



## Akrasia (Jan 27, 2005)

Captain Loincloth said:
			
		

> ... 3.x did a great thing by getting a lot of former gamers back into gaming and bringing in a lot of new blood.  But it does not suit everybody's style.  Thus we have things like Conan,  Blue Rose,  and Castles and Crusades.  Having options such as those are options I REALLY like.




I could not agree with this more.    

After a few years of 3E dominance, it is finally occurring to people that one shoe size does not fit all.  But this is, to a great extent, something accomplished by, and possible by means of, the OGL.


----------



## Von Ether (Jan 27, 2005)

gideon_thorne said:
			
		

> *chuckles* Funny thing... check out Amazon and look up the Castles and Crusades book. There is a bit where some dealer offers the C&C players book and the Ebberon campaign setting as a package deal. The irony is epic.
> 
> Sides...there is nothing to converting 3.5 stuff to C&C. Just make feats into class abilities and prestige classes into base classes. Which amounts to no more than deciding what prime is appropriate to the class needing converting.



 Hmmm. On a Eberron conversion, that depends on how CnC will have one create magic items. There's only one new PC class in Eberron and his biggest abilities are a unique ability to take the Use Magic Device skill to new heights as well as a "craft reserve" that give set number of point to be used instead of XP to craft an item (and if you don't use all your points, you lose them next level). But just creating a useful "Alchemist" that specializes minor magic items wouldn't be a copyright issue. I am assuming the illusionist is a specialized wizard, so it might be a tempting template.

There is also a race, the shifters, that focus on taking feats to improve their parital shape shifting abilities. This would almost have to be a class/race combo ala Basic, but a good set of multiclassing rules would give the race some variety back. ... A shifter wouldn't be the most "optimal" choice, but then again we've been chatting up that CnC attracts mostly the story telling crowd.

And there's Action Points, a house rule that emphasizes the "add what you want" aspect of CnC. I'll assume there's little to  no mechanical changes to how races work so the humanoid shapeshifting of the Changelings and the laundry list of abilities for Warforged would work just right.

Part of the "engine" that make Eberron go is the much more common NPC classes being used by NPCs. Those could be used as is and we're done.

Thinking again about storytelling and older editions, let me tell you that in my playing DnD in the Midwest in the 80s was so not like that. I can't tell you how many times my "Middle Ages James Bond" or my "Professional Adventurer" or my "Robin Hood" PC was totaly ignored as we marched down yet another dungeon to find more traps for the group. During high school and college, if you wanted "storytelling" a GM or player knew he had to use another game to get the job done. Was the game designed like that? Hell, AD&D was the only RPG that I knew of that where people used minis to play. All the other non-DnD GM pointed to that fact to prove they were more storyteller vs. dungeon crawl.


----------



## Breakdaddy (Jan 27, 2005)

Melan said:
			
		

> Give this man a cigar, he speaketh truth.




Except for the fact that I cant remember having seen anyone in this thread say that you *could* do everything with C&C that you can with D&D out of the box. There is invariably that caveat that states that you must houserule it to do this or that. In that regard, I think he is a tad bit off the mark. No offense is meant here, bolie has been a good contributor to this thread, I just wanted to point that out. Of course, I havent gone back and reread each post en toto to make absolutely sure about this, this is all vague recollection at the moment. Feel free to quote someone making this claim and smack me down properly.


----------



## Breakdaddy (Jan 27, 2005)

Von Ether said:
			
		

> Hmmm. On a Eberron conversion, that depends on how CnC will have one create magic items.




Brother, if you get C&C and hammer out some type of Eberron conversion let me know, I will be ALL over that!


----------



## Breakdaddy (Jan 27, 2005)

Captain Loincloth said:
			
		

> I like 3.x,  don't get me wrong.  But there are things I truly dislike about the game.  Characters gain experience too fast for my taste...




This is one of the things I thought I would like most about 3.x D&D and ended up liking least. It's TOO much reward when you factor in the magic items (the way they are meant to be distributed, not MY way   ) and gold distribution. Of course, I am a stingy ass GM (ask my poor players!), and make these guys earn every last gold crown they acquire. The system does not break when you play it the way I play it, so Its not HUGE, but it is very irksome to me nevertheless, particularly (as recently happened with my group) when you have an outsider come in and watch your game and comment on how you arent distributing loot the "right" way.


----------



## cleaverthepit (Jan 27, 2005)

Hey breakdaddy

WFRG conversion idea - primes relate to profession instead of attibute. that's my first breakthough, next is how to do prefession and associated abilities - ugggg. and actually finding my old rulebook so I know what I am doing.

davis


----------



## Breakdaddy (Jan 27, 2005)

cleaverthepit said:
			
		

> Hey breakdaddy
> 
> WFRG conversion idea - primes relate to profession instead of attibute. that's my first breakthough, next is how to do prefession and associated abilities - ugggg. and actually finding my old rulebook so I know what I am doing.
> 
> davis




Excellent! I will happily lend you mine if you cant locate yours. Its not in great shape anymore (lots of mileage!), but its perfectly usable.


----------



## bolie (Jan 27, 2005)

Breakdaddy said:
			
		

> Except for the fact that I cant remember having seen anyone in this thread say that you *could* do everything with C&C that you can with D&D out of the box. There is invariably that caveat that states that you must houserule it to do this or that. In that regard, I think he is a tad bit off the mark. No offense is meant here, bolie has been a good contributor to this thread, I just wanted to point that out. Of course, I havent gone back and reread each post en toto to make absolutely sure about this, this is all vague recollection at the moment. Feel free to quote someone making this claim and smack me down properly.




No one has said that C&C would do all that 3e would out of the box but a lot of people (here and elsewhere) have said that not having a lot of rules somehow makes it easier to do a lot of different things.  Several people have stated in this thread that feats, skills, and prestige classes don't make characters much more different from each other than primes and RP.  Or they've stated that not having all those pesky feats and skills means they can use RP to distinguish characters as much or better.

I agree that you can do a lot to distinguish characters by RP and primes and equipment.  But it boggles my mind that anyone would think that having feats, skills, and prestige classes doesn't help.

But then my understanding is that C&C isn't trying to allow for all the customization of characters and monsters, it's allowing for customizing of the game itself.  Which is not an inherent flaw.  I do not intend that as a criticism.

So... my take on C&C v. 3e is that 3e allows for a wider variety of characters and monsters and tactical options in combat but requires a much, MUCH larger investment of time and money and can discourage some people from thinking outside the box because the box is so big.  C&C is simple and fast to play.  Making characters is quick and relatively simple.  The rules are less comprehensive which may encourage some people to be more creative (but which does not inherently allow more creativity).

As far as system design goes, I much prefer C&C saves to 3e saves and I much prefer 3e monster design (with stats and monster HD like classes) to C&C monster design.  Much of the other stuff that I'm not crazy about in C&C can easily be house ruled (adding feats and/or skills, 5 foot steps, spells, etc...).

Oh, and I've tried posting on the Troll Lord games forum, but I keep getting an InvalidDomain error or something.  I've used ezboard before with no trouble on other sites, though, so I'm not sure what the problem is.  It might be my extreme firewall/proxy stuff or something.  It's probably just as well that I haven't been able to post there.  

Bolie IV


----------



## Akrasia (Jan 27, 2005)

bolie said:
			
		

> ...  I find that having a consistent rule set allows for me to better judge what my character can and can't do.  No game like this is going to be 100% realistic.  It would be tedious if it were.  So the rules are a balance between playability and realism.  There is no right balance, of course, so each set of rules seeks a different balance.
> 
> 3e has a lot of rules and a lot of options within those rules.  That means I can find rules to cover a wide variety of situations.  It also means that the rules are more complex.
> 
> ...




I don't understand why so many people claim that a game with fewer, more general rules, is somehow the same thing as a game with 'inconsistent' rules that require people to come up with rules on their own, or on an ad hoc basis.  This is just mistaken.

Compare two systems for resolving non-combat tasks. One (the rules light) system, holds that you resolve every task by determining which ability score is appropriate (e.g. Strength, Intelligence, etc.), and making an 'ability score check' (say, rolling a d20 and adding the ability score modifier, plus/minus additional modifiers for difficulty). The other (rules 'robust') system has a list of 20+ skills, and holds that you resolve every task by determining which skill is appropriate (e.g. Climb, Knowledge aracana, etc.), and making a 'skill check' (say, rolling a d20 and adding the skill modifier, plus/minus additional modifiers for difficulty).

I fail completely to see why the former system is more 'ad hoc' than the latter. It is simply _more general_: it uses 'dexterity' for all dexterity-related tasks, rather than breaking those tasks down into individual skills.

It is possible for a rules-lite system to codify the ways in which different tasks and situations are resolved. They just provide more general mechanisms -- i.e. rules that cover a greater number of cases (and with fewer modifiers).

Obviously many people prefer the more complex system. But it is incorrect to claim that the more complex system (3E D&D) is _necessarily_ more consistent than the more general system.  (And often the opposite is true.)


----------



## Akrasia (Jan 27, 2005)

bolie said:
			
		

> No one has said that C&C would do all that 3e would out of the box but a lot of people (here and elsewhere) have said that not having a lot of rules somehow makes it easier to do a lot of different things. ...




By providing players with a simple rules framework, C&C provides a foundation onto which they can add what options they want (e.g. skills but not feats, etc.).  Players can then 'build up' to the kind of game they want.

In contrast, altering or removing any of the basic elements of 3E D&D -- e.g. feats, skills, the combat system, etc. -- requires a lot more work, and can have all kinds of unforseen or unintended consequences.  

I have already expressed my reasons for holding this to be the case _ad nauseum _ earlier in this thread.

But overall, I would say that 'out of the box' 3E D&D provides a lot more options for players, whereas C&C makes it easier for groups to introduce 'house rules' and tweak the system to their needs.


----------



## Mythmere1 (Jan 27, 2005)

Akrasia said:
			
		

> But overall, I would say that 'out of the box' 3E D&D provides a lot more options for players, whereas C&C makes it easier for groups to introduce 'house rules' and tweak the system to their needs.




I think you and bolie have arrived at the same (true) point.  C&C is easier to use if you want to add a few complexities, but not the whole shootin' match.  3E offers more out of the box.


----------



## Akrasia (Jan 27, 2005)

Mythmere1 said:
			
		

> I think you and bolie have arrived at the same (true) point.  C&C is easier to use if you want to add a few complexities, but not the whole shootin' match.  3E offers more out of the box.




Oh ... okay.  (I am so used to just disagreeing with people ...    )


----------



## bolie (Jan 27, 2005)

Akrasia said:
			
		

> I fail completely to see why the former system is more 'ad hoc' than the latter. It is simply _more general_: it uses 'dexterity' for all dexterity-related tasks, rather than breaking those tasks down into individual skills.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## bolie (Jan 27, 2005)

Akrasia said:
			
		

> Oh ... okay.  (I am so used to just disagreeing with people ...    )




Don't worry, I waded through the points we agree upon to pick out something to argue with.  Agreement is no fun...  

Bolie IV


----------



## gideon_thorne (Jan 27, 2005)

bolie said:
			
		

> Don't worry, I waded through the points we agree upon to pick out something to argue with.  Agreement is no fun...
> 
> Bolie IV




Hell mate, thats just gamers in general. I notice a consistent theme to the effect of no matter how many points gamers can find to agree on, they have more fun taking contrary fine points and beating them till they are a soggy mess. 

Which is not neccessarily a bad thing, at least we're communicating


----------



## Mythmere1 (Jan 27, 2005)

Interestingly, this thread has generated more replies (by about a hundred replies, too) than any other thread in the d20/OGL board over the course of the last 12 months (I stopped checking any further back).


----------



## Breakdaddy (Jan 27, 2005)

Mythmere1 said:
			
		

> Interestingly, this thread has generated more replies (by about a hundred replies, too) than any other thread in the d20/OGL board over the course of the last 12 months (I stopped checking any further back).




That is VERY cool for us C&C enthusiasts. Part of it, I think, is the fact that it got good exposure in the GENERAL DISCUSSION forum before it got keel hauled and dragged over into this forum.


----------



## Flexor the Mighty! (Jan 27, 2005)

The PHB gives a range of CL mods to modifiy the base 12/18 TN with, 1-5 for regular tasks, 6-10 for tough, etc.   I'm not going to make ANY mechanics to cover any non stated activities, ability checks will handle all that.  If it's something that is class related or I think a class would know make a attribute check and add your class level.  If it's not make a check and don't add your class level.  I'm going to wing most everything.  I may make a list of common modifiers for reoccuring situations though.  The last thing I want to do is add back in the things that I don't like about D20 fantasy games.  Heck I'm glad to be rid of them.


----------



## Henry (Jan 27, 2005)

Breakdaddy said:
			
		

> That is VERY cool for us C&C enthusiasts. Part of it, I think, is the fact that it got good exposure in the GENERAL DISCUSSION forum before it got keel hauled and dragged over into this forum.




That was a looooong time ago.  Fact is, you never can tell what sparks someone's interest. What sparks my interest? CASTLE ZAGYG. I'm still waiting for Dark Chateau and the levels beneath, before I pick up Yggsburgh, because that's where any group I play would want to go. (And let's face it - I want the Holy Grail of D&D!)


----------



## Breakdaddy (Jan 27, 2005)

Henry said:
			
		

> That was a looooong time ago.




LOL, not that I blame *you* or anything, Henry!


----------



## Mythmere1 (Jan 28, 2005)

Are the Hackmaster fans as psycho-fan as we are, or is this unusual?


----------



## Breakdaddy (Jan 28, 2005)

Mythmere1 said:
			
		

> Are the Hackmaster fans as psycho-fan as we are, or is this unusual?




Ack, Im also a Hackmaster fan. Do I get my crazy card now?


----------



## Henry (Jan 28, 2005)

Breakdaddy said:
			
		

> Ack, Im also a Hackmaster fan. Do I get my crazy card now?




No, you get THAT for that freaky avatar you're using. I won't be able to go to sleep at night after really getting a good look just now. I can't help but think of Ningauble of the Seven Eyes when I look at it...


----------



## Treebore (Jan 28, 2005)

So you are saying Ningauble is a binary creature?


----------



## Breakdaddy (Jan 28, 2005)

Henry said:
			
		

> No, you get THAT for that freaky avatar you're using. I won't be able to go to sleep at night after really getting a good look just now. I can't help but think of Ningauble of the Seven Eyes when I look at it...




Ningauble was just misunderstood. He was quite a loveable dude once you got to know him!


----------



## cleaverthepit (Jan 28, 2005)

*CKG forums*

For anyone needing to get on the CKG forums or have had problems please email me at

ccckger@yahoo.com

If you have not signe an NDA you can't but heck, its more fun to wait right.

Davis


----------



## blizack (Jan 28, 2005)

Mr. Chenault, could you tell me exactly what has and has not been released for C&C so far? I'm getting conflicting information from the various retail sites. The only thing that I'm certain is available is the Players Handbook. Are any of the modules or the Monsters & Treasure book out yet?


----------



## Breakdaddy (Jan 28, 2005)

blizack said:
			
		

> Mr. Chenault, could you tell me exactly what has and has not been released for C&C so far? I'm getting conflicting information from the various retail sites. The only thing that I'm certain is available is the Players Handbook. Are any of the modules or the Monsters & Treasure book out yet?




I can field this question for you, as I have been to Troll Lord HQ and had the opportunity to rap with Davis and Steve about C&C. The Players Guide is out, the M&T is NOT, but will be soon, and the Castle Keepers Guide is slated for a (hopeful) GenCon release from what I understand. The only other C&C Products out currently are the Crusader (a subscription magazine for C&C Enthusiasts) and the Box Set (containing a very streamlined version of the PHB, a book of Monsters and a book of advice for the CK/Mini Module.


----------



## gideon_thorne (Jan 28, 2005)

blizack said:
			
		

> Mr. Chenault, could you tell me exactly what has and has not been released for C&C so far? I'm getting conflicting information from the various retail sites. The only thing that I'm certain is available is the Players Handbook. Are any of the modules or the Monsters & Treasure book out yet?





Well Im not Mr Chenault but I can tell you for certain that the C&C Players guide is out on the market. The C&C nostalgia boxed set (which has a mini module in it) is available for order directly from the TLG company or can be picked up at conventions.

The rest is pending and or headed to the printers.


----------



## Breakdaddy (Jan 28, 2005)

gideon_thorne said:
			
		

> Well Im not Mr Chenault but I can tell you for certain that the C&C Players guide is out on the market. The C&C nostalgia boxed set (which has a mini module in it) is available for order directly from the TLG company or can be picked up at conventions.
> 
> The rest is pending and or headed to the printers.




I was a bit too quick for ya, Peter


----------



## gideon_thorne (Jan 28, 2005)

Breakdaddy said:
			
		

> I was a bit too quick for ya, Peter




Thats cool, mate. Better too much information than not enough. *wry grin*


----------



## blizack (Jan 28, 2005)

As I said, I already knew the Players Handbook was out (I ordered it from AllDirect.com and it should be delivered today) . 

I wasn't sure about the rest, so thanks for the clarifications, everybody.


----------



## Captain Loincloth (Jan 30, 2005)

I just stopped by my FLGS store today and...
GAAAAHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!! He sold his last two copies yesterday!
But he's got got more coming in and I'm counting down to Wednesday at 4:00pm.


----------



## gideon_thorne (Jan 30, 2005)

Captain Loincloth said:
			
		

> I just stopped by my FLGS store today and...
> GAAAAHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!! He sold his last two copies yesterday!
> But he's got got more coming in and I'm counting down to Wednesday at 4:00pm.




Well thats good news that its being restocked.  Makes me feel all warm and fuzzy inside


----------



## Captain Loincloth (Jan 31, 2005)

gideon_thorne said:
			
		

> Well thats good news that its being restocked.  Makes me feel all warm and fuzzy inside




Good news to me, too,  as now I have only a three day wait.  I hope for your sake and ours that other stores are selling it as fast as he is.  Nothing is better than seeing a good game succeed.


----------



## gideon_thorne (Jan 31, 2005)

Captain Loincloth said:
			
		

> Good news to me, too,  as now I have only a three day wait.  I hope for your sake and ours that other stores are selling it as fast as he is.  Nothing is better than seeing a good game succeed.




If the sales keep on going as they have been, I for one will be really happy.


----------



## Ariddrake (Jan 31, 2005)

I just wanted to praise the C&C a little. I want to say first that I love that 3.x has brought alot of people back to the hobby, including me. The thing about C&C that I like so much is that it plays, to me, alot like basic and expert dnd where I had everything in those books memorized like the back of my hand, we even house ruled AC as its done now. My problem with 3.x is that I have 50 flash cards that I use to DM with and I still have this feeling that I am omitting something. I know you can use what you want and leave the rest but I feel that there are so many caveats that I forget something. This is not leaving out rules you do not want to use but having so many rules it makes it very difficult to keep up with everything especially if you have a job, work, school, etc. I get stressed out by 3.x sometimes when it's supposed to be a game. 
I also wanted to say I read the complete box set I got from Gencon in an hour. Also the adventure that comes with the box set has alot of stuff going on for being so short. Good Job.


----------



## Mythmere1 (Jan 31, 2005)

Every game store in Houston sold out in one day, last Saturday, when the books arrived.  Two of my four players ended up ordering from Amazon, and one got a book from the FLGS before they ran out.

Troll Lords mentioned somewhere that if sales continued at current pace, they'd be out in 15 days (that post was several days ago, 7 maybe), but that they expected to have inventory for about 60 days - obviously, sales slow down after the first couple of weeks.  

Still, it's astounding that several (major) cities are seeing an actual sellout-shortage of an OGL game in this market - even assuming that they probably only ordered a couple of copies each in the first place, I've never heard of that...


----------



## Flexor the Mighty! (Jan 31, 2005)

I can't find this book anywhere in St. Louis, the major LGS chain hasn't ordered it, and even with my telling them to order me a copy in mid December I still don't have anything.  I'm going to have to order another copy from TLG direct I guess.


----------



## Treebore (Jan 31, 2005)

Ariddrake said:
			
		

> I just wanted to praise the C&C a little. I want to say first that I love that 3.x has brought alot of people back to the hobby, including me. The thing about C&C that I like so much is that it plays, to me, alot like basic and expert dnd where I had everything in those books memorized like the back of my hand, we even house ruled AC as its done now. My problem with 3.x is that I have 50 flash cards that I use to DM with and I still have this feeling that I am omitting something. I know you can use what you want and leave the rest but I feel that there are so many caveats that I forget something. This is not leaving out rules you do not want to use but having so many rules it makes it very difficult to keep up with everything especially if you have a job, work, school, etc. I get stressed out by 3.x sometimes when it's supposed to be a game.
> I also wanted to say I read the complete box set I got from Gencon in an hour. Also the adventure that comes with the box set has alot of stuff going on for being so short. Good Job.




Very much the same thing with my reasons for liking C&C.


----------



## gideon_thorne (Jan 31, 2005)

Flexor the Mighty! said:
			
		

> I can't find this book anywhere in St. Louis, the major LGS chain hasn't ordered it, and even with my telling them to order me a copy in mid December I still don't have anything.  I'm going to have to order another copy from TLG direct I guess.




I'll talk to the Trolls and see whats up? Might just be normal distribution delay.  :\


----------



## Flexor the Mighty! (Feb 2, 2005)

They guy at one store pulled out some distributor catalog and said it wasn't even in there so I don't know what is going on.


----------



## gideon_thorne (Feb 2, 2005)

Flexor the Mighty! said:
			
		

> They guy at one store pulled out some distributor catalog and said it wasn't even in there so I don't know what is going on.




Steve's on the case, I'll find out more as soon as I can.

Pete


----------



## trancejeremy (Feb 2, 2005)

Flexor the Mighty! said:
			
		

> I can't find this book anywhere in St. Louis, the major LGS chain hasn't ordered it, and even with my telling them to order me a copy in mid December I still don't have anything.  I'm going to have to order another copy from TLG direct I guess.




That's why I almost never buy stuff from the Fantasy Shop anymore, they rarely get new stuff in that isn't from the major companies/lines.


----------



## Flexor the Mighty! (Feb 2, 2005)

trancejeremy said:
			
		

> That's why I almost never buy stuff from the Fantasy Shop anymore, they rarely get new stuff in that isn't from the major companies/lines.




Yeah, it's not exactly the best store if you aren't a D&D or WW player.  Do you know of any alternatives?


----------



## Captain Loincloth (Feb 3, 2005)

I finally got mine yesterday.  Love the front cover art,  the knight vs. the dragons really captures the old school feel perfectly.  Incidently,  the guy at my FLGS told me he's sold eight copies in the past  week or so.  C+C looks like the hottest d20/OGL product since Conan.  Keep up the good work.


----------



## cleaverthepit (Feb 4, 2005)

The problem begins at the retail level and is only compounded at the distribution level.

Retailers are rightly shy of purchasing OGL, D20 material these days because they just do not sell well (other than a few big companies and even those sales are flagging). They are shying away from spending on any risky project. C&C is viewed as a risk by some.

Now, are they right? Our local game store - just 2-3 miles away has no CCPHBs. We have now sold 17 inside the city limits of Little Rock - out of our office. Most had stopped at the LGS first. Mena Arkansas (look that up on a map) has sold 7 from its game store. And one store on the east coast has moved 27 in a month (the store also sold right at 60 Planet Busters - whatever he is doing he is doing it right). On the other hand, a store in Chicago purchased 8 and has only sold 3. 

Its spotty sales and we are guessing it is selling high in areas where there is a 'net community' in play or where we have made a presence (Mena via gideon thorne for example).

The distribution chain is also a little bit iffy in places so several distributors ran out very quickly and stores could not get any. As a result, several stores have started ording directly from us. This is good and bad. Stores get discounts on volume purchases through distributors so many are reluctant to go direct to manufactorer but,since we have no minimum order.... well except one purchase  but that goes without saying.

We are almost out here at the office but there are still many in the chain so a store should be able to get them. Most stores will special order and many will order one copy if a customer has an interest but is not sure about purchasing. 

Asking at Hasting, B&N, Books-a-Million should also work and they do not require a purchase - at least not in my experience. Then Buy.com is selling them cheap as are Walmart and Amazon.

davis


----------



## Breakdaddy (Feb 4, 2005)

cleaverthepit said:
			
		

> Now, are they right? Our local game store - just 2-3 miles away has no CCPHBs. We have now sold 17 inside the city limits of Little Rock - out of our office.




Glad to hear it! I dont know how much my pimping the product helped, but we got at least 7 of those if memory serves


----------



## Flexor the Mighty! (Feb 10, 2005)

Got a copy at the LGS today.  They forgot to hold it for me, but at least they had one on the shelf.  Hopefully they will order more stuff in the future.


----------



## Mythmere1 (Feb 10, 2005)

Flexor the Mighty! said:
			
		

> Got a copy at the LGS today.  They forgot to hold it for me, but at least they had one on the shelf.  Hopefully they will order more stuff in the future.




Is that from the chain that didn't order them before?  Or did you find a new source?


----------



## Flexor the Mighty! (Feb 11, 2005)

It was the same store.  He said he had seven or eight people ask about it so he ordered one.  Well he's going to have to reorder since I grabbed it right away.  

He also said that someone who said they were involved in the creation of the game was in there talking about it.  I'm not sure who though.


----------



## Brund the Decrepit (Feb 11, 2005)

Hmm reading this thread was like watching an episode of the Outer Limits, at some points I just had NO idea what the heck was going on.    

Anyways, I am among the LONG time D&D players starting back in the late 70's, early 80's who had taken a break and was brought back to D&D by ver. 3.0. When I started to hear the buzz of C&C and read up on what it was and what it was going to bring to the RPG table I was very excited and I can honestly say that it is a breath of fresh air for me. The whole package from the quality of the book(s), the way it plays and even the cool 'nostalgic' Spartan 300 boxed set has just been done so well.

It leaves it up to the player(s) just how simple or complex they want to make it and the compatability with almost any and all published adventures from the past, present and future just made it the perfect fit for me. I have a copy of the PHB and when the second printing is run I will be ordering 6 more copies so I can give each one of my players an early Xmas/B'day gift because not only is the price right at $20.00 but it is an awesome set of rules.   

I do have one quick question that I have asked in a couple of places (as Peter can attest...   ). I have seen people talk about converting lets say a 1st Ed. adventure on the fly and I also read that it is as simple as just assigning the beastie a prime(s) and to determine AC just subtract the AC from 20 to derive the current AC. Is this correct? For those of you have have done 'on-the-fly' conversions what did you do and how?

-Brund


----------



## gideon_thorne (Feb 11, 2005)

Brund the Decrepit said:
			
		

> I do have one quick question that I have asked in a couple of places (as Peter can attest...   ). I have seen people talk about converting lets say a 1st Ed. adventure on the fly and I also read that it is as simple as just assigning the beastie a prime(s) and to determine AC just subtract the AC from 20 to derive the current AC. Is this correct? For those of you have have done 'on-the-fly' conversions what did you do and how?
> 
> -Brund




Essentially correct. If its simple enough for a non numbers guy like me too do it should be cake for anyone.

AC goes up instead of down and the Physical and or Mental prime is already more or less built into AD&D monster stats anyhow. Any creature that has a high int is readily identifyable as a Mental prime, strong creatures have a phyiscal prime. The creature  att. mods are more or less centered around hit dice of the creature.


----------



## Breakdaddy (Feb 11, 2005)

Yeah I used a couple of monsters from the old D&D Rules Cyclopedia on the fly, and it was a real breeze. As you stated, subtract the AC from 20 and select the primes (physical or mental), which is usually common sense. If the AC was a negative number just add it to 20 instead of subtracting it from 20. Take the creatures hit dice and use that as their base attack bonus. Voila! You have just converted the vast majority of creatures on the fly in a matter of seconds.


----------



## Particle_Man (Feb 11, 2005)

For 1st-3rd ed, subtract from 20.

For basic/expert/rules cyclopedia, I think you subtract from 19.

But I doubt that 1 AC point makes a huge difference.


----------

