# Once you go C&C, you never go back



## Frost (Nov 29, 2007)

It seems like whenever someone posts about Troll Lord Games' Castle & Crusades game, it's very positive.  Something along the lines of, "That's why I switched to C&C," or "Once I played C&C, I instantly feel in love with it."

Has anyone played it and not liked it?

Edit: How the heck to edit the poll?  I'd like to add an "I now play both" option.


----------



## mhensley (Nov 29, 2007)

The last time I tried to run C&C for my group, I almost got into a fist fight.


----------



## SteveC (Nov 29, 2007)

Uh no. I've played C&C...even did a demo game with the Troll Lord guys (who are fantastic, by the way). I really like the SIEGE engine mechanic...it's very nice. The rest of the game, no way. Been there, done that...got the T-shirt.

I stay out of debates on the issue, because I don't really have much to add, but also because the guys behind the game are so *darn nice*. Frankly, I think that's why you don't see a lot more criticism of the game: while some of the game's defenders can be argumentative at times, the actual authors are professional, and nice people to boot!

But no, it's not the game for me.

--Steve


----------



## Darkwolf71 (Nov 29, 2007)

Haven't tried it yet, but I plan too.


----------



## Philotomy Jurament (Nov 29, 2007)

Tried it.
Liked it.
Switched to it for my main game.
Still play it, but it's heavily house-ruled; at this point my C&C game might as well be AD&D.  (And it's no longer my "first choice" system -- OD&D[1974] has usurped that position.)
Still think it's a great game, in any case.


----------



## Wormwood (Nov 29, 2007)

Tried it, thought it achieved the goals it set for itself, and never played it again. 

When I wanted to run a simple, easy-to-learn D&D game for my wife and nephews, C&C never even crossed my mind. 

(Thankfully, my old Moldvay Basic set came to the rescue and we had a great time!)


----------



## diaglo (Nov 29, 2007)

Philotomy Jurament said:
			
		

> Tried it.
> Liked it.
> Switched to it for my main game.
> Still play it, but it's heavily house-ruled; at this point my C&C game might as well be AD&D.  (And it's no longer my "first choice" system -- OD&D[1974] has usurped that position.)




i could've told you.

diaglo "the cassandra of rpgs" Ooi


----------



## Buttercup (Nov 29, 2007)

Obryn just kindly gave me his books, because he didn't want them.  I've yet to run a C&C game, but I sure would like to.  

Probably I would houserule it a tiny bit, like take out the Monk, use 4d6 drop the lowest for stat generation and *maybe* use that class based die roll for damage so that weapon choice became a story element rather than an actual mechanical choice.

And of course in my game there will be no elves.


----------



## Ulrick (Nov 29, 2007)

I bought it and really liked it at first (despite the spelling errors in the PHB). But then I figured, "this is a lot like AD&D, so why don't I just play 1st Edition AD&D?" 

One thing that I didn't like about C&C was the test resolution system where you needed two numbers depending on if a character specialized in an attribute.  

But it was a nice rules-lite d20 system, compatible with both old and new D&D products.


----------



## Odhanan (Nov 29, 2007)

Frost said:
			
		

> Has anyone played it and not liked it?




Where's the option for "I play it happily, just like I play other editions just as happily"? I'm actually considering building my own "AC&C" for old school gaming right now.

I really like it but still would/will run games with Third Ed too. I am satisfied by both but they provide different kinds of fun. Nothing wrong with that. So I voted "Yes".


----------



## Calico_Jack73 (Nov 29, 2007)

I absolutely love it and would love to run it but the people in my group have gotten somewhat spoiled on the options for character development through Feats.  There isn't a whole lot of interest in switching to it.


----------



## Philotomy Jurament (Nov 29, 2007)

diaglo said:
			
		

> i could've told you.



Oh, you did.  But I'm a stubborn bastard, so I have to learn things the slow way.


----------



## Dragonhelm (Nov 29, 2007)

SteveC said:
			
		

> I stay out of debates on the issue, because I don't really have much to add, but also because the guys behind the game are so *darn nice*. Frankly, I think that's why you don't see a lot more criticism of the game: while some of the game's defenders can be argumentative at times, the actual authors are professional, and nice people to boot!




I agree.  One time I made an order over the phone to the Trolls and landed up shooting the breeze for a while with them.  I've also enjoyed talking to them at GenCon.

I'm using C&C quite a bit right now.  Using it to run some Game Mastery modules.



			
				Ulrick said:
			
		

> One thing that I didn't like about C&C was the test resolution system where you needed two numbers depending on if a character specialized in an attribute.




What some people do is add +6 to a roll and keep the basic 18 target number on rolls, rather than having 18 or 12 (if prime).  I do it that way, but make it +5 just to make it a bit easier to add.


----------



## Jackelope King (Nov 29, 2007)

The SIEGE Engine is a spiffy idea for rules-light gaming. It's a simple way to resolve skill checks, and it does its job nicely for the most part (even if it really would benefit from supporting feats to help with niche protection a little better). They get big kudos there. Great idea.

Everything else... bleh. Too old school for my tastes. Tried it, rolled my eyes a lot, then decided on True20 for my rules-light. I'm much happier when I can actually make meaningful character design decisions, and when the rules feel more unified.


----------



## jolt (Nov 29, 2007)

I voted no.

One of the main reasons I had initially left AD&D for was that I came to hate the notion of  different level progressions for different classes.  For one, most players tended to take whatever was strongest even if it meant slower leveling (weak classes were usually only taken by multi-classing demi-humans) and two, the progressions as written make no sense (e.g. the Magic-User at lower levels is weak and slow advancing but as time goes on he becomes immensely powerful and is one of the faster advancing classes in the game).  I have no desire to move to a game that uses this leveling mechanic.  (Rolemaster was the game I switched to (If you care (And you probably don't)))

If I wanted to switch to that style of game I would just go back to 1E (I still have all my stuff) as I'm more familiar with it and what I'd want to change.

jolt


----------



## jolt (Nov 29, 2007)

Philotomy Jurament said:
			
		

> But I'm a stubborn bastard...




Just for the record, while everyone else was saying that, I [bravely] stood up for you.   

jolt


----------



## dmccoy1693 (Nov 29, 2007)

SteveC said:
			
		

> but also because the guys behind the game are so *darn nice*.



REALLY?!? Ask an OSRIC fan just how _darn nice_ the TL boys are.


----------



## Ottergame (Nov 29, 2007)

No.  While I think it's well made and hits the goals it sets for itself, I'm just not interested in rules lite D&D.


----------



## WSmith (Nov 29, 2007)

Ulrick said:
			
		

> I bought it and really liked it at first (despite the spelling errors in the PHB). But then I figured, "this is a lot like AD&D, so why don't I just play 1st Edition AD&D?"




As one of the contributors that helped design C&C, I can say that this is the most prominent (and benign for conversation here) reason that after I played the final product for a little while, it just didn't feel close enough AD&D for me to enjoy. It is not bad on its own legs. But the final product just wasn't what I was hopping for.


----------



## MrFilthyIke (Nov 29, 2007)

The Castles & Cultists normally used to come out in full force in many threads, trying to convert to d20 heathens to the TLG cause.



Aside from my dislike of some of the fans of the game, it's still a great game.

Just not greater than BD&D/AD&D/AD&D2E/D&D3E.


----------



## Crothian (Nov 29, 2007)

Tried and I thought it did an amazing job of getting rid of most of the things I liked while keeping the things I didn't.  I got rid of all those books pretty quickly.


----------



## Desdichado (Nov 29, 2007)

I think the reason for that is that the C&C player base is already heavily self-selected towards people who will most likely like it.

I have _not_ played it, although I would.  I guess.  I can't imagine myself ever adopting it for a campaign, though.


----------



## Dice4Hire (Nov 29, 2007)

Looks like C&C is getting punked.


----------



## jdrakeh (Nov 29, 2007)

I ran a C&C over the Summer of 2006 which went well enough (petered out due to schedule conflicts) but didn't actually convince any of the participants to take it up as their house fantasy system specifically because it lacked the level of mechanical detail that D&D 3x did.


----------



## Dragonhelm (Nov 29, 2007)

dmccoy1693 said:
			
		

> REALLY?!? Ask an OSRIC fan just how _darn nice_ the TL boys are.




*blinks*




			
				MrFilthyIke said:
			
		

> The Castles & Cultists normally used to come out in full force in many threads, trying to convert to d20 heathens to the TLG cause.
> 
> 
> 
> ...





You know, it really is a shame that some (not all!) of the fans of C&C can be so...enthusiastic.   

You don't successfully promote one game by putting down another.  Now, to be clear, this isn't localized to C&C fans by any means.  I've seen plenty of d20 fans in my time bash AD&D, for example.

You're absolutely right, C&C is a fantastic game.  You're also right in that it isn't the only great game in town.  My own POV is that you promote your game while also respecting others.  A good friend of mine is a True20 fan, and part of the reason we get along so great is that we respect each others' choices on rules systems.

Personally, I like C&C as a nice, basic rules system that is easy to house rule.  I like that it works fine on its own, but it also is open to adding new subsystems.  I don't like the variable XP tables, lack of multiclassing rules, and that the hit die progression ends with a flat bonus to HP at higher levels.  However, combat is real easy to run and the SIEGE engine lends well to giving the game a good "Hollywood" feel.  The only other major limitation is that it doesn't lend to mechanical customization as well.  

I recommend it for those who want an old-school feel to their game with some of the basic advantages of 3e.  I do not recommend it for those who are very tactical-minded or who favor a lot of mechanics.  I would hope that, before making any decision on the game, you guys would give it a chance at least once.  If you like it, great.  If not, that's okay.  C&C is great for its audience, but it isn't for everyone.


----------



## Olgar Shiverstone (Nov 29, 2007)

Passed.  I applauded the desire for streamlining but didn't like where complexity had been added (six saves vice three, for example) and didn't like some of the character flexibility sacrifices.

There's probably a sweet spot for me somewhere just below 3.5, but C&C ain't it.


----------



## FATDRAGONGAMES (Nov 29, 2007)

I converted fairly quickly, but that's mainly because I am still in love with AD&D. Looking through the C&C players handbook made me feel like a 10 year old again looking through the AD&D books. My 3.5 group took a while to convince to try it, but after they did we gradually switched our game to a C&C/3.5 hybrid and now it is totally a C&C/AD&D game. If you love all of the mechanics of 3.5, C&C isn't for you.  I'm not bashing 3.5 in any way, and I still play it. For me, I simply prefer the game I knew as a kid.


----------



## Numion (Nov 29, 2007)

The emperor has no clothes, huh? I always suspected it was just a vocal minority, but damn .. 

Anyway, I always thought that there was something inherently wrong in a game if its best features couldn't be explained without putting down another game. It makes it seem that the makers spent time making 'not D&D' instead of making the best game they could.


----------



## Treebore (Nov 29, 2007)

I've seen posts by plenty of people who didn't like it. Its not a game for everyone, but if your looking for something else its worth trying out.

I've seen them play C&C for a long while, then go on to something like Savage Worlds, BAsic D&D, and even back to 3E.

My biggest reason for going with it, at first, was because I had a hundred plus books for 3E and D20 based books, almost everything for 2E, lots of 1E, and a good bit of basic. C&C initially was just the best thing for me to go with to use all of that material together in one game.

Now its just the perfect system for me, because it allows me to not only use what rules I want from whatever system I want, and create the rules base that is absolutely perfect for what I want, because I turned it into that.

So now I have a rules set that is flexible enough to allow players skills, even feat like abilities, but still play simply enough to where role play is the focus and still play out quickly.


I liked 3E enough to play it for almost 5 years, and to buy tons of its books and modules. Heck, I just bought a bunch of books in the GR sale.

I'm even loooking forward to 4E, even though I'll never DM it.

Why? Largely because C&C has turned every rules set of D&D into a "research library" like never before. Its amazing to me how easy the SIEGE engine makes everything compatible.

So C&C is perfect for me, maybe for you, and there is only one way to find out. Give it a fair try. Meaning play it and figure it out to where you "get it". Then, if you don't like it, fair enough. C&C isn't for everyone.


----------



## JoeBlank (Nov 29, 2007)

Olgar Shiverstone said:
			
		

> Passed.  I applauded the desire for streamlining but didn't like where complexity had been added (six saves vice three, for example) and didn't like some of the character flexibility sacrifices.
> 
> There's probably a sweet spot for me somewhere just below 3.5, but C&C ain't it.





My sentinments precisely. 

As for the poll results, I don't think anyone expected C&C to "win out" over D&D. Many of the target fan base probably do not even post here.


----------



## Dragonhelm (Nov 29, 2007)

Numion said:
			
		

> Anyway, I always thought that there was something inherently wrong in a game if its best features couldn't be explained without putting down another game. It makes it seem that the makers spent time making 'not D&D' instead of making the best game they could.




Please do not let the vocal defenders of C&C stand as a representation of the game or its makers.  There are those out there, like Treebore and myself, who support C&C without putting another system down.    

In fact, I've always liked how Treebore approaches things.  He takes books from all editions and uses them in his game.  In fact, this is much of what the creators had in mind, from what I understand.

I also like Treebore's approach on how to get people into C&C.  Give it a fair shot.  If you like it, great.  If not, that's fine too.  C&C isn't for everyone.  What's important is that you game using the rules that work best for you.


----------



## Ghostwind (Nov 30, 2007)

I'm planning on using C&C as a tool to teach D&D to beginning players with the next group I form at work.


----------



## jdrakeh (Nov 30, 2007)

post deleted


----------



## Rhuvein (Nov 30, 2007)

Yep, our group tried 3E and then C&C and we all liked it enough to switch. Heck, Regdar, Lidda and Jozan have been adventuring with C&C for almost 3 years!!   

Personally, for me it's mostly about the ease of running the game without a lot or pre-prep or work during the game. 

As a player, I continue to play 3.5, AD&D 1E, LA and other games online.

To me, it's more about the people you play with, how GM runs the game and how interesting the overall atmosphere is (campaign world).


----------



## Greylock (Nov 30, 2007)

Yes. My group decided to give C&C a shot over a year ago. We were all veterans of 1st and  3rd Edition, and the DM had a tough time selling us on C&C. But once we started playing, we fell in love with it. The campaign we started in C&C fell apart due to some issues with a couple of players, and we rebooted very briefly as a Dragonstar/Rifts game, which didn't last long. We held a group meeting, decided to play fantasy again, and took a vote as to which system we would use. To my surprise, the entire group voted for C&C. Not a single vote against.

No one was more surprised than the DM, though, who'd had such a tough time convincing us to try it a few months before.


----------



## Treebore (Nov 30, 2007)

jdrakeh said:
			
		

> I'd like to second that sentiment. There are some 'fans' of C&C who probably do more to ensure that potential interested parties _never_ play it (in fact, I know that there are). Treebore is the best thing that C&C has going for it at many online communities.





Thanks to you and Dragonhelm.

Over on RPGnet people have actually posted that they stayed away from C&C because of me and my posts. Among the dumbest things I have ever heard, but there is a lot of that on that board.

If I stayed away from games because of how fans talked it up I would never have played 3E, let alone run it for almost 5 years.

Same for RIFTS and Paladium in general.

Same for GURPS.


So, when I think how glad I am I didn't ignore games based on its fans, it baffles me how others do.

In fact, I have actually looked at more systems because of how badly people complained about it.

Thankfully I discovered Shadowrun and Legend of the 5 Rings because of them. Plus C&C. Crothian knocked it pretty bad in his review, but it prompted me to look anyways. Simply because a couple of things he complained about appealed to me. Then I found out he misunderstood a couple oof things, which he graciously corrected in his review. Plus won my admiration for doing so, for whatever that is worth.

Plus there are a lot of 3E WOTC books I would not have bought if I listened to the negative reviews/opinions posted on these boards and others. Fortunately I bought Libris Mortis and other books anyways, and liked them, a lot.

So letting "fans", or "haters", completely determine your choices baffles me. I realized a long time ago everyone has different opinions, diffferent preferences, different many things, and find it very amazing when groups of such people can get together to play any one RPG.

Fortunately it does happen. A lot. Or none of us would be here.

ITs all D&D to me, so even though I don't expect to be a fan of 4E, and don't use 3E as my rules base, I have found plenty of "gaming" to still be in common with everyone to still hang out on these boards.

Which is why I don't get why people feel only one edition is appropriate for any RPG board.


I hope that ENWorld becomes like DF, even more so, in that ENWorld will support D&D in general, let alone only one or two editions. WE are all gamers with one thing in common. Dungeons and Dragons. The edition only matters because people make it a point of contention. We all share the commonality of the experience. The creativity. The fun. How we go about having that experience shouldn't be a point of division.


----------



## Breakdaddy (Nov 30, 2007)

I play it and enjoy the game, so I voted yes.


----------



## slimykuotoan (Nov 30, 2007)

*re:*

I tried it after playing D&D for twenty years or so, and then made the switch to C&C for all of my fantasy games.

The SEIGE system actually gets addictive after a while.


----------



## JediOre (Nov 30, 2007)

I got dragged kicking and screaming into 3.X after twenty years of AD&D.  My group promised they would adventure through Gygax's Necropolis (which I drooled over in a game store) if I'd DM the new version of the game.  That was in 2001.  

By 2005 the characters had risen to 10th level (we all have busy lives sadly) and my brain could no longer handle the complexity of high level play.  All the fun I'd had as DM since '81 was gone in a stream of rules and number crunching.

Since most didn't want to return to AD&D I was within a month of "hanging up the DM spurs" when I caught wind of C&C.  

This RPG clicked.  It allowed me to be a game master again instead of a rules referee.  I prefer it to AD&D for the same reason given by Treebore.  I can easily use TSR modules or Goodman Game modules with almost no effort.  

I'm enjoying my past time of role playing again for the first time in years.


----------



## pawsplay (Nov 30, 2007)

C&C gave me hives. I would sooner play Palladium fantasy.


----------



## serleran (Nov 30, 2007)

As one of the designers, I could say all kinds of things, but I won't.

I will, instead, just say something stupid:

I'll play whatever is fun. C&C, like any game, can be fun. Does it depend on who is playing it, and how? Likely, just as other games can get boring if you're having a bad string of things (like, say, a new "fighter game" where you have to learn all the combos and you're playing against someone who has them all memorized...) but it doesn't mean the game, itself, is bad... just that experience.

This is why it should be tried, if for no other reason than to say you actually know what it is you're not liking.

By the way: C&C never meant to replace any game you are using now - it was meant to bridge them, so you could have all of what you liked from them, but under the same umbrella, to make them easier to combine, and play. It was also meant to bring new players into gaming with something simple, and easy to pick up, without the daunting task of memorizing 300 pages of Player material first.

[edit - Damn spelling - its contagious when you're around so many trolls...]


----------



## Henry (Nov 30, 2007)

I like it, and will use it to run "old-school" modules for one-shots occasionally, because it's easy enough for people used to the DC system of d20 to pick up and run with. The only change I do make is to make the main target number 20 instead of 18, and I just say that having a prime ability gives you a +6 bonus to that roll. The rest I keep the same (level adjustments to the DC, the SEIGE system keyed to attributes, etc.) I pull out some old-school 1E magic items, and have fun with them.


----------



## scruffygrognard (Nov 30, 2007)

Right now I'm having a blast playing AD&D modules converted to C&C.  Our DM is running us through the Slave Lord series though, sadly, we only play once per month.

That said, when I run C&C I use a highly modified ruleset based heavily on C&C, D&D 3.X and AD&D.  Part of the beauty of the game is that it's easily adapted.


----------



## slimykuotoan (Nov 30, 2007)

I'll have to add that I'm almost exclusively a DM/GM/Ck,etc. so I love the fact that C&C is completely compatible with D20/AD&D, etc stuff.

Indeedy, I've dusted off all of my AD&D resources and now spend time scouring hobby stores for old n' tasty Dungeon/Dragon mags.

Understand that I'm not in any way against other fantasy systems, I'm just saying that C&C is a great deal of fun.

For those of you interested, pop over to the Troll Lords site and PM me on the forums; I -and I'm sure others- would be more than happy to CK you in a 'one nighter' online (via free voice chat programs) using the free downloadable quick start rules.

And considering character creation's a snap, instant games pop up all the time, which you can quickly jump in on...


----------



## Teflon Billy (Nov 30, 2007)

I thought it was fine. It pretty much achieved that goals that were described to me.

But the similarity between all members of each class at similar levels left me a bit blah about the whole situation.

In the end, I needed more character option that were presented.

But as a re-working of old-school D&D it was great...but there was a _reason _I welcomed 3rd edition when it appeared.


----------



## Brooklyn Red Leg (Nov 30, 2007)

Although I've only had one chance to play _Castles & Crusades_ (at NecronomiCon in Tampa in October), I have to say I love the system. I had a blast playing a Gnome Illusionist, eventhough the module was full of Undead. 

As others have said, its modularity is what drew me once I had started to research it. I can take any of my editions of _(A)D&D_ and plug them in with few modifications. If I ever get around to actually running a game (Im waiting on getting the Castle Keepers Guide, as well as to get my friends to actually try the game) I intend on taking the 'Everything but the Kitchen Sink' approach. I'm a big fan of _Blackmoor_ and _DragonLance_ (as well as that special place in my heart for _Greyhawk_), so I allow ALL kinds of player character classes/races (especially some stuff from _Hackmaster_) and even prestige classes. I can take my (extensive) collection of modules and run them rather easily from what I can tell. 

So for those of you who haven't tried it....you never know, it may turn out to be a life changing experience. Does the game need tweaks to lend itself to your specific needs, certainly. But the Trolls have given you the tools necessary to make those changes.


----------



## FATDRAGONGAMES (Nov 30, 2007)

jdrakeh said:
			
		

> Treebore is the best thing that C&C has going for it at many online communities.




Agreed.


----------



## ivocaliban (Nov 30, 2007)

I didn't vote because I haven't played C&C, but I do have a couple of the books. I like the idea, particularly for more casual gamers who might be interested in playing, but don't want to spend an hour or two creating their first character, learning how to navigate a complicated character sheet, etc.

I introduced my best friend's fiancee to D&D 3.5, but having never played the game before she really got bored with placing skill points, picking spells, etc. She just wanted to play. I think C&C would have been a better introductory choice on my part, but I didn't have it at the time. 

On the other hand, I have a hard time convincing my friends who are familiar with 3.0e/3.5e to even try C&C. Most of them see it as a step backwards for player character customization and already being familiar with the complexities of 3.0e/3.5e prefer that route. So, it sits on my shelf, looking tiny and forgotten next to the dozens of d20 books. I'd like to give it a try, but you need willing players for that sort of thing.


----------



## jdrakeh (Nov 30, 2007)

Treebore said:
			
		

> So, when I think how glad I am I didn't ignore games based on its fans, it baffles me how others do.




It has to do with personality.

C&C has had some very obnoxious fans post here about how the game can do _anything_ out of the box (i.e., unaltered), which makes it obviously superior to D&D -- and then they proceed to tell people that you only need to houserule or handwave a sizeable list of stuff to make it do X (thus, shooting hundreds of holes in the original claim). 
At this point, somebody will point out that houserules and handwaving aren't something that the game does out of the box and that these are things which the consumer must do themselves. That is, these aren't actual _rules_ in C&C. This is typically followed by much gnashing of teeth and name-calling. Things only tend to go downhill from there. 

Would you want to sit down and game with such a person? I know that I wouldn't. 

Again, it's a personality thing. Telling lies and calling people names won't win you friends. A lot of people have that figured out. Those who don't will find convincing people to play their favorite game an arduous task. 

[P.S. This behavior is not specific to hardcore C&C fans and I do not mean to infer such. I merely use them as an example here, as it's on point. Every game has its fair share of fanatic promoters who suffer from tunnel vision and, more often than not, such folks tend to repel rather than attract.]

[P.P.S. I hope ENWorld _never_ becomes like DF (in that I hope its community is never so highly polarized to the degree that members actually spend time creating new perjoratives to describe other game systems). I'd welcome more dedicated discussion forums for multiple editions of D&D, on the other hand.]


----------



## Greylock (Nov 30, 2007)

slimykuotoan said:
			
		

> Indeedy, I've dusted off all of my AD&D resources and now spend time scouring hobby stores for old n' tasty Dungeon/Dragon mags.




Stay out of Memphis, slimeball! Those old Dragons are mine, mine, mine!


----------



## slimykuotoan (Nov 30, 2007)

mmm, slurp, slurp...tasty dragon/dungeon mags...

Reverent goddess Blipdoolpoolp...send us more bubbly goodness.


----------



## Greylock (Nov 30, 2007)

jdrakeh said:
			
		

> C&C has had some very obnoxious fans post here about how the game can do _anything_ out of the box (i.e., unaltered), which makes it obviously superior to D&D -- and then they proceed to tell people that you only need to houserule or handwave a sizeable list of stuff to make it do X (thus, shooting hundreds of holes in the original claim).
> At this point, somebody will point out that houserules and handwaving aren't something that the game does out of the box and that these are things which the consumer must do themselves. That is, these aren't actual _rules_ in C&C. This is typically followed by much gnashing of teeth and name-calling. Things only tend to go downhill from there.






			
				serleran said:
			
		

> As one of the designers, I could say all kinds of things, but I won't...
> 
> By the way: C&C never meant to replace any game you are using now - it was meant to bridge them, so you could have all of what you liked from them, but under the same umbrella, to make them easier to combine, and play. It was also meant to bring new players into gaming with something simple, and easy to pick up, without the daunting task of memorizing 300 pages of Player material first.




Did you not read serleran's post? I personally get tired of people saying C&C is a sub-par system simply because the designers didn't feel the need to write a rule for every single aspect of the game. Fact is, they did that on purpose and the game is very open in actual play. House rules are encouraged, but often not all that terribly needed. I know that Treebore has house ruled the heck out of his game, but my group has not. We have fewer house rules in C&C than we did playing 3.5.


----------



## jdrakeh (Nov 30, 2007)

Greylock said:
			
		

> Did you not read serleran's post? I personally get tired of people saying C&C is a sub-par system. . .




Did you read _my_ post? I never said that C&C was a sub-par system. Not once. I never even suggested this. My post was about certain fans making untrue or disingenuous claims about C&C, not about the value of C&C as a game system. 



> Fact is, they did that on purpose and the game is very open in actual play.




Yes, I know. 



> House rules are encouraged, but often not all that terribly needed.




Not to play base C&C but, again, that's not what my post was about. My post was about C&C fans who claim that the game can do _anything_ out of the box (i.e., without alteration) and then get pissy when that claim is proven false.


----------



## slimykuotoan (Nov 30, 2007)

> Not to play base C&C but, again, that's not what my post was about. My post was about C&C fans who claim that the game can do _anything_ out of the box (i.e., without alteration) and then get pissy when that claim is proven false.




I think I'm probably new to this argument, and I can understand that C&C isn't for everyone, but I'm not sure I understand your meaning.

The SEIGE system does kinda handle everything.


----------



## Scurvy_Platypus (Nov 30, 2007)

I've got a like/dislike thing with C&C.

I like the overall system. I tend to prefer lighter game systems (although I am running a BESMd20 derived game), and an awful lot of what C&C does is right up my alley.

I like that I can basically grab pretty much anything and nudge it a bit, and it's good to go.

I dislike the fact that there's not an easy system for creating custom classes. I don't feel the need to obsessively balance everything, but I do like there to be a consistent method. In theory the official one will be released in the Castle Keeper's Guide, but that's some unknown time in the future.

I dislike the fact that the game seems to be stuck in the "grim-n-gritty-fantasy" mode. The system is actually capable of being a lot more than it is, but the community in general seems determined to relive the glory days of 20 years ago. Been there, done that, still got the dice. I've moved on.

The biggest killer for me is a number of the fans. I play in part for social reasons, and if a game seems to attract a particular type of person I don't like and wouldn't want to play with, that means the game isn't for me. I realize that Treebore (and others like him) don't understand that, and there's no way I'm going to be able to explain it.

I could list out all the complaints I've got, but it wouldn't serve much purpose.

If you want a system that's really light, don't care about mechanical differentiation of characters (most of what your character can do you get at 1st level), don't mind each class having its own seperate XP track, have a variety of different editions stuff you'd like to use, it's a great way to go. If you're into houserules, it's a pretty good way to go too, although you can run into some scorn from some of the fans if you start adding in d20isms.


----------



## Dragonhelm (Nov 30, 2007)

jdrakeh said:
			
		

> You politely offer personal experience and don't try to sell C&C as The Be All End All fantasy RPG experience, going so far as to make ludicrous (and easily disproveable) claims, then launching into a volley of adhominem attacks when said claims are disproven. This latter thing, I think, understandably drives people away from C&C.




I agree.  Many C&C fans are not helping their cause as much as they could.  They're putting off a sizable portion of the potential audience with the d20-bashing.  In my mind, C&C can both serve as a new way to do old school gaming, and as a way of doing "d20 lite."

I have stopped participating over at Troll Lord Games' boards because of the negativity I was encountering at one point.  When 4e was announced, the reaction was...distasteful.  One person even posted a graphic of a guy crying gallons of blood.      It was just awful.  I reported all of this to the mods, but it took quite a bit to rope it all in.  By this point, I was so put off that I left.  

You know, I can understand preferring C&C to d20.  That's fine.  Some of us, though, actually like _both_ d20 and C&C, as well as AD&D and other systems.  It's okay to like your system, but it's not cool bashing someone else's system.  This has turned me off to some C&C vocalists, as well as some d20 die-hards, d20 psionics fans, and so on and so forth.  

Like Treebore says, though, you shouldn't judge a game by its fans (or at least the vocal ones).  It's hard to at times, especially if a group of fans is being obnoxious.  However, you might miss something really good.


----------



## Scurvy_Platypus (Nov 30, 2007)

slimykuotoan said:
			
		

> I think I'm probably new to this argument, and I can understand that C&C isn't for everyone, but I'm not sure I understand your meaning.
> 
> The SEIGE system does kinda handle everything.




And this is how the flamewars/edition wars start.

Briefly, here's the deal:

Using the default resolution system of C&C, yes you can do quite a bit.

The problem is, that there's a lot of stuff that's just left up to "by guess and by golly". Multiclassing rules? Well, there's a number of different ones out there, and there's the set that Gygax wrote. Are any of them "official"? No. The Gygax rules are the closest, but they're not the "official" way to do it.

Skills? Sure, you can do the attribute check thing. But a lot of people don't like it, because it doesn't provide a fine enough resolution. How do you portray a character that's generally pretty clumsy (Dex 9) but has studied and trained extensives on some physical dexterity skill? If your answer is any version of "Well, you can always use the skill system from d20" or you start to make up a skill system... that's a problem. It's a problem because it's just inconsistent.

It might not make sense to you, but some people do feel that way. They _like_ the game aspect of things (the rules) and feel there should be enough of a framework there to actually put all the players on a level playing field, instead of hoping the DM will see things your way.


----------



## Greylock (Nov 30, 2007)

Dragonhelm said:
			
		

> I have stopped participating over at Troll Lord Games' boards because of the negativity I was encountering at one point.  When 4e was announced, the reaction was...distasteful.




Uh huh. I suppose the flip side of that is the large number of my friends who no longer post here. Matter of fact, I'm the only person in my game group that still does, in spite of the fact that most were members here long before I was.

See, I still think of ENWorld as a D&D forum. The preeminent pen and paper roleplaying forum. But frankly, most people I know, in real life, feel like discussion other systems and editions is simply no longer allowed here by the vocal majority of posters. Or criticism of the Golden Lamb of the moment.


----------



## Scurvy_Platypus (Nov 30, 2007)

Dragonhelm said:
			
		

> They're putting off a sizable portion of the potential audience with the d20-bashing.  In my mind, C&C can both serve as a new way to do old school gaming, and as a way of doing "d20 lite."




I don't think they really care. If they did, they'd spend more time being ambassador types, rather than proudly posting about how they found C&C because they hate d20.



			
				Dragonhelm said:
			
		

> You know, I can understand preferring C&C to d20.  That's fine.  Some of us, though, actually like _both_ d20 and C&C, as well as AD&D and other systems.  It's okay to like your system, but it's not cool bashing someone else's system.  This has turned me off to some C&C vocalists, as well as some d20 die-hards, d20 psionics fans, and so on and so forth.




I agree. I like a heck of a lot of systems, for all sorts of different reasons. I was turned off to d20 for years because every time I turned around, I saw some person or another slagging off about how much better D&D/d20 was, and how people should get with the program and quit playing "dead games" blah blah blah.

But as time has gone on, I've found that there's a rather large contingency of d20 folks that like playing other games, and seem kind of embarrassed when one of the aggressive people shows up. In fact, ENWorld has contributed to revising my opinion.



			
				Dragonhelm said:
			
		

> Like Treebore says, though, you shouldn't judge a game by its fans (or at least the vocal ones).  It's hard to at times, especially if a group of fans is being obnoxious.  However, you might miss something really good.




I'm what would be considered by many to be one of those annoying "casual gamers". I can't ignore the social component, and if the majority of the voices aren't ones I'd be willing to play with, it's not a game for me. There might be a massive force of fans that are all groovy folks and they're just quiet, but that doesn't really help things.

For better or worse, the fans are at least a part of the "face" of a game for me.


----------



## Scurvy_Platypus (Nov 30, 2007)

Greylock said:
			
		

> See, I still think of ENWorld as a D&D forum. The preeminent pen and paper roleplaying forum. But frankly, most people I know, in real life, feel like discussion other systems and editions is simply no longer allowed here by the vocal majority of posters. Or criticism of the Golden Lamb of the moment.




Oh I don't know... it seems nice enough from what I've seen. But then again I refuse to go into the 4E section, so it probably means I'm missing all of the flames from the "you must convert!!!" crowd.


----------



## slimykuotoan (Nov 30, 2007)

Scurvy Platypus, I do get it now; I just needed clarification.

And I wasn't attacking anyone, I truly didn't understand.

It's funny you mention flame wars when all I asked was what was meant by the earlier statement by jdracka. so to me, your response seemed a bit loaded against me.

Obviously this has been a very touchy subject in the past here.

Wow, I missed the boat...I feel like the guy who missed the Greyhawk Wars...

And as to C&C fans, I don't know where the bad ones went went, but since I came aboard I've found them to be the friendliest community out there.


----------



## Scurvy_Platypus (Nov 30, 2007)

And I think this is probably the biggest problem with C&C....

It's damn difficult to have a conversation about the system.

Every single time I see it come up, the discussion is sidetracked. There's arguments about C&C just being about "nostalgia gaming", arguments about whether or not there's enough rules already, complaints about the fans/detractors...

Heck, just look at my own recent posts... for some reason, it's _really_ hard to just discuss the system and how well it works, and how to fix what isn't working.


----------



## Scurvy_Platypus (Nov 30, 2007)

slimykuotoan said:
			
		

> Scurvy Platypus, I do get it now; I just needed clarification.
> 
> And I wasn't attacking anyone, I truly didn't understand.
> 
> ...




Drat. I'm sorry you felt that way. I didn't intend for you to feel defensive yourself.

Like I said, that's the way flamewars seem to erupt. It's kinda frustrating for me, because I really do like the system. I just don't like all the baggage that seems to come along with it.


----------



## jdrakeh (Nov 30, 2007)

Dragonhelm said:
			
		

> In my mind, C&C can both serve as a new way to do old school gaming, and as a way of doing "d20 lite."




Definitely. I ended up going with Basic Fantasy for a few different reasons, though C&C is definitely a viable alternative for both of these things. 



> I have stopped participating over at Troll Lord Games' boards because of the negativity I was encountering at one point.




I only had one bad experience at the official forums, and that was with just one person. I quit posting there only because I could not find anybody locally who was interested in C&C at the time, so I didn't have much reason to pursue it further. I must have left before the D&D bashing took off there (though it was in full swing elsewhere at the time). 



> You know, I can understand preferring C&C to d20.  That's fine.  Some of us, though, actually like _both_ d20 and C&C, as well as AD&D and other systems.  It's okay to like your system, but it's not cool bashing someone else's system.  This has turned me off to some C&C vocalists, as well as some d20 die-hards, d20 psionics fans, and so on and so forth.




Yep Like I said earlier, every system has its share of rabid (read "unreasonable") fans, though some tend to be more visible than others (which, in turn, contributes to widespread animosity). 



> Like Treebore says, though, you shouldn't judge a game by its fans (or at least the vocal ones).  It's hard to at times, especially if a group of fans is being obnoxious.  However, you might miss something really good.




Absolutely -- which is why I tried C&C in the first place. I just didn't stick with it after local interest waned and I couldn't find many fans online with whom gaming seemed like a palatable option.


----------



## jdrakeh (Nov 30, 2007)

slimykuotoan said:
			
		

> The SEIGE system does kinda handle everything.




Not without the consumer adding a bunch of rules to it. I mean, it handles vanilla fantasy just fine out of the box (as that is what it's designed for) -- but the system itself has no rules for skills, low magic, space travel, modern firearms, running games without a GM, etc, etc, etc. The point is that there is a whole lot that it _doesn't_ do by design. 

What I was alluding to is that several vocal fans have, in the past, made claims of C&C being able to do _anything_ by design, which flatly isn't true. In order to do something _by design_, a game must include rules for it (i.e., to honestly say that a game supports X by design, rules for X must actually _be part of the design_). 

For example, it's entirely possible to create houerules that allow you to run a game of far future space exploration using C&C, the SEIGE engine isn't actually doing any of the heavy lifting -- _you are_. Saying that C&C can do things that it doesn't provide rules for is being disingenuous, because once you start adding rules that aren't included in the actual system, C&C isn't doing anything (again, _you are_).


----------



## SteveC (Nov 30, 2007)

dmccoy1693 said:
			
		

> REALLY?!? Ask an OSRIC fan just how _darn nice_ the TL boys are.



I just wanted to say that I'm talking about the actual *authors and designers* here. Rabid fans of C&C are, well, they're rabid fans like those of any other game. I played in a couple of demo games with the authors, and have seen them respond several times to questions on message boards, and they've never been anything other than professional and courteous. Now I don't have any experience with the OSRIC boards, because OSRIC falls heavily into the "been there, done that" experience for me...even more than C&C.

I'll agree with you that some of the fans of C&C are the reason why many people won't touch the system, but, from my experiences, that's not the situation with the authors.

So hopefully that clarifies things a bit...

--Steve


----------



## Aus_Snow (Nov 30, 2007)

Tried it briefly, wasn't so impressed.

If I want old school, I'll dig out the ol' 1e and tinker a bit, or maybe some Basic/Expert. Or there's the Rules Cyclopedia, for that matter. I've got friends in the local gaming circles who insist on 'keepin' it old school' and I don't think they would ever consider C&C or the like.

In short, I can't see the point of C&C, or other similar projects. Sure, if other people find them to be just the thing, great! But yeah, personally I just don't get it.


----------



## Henry (Nov 30, 2007)

Greylock said:
			
		

> See, I still think of ENWorld as a D&D forum. The preeminent pen and paper roleplaying forum. But frankly, most people I know, in real life, feel like discussion other systems and editions is simply no longer allowed here by the vocal majority of posters. Or criticism of the Golden Lamb of the moment.




That, I'm sorry to hear, because we always try to encourage people talking about all of their gaming - hell, the ENnies doesn't close itself to just d20 gaming for that matter, it's open to ALL games. I've used these forums to talk about everything from Feng Shui, to AD&D, to C&C, to Continuum, to Battletech, and even Marvel Super Heroes before. 

What I do see sometimes, however, is people who come in with both guns blazing, they get shot down, and then they go to other message forums complaining about how "biased and elitist" things are.


----------



## jdrakeh (Nov 30, 2007)

SteveC said:
			
		

> I just wanted to say that I'm talking about the actual *authors and designers* here.




A much needed clarification. I've never had any issue with Troll Lord employees.


----------



## Greylock (Nov 30, 2007)

jdrakeh said:
			
		

> Not without the consumer adding a bunch of rules to it. I mean, it handles vanilla fantasy just fine out of the box (as that is what it's designed for) -- but the system itself has no rules for skills, low magic, space travel, modern firearms, running games without a GM, etc, etc, etc. The point is that there is a whole lot that it _doesn't_ do by design.




I'm deeply curious, in all honesty, what core system you are currently using?

Re: Henry... It happens to be I agree with you. Unfortunately none of my friends will hear that, and all of them think I'm nuts for still hanging around here. I would be nuts if I still tried to read the 4th Edition forum, but I'm no longer so tempted to now that it's off on it's own, no longer tempting me at the top of the page in General.


----------



## jdrakeh (Nov 30, 2007)

Greylock said:
			
		

> I'm deeply curious, in all honesty, what core system you are currently using?




Currently, OD&D -- but I never have (and never will) claim that it can do _anything_ by design. I'm using it for exactly what it was _designed_ to be used for -- vanilla fantasy that revolves around slaying monsters and reaping fantastic treasures. That said. . . 

I could be totally disingeuous and say that it can do anything because, much like C&C (or _any other game system_, for that matter) if I design houserules that address X, the system will then do X. 

The key is that the houserules are _necessary_ for the system to do X. Out of the box, OD&D doesn't do _everything_ (or _anything_) by design. It does medieval-inspired vanilla fantasy by design. Anything past that isn't something the system does by design but, rather, by modification after the fact.


----------



## jdrakeh (Nov 30, 2007)

I just thought of a better way to convey what I'm getting at. Look at the following statements: 

A: "I can do anything with C&C!" 
B: "C&C can do anything!"

I'd say that the first of these statements may well be true, while the latter is undoubtedly false. Why? As designed, C&C _only_ includes rules for class-based medieval-ish vanilla fantasy. Point blank, it doesn't have rules for anything else incorporated into its design.

The second statement above, if taken at face value, is an expression that the C&C RAW facilitates any and all possible play modes and genres (which, of course, they don't). This is the kind of disingenuity that I'm talking about, and the kind of matter of fact statement that often sparks flamewars. 

The first statement above, OTOH, says only that the individual can _use_ C&C to do anything, which makes no claim as to the all-encompassing nature of the rules. Rather, this statement addresses the reality that if the individual is willing to create their own rules for X to be used in conjunction with C&C they can, if fact, use C&C to do X. 

That's a truthful assessment of the system. Of any system, really. If you're willing to design your own rules for gun-fu in Red Box D&D, Red Box D&D wil do gun-fu. It doesn't do it by design, though, and the credit for gun-fu isn't due Red Box D&D but, rather, the guy who took the time to design those houserules. 

Saying that C&C can do anything by design, is not a truthful assessment of the system. If it actually _could_ do anything by design, you wouldn't need to create rules for, well. . . anything. Because things that a game does by design, it provides rules for. And, clearly, C&C does not provide rules for _anything_.


----------



## Greylock (Nov 30, 2007)

That is wretchedly overwrought.

And I think I'm starting to sense an agenda.


----------



## gideon_thorne (Nov 30, 2007)

jdrakeh said:
			
		

> A much needed clarification. I've never had any issue with Troll Lord employees.





Then of course there's their main artist who is just plain bent.


----------



## jdrakeh (Nov 30, 2007)

Greylock said:
			
		

> And I think I'm starting to sense an agenda.




My only "agenda" is to explain why saying that a system designed to do only X as-written can actually do "anything" by design is an incredibly disingenuine statement. And that seeing said claim over and over again is really, incredibly, frustrasting to me (and to others, I suspect). 

If somebody wants to make that claim of any system, they either need to be able to point to offical, written, rules that validate it or give it a rest. Claimants often say that it's up to the refuter to disprove their strawman, though that's not the way that ordered argument works. The burden of proof falls on the one making the claim. 

If a game system doesn't have rules for X, it can't do X. 

Really, I have no idea how to convey that simple truth anymore succinctly. I mean, to me, that seems like a pretty basic concept but apparently some people are under the impression that a game doesn't need to contain rules for certain things in order to be credited as containing rules for those things. How they rationalize that, I can't begin to fathom.


----------



## jdrakeh (Nov 30, 2007)

gideon_thorne said:
			
		

> Then of course there's their main artist who is just plain bent.




Maybe -- but the artwork makes up for it (seriously, that was always a high point of C&C for me)


----------



## gideon_thorne (Nov 30, 2007)

jdrakeh said:
			
		

> Maybe -- but the artwork makes up for it (seriously, that was always a high point of C&C for me)




*chuckles* I'm just making the point that, like the other troll lords, I don't take myself, gaming or much else too seriously. ^_^

I'm just as happy to meet friendly folk at cons and the like just to prove how much more weird I can be in person. ^_^

And for some informational posting. There will be Siege engine variant games coming down the pipe fairly soon. Star Siege, a sci fi game using the C&C core mechanic I believe will be one of the first offerings.

Its a chance to showcase what can be done with the system itself by exploring various other genres. So, eventually, the claims can become more true. The system can be made to do most anything. ^_^

But hey, its all good. Whatever folks want to have fun with. The operative word being 'fun'. ^_^


----------



## jdrakeh (Nov 30, 2007)

gideon_thorne said:
			
		

> The system can be made to do most anything. ^_^




See, that statement I have no issue with  That was my point, originally. It can be altered to do most anything, yes, though this isn't the same thing as doing anything as-written. 
That said, when Star SIEGE comes out, then SIEGE will do both space adventure and medieval fantasy by design. 

Honestly, I'd kind of like to see a multi-genre (or "generic" if you prefer) SIEGE system book -- with tools for building classes from scratch, a formula for creating balanced class abilities, etc (at which point, the claim that it can do anything by design would arguably be true).


----------



## w_earle_wheeler (Nov 30, 2007)

jdrakeh said:
			
		

> C&C has had some very obnoxious fans post here about how the game can do _anything_ out of the box (i.e., unaltered), which makes it obviously superior to D&D -- and then they proceed to tell people that you only need to houserule or handwave a sizeable list of stuff to make it do X (thus, shooting hundreds of holes in the original claim).




This is what caused many problems for me with C&C. I believed the hype put out by over-eager shills, and that caused me to have a _disproportionate_ amount of frustration when I ran the game.

Now that I've let that dust settle a bit, I'm willing to go back to the book and mine it for ideas to use in an OD&D/AD&D game. Editing issues aside, I always liked how the book was written.

But I'll probably never run a C&C game again.

I tried to sell my (five!) C&C PHB's to local gamers in the hopes that they could get enjoyment out of the game that I didn't. Even at $5, no one wanted to buy it. I ended up giving them to my FLGS in the hopes that they could one of them and lessen the hit they took for ordering the first printing of the book on my reccomendation.


----------



## Drowbane (Nov 30, 2007)

I've played it a few times and then went back to 3e.


----------



## S'mon (Nov 30, 2007)

I like it a lot; it has the right level of detail for my needs.  It removes the fiddlier bits from AD&D and reduces complexity from 3e.


----------



## Numion (Nov 30, 2007)

Greylock said:
			
		

> See, I still think of ENWorld as a D&D forum. The preeminent pen and paper roleplaying forum. But frankly, most people I know, in real life, feel like discussion other systems and editions is simply no longer allowed here by the vocal majority of posters. Or criticism of the Golden Lamb of the moment.




It depends on how people present their case. Usually I've seen C&C crowd circle over edition wars threads like vultures, pimping their own game. This combined with the fact that the natural way for saying good things about C&C is to say bad things about 3E at the same time (for some people, anyway).

In 3E forum where a lot of people have a lot invested monetarily and emotionally in 3E, that might get a couple of folks annoyed. Now I don't frequent many forums aimed specifically at other games (like the C&C forums), so I don't know if this is a common thing to go sniping accross forums, like are there 3E fans going to C&C boards putting down C&C? 

I do know from automotive forums that there are always the few Civic guys who have to go to Golf GTI forums to stir up people..


----------



## JDJblatherings (Nov 30, 2007)

The poll needs a "Tried it, and it works great for when I want games of it's style"


----------



## Melan (Nov 30, 2007)

C&C has kind of a history which still influences attitudes about it. There have been personality conflicts, flamewars, a lot of bruised egos and pent up passive-agressive behaviour (you can see it in this thread if you wish). C&C has attracted this sort of thing in part because it assumes a lot about the nature of roleplaying games which are antithetical to the current consensus. For example, it has a different attitude towards DM (or, uh, _CK_) authority, what the rules are supposed to accomplish and what a system needs to model than what is fashionable. Then there is the whole "rose coloured glasses/nostalgia" argument, the annoying proselytising by overeager fans (as another example, Scarred Lands comes to my mind), and the fact that the development process left a fair bit of people dissatisfied. A lot of self-proclaimed grognards take a very dim view of the game, much dimmer than anything I have read on ENWorld.

Myself, I started with the basic box as a baseline, and built a game of my own on top of that. It is no longer _really_ C&C, but I must be thankful to the TLG people for catalysing my thoughts. The support material has been a bit ho-hum, and I am rather frustrated with the direction of the Castle Zagyg project... but the game itself is pretty solid if you would like a lighter alternative to D&D.


----------



## Fifth Element (Nov 30, 2007)

jdrakeh said:
			
		

> I'd like to second that sentiment. There are some 'fans' of C&C who probably do more to ensure that potential interested parties _never_ play it (in fact, I know that there are). Treebore is the best thing that C&C has going for it at many online communities.



That first part is true. Just look at this recent OP over on rpg.net. Now _this_ is a way to start a thread.

"_*
(4E) Simpler, faster to play, easier to DM,*

Nope.

More complex than ever before._"


Posted by someone called....Treebore.


BTW, that's not taken out of context. That's the entirety of the OP.


----------



## diaglo (Nov 30, 2007)

gideon_thorne said:
			
		

> Then of course there's their main artist who is just plain bent.




when the Trolls moved the original C&C forums. i got dropped.
i thot it was b/c of my complaining about how it kept too much d02 and not enough OD&D in the game.

the artist was the only one who tried to keep me on the list.


----------



## Omote (Nov 30, 2007)

C&C has worked for me, especially due to it's rule-lite approach to fantasy gaming.  I love the fact C&C has taken the best elements from the 3E game and infused a lot of old-school gaming goodness with the system.  The 3E game, especially at the higher levels of play just became to unweildy for me and our group ended up talking about mechanics and character optimazation more then actually adventuring!  In playing C&C, we just got to play the game more and that alone hooked me to the system.

I still play a lot (I mean a lot) of 3E, and while personally I like the C&C game better, to each their own.

C&C is good gaming.

-O


----------



## gideon_thorne (Nov 30, 2007)

diaglo said:
			
		

> when the Trolls moved the original C&C forums. i got dropped.
> i thot it was b/c of my complaining about how it kept too much d02 and not enough OD&D in the game.
> 
> the artist was the only one who tried to keep me on the list.




If you haven't made it over to the new forums, your welcome to join any time. All we did with the old forums was send out a message letting people know of the move. None of us are technically adept enough to bring the membership list from ezboard to a pbb forum. 

Diverse opinions are always welcome. So sayeth the pesky artist. ^_^


----------



## gideon_thorne (Nov 30, 2007)

jdrakeh said:
			
		

> Honestly, I'd kind of like to see a multi-genre (or "generic" if you prefer) SIEGE system book -- with tools for building classes from scratch, a formula for creating balanced class abilities, etc (at which point, the claim that it can do anything by design would arguably be true).




I believe something like that is in the offing as well. When? I can't say specifically, simply because I don't know. Keep a weather eye out.


----------



## Jack Daniel (Nov 30, 2007)

Well I tried C&C, and it didn't float my boat.  I like the idea of a rules-lite game, but the d20-ish mechanic didn't seem to work well at all, especially for games above the 9th-12th range.  Once you hit 13th-15th level play, C&C really breaks down, and at 15th+, it's just as bad as any other version of AD&D, from 1st up through 3rd-and-a-half.

On the other hand, C&C did inspire me to switch from 3e back to OD&D (BECMI/RC), and that kind of rules-lite, nostalgic gaming really did work for me.  It made me happy to play, and it improved the experience for me as a DM and for my friends as role-players.  So I can at least credit C&C with giving me the idea of leaving d20 System gaming behind, even if I didn't like or want to play C&C itself.


----------



## Particle_Man (Nov 30, 2007)

I like games that are easy to run, so I like C&C and Savage Worlds.

But Savage Worlds is getting the edge with Plot Point adventures, which make my game even easier to run.  And besides...SOLOMON KANE!!!!!

Also, I was hoping that dragons would be less complicated in C&C then they were in the M&T books.  Oh well.  

But I am having fun running my C&C game now.  I switch things around to keep it fresh.  So a medusa, instead of having snakes on her head, has tentacles with eyeballs on the end.  When you first look at her, make a save.  If you fail, your eyeball disappear (replaced by a flap of skin, yes you are blind) and the medusa grows two more tentacles with eyeballs on the end...

I was a softy, so when she was killed, all the eyeballs flew back into their proper sockets.  Very scary for the person that failed their save by one so had only one eyeball, so actually saw an eyeball tentacle flying towards their face!


----------



## rogueattorney (Nov 30, 2007)

You can put me in the "I'd rather just play O(A)D&D" camp.

I appreciate that C&C resources are much more easily convertable to O(A)D&D than 3e resources are, and will continue to look into buying C&C adventures, campaign settings, and the like for conversion purposes.  I still haven't gotten a good look at James Mishler's Wilderlands stuff for C&C, and am quite curious about it.

Also Gabor (Melan) Lux's three free C&C adventures that are floating around the 'Net are absolutely fabulous.  Any fan of Howard/Burroughs/Leiber-esque pulpy S&S should check them out.


----------



## Numion (Nov 30, 2007)

BTW, is it called the 'SIEGE' or the 'SEIGE' system? I've seen people use those terms almost interchangeably.


----------



## Philotomy Jurament (Nov 30, 2007)

Numion said:
			
		

> BTW, is it called the 'SIEGE' or the 'SEIGE' system? I've seen people use those terms almost interchangeably.



SIEGE is correct.  "SEIGE" is just a (really) common misspelling, like "loose" when "lose" is intended.

Edit: Really, it's the "SIEGE engine," leveraging the obvious pun.  "SIEGE system" just doesn't have the same punch.


----------



## Philotomy Jurament (Nov 30, 2007)

Particle_Man said:
			
		

> ...a medusa, instead of having snakes on her head, has tentacles with eyeballs on the end.  When you first look at her, make a save.  If you fail, your eyeball disappear (replaced by a flap of skin, yes you are blind) and the medusa grows two more tentacles with eyeballs on the end...



I like that.  I'm going to steal it.


----------



## Philotomy Jurament (Nov 30, 2007)

Melan said:
			
		

> C&C has kind of a history which still influences attitudes about it. There have been personality conflicts, flamewars, a lot of bruised egos and pent up passive-agressive behaviour (you can see it in this thread if you wish). C&C has attracted this sort of thing in part because it assumes a lot about the nature of roleplaying games which are antithetical to the current consensus.



I think it's also because C&C has assumed a _via media_, middle-way position between different philosophies of gaming, so it attracts fire from enthusiasts and purists on both ends.  The hard-core old-schoolers think it's too much like modern editions, and the fans of modern editions think it's too archaic and old school.  Et cetera.



> I started with the basic box as a baseline, and built a game of my own on top of that. It is no longer really C&C, but I must be thankful to the TLG people for catalysing my thoughts.



That's similar to how I feel about C&C.  My "C&C" game is hardly C&C, anymore, but the game played a major role in assisting me in discovering exactly what I like in D&D and in "making the game my own."


----------



## Dragonhelm (Nov 30, 2007)

Philotomy Jurament said:
			
		

> I think it's also because C&C has assumed a _via media_, middle-way position between different philosophies of gaming, so it attracts fire from enthusiasts and purists on both ends.  The hard-core old-schoolers think it's too much like modern editions, and the fans of modern editions think it's too archaic and old school.  Et cetera.




Which is funny, because you would think that C&C would be where both camps meet.

*scratches head*




> That's similar to how I feel about C&C.  My "C&C" game is hardly C&C, anymore, but the game played a major role in assisting me in discovering exactly what I like in D&D and in "making the game my own."




Yeah, I'm kind of like that too.  It has become a baseline for me, but I'm using things beyond as well.


----------



## Lord Mhoram (Nov 30, 2007)

There are times I think 3.5 is too simple. C&C is not the game for me.


----------



## Jim Hague (Nov 30, 2007)

C&C's a good game, but frankly the evangelism of its fans puts me off, as do the (IMO) false claims that conversion is a snap.   It's solidly-built, well-supported, but there's a minority of its fans that put me off...especially when certain ones do cross-board, deliberate trolling, then head to the TLG forums to brag about it.

Poor form, that.


----------



## Treebore (Nov 30, 2007)

Jack Daniel said:
			
		

> Well I tried C&C, and it didn't float my boat.  I like the idea of a rules-lite game, but the d20-ish mechanic didn't seem to work well at all, especially for games above the 9th-12th range.  Once you hit 13th-15th level play, C&C really breaks down, and at 15th+, it's just as bad as any other version of AD&D, from 1st up through 3rd-and-a-half.
> 
> On the other hand, C&C did inspire me to switch from 3e back to OD&D (BECMI/RC), and that kind of rules-lite, nostalgic gaming really did work for me.  It made me happy to play, and it improved the experience for me as a DM and for my friends as role-players.  So I can at least credit C&C with giving me the idea of leaving d20 System gaming behind, even if I didn't like or want to play C&C itself.




Your not the only one that went that path. Which is cool. Gaming is about having fun, and you can't have real fun without being happy with what your playing.

It can be argued that I don't play "real C&C". but I do, since the spirit of the game is to play it how you want it to be. I have too many 3E books and modules, well, too many books and modules of every edition, to go with just any one of them, since C&C makes it the easiest to universally use all of the edition material. So thats what works for me and makes me happiest.

Going back to OD&D is what makes you happiest, and thats cool too, because thats what its really all about.


----------



## Ralif Redhammer (Nov 30, 2007)

Completely smitten with C&C. There's been a 3e campaign that I've been wanting to close out properly, but I just can't bring myself to play 3e rules long enough to do so.


----------



## gideon_thorne (Nov 30, 2007)

Dragonhelm said:
			
		

> It has become a baseline for me, but I'm using things beyond as well.




Well good then. One of the design parameter's worked out at least.


----------



## slimykuotoan (Nov 30, 2007)

I have been guilty of bashing 3E, while at the same time exholting the values of C&C after I found it.

I guess I had a lot of frustration built up because of the sheer complexity that was d20 at the time; it seemed to become less the fantasy game, and more the marvel super heroes game.

It's perhaps hard to critique anything without annoying others who are into a system.

On a side note, I'm sure I'll play 4th ed. when it comes out for a try, but for now -especially for online gaming- C&C fits the bill.

P.S. AD&D rocks as well!


----------



## slimykuotoan (Nov 30, 2007)

I think that part of the reason fans boast about C&C as a catch all system, is because of its ability to incorporate additional rules without much modification.

So for me, I use the C&C PHB with the AD&D MM books (just changing AC) and the survival guides without alteration.

Perhaps it would be better to say that C&C just plain fits well with many varied resourses.


----------



## Scurvy_Platypus (Nov 30, 2007)

Fifth Element said:
			
		

> jdrakeh said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Ok, ordinarily I tend to not pay too much attention to this sort of thing. But I frequent rpgnet, and did notice the thread in question. It's here:
http://forum.rpg.net/showthread.php?t=366800

Somebody posted a quote from Treebore on the Troll Lord forums about trolling on rpgnet.
http://www.freeyabb.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?t=3664&mforum=trolllordgames


			
				Treebore said:
			
		

> Such easy Troll hunting can be fun! For a little while anyways.
> 
> Yes, I can be "evil" at times. I am a CK/DM/GM after all!
> 
> ...





The thread was locked after this particular post by Treebore:
http://forum.rpg.net/showpost.php?p=8139282&postcount=72


			
				Treebore said:
			
		

> I just appreciate having such a wonderful thread show casing the rabidity of so many teeth nashers.
> 
> Now I have for all posterity all the proof I need when I see so many of these people, in the future, claim they are the pictures of rational posting.
> 
> Thanks for all the contributions!




I'm really disappointed by this, and it just winds up being further fodder to support people's dislike based on the behavior of fans.

I realize you don't see a problem Treebore, and that it doesn't bother you. I don't expect you to suddenly be repentant or anything like that either. I'd say that I lost the respect I had for you as being one of the few level headed C&C proponents that I've come across, but I'm sure that doesn't mean anything either.

I'm also kinda disappointed by Steve's response in that thread.


----------



## Clavis (Nov 30, 2007)

Philotomy Jurament said:
			
		

> I think it's also because C&C has assumed a _via media_, middle-way position between different philosophies of gaming, so it attracts fire from enthusiasts and purists on both ends.  The hard-core old-schoolers think it's too much like modern editions, and the fans of modern editions think it's too archaic and old school.  Et cetera.




What I love about C&C is that is essentially D&D with cleaned up mechanics. It's _exactly_ what I was hoping 3rd edition was going to be. I actually stopped playing 1st ed AD&D because I felt like AD&D was too rules heavy. I skipped over 2nd edition altogether, and was mostly playing Vampire in the 90s. I also tried Rules Cyclopedia D&D, and loved it. I was one of the people who really wanted a streamlined, new edition of  D&D. Since 3.x has turned out to be much more rules-heavy than AD&D ever was, I quickly found myself unable to have fun DMing it. So when I found out about C&C, it sounded like it perfect for me. I'm now DMing a group of 7 players, most of whom where also looking for a lighter, faster system that would let them focus on fun roleplaying.

For all those who think that people who support C&C always do it by bashing 3.x edition, it's because it seems that almost everybody who moves on to C&C has already tried 3.x edition, wanted to like it, and been frustrated by it. That's certainly true for my gaming group. C&C players are by-in-large actually lovers of D&D who are honest about the previous edition's faults, but also conscious of the current edition's failures. My group actually calls what we do "playing D&D", and I still consider myself a DM. We use the C&C rules, with some things from Rules Cyclopedia D&D (especially monsters). If 4th edition was going to be like C&C, or even RC D&D, we probably convert over to it. Since its going in the opposite direction, we'll be content with C&C and our back catalog of D&D books.


----------



## Numion (Nov 30, 2007)

Scurvy_Platypus said:
			
		

> I realize you don't see a problem Treebore, and that it doesn't bother you. I don't expect you to suddenly be repentant or anything like that either. I'd say that I lost the respect I had for you as being one of the few level headed C&C proponents that I've come across, but I'm sure that doesn't mean anything either.




Maybe they just can't help themselves. Treebore is polite and coherent most of the time, but I guess he also succumbs to an attack of the C&Cs every once in a while  :\


----------



## gideon_thorne (Nov 30, 2007)

Scurvy_Platypus said:
			
		

> I'm also kinda disappointed by Steve's response in that thread.




Err...why? Because Steve thought the comment, that was made on our boards mind, was funny? Sure, its the same kind of humor one finds in pie in the face jokes. Not so funny for the recipient, but funny for everyone else. 

I find the constant back and forth amusing (if ofttimes pointless) as all get out myself, it doesn't necessarily mean I agree with it.


----------



## Treebore (Nov 30, 2007)

Scurvy_Platypus said:
			
		

> Ok, ordinarily I tend to not pay too much attention to this sort of thing. But I frequent rpgnet, and did notice the thread in question. It's here:
> http://forum.rpg.net/showthread.php?t=366800
> 
> Somebody posted a quote from Treebore on the Troll Lord forums about trolling on rpgnet.
> ...




I have no reason to be repentant. The predicatbility of so many posters on RPGnet is the problem not me. As is illustrated by the Openrpg thread you quoted. I was never "trolling". I posted my opinion, knowing how predictable the people are over there. Their predictability is not in any way my problem. Now I have a thread that proves their short comings. A thread in which I was never insulting, other than pointing out the childish response of others.


So no, I am not repentant for so predictably illustrating the members resposnes.

Plus this thread over there had nothing to do with C&C, except when brought up by the problem posters over on RPGnet.

Nor am I in any way sorry that I have been permanently banned. That thread perfectly and predicatbly illustrates why.


----------



## danzig138 (Nov 30, 2007)

Treebore said:
			
		

> The predicatbility of so many posters on RPGnet is the problem not me.



You keep on thinking that. Plenty of people get throught life just fine even while always being wrong.


----------



## Treebore (Nov 30, 2007)

danzig138 said:
			
		

> You keep on thinking that. Plenty of people get throught life just fine even while always being wrong.





Yep.


----------



## jdrakeh (Dec 1, 2007)

Scurvy_Platypus said:
			
		

> I'm really disappointed by this, and it just winds up being further fodder to support people's dislike based on the behavior of fans.




Yeah -- me, too. That's blatant, deliberate, trolling that serves no productive purpose whatsoever. None at all. Going to another site/forum specifically to seed discontent amongst fans of another game by saying that it's horrible? Where's the productivity in that. It's not clever or friendly. It's basic internet trolling. 

This is, I think, very out of character for Treebore, yet. . . 

You have that other post at TLG (wherein he brags about trolling RPGnet) and the one a few posts up above this one (where he attempts to say that his behavior was perfectly righteous and that the _real_ problem is with people who don't like it he attacks their favorite game). This makes me sad


----------



## Frost (Dec 1, 2007)

*thanks*

Hi Folks,

I've decided to chime back in after four pages of posts.   

Firstly, if someone could tell me how, I would amend the poll to include other options. Namely, I'd like to add "I'd rather just play AD&D/OD&D" and "I play both."

It's interesting to see how heated this became.  Some pretty strong feelings about all of this.  _*By and large,*
_ it seems that folks are drawn or repelled to C&C by the same thing: it's half-way between AD&D and 3.X.  To me, that sounds like a good thing.

Anyhow, thanks for the info.


----------



## Dragonhelm (Dec 1, 2007)

Clavis said:
			
		

> For all those who think that people who support C&C always do it by bashing 3.x edition, it's because it seems that almost everybody who moves on to C&C has already tried 3.x edition, wanted to like it, and been frustrated by it. That's certainly true for my gaming group.




I like a lot of 3rd edition, but there are things in it that frustrated me too.  I worked on all sorts of house rules to get what I wanted, but I found it a bit harder to take apart 3.5 than it was to add to C&C.




> C&C players are by-in-large actually lovers of D&D who are honest about the previous edition's faults, but also conscious of the current edition's failures.




I would say as well that C&C players are also conscious of 3.5's successes.  For example, part of what makes d20 so great is that everything scales upward.  C&C borrowed that idea and implemented it as part of the SIEGE engine.


----------



## Treebore (Dec 1, 2007)

jdrakeh said:
			
		

> Yeah -- me, too. That's blatant, deliberate, trolling that serves no productive purpose whatsoever. None at all. Going to another site/forum specifically to seed discontent about fans of another game by saying that it's horrible? Where's the productivity in that. It's not clever or friendly. It's basic internet trolling.
> 
> This is, I think, very out of character for Treebore. Yet you have that other post at TLG (wherein he brags about stirring up people) and the one a few posts up above this one (where he attempts to say that his behavior was perfectly righteous and that the _real_ problem is with people who don't like it he attacks their favorite game).
> 
> This makes me sad




Lets keep this over on RPGnet. IF you have something to say that you want me to see PM via this board. The ENWorld environment doesn't tolerate this kind of stuff, and neither do I.


----------



## jdrakeh (Dec 1, 2007)

Treebore said:
			
		

> The ENWorld environment doesn't tolerate this kind of stuff, and neither do I.




You're in error here. Nothing that has been said in this thread is against ENWorld guidelines save, perhaps, for your commenting upon issues that the populace of another forum has. You're not an ENWorld moderator and you don't get to shut people down just because you don't like what they have to say.


----------



## gideon_thorne (Dec 1, 2007)

Frost said:
			
		

> H
> 
> It's interesting to see how heated this became.  Some pretty strong feelings about all of this.  _*By and large,*
> _ it seems that folks are drawn or repelled to C&C by the same thing: it's half-way between AD&D and 3.X.  To me, that sounds like a good thing.
> ...




I never understood the hysterics myself. What does it matter what someone is having fun doing? Sure, I'd like folks to buy the stuff I am involved in, but it wont hurt my feelings if people don't find it to their taste. Seems like a silly thing to loose sleep over honestly.


----------



## Eric Tolle (Dec 1, 2007)

Well, Treebore's enough to sell ME off the game.  I don't need anything that promotes that sort of attitude.

This is a useful thread though: if someone asks me about the game, I can just forward them over to his posts here, and let them decide about the maturity of its fans.


----------



## jdrakeh (Dec 1, 2007)

Eric Tolle said:
			
		

> Well, Treebore's enough to sell ME off the game.  I don't need anything that promotes that sort of attitude.




Somewhat embarassingly, I must apologize for earlier praising Treebore's approach to promoting C&C. Apparently, he's been engaging in some unpalatable behaviors, which I was previously unaware of. This sudden revelation coupled with his posts on this page of the current thread seem to shed much light on his _true_ demeanor. I want to make it clear that I endorse _absolutely none of this_.


----------



## gideon_thorne (Dec 1, 2007)

*smiles* The folks at TLG would like to make it clear that we consider fanatics of any sort completely crazy.   

Especially those radical artists *coughs* who fanatically draw cute fantasy girls.  

Peter B

Art Trolllord.


----------



## Treebore (Dec 1, 2007)

jdrakeh said:
			
		

> Somewhat embarassingly, I must apologize for earlier praising Treebore's approach to promoting C&C. Apparently, he's been engaging in some unpalatable behaviors, which I was previously unaware of. This sudden revelation coupled with his posts on this page of the current thread seem to shed much light on his _true_ demeanor. I want to make it clear that I endorse _absolutely none of this_.





I'm absolutely NOT crushed.


----------



## Gentlegamer (Dec 1, 2007)

I heartily added it to my FRPG gaming repertoire.


----------



## Treebore (Dec 1, 2007)

Eric Tolle said:
			
		

> Well, Treebore's enough to sell ME off the game.  I don't need anything that promotes that sort of attitude.
> 
> This is a useful thread though: if someone asks me about the game, I can just forward them over to his posts here, and let them decide about the maturity of its fans.





 

I've already given my opinion about people who base their RPG selection on the fans, so I won't repeat myself.

I imagine WOTC is grateful most people don't do the same as you.


----------



## slimykuotoan (Dec 1, 2007)

Eric Tolle said:
			
		

> Well, Treebore's enough to sell ME off the game.  I don't need anything that promotes that sort of attitude.
> 
> This is a useful thread though: if someone asks me about the game, I can just forward them over to his posts here, and let them decide about the maturity of its fans.




That's really strange logic:

"I won't drive cars anymore. 

I know a guy who listens to music I don't like, and who doesn't hold the views I do...and he drives a car. 

So I'll walk from now on." 

Honestly, that truly strikes me as unusual.


----------



## jdrakeh (Dec 1, 2007)

Treebore said:
			
		

> I'm absolutely NOT crushed.





This isn't about you. It's about me not wanting to be associated with or perceived as endorsing your attempts to spark flames at RPGnet or anyplace else. If I had known the kind of deliberately offensive crap that you were posting elsewhere, I never would have said the kind things about you that I did earlier in this thread. You're obviously _not_ doing C&C any favors.


----------



## Fifth Element (Dec 1, 2007)

Numion said:
			
		

> Treebore is polite and coherent most of the time, but I guess he also succumbs to an attack of the C&Cs every once in a while



"An attack of the C&Cs". I love it.


----------



## gideon_thorne (Dec 1, 2007)

Certainly, personality is a reason to decide who to game with. It ought not to factor in what system one uses, IMHO anyhow.

I'll play any game with a group of good people.


----------



## gideon_thorne (Dec 1, 2007)

Fifth Element said:
			
		

> "An attack of the C&Cs". I love it.





Is that short for Cantankerous and Constipated?


----------



## Umbran (Dec 1, 2007)

Folks,

In The Rules you all agreed to for posting on these boards, we specifically ask you to not make things personal.  Please - address the position, and the logic or reasoning, but don't go attacking the person, even in a genteel manner.

While it is not part of the written rules, we greatly frown on dragging things from other message boards to EN World (and vice versa).  If you have a problem with something someone says elsewhere _don't bring it in here_.  We have exactly zero interest in cross-board conflict.  

If you've got a question about this, please feel free to e-mail any of the mods - our addresses are available in a post stickied ot the top of the Meta forum.


----------



## Numion (Dec 1, 2007)

slimykuotoan said:
			
		

> That's really strange logic:
> 
> "I won't drive cars anymore.
> 
> ...




Happens all the time, albeit not exactly like you wrote. It's more like "I know a couple of Hummer / BMW / whatever drivers who are complete jerks. I'd never buy a Hummer to avoid being associated with that crowd."

The RPG crowd is more extreme in this regard. For example, I think that the diehard Greyhawk fans have done a lot of harm to the setting, by being very vocal in their opposition to any new material unless it would come from Gygax (which, of course, would never happen) and doing this in the loudest possible manner. Even though there might've been some life left in the setting. That turns people off the setting, not to mention that no producer would want to touch the thing with a ten feet pole.

You don't even have to be a jerk to turn people off of RPGs. Remember Nightfall, who hardly did anything else on ENWorld but babble about Scarred Lands? I think he didn't do the setting any services by that behaviour. It's kinda same thing with C&Cers .. popping in with C&C propaganda into perfectly good edition war threads


----------



## gideon_thorne (Dec 1, 2007)

Umbran said:
			
		

> Folks,
> 
> In The Rules you all agreed to for posting on these boards, we specifically ask you to not make things personal.





Just thought I'd point out, just as an fyi, but the above link seems to take one to a 404 error page It appears the link has been absconded with by kender. All in the interest of trying to be helpful.


----------



## slimykuotoan (Dec 1, 2007)

Still seems odd.

And this thread is about whether people have tried C&C, and then liked it.

So it kind of lends itself to some people posting who liked it, and sharing their experiences.


----------



## slimykuotoan (Dec 1, 2007)

Anyway, I'm starting to not like the way I sound here.

When all's said and done, at least we're all rpg'ers, and active in keeping this form of hobby alive.

Seems we're a dying breed in the face of comp games.


----------



## Treebore (Dec 1, 2007)

jdrakeh said:
			
		

> This isn't about you. It's about me not wanting to be associated with or perceived as endorsing your attempts to spark flames at RPGnet or anyplace else. If I had known the kind of deliberately offensive crap that you were posting elsewhere, I never would have said the kind things about you that I did earlier in this thread. You're obviously _not_ doing C&C any favors.





IF you read those threads and support the response fo those posters I'm not interested in your support. If you read those threads and have no problem with their unjustified responses, I am not interested in your support.

I did it because of the posts in that thread are way too typical of rpgnet, with just as little provocation as I gave. Which was none, BTW.

I said 4E is more complex than ever before, and it is, which the blogs and reports more than adequately show.

The responses given were the trolls. Just because I knew what their responses would be like doesn't change that, since I said NOTHING out of line.

Their just upset they got proven to be the way they are.


----------



## Treebore (Dec 1, 2007)

And I have now seen Umbrans post, so I will stop now, and remind people to PM me if they really feel the need.


----------



## jdrakeh (Dec 1, 2007)

Treebore said:
			
		

> The responses given were the trolls.




Responding to deliberately inflammatory remarks does not make one a troll. The troll is the person who posts said remarks with the intent of provoking hostility, thus the term "trolling" (it comes from fishing terminoloy -- trolling is a method of slowly running a boat while trailing lures or bait).


----------



## w_earle_wheeler (Dec 1, 2007)

Treebore said:
			
		

> Their just upset they got proven to be the way they are.




Kind of like C&C evangelists over here on enworld, right?


----------



## slimykuotoan (Dec 1, 2007)

I guess flame wars are unavoidable; people get set in their ways and things invariably get heated.


I do think it would be a shame to avoid C&C for a dislike of the fans though, because I really do think it can be a lot of fun, and rules lite enough to be attractive in getting newbees into the hobby.

I know that my wife was really frustrated trying to get into 3.5, but found C&C a snap!

...so I get to play more.

Although I do enjoy other rpgs: Alternity, Star Frontiers, AD&D (which I grew up on), D20 (at low levels), Sengoku, etc.

It's strange really, I'm normally cool-headed, but hearing that C&C fans are horrible really stung, especially after I've met so many that are great, welcoming people.

And yes, Treebore's one of them...one who I game with frequently, who has opened up his family to the online community, and who has made me feel welcome in all of his games.


----------



## Philotomy Jurament (Dec 1, 2007)

gideon_thorne said:
			
		

> Especially those radical artists *coughs* who fanatically draw cute fantasy girls.



I'd like to see your sketchbook.  Your published cute fantasy girls are inspiring and all, but I bet they're the tip of the iceberg.


----------



## gideon_thorne (Dec 1, 2007)

Philotomy Jurament said:
			
		

> I'd like to see your sketchbook.  Your published cute fantasy girls are inspiring and all, but I bet they're the tip of the iceberg.




Good art is only possible with good models. I am fortunate to have friends who not only are avid gamers, but come complete with their own weaponry, and are complete narcissists.  

I'll be putting out a sketchbook one of these days. More important projects are in the hopper than my own vanity though.


----------



## Frost (Dec 1, 2007)

gideon_thorne said:
			
		

> I never understood the hysterics myself. What does it matter what someone is having fun doing? Sure, I'd like folks to buy the stuff I am involved in, but it won't hurt my feelings if people don't find it to their taste. Seems like a silly thing to lose sleep over honestly.




Well said.


----------



## Breakdaddy (Dec 1, 2007)

Frost said:
			
		

> Hi Folks,
> 
> I've decided to chime back in after four pages of posts.
> 
> ...




Hey man, Im glad you are open to it. If you have any questions feel free to pm me or head on over to the TLG forums for further information on the game itself.


----------



## Greylock (Dec 1, 2007)

Jim Hague said:
			
		

> C&C's a good game, but frankly the evangelism of its fans puts me off, as do the (IMO) false claims that conversion is a snap....




Conversions is a snap. My DM and I talk about it all the time, and it's the main reason, first and foremost, why he decided to run us in C&C. He switches quite easily between 1st and 3rd Editions, and rarely bothers to convert. Any given night, you can find us playing in an AD&D module, or a 3.5 module [usually DCC], or a 2nd Edition Dungeon adventure, or a Hackmaster romp. Sometimes all on the same night. And I know  for a fact that he converts most of it in his head where conversion is needed. Just eyeballs the stats and let's 'er rip.


----------



## Scurvy_Platypus (Dec 1, 2007)

slimykuotoan said:
			
		

> That's really strange logic:
> 
> "I won't drive cars anymore.
> 
> ...




No, it's a lot more along the lines of:
"Every person I know of that dresses up and acts like a goth is into vampires and being angsty. I don't want people to think I'm into vampires since I hate 'em, and my life is fine, so I'm not going to dress and act like a goth."

I know you're still not going to get the logic, but let me try explaining it this way...

For some people (like myself), a strong component of the game is the social aspect. I want something I'm going to be able to play with other people. If every person that I find that talks about the game and is interested in the game, is someone that I don't like, or wouldn't want to spend time with, I'm not going to buy the game.

That doesn't mean that every single person that exists and likes the game is a complete jerk. It means that the majority of people are ones I don't feel like dealing with, and it's not worth my time to sort through all the jerks in the _hope_ that I'll get lucky and find cool people.

Gamers are a factional lot. The games that they like (or dislike) are one easy way that people split themselves into factions. Heck, here you've got ENWorld which is basically for the D&D (3E, soon to be 4E) faction. Dragonsfoot deals pretty much with older D&D.

You'll find people within each faction that are nice or not, but each group does have an overall "tone" to their conversations.

Instead of refusing to play D&D/d20 because I really detest the complexity, I look and see if I'd even like playing with the people first. If the answer is "Yes", then I start to worry about whether there's a rules-lighter crowd I can fall in with, or if I could get others that'd be willing to go with something lighter.

Disliking a game because of the people that act as the face of it, is no more rational or irrational than liking or disliking a game for its level of complexity. After all, you can always add more rules to it or remove rules, just like you can try and find someone nice to represent a game that seems to be mainly represented by people you don't like.

And yet people are playing C&C at least in part because they dislike rule complexity.

Or how about this one... try getting most gamers to play an rpg that doesn't use dice. The vast majority of them wouldn't do it. Of those that tried, a smaller portion would actually enjoy the experience. Most gamers like to roll their dice. There's no real "rational" reason for refusing to play diceless games, it's just the line they draw for themselves.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

And just so I'm at least slightly relevant to the topic, I'll reiterate my position:

I _really_ like C&C's approach to stuff. It's simple: Make an Attribute check to see if you succeed. If your class is skilled at the task, add your level to your dice roll. Beat the threshold and you succeed.

That's awesome, and it basically covers how C&C handles most of the stuff. The subsystems of the game are kept to a minimum, allowing things to speed up even more.

I like that the system strips down so far, and then I can plug in individual bits to add complexity to those elements that I think need more complexity, or that I'd like to focus on.

The flaw in C&C stictly speaking in system terms (and my own personal opinion) is that many people these days are not comfortable with the rules of the game being something that's either negotiated by the group, or left in the hands of the GM. People _like_ the rules being established by a some other person entirely, and additionally like the fact that the rules "apply" to the GM as well as the players. It provides a common baseline for a conversation about the game to happen.

For example, D&D's Difficulty Class thingy. A lot of the DC checks of D&D are "hardcoded"... if you make over DC of X, then you get result of Y. Like Open Lock. An Average lock is a DC of 25. I might not know what the particular difficulty of any specific lock is that my character tries to open, but I _know_ that if I can consistently make over a DC of 25, my character should be able to consistently get into some place that has Average locks. If I'm told in game that the place we're going to try and break into is well secured, I can guess it's going to have better than average locks, and even be able to do a basic assessment of just what my character is capable of.

I also know that the GM (generally speaking) isn't going to be giving me some insane number to beat for an average test. If it's an average lock, and he tells me I have to beat a DC of 45, I know there's something strange going on. It might be something special about that particular situation, or it could be the GM trying to screw with me. Over time, I can figure out if it's the GM screwing with me or not.

Without a common baseline in rules, people can become annoyed and upset because they expected one thing, and the GM expected something else. In other words, the rules are the "language" of the game and how things get done.

Having said that, I personally prefer rules-lighter systems. I don't mind negotiating the rules with the group. Or "making my own language" if you want to stick with that metaphor. As long as everyone else is fine with it, everything is good.

But I do understand that some people aren't comfortable with that (for whatever reason) and that's going to be an issue for them when they sit down with C&C.

The other thing that's either a flaw or a strength depending on your tastes, is the lack of mechanical differentiation between characters of the same type. Some people want to see mechanical reinforcement of being different, rather than just having some different base attributes, and roleplaying the personality. They'd like to be able to have an entire group of Rogues that all have their own specialties and capabilities and have that represented mechanically, rather than strictly based on roleplaying.

If you don't care about mechanical differentiation, want something that's lighter than default d20/D&D and want to be able to blend together older D&D stuff with newer stuff with relative ease, I'd say C&C wins hands down. There isn't really anything out there that tries for this sort of thing.

It does have some determined anachronisms (like individual XP tracks for each class) but they can be worked around (stripped out) without any real problem.


----------



## slimykuotoan (Dec 1, 2007)

Scurvy_Platypus said:
			
		

> No, it's a lot more along the lines of:
> "Every person I know of that dresses up and acts like a goth is into vampires and being angsty. I don't want people to think I'm into vampires since I hate 'em, and my life is fine, so I'm not going to dress and act like a goth."
> 
> I know you're still not going to get the logic...




I understand your dislike for the fans, although the logic of your example would illustrate that because you don't want to dress like a goth (act like an obnoxious poster), you avoid being into vampires (you avoid the game), rather than avoiding the style of dress (style of posting/the posters).

Anyhap, with regard to the SEIGE system and DCs, some checks are hard wired, as listed on the CK screen, which details certain actions and their corresponding CLs.


----------



## Matthew_ (Dec 1, 2007)

I like _Basic Dungeons & Dragons_ and _Advanced Dungeons & Dragons_. My preferred rule set is somewhere inbetween these two. I find D20/3e too rules heavy for my taste and there are a number of cosmetic aspects that I don't think much of. I like the fact that it seems to have reinvigourated the industry and that it fits the tastes of so many other gamers. I also like the fact that the OGL has made it possible for some adventurous folk to create simulacrums of previous editions (OSRIC and _Labyrinth Lord_) and that this has resulted in new material being produced by professional companies to complement what was already being produced by individuals or groups of fans.

I am also happy that the OGL has allowed for the creation of _Castles & Crusades_, which is so very similar to my preferred system as to make virtually no practical difference, though I am not actually much of a fan of the SIEGE engine (I won't deny that it works perfectly well, it's just not for me). The more stuff being produced that supports or virtually supports my preferred system, the better.

Honestly, I cannot really understand why people feel the need to belittle one system over another or criticise in absolute terms, nor what the point may be beyond a cathartic or ego building excercise. Some people like rules light or old school _Dungeons & Dragons_, some people like rules heavy/detailed or new school _Dungeons & Dragons_, big deal. Both styles are now receiving plenty of support, even if the majority is D20. I can go into my local game store in Newcastle and pick up an _Advanced Adventure_ by _Expeditous Retreat Press_, a _Castles & Crusades_ Module by _Troll Lord Games_ or a _Dungeon Crawl Classic_ by _Good Man Games_; hell, I can write and publish my own material if I feel like it.

The way I see it, things are better than they have been for years.


----------



## Jackelope King (Dec 1, 2007)

Matthew_ said:
			
		

> The way I see it, things are better than they have been for years.



And there's the moral of the story. Right on. Even if I didn't like C&C much myself, listen to this guy. He's speaking with much wisdom.


----------



## gideon_thorne (Dec 1, 2007)

Jackelope King said:
			
		

> And there's the moral of the story. Right on. Even if I didn't like C&C much myself, listen to this guy. He's speaking with much wisdom.




Wont get an argument from me.


----------



## Dristram (Dec 1, 2007)

*C&C Fan*

I voted Yes.  When I read the books, I liked it, and I switched…sort of.  I switched as a GM.  But not as a player.  I have yet to play C&C as any gamers I play with that GM, GM other game systems like D&D 3.5, HackMaster, Home-Brewed D&D, d6 Star Wars, Shadowrun, etc.  So it’s kind of a silly poll, because it mostly applies to GMs.  As players, you can easily play a multitude of rpgs and every player I personally know does or has.  But as a GM, usually one system is chosen because it takes a lot of time and energy to prepare and run even one game per week.

I have noticed that there are some elements of C&C that players of 3.5 that have never played older editions are seen as strange “changes” when in actually, they are “throw-backs”.  Mainly different XP progressions for classes and 6 Saves instead of 3.  I remember having similar reactions to 3e’s single XP progression and only 3 Saves!  LOL  As for C&C, what seemed strange to me was the Attribute bonus progression.  I thought it was strange until I looked back at Basic D&D and found the same progression there.  So C&C really seemed to combine elements of OD&D, AD&D, and 3eD&D.

I was a player of 1st Ed. AD&D and didn’t really like 2nd Ed.  I switched to 3e mainly because it streamlined the rules and added a standard way for the GM to rule various Skills of a character.  After 3.5 came out, that version of D&D quickly started looking to me like too much of a good thing.  There were just too many rules and too many options that diluted what I considered the focus of a D&D game which was the story in the form of a campaign, with the rules being in the background.   From my DM’s view, keeping up with all the player’s options became a headache.  I kept being surprised by some new Feat or Class Ability combo that would turn my challenging encounter into a mundane one.  And from a player’s view, my flavorful characters were way under-powered by the min-maxed characters.  The focus of the game seemed to have changed.  3.5 is a good game for what it is, but to me it did not capture the feel of the older editions.  C&C captured the feel of the older editions for me and still allowed the DM, or CK, a standard way to handle the various situations that arise in a game in a unified manner through the SEIGE mechanic.  That was one thing that sold me on C&C.  The other was the Prime and Secondary Attributes as a way to further differentiate the Attributes in a meaningful way. 

All that said, I don’t understand why such a distinction of switching needs to be made.  Why can’t players be fine with playing multiple rpg systems?  Why does it have to be one?  From playing so many different systems, I can see strengths in them all.  I mainly stick with C&C because of its familiar feel to what I played as my first rpg and I haven’t gone back to AD&D because to me it fixes some things I had issues with in AD&D.  I would expect players who learned D&D through 3e to feel the same way about 3e that I do about AD&D.  I would bet that most who really enjoy C&C used to play AD&D.  And I’d be surprised that a player who likes and who has only ever played 3.5 to give it up for C&C.  Mainly because I think it would feel incomplete to them and lacking in familiar details.

Anyways, I think I’ve written quite enough.


----------



## Mouseferatu (Dec 1, 2007)

Sigh. Nevermind...


----------



## S'mon (Dec 1, 2007)

Clavis said:
			
		

> For all those who think that people who support C&C always do it by bashing 3.x edition, it's because it seems that almost everybody who moves on to C&C has already tried 3.x edition, wanted to like it, and been frustrated by it. .




Yes - we play C&C because of problems we had with 3e.  I like 3e a lot for about the first 6 levels, but after that it rapidly becomes too complex and the power gradient is different from what I want.   C&C is a cleaned up version of AD&D incorporating streamlined d20/3e based mechanics and it does what I want.


----------



## pogre (Dec 1, 2007)

Played a one shot when it came out. It was a good time, but I mostly cater to my players - they seem to be enjoying 3.5 immensely right now. There are so many systems I want to run right now, but due to time constraints I really have to stick to one. I could see running a C&C campaign for another group if I had time.

I really want to run a WFRP campaign, a 40KRPG campaign, a Savage Worlds campaign, and well, C&C is somewhere down on that list.

I think it accomplishes pretty well what it was designed to do.


----------



## Frost (Dec 1, 2007)

Dristram said:
			
		

> Anyways, I think I’ve written quite enough.




Excellent points.  A player "raised" on 3.X is likely to have a much different view of C&C than one who started with earlier editions.


----------



## Eric Tolle (Dec 2, 2007)

jdrakeh said:
			
		

> Somewhat embarassingly, I must apologize for earlier praising Treebore's approach to promoting C&C. Apparently, he's been engaging in some unpalatable behaviors, which I was previously unaware of. This sudden revelation coupled with his posts on this page of the current thread seem to shed much light on his _true_ demeanor. I want to make it clear that I endorse _absolutely none of this_.




I have to apologize myself.  Treebore's trolling is his own problem, and I should know better then to let myself respond the way I did.  I'm sure that C&C is a fine game on its own merits, and the vast majority of it's players are fine people.  I have my own responsibility to raise or lower the tenor of conversation, and this time I failed, and let myself be drawn down to Treebore's level.  

I'm sorry, and I'll try to be more positive in the future.


----------



## Valiant (Dec 2, 2007)

S'mon said:
			
		

> Yes - we play C&C because of problems we had with 3e.  I like 3e a lot for about the first 6 levels, but after that it rapidly becomes too complex and the power gradient is different from what I want.   C&C is a cleaned up version of AD&D incorporating streamlined d20/3e based mechanics and it does what I want.





If your looking for 3E light, this is it (so a good game for 3Eers I suppose, not so for AD&D/OD&D fans).  The artwork and editing are horrible, I wouldn't advise anyone looking for an old school game to get this system (stick with the originals or download OSRIC if you don't have them).


----------



## Treebore (Dec 2, 2007)

jdrakeh said:
			
		

> Responding to deliberately inflammatory remarks does not make one a troll. The troll is the person who posts said remarks with the intent of provoking hostility, thus the term "trolling" (it comes from fishing terminoloy -- trolling is a method of slowly running a boat while trailing lures or bait).





Never mind, I PMed him instead.


----------



## cougent (Dec 2, 2007)

I have not yet played C&C, but plan to try it out next year, just as I plan to try out another new game next summer.


----------



## Psion (Dec 2, 2007)

Frost said:
			
		

> Excellent points.  A player "raised" on 3.X is likely to have a much different view of C&C than one who started with earlier editions.




FWIW, I started playing BECM and 1e, and I don't like C&C. I think what you are talking to here is more of a personal aesthetic than a trend.


----------



## Doc_Klueless (Dec 2, 2007)

gideon_thorne said:
			
		

> And for some informational posting. There will be Siege engine variant games coming down the pipe fairly soon. Star Siege, a sci fi game using the C&C core mechanic I believe will be one of the first offerings.



Now this I can get behind. While I didn't care for C&C, I did like some of the ideas contained in it (the SIEGE engine being number one). I think that folded into a game all its own, the SIEGE engine will shine.


----------



## Kanegrundar (Dec 2, 2007)

Tried it, didn't like it, won't play it again.  I started with 1E and still found C&C not to my liking.  Oh well, to each their own.


----------



## FATDRAGONGAMES (Dec 2, 2007)

Psion said:
			
		

> FWIW, I started playing BECM and 1e, and I don't like C&C. I think what you are talking to here is more of a personal aesthetic than a trend.




Yep. A good buddy of mine started out with me back in the 70s with OD&D/AD&D and now loves 3.5/dislikes any rules-lite systems.  I don't think it is so much which edition you started with but what you genuinely enjoy playing. For me, I just really like a rules lite system (which is why I still long to get a OD&D game going again sometime), others love a lot of crunch. Fortunately for ALL of us, there's enough different rules systems out there that something should appeal to nearly everyone.  While there are a few zealots who are out there chanting "One game to rule them all...", I think most people would agree that no game out there is for everyone.


----------



## slimykuotoan (Dec 2, 2007)

Valiant said:
			
		

> The artwork and editing are horrible...




I think artwork comes down to individual taste, because I really love the art in the core books!

You're right on the editing however; not so bad in the core books, but the support material can be frustrating that way...but I believe the Trolls have gotten a lot of feedback and are addressing this.


----------



## Scurvy_Platypus (Dec 2, 2007)

Clavis said:
			
		

> What I love about C&C is that is essentially D&D with cleaned up mechanics. It's _exactly_ what I was hoping 3rd edition was going to be. I actually stopped playing 1st ed AD&D because I felt like AD&D was too rules heavy. I skipped over 2nd edition altogether, and was mostly playing Vampire in the 90s. I also tried Rules Cyclopedia D&D, and loved it. I was one of the people who really wanted a streamlined, new edition of  D&D. Since 3.x has turned out to be much more rules-heavy than AD&D ever was, I quickly found myself unable to have fun DMing it. So when I found out about C&C, it sounded like it perfect for me. I'm now DMing a group of 7 players, most of whom where also looking for a lighter, faster system that would let them focus on fun roleplaying.






			
				S'mon said:
			
		

> Yes - we play C&C because of problems we had with 3e.  I like 3e a lot for about the first 6 levels, but after that it rapidly becomes too complex and the power gradient is different from what I want.




But there _are_ other alternatives to standard D&D, that are lighter and yet still pretty recognizable as D&D/d20. For example, the Lone Wolf rpg from Mongoose.

You can see a quickie video review here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EaJF8_L9Byw
No, I'm not the guy that did the review, just someone that appreciates him doing it.

Lone Wolf is the first d20 game I ever came across that I thought, "You know, I'd be willing to run this straight by the book."



			
				S'mon said:
			
		

> C&C is a cleaned up version of AD&D incorporating streamlined d20/3e based mechanics and it does what I want.




And this right here is the big split I think between a lot of people that like C&C and a lot of people that don't.

As a slimmed down version of a d20 game, C&C is great. It might be a bit on the light side, but you can certainly plug in rules bits from other d20 games to fill out those areas that you want. It's also great because you can grab stuff from the older editions of D&D, and slap them together with newer things, and the process is relatively painless.

The problem is that most of the fans seem to be like S'mon in that what they really want is AD&D, and the system veers towards supporting that. I used to defend C&C as not being about Nostalgia gaming, but I've given up on it. While the system _is_ capable of being used for far more than that, the majority of the people that are into the system also seem to be into the "good old days" of what D&D "used to be about".

If you didn't like AD&D or don't have any knowledge of it, C&C (and many of its fans) is something you're probably not going to really get. Sure, someone could walk in cold having only been playing rpgs for a year, never having played AD&D before, and fall in love with C&C. AD&D (and to a large degree, C&C) has a particular aesthetic to it, and some people like that.

Others don't.

Of course, it gets muddled because some people _really_ like AD&D as it is. They feel that C&C changes things too much and just aren't interested in it.

The thing is, a fair amount of the fans (at least all the ones I've seen) are _extremely_ firm about "This is what I hoped AD&D would be more like" and that's pretty much the end of it. They're not really interested in seeing C&C move beyond rather basic grim-n-gritty-low-magic-years-to-level-a-character-to-20th-level fantasy. It doesn't mean that every single person playing C&C buys into this mindset, but it looms over everything.

I really wish that C&C could have been something more than what it is. It's got an awful lot of potential for people like myself that enjoy things on the rules-lighter side. For better or worse though, the majority of fans have adopted it as "This is what I hoped AD&D would be more like".

If you just dislike the complexity of default D&D/d20 there _are_ other alternatives. Pay ones, like Lone Wolf or even Everstone (it could be stripped down pretty easily, and I've done some of it myself). Blue Rose even seems to be a slimmed down version, although True20 seems to take the Blue Rose concept and complicate almost to the point of D&D. There's free ones like Simple20 by jdrakeh: http://miscellaneousdebris.sitesled.com/games.html or Perfect 20 from Levi Kornelson: http://www.darkshire.net/jhkim/rpg/srd/perfect20/

If you just like AD&D (or its aesthetics), but wish the mechanics were cleaner it's a good way to go, with the added bonus of being able to hijack d20 stuff to use.


----------



## slimykuotoan (Dec 2, 2007)

Ooo, I remember the Lone Wolf books!

Has anyone tried the Lone Wolf rpg?


----------



## Philotomy Jurament (Dec 2, 2007)

The upcoming _Castle Keepers Guide_ (or whatever they end up calling it) may shake things up, a bit.  The "Guide of Guides" and "Guide of Guides Part II" entries on the Troll Lord Blog mentions optional rules for "extra abilities" (i.e. feats), critical hits, armor soaking damage, et cetera.

When those get published, they'll be "official" options.  I imagine that introducing some of those rules will make the game more palatable to 3.X fans who like their options in crunchy, mechanical form.  In fact, if TLG isn't thinking about targeting some options at people who are playing 3.X, they should be; once 4E hits, those kinds of options could make C&C more of a natural "in print" alternative for gamers who don't like 4E.

(When TLG publishes those options, it will probably also reinforce the idea that C&C is not just about old school, which will be taken as a positive by some and as a negative by others.)


----------



## slimykuotoan (Dec 2, 2007)

This doesn't belong on this thread, but Lightspeed looks sooo cool:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1XEFTAV4Y4s&feature=related


----------



## gideon_thorne (Dec 2, 2007)

> The artwork and editing are horrible




*chuckles* Remarks like this always tickle me. Granted, art taste is purely subjective, but critiques like the above tend to be without any useful merit, not to mention laughable.

Constructive and informative reasoning would go a long way to explaining the above remark, otherwise it falls into the same irrational non points that make up so much C&C critique.

I'd also ask the author of such remarks several things 1) What art they have published? 2) Can they do better? 3) The basis for comparison is what? 

If throw paint on canvas by number is a criteria for good artwork, the naturally the aforementioned publishing platform can stand right up there with the masterful works of other abstract impressionists. Those who hurl paint into airplane exhaust, then let the paint splat on large sheets of canvas for example. 

Some of us don't draw the 70's style art work anymore since we improved beyond it after passing our 11th year of age. It also doesn't show any real talent, or initiative to copy someone else's style.

Course the truly sad thing is, the words 'old school' seem to have become semantically bonded with 'unchanging' and 'hidebound'.


----------



## w_earle_wheeler (Dec 2, 2007)

Valiant said:
			
		

> The artwork and editing are horrible




The editing is, indeed, horrible. I did enjoy the ideas behind the text, however.


----------



## FATDRAGONGAMES (Dec 2, 2007)

w_earle_wheeler said:
			
		

> The editing is, indeed, horrible. I did enjoy the ideas behind the text, however.




I'll agree that there were a lot of editing issues with the first printing PHB, but they have really cleaned those up in the second and now third printings.


----------



## Fifth Element (Dec 2, 2007)

gideon_thorne said:
			
		

> I'd also ask the author of such remarks several things 1) What art they have published? 2) Can they do better?



Completely invalid and irrelevant (and childish, to be honest). Your 3rd point is fine, but these two bring nothing to the discussion. I don't have to be able to do better, if I know that someone else can do better.


----------



## jdrakeh (Dec 2, 2007)

gideon_thorne said:
			
		

> Course the truly sad thing is, the words 'old school' seem to have become semantically bonded with 'unchanging' and 'hidebound'.




No, the _truly_ sad thing is that this bonding occurred for good reason  I particpiate in a few online old school communities. There are others that I _never_ visit, specifically because their hate of all things new or different is their most prominant defining feature. These are, unfortunately, some of the most visible 'old school' communities.


----------



## gideon_thorne (Dec 2, 2007)

Fifth Element said:
			
		

> Completely invalid and irrelevant (and childish, to be honest). Your 3rd point is fine, but these two bring nothing to the discussion. I don't have to be able to do better, if I know that someone else can do better.




The two questions are perfectly valid. Its reasonable to ask what experience someone brings to the table when questioning their value judgments.  ^_^


----------



## Philotomy Jurament (Dec 2, 2007)

Message-bord art discussions are always fraught with peril, because of the subjectivity.  I personally like a lot of the 70s-style art; for whatever reason, it pushes my buttons and fires my imagination. 

Here's some specific C&C pieces that I like (Players Handbook pg references are to the 2nd printing)  Many of these are Peters -- some are not:

PH, pg. 10.  I like this one because it presents a classic adventuring party.  I love the trees/darkness they're heading towards.  They're clearly off into the unknown.  

PH, Ranger pin-up, pg 12.  I like this one because the PC looks cool, and looks like a Ranger, to me (love the beard).  I also like the clean black-and-white lines, with just enough shading/grey tones.

PH, Wizard pin-up, pg 21.  This one has more shading/grey than I usually like, but the subject is excellent.  The pipe and the floppy hat really kick this one up a notch, for me.

PH, Illusionist, pg 22.  Peter draws very attractive women.  I won't list a bunch of them, but I like this one, as well as most of the others (I have a soft spot in this direction).  Clean lines, again, too.

M&T, Doppleganger, pg 19.  Just twisted.  The dark tone suits the subject.
M&T, Dragon attack, pg 20.  Clean, dynamic without going into action overload.  
M&T, Ettercap, pg 33.  Strong contrasts.  Evil looking.
M&T, Lich, pg 54.  Fires my imagination.  Love the background.
M&T, Mummy, pg 60.  Maybe I just like undead.  Definitely like the style.
M&T, Owlbear, pg 65.  The style suits this subject (hair/feathers).  I get a sense of menace and impending action.  There's going to be one hell of a fight in a second.
M&T, Satyr, pg 72.  I like the "looking from the shadows thing."  Tells a story.
M&T, Shadow, pg 72.  Much like the Doppleganger, the dark tones are perfect.  Like the background, too.
M&T, Poisons, pg 126.

I also think the maps in the Eastmark folio are beautiful.  (Peter does a great job on maps -- his work on XXXI is excellent, too.)


----------



## jdrakeh (Dec 2, 2007)

gideon_thorne said:
			
		

> Its reasonable to ask what experience someone brings to the table when questioning their value judgments.  ^_^




Actually, he's right. Critics of games don't need to have a game of their own published to become qualified game critics. Much as qualified movie critics don't have to first become successful directors, qualified book critics don't have to be published authors, and qualified art critics don't need to have painting hanging in a gallery. Suggesting otherwise reeks of bitter resentment, rather than reason. 

For the record, I can't think of any C&C art that I dislike. The layout and editing, though, have typically been horrid (although the third printing of the PHB seems to have improved greatly on both).


----------



## gideon_thorne (Dec 2, 2007)

jdrakeh said:
			
		

> Actually, he's right. Critics of games don't need to have a game of their own published to become qualified game critics. Much as qualified movie critics don't have to first become successful directors, qualified book critics don't have to be published authors, and qualified art critics don't need to have painting hanging in a gallery. Suggesting otherwise reeks of bitter resentment, rather than reason.




Well, thats the thing, there are reasons why 'art director' is a different position than 'editor'. 

And I find the biggest problem that movie, literary and art critics have is that they tend to be none of the above. How can one reasonably expect to offer an even handed assessment of the merits of a given work if they don't have at least some experience to understand what went into the creation thereof? I would at least expect some background in the above arts if one is going to be a 'professional' at it.

*chuckles* I've been a professional published artist for over 20 years who is currently doing exactly what he wants to do in his chosen profession. Bitter and resentful I am not.


----------



## Philotomy Jurament (Dec 2, 2007)

gideon_thorne said:
			
		

> Its reasonable to ask what experience someone brings to the table when questioning their value judgments.  ^_^



I don't think one needs to be able to cook a gourmet meal in order to enjoy haute cuisine, or to know what one likes and dislikes.  Same thing with art; you don't need to be able to produce fine art in order to have a valid opinion about it.


----------



## gideon_thorne (Dec 2, 2007)

Philotomy Jurament said:
			
		

> I don't think one needs to be able to cook a gourmet meal in order to enjoy haute cuisine, or to know what one likes and dislikes.  Same thing with art; you don't need to be able to produce fine art in order to have a valid opinion about it.




Sure, as I mentioned in the first place, its subjective. But if one is going to offer a truly valid critique, one ought to be able to go beyond such pejoratives as 'it's horrible', as laughable as that assessment was.


----------



## Philotomy Jurament (Dec 2, 2007)

gideon_thorne said:
			
		

> ...if one is going to offer a truly valid critique, one ought to be able to go beyond such pejoratives as 'it's horrible'...



Yes, I agree that a critique should offer something more than just thumbs-up/thumbs-down.  However, not everyone that expresses an opinion is offering a critique -- sometimes it's just an opinion, and can be taken for what it's worth.


----------



## jdrakeh (Dec 2, 2007)

gideon_thorne said:
			
		

> How can one reasonably expect to offer an even handed assessment of the merits of a given work if they don't have at least some experience to understand what went into the creation thereof?




That said "some experience" in any of those fields isn't limited to "doing that thing professionally". Again, one does not need to have designed or edited a game to issue a qualified critique of one. They may have a master's degree in English Literature or Art History, for example. 

The notion that a critic must first do something professionally and be succesful (a purely subjective criteria, mind you) at it before they are qualified to critique said thing, is patently absurd (as well as a popular and long-standing strawman utilized by creative types in the face of negative reviews).


----------



## gideon_thorne (Dec 2, 2007)

jdrakeh said:
			
		

> That said "some experience" in any of those fields isn't limited to "doing that thing professionally". Again, one does not need to have designed or edited a game to issue a qualified critique of one. They may have a master's degree in English Literature or Art History, for example.




I wouldn't presume to offer an opinion on good game design, simply because I haven't actually designed and published one.

I don't play games based on critique of their 'design', something, as I said, I am not qualified to address. I play games based on whether the folks I am gaming with can make it a fun experience. Whether I find something fun to play or not certainly has nothing to do with good or bad design. Especially since I have no idea what good or bad design is, since I've never been able to find an objective basis for comparison.

Nor am I, IMHO, a good judge of what computer to buy, or car, or time keeping device, or music player, or a number of other subjects simply because I lack sufficient data to make an informed judgement.

*impish grin* I may be an opinionated prat, but I'm not a hypocritical one.


----------



## Fifth Element (Dec 2, 2007)

gideon_thorne said:
			
		

> Sure, as I mentioned in the first place, its subjective. But if one is going to offer a truly valid critique, one ought to be able to go beyond such pejoratives as 'it's horrible', as laughable as that assessment was.



Absolutely. The particular critique provided nothing of substance, but that has nothing to do with the critic's ability in the field. You implied that in order to offer a valid critique, the critic must have at least your level of ability, which is invalid.

BTW, I have not seen any of the art in C&C and therefore have no opinion of it. But your implication that only professional artists can offer valid critique is simply untrue.


----------



## gideon_thorne (Dec 2, 2007)

Fifth Element said:
			
		

> Absolutely. The particular critique provided nothing of substance, but that has nothing to do with the critic's ability in the field. You implied that in order to offer a valid critique, the critic must have at least your level of ability, which is invalid.
> 
> BTW, I have not seen any of the art in C&C and therefore have no opinion of it. But your implication that only professional artists can offer valid critique is simply untrue.




Well, in my opinion that is the case. I think its reasonable, that in order to offer an opinion one must be able to provide a better example in a manner that at least appears informed.

There are lots of folks better than myself out there, I'll freely grant that. Which is why I'll spend more time learning from their work than presuming to denigrate it.

Stop over to the troll lord forums and look and judge for yourself the quality or lack thereof of my work. I don't mind.

But in the face of the initial critique that generated this discussion, I decided to respond with my query. If folks want to disagree with my means and methodology, thats also fine. Not everyone sees matters the same way, its all good.


----------



## jdrakeh (Dec 2, 2007)

gideon_thorne said:
			
		

> I wouldn't presume to offer an opinion on good game design, simply because I haven't actually designed and published one.




That's. . . nuts. People can't develop or share opinions on something unless they've done it professionally? Well, have you ever been paid to critique games? No? Then, using your own logic, I must reject your entire line of reasoning here as unqualified, since you've never served in any professional capacity as a game critic


----------



## gideon_thorne (Dec 2, 2007)

jdrakeh said:
			
		

> That's. . . nuts. People can't develop or share opinions on something unless they've done it professionally? Well, have you ever been paid to critique games? No? Then, using your own logic, I must reject your entire line of reasoning here as unqualified, since you've never served in any professional capacity as a game critic




I believe thats what I've been getting at. Sure, other peoples millage may vary, and they are free to disagree with my assessment. Doesn't bother me in the slightest. 

Let me be clear though. I believe anyone may offer an opinion on any subject. Whether or not I, personally, will consider it a professionally valid opinion (as opposed to the regular sort of opinion that anyone is entitled too) or not will depend on whether I feel (subjectively) the person offering it is qualified to do so.


----------



## gideon_thorne (Dec 2, 2007)

Philotomy Jurament said:
			
		

> Message-bord art discussions are always fraught with peril, because of the subjectivity.  I personally like a lot of the 70s-style art; for whatever reason, it pushes my buttons and fires my imagination.
> 
> Here's some specific C&C pieces that I like (Players Handbook pg references are to the 2nd printing)  Many of these are Peters -- some are not:
> 
> ...





See, this kind of evaluation is useful to me because it gives me some idea of what someone likes, and dislikes, and why, about a given piece of work. Its much more efficient than 'attaboy' or 'you suck'.


----------



## Clavis (Dec 2, 2007)

Valiant said:
			
		

> If your looking for 3E light, this is it (so a good game for 3Eers I suppose, not so for AD&D/OD&D fans).  The artwork and editing are horrible, I wouldn't advise anyone looking for an old school game to get this system (stick with the originals or download OSRIC if you don't have them).




I have to disagree in the strongest possible terms with your assessment of C&C's art. I think it has a perfect "modern classic" feel that evokes exactly what makes C&C great.

The editing is indefensible, however.  

For the record I'm a AD&D player & DM who found exactly the update of D&D I was looking for in C&C. As a matter of fact, it looks like Mr. Gygax is also far from unhappy with C&C.


----------



## Odhanan (Dec 2, 2007)

slimykuotoan said:
			
		

> Ooo, I remember the Lone Wolf books!
> 
> Has anyone tried the Lone Wolf rpg?




It does what it's set out to do very well: make the Lone Wolf universe accessible through d20 mechanics. It doesn't do generic fantasy very well, however, because of the way background and mechanics are meshed together. In other words, it does LW well, but that's all it does.


----------



## Faraer (Dec 2, 2007)

jdrakeh said:
			
		

> The notion that a critic must first do something professionally and be succesful (a purely subjective criteria, mind you) at it before they are qualified to critique said thing, is patently absurd (as well as a popular and long-standing strawman utilized by creative types in the face of negative reviews).



Also, writing and self-publishing an RPG may indicate an inflated sense of one's own abilities as a designer rather than particular expertise.


----------



## Laslo Tremaine (Dec 2, 2007)

Ah, C&C, how I love and hate thee so...

I am running the Age of Worms adventure path using C&C.  Or I should say that I was...

We are still playing, but the system is so house-ruled that I'm not sure you could call it C&C.  It's more of a simplified 3.5 with a very modified SIEGE mechanic.  At the moment it's working pretty well for us.


----------



## Philotomy Jurament (Dec 3, 2007)

gideon_thorne said:
			
		

> ...this kind of evaluation is useful to me because it gives me some idea of what someone likes, and dislikes, and why, about a given piece of work.



Looking at what I wrote, it could probably be summarized as "likes strong contrasts, clean lines, and pieces that suggest/tell a story."  However, that's not necessarily set-in-stone.  Sometimes, a muddier or dirtier approach suits the subject, IMO.  

Some classic pieces I like are Paladin in Hell and Emirikol the Chaotic from 1E.  The "magic mouth/stairs" piece in the 1E PH fires me up, too, even though its not the style that I typically am drawn to.  

Sometimes I'm surprised by a particular piece that I like.  I generally dislike modern art and abstract expressionism, but every once in a while I'll find a work that I can't stop looking at.  There's a Pollock painting that does that to me (can't recall the name, off the top of my head), even though I'm no fan of Pollock or that approach, in general. 

I really like pen and ink work (unsurprising, given my penchant for contrast and clean lines), but I'm also drawn to paintings.  I like realism, but some degree of abstraction sometimes suits a work.  I like paintings where the artists love of the medium shines through.  (Here's example by Fechin that brings some of these things together.)  Another good example is the avatar I often use:


----------



## Crothian (Dec 3, 2007)

jdrakeh said:
			
		

> That's. . . nuts. People can't develop or share opinions on something unless they've done it professionally? Well, have you ever been paid to critique games? No? Then, using your own logic, I must reject your entire line of reasoning here as unqualified, since you've never served in any professional capacity as a game critic




At least my opinion still matters!!


----------



## gideon_thorne (Dec 3, 2007)

S'funny, this thread has gone what.. 7 pages now and the poll results are still pretty evenly split.


----------



## slimykuotoan (Dec 3, 2007)

C&C artwork:

http://ravenchilde.com/cncgallery/index.htm


----------



## jdrakeh (Dec 3, 2007)

Crothian said:
			
		

> At least my opinion still matters!!




Only in regard to critiquing critics or the processes of critique, apparently


----------



## jdrakeh (Dec 3, 2007)

Faraer said:
			
		

> Also, writing and self-publishing an RPG may indicate an inflated sense of one's own abilities as a designer rather than particular expertise.




I was going to mention that, as well, though I didn't want to risk hurting anybody's feelings. You're right, though. Just because somebody _has_ done something, it doesn't automatically make them an expert on said thing, nor is it in any way indicative of talent. 

There have been hundreds of god awful RPGs published in the years since 1975. Just as there have been hundreds of god awful books writen, hundreds of god awful films directed, and hundreds of god awful paintings exhibited. 

And yet, somehow, these creators are experts in their field just because they created something? And people who haven't created X aren't fit to judge it? This is a transparent (and wholly illogical) defense mechanism designed to fend off all criticism, nothing more.


----------



## gideon_thorne (Dec 3, 2007)

jdrakeh said:
			
		

> I was going to mention that, as well, though I didn't want to risk hurting anybody's feelings. You're right, though. Just because somebody _has_ done something, it doesn't automatically make them an expert on said thing, nor is it in any way indicative of talent.




Having done a thing, one is better informed of the process, than one who hasn't, yes or no?  



> This is a transparent (and wholly illogical) defense mechanism designed to fend off all criticism, nothing more.




Were this true, I wouldn't be looking for people more capable than myself, and there are many, to use as guides for self improvement, now would I?


----------



## slimykuotoan (Dec 3, 2007)

Has anyone tried Mutants and Masterminds?

Sorry to be off topic again but those gaming geek reviews are addictive.


----------



## Dragonhelm (Dec 3, 2007)

Laslo Tremaine said:
			
		

> We are still playing, but the system is so house-ruled that I'm not sure you could call it C&C.  It's more of a simplified 3.5 with a very modified SIEGE mechanic.  At the moment it's working pretty well for us.




So how did you modify C&C?


----------



## Philotomy Jurament (Dec 3, 2007)

slimykuotoan said:
			
		

> Has anyone tried Mutants and Masterminds?



Yes.  It's a very nice "powers" system, and has become my superhero system of choice.


----------



## Faraer (Dec 3, 2007)

gideon_thorne said:
			
		

> Having done a thing, one is better informed of the process, than one who hasn't, yes or no?



It's a valuable insight, but most reviews aren't of that process but of reading and playing the game.


----------



## slimykuotoan (Dec 3, 2007)

I totally realized why I gravitated away from D20, after I was youtubing and came across this game of mutants and masterminds -they recorded their whole session:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M7XV21u4gR4&feature=related

For me, as new D20 player accessories came out, characters became more mutanty, with powers more and more bizarre, untill my games lost their fantasy flavour, eventually becoming more akin to Rifts, etc.

While I liked the content of the stuff, I didn't feel it belonged in a fantasy campaign.

That said, I may give mutants/masterminds a go.


----------



## prosfilaes (Dec 3, 2007)

gideon_thorne said:
			
		

> How can one reasonably expect to offer an even handed assessment of the merits of a given work if they don't have at least some experience to understand what went into the creation thereof?




I think that having real experience may actually be a drawback in some cases. It leads you to empathize with the creator rather than the general audience. Someone with real experience is less likely to critique minor failures in hard stuff and more likely to critique minor failures in easy stuff, whereas the important thing for a general review is the impact on the audience, hard or not.


----------



## prosfilaes (Dec 3, 2007)

serleran said:
			
		

> This is why it should be tried, if for no other reason than to say you actually know what it is you're not liking.




Personally, if I were to be playing a wide variety of games, I might well give C&C a shot. Being however that my playing time is limited, and my money to buy new material is limited, like many of us, I find it important to prejudge my purchases based on other's opinions.

From what I've heard, C&C is old-school in ways that I don't particularly desire, and a simpler D&D has never really been on my wish-list. (I still remember reading TMNT and my awe at my first point-based system, no matter how limited. A simpler GURPS, now that's what I want.) So no, I really don't think it's worth my time to try it.

(Not that this is meant as an attack on C&C; more on the concept that we have to try everything.)


----------



## Jackelope King (Dec 3, 2007)

slimykuotoan said:
			
		

> Has anyone tried Mutants and Masterminds?
> 
> Sorry to be off topic again but those gaming geek reviews are addictive.



Best superhero RPG on the market, and for my money, my RPG of choice. I'm working on tweaking it into a more open, genre-neutral, toolbox game.


----------



## S'mon (Dec 3, 2007)

slimykuotoan said:
			
		

> Ooo, I remember the Lone Wolf books!
> 
> Has anyone tried the Lone Wolf rpg?




I wanted to get it, but it seems to be OOP, at least there are no cheap copies available.


----------



## Valiant (Dec 3, 2007)

Clavis said:
			
		

> I have to disagree in the strongest possible terms with your assessment of C&C's art. I think it has a perfect "modern classic" feel that evokes exactly what makes C&C great.
> 
> The editing is indefensible, however.
> 
> For the record I'm a AD&D player & DM who found exactly the update of D&D I was looking for in C&C. As a matter of fact, it looks like Mr. Gygax is also far from unhappy with C&C.





"Modern classic" is the problem.  This is a fantasy game set in a sword and sorcery period, not the local tatoo shop or thespian guild, modern elements only pull you out of that setting (btw 3E was just as bad).   C&C's artists are skilled enough to have painted or drawn classic images (the kind we see in the 1E DMG and PH) but choose (or are told) not to.   Also, the bulk of the art seems posed and stiff, and doesn't focus on the setting or action (which IMHO is the point of art in RPGs).   

As for Gygax and his association with C&C, my understanding is that he is payed for his association, and in return the Troll Lords get the benefit of his name associated with their product. 

In any case C&C (with its SIEGE system) is 3E/D20 light; no tables, no GM perogative on what to role to save etc., it still has the video game feel (role jump to get over this, climb to get up that, only with SIEGE).


----------



## Fifth Element (Dec 3, 2007)

gideon_thorne said:
			
		

> Well, in my opinion that is the case. I think its reasonable, that in order to offer an opinion one must be able to provide a better example in a manner that at least appears informed.



Okay, when you say "provide a better example", does that include an example produced by another artist? Could I compare your work with Larry Elmore to critique it? Or does it have to be something I did myself?

Your initial post implies that it should be something I did myself.


----------



## Philotomy Jurament (Dec 3, 2007)

Valiant said:
			
		

> "Modern classic" is the problem.  This is a fantasy game set in a sword and sorcery period, not the local tatoo shop or thespian guild, modern elements only pull you out of that setting (btw 3E was just as bad).



For the most part, I think the characters are depicted with classic elements (NOT a lot of tattoos, piercings, huge weapons, et cetera); I think 3E is a far greater "offender" as far as that goes.  The style C&C uses often has a more modern look to it, but I don't think it's the way the PCs are dressed/groomed that makes it so.



> Also...the art...doesn't focus on the setting or action (which IMHO is the point of art in RPGs)



Be careful with the action criticism.  Many, many 3E images focus heavily on action (so much so that I get tired of seeing another over-the-top action image with screaming faces, et cetera).

(FWIW, I generally prefer story/action art over pin-ups, too.)



> In any case C&C (with its SIEGE system) is 3E/D20 light; no tables, no GM perogative on what to role to save etc., it still has the video game feel (role jump to get over this, climb to get up that, only with SIEGE).



Rolling for various actions depends entirely on the DM, actually.  Since C&C doesn't specify what actions require checks*, and doesn't have a table of standard "target numbers" for actions, the DM makes the call on whether a roll is needed.  It's very possible to play C&C without using such rolls; the system doesn't even suggest them (contrasted with 3E, which does suggest them just by having a list of skills).  Common advice on the C&C forums is to not call for SIEGE engine checks for most tasks -- only when the danger of failure is significant in some way.  (Of course, it's also possible to play C&C with a "roll for everything" approach, but that's up to the DM.)

Your table criticism is accurate; C&C is more like 2E or 3E, in this respect.  Your saving throw criticism is interesting; I've never considered C&C's use of the SIEGE engine for saving throws as limiting the DM.  Can you elaborate on what you mean?  (In my case, I found that I preferred the AD&D approach to saving throws, and house-ruled that in, but it wasn't because I felt limited, it was the way the probabilities/level/prime thing worked.)

I agree with you that C&C isn't an old-school system like AD&D.  It can be played in an old-school manner, but if you move very far in that direction, you might as well play an older edition, instead.  (My C&C game has done this, over time -- it's basically AD&D, at this point.)  As I mentioned in a previous post, I think the new "options" book that is coming out may change some peoples' perspective on C&C; right now it's usually seen as an just an old-school system, which isn't really the case, IMO.

C&C's strength isn't that it's "old school;" it's strength is that it's a system that lends itself to tweaking in one direction or the other along that scale, and making the game your own.  Hard-core old-school fans are better off with a REAL old school system.  Hard-core skills/feats/crunchy-options fans are better off with 3.X or 4E.  C&C is good for gamers who might fall somewhere in the middle, or who are exploring exactly where they want to be on that scale.

(IMO, of course. --  )

_* Edit -- I'm speaking of general actions like climbing a tree or jumping over a crevasse or bargaining for a better price, of course, not things like saving throws or class abilities like a thief moving silently or a ranger tracking._


----------



## Greylock (Dec 3, 2007)

Valiant said:
			
		

> "Modern classic" is the problem.  This is a fantasy game set in a sword and sorcery period, not the local tatoo shop or thespian guild...




The C&C art is modern classic only insofar as it tries to make the characters look like real people. What you've stated at the end there is a gross mis-characterization.


----------



## gideon_thorne (Dec 3, 2007)

Valiant said:
			
		

> As for Gygax and his association with C&C, my understanding is that he is payed for his association, and in return the Troll Lords get the benefit of his name associated with their product.
> 
> In any case C&C (with its SIEGE system) is 3E/D20 light; no tables, no GM perogative on what to role to save etc., it still has the video game feel (role jump to get over this, climb to get up that, only with SIEGE).




Both of these statements are incorrect and incomplete.

Gary works with TLG because he and Steve are good friends. That, first and foremost centers the core of the relationship between the two.

As for the second broad critique, this is also incorrect. It states quite clearly in the C&C rules that rolls for any given action should only be undertaken should the CK feel it engages in a real turning point for the action itself. One does not need to roll for every little thing. And certainly one doesn't require tables for every little thing either. Clearly I've heard the latter argument many times, and it fails to hold any more water than a sieve. ^_^




> This is a fantasy game set in a sword and sorcery period




This is also incorrect. C&C itself is not set in any specific period. While the Troll's write their own setting material in a S&S setting, Gary uses an early renaissance flavor, and other players use the core rules for settings that cross a wide variety of genre.


----------



## gideon_thorne (Dec 3, 2007)

Fifth Element said:
			
		

> Okay, when you say "provide a better example", does that include an example produced by another artist? Could I compare your work with Larry Elmore to critique it? Or does it have to be something I did myself?
> 
> Your initial post implies that it should be something I did myself.




*chuckles* Absolutely. Compare me to my friend Larry, and I will concede the mastery to him in all cases. Course, having had this discussion with him before, I doubt he'd agree on all points. ^_^


----------



## gideon_thorne (Dec 3, 2007)

Greylock said:
			
		

> The C&C art is modern classic only insofar as it tries to make the characters look like real people. What you've stated at the end there is a gross mis-characterization.




But, to me, a familiar style of characterization. I thought the pedantic nature of the aforementioned critique sounded familiar. Another person on another forum, known for highly illogical statements in regard to both game and art makes similar remarks.


----------



## Fifth Element (Dec 3, 2007)

gideon_thorne said:
			
		

> *chuckles* Absolutely. Compare me to my friend Larry, and I will concede the mastery to him in all cases. Course, having had this discussion with him before, I doubt he'd agree on all points. ^_^



Absolutely to which question?


----------



## gideon_thorne (Dec 3, 2007)

Fifth Element said:
			
		

> Absolutely to which question?




Well, since you said 'compare to another artist like Larry Elmore' I thought I already answered that.  Sorry if I was unclear. This is never the best form of communication in which to express my often wandering rambles.


----------



## slimykuotoan (Dec 3, 2007)

Just to be sure we're clear, C&C rolls aren't just random things the DM pulls out of nowhere:

http://www.trolllord.com/newsite/downloads/pdfs/phdownload.pdf

The number to beat follows logically from the difficulty of the task: If I save vers a spell, it's based upon the hit die of the caster.

Listen to a thief? -based upon his hit die and other miscelaineous factors, etc.

I'd hate the game, if it was "the CK thinks it should be this way..."


----------



## Dristram (Dec 3, 2007)

Valiant said:
			
		

> "Modern classic" is the problem.  This is a fantasy game set in a sword and sorcery period, not the local tatoo shop or thespian guild, modern elements only pull you out of that setting (btw 3E was just as bad).



I own all the books for C&C and I don't see the art this way.  They don't contain modern elements, but more have a modern age feel just as Elmore/Easley/Parkinson/etc had a modern age feel in the 80's.  Art influenced by the modern era, but still fantasy themed.



> Also, the bulk of the art seems posed and stiff, and doesn't focus on the setting or action (which IMHO is the point of art in RPGs).



I beg to differ.  Look HERE and point to what you mean., 'cause I don't see it.

I took offense with you saying simply that the "art is horrible".  I would have accepted your opinion better if you stated that the art "is not to your liking" or at worst, "I think the art is horrible".  Stating it as you did made it seem fact as if anyone seeing the art will think it's horrible.  Simply not the case.

Now I have to call out Peter and say that I don't believe he would have come forth with the same arguement had Valiant stated that the "art was awesome".   





> As for Gygax and his association with C&C, my understanding is that he is payed for his association, and in return the Troll Lords get the benefit of his name associated with their product.



Not to mention that Gary has written and is writing material for C&C, namely the Castle Zagyg product line.


----------



## gideon_thorne (Dec 3, 2007)

Dristram said:
			
		

> Now I have to call out Peter and say that I don't believe he would have come forth with the same argument had Valiant stated that the "art was awesome".




Quite true, my argument would have been what I mentioned earlier in this thread. 'Thats awesome' or "thats horrible" is no good to me. I'm sure its going to come off wrong, in this text media, when I say I've been receiving 'attaboys' most of my life when it comes to my art. And while I can appreciate the spirit in which it was offered, I much prefer the following means of conveying both good and bad reviews over 'thats awesome' simply because the information presented thus actually helps me grow in my capabilities. 

I am quite prepared to accept valid critique of my work if presented as such. "I don't like this particular piece of work because, to me, it doesn't reflect (insert given desired emotive response here). Or "The proportions don't seem right here." or "The shading, colours used, composition, or what not doesn't seem right.

The examples given actually present me with real information for me to consider so I can actually improve. I don't consider myself the best on the market, far from it in fact.

Is that a fair answer?


----------



## Valiant (Dec 3, 2007)

Phil, C&Cs artwork is far more similar to 3E then 1E (or classic fantasy of that era), its still got all the modern 3E elements I hate. 
And this should be no surprise, as 3E players are likely their primary market, thus going after a toned down D20 look in art was a logical option (which also incidently mirrors the toned down D20 rules system the game uses).  As for action, check out the cover of the 1E PH to see what I mean.  Of all the artwork I've seen from C&C, only a few pieces would fit in to old school.

Gideon, regardless of Gygax's personal relationship with the owner, he's still being payed and C&C greatly benefits from this association (tieing it to AD&D and OD&D, a link I don't think the game deserves). Thats a reality.  TLG has benefited far more from the Gygax name then visa versa (whatever happened to LA for instance?).  Like I said,  C&C is a fine game for people looking for a 3E/D20 light system, but isn't a return to 1E, not by a long shot.


----------



## gideon_thorne (Dec 3, 2007)

> Gideon, regardless of Gygax's personal relationship with the owner, he's still being payed and C&C greatly benefits from this association (tieing it to AD&D and OD&D, a link I don't think the game deserves). Thats a reality. TLG has benefited far more from the Gygax name then visa versa (whatever happened to LA for instance?). Like I said, C&C is a fine game for people looking for a 3E/D20 light system, but isn't a return to 1E, not by a long shot.




Well of course he's being paid for his own work. Rather presumptuous to ask someone to work for free. I just pointed out that its not the only reason why he works with TLG.

Gary obviously disagrees on what the 'game deserves', as noted by his association and often mentioned approval of said game. 

Oh.. and nothing 'happened' to LA. Material is still being produced for it and the core books are being revisited.


----------



## Philotomy Jurament (Dec 3, 2007)

Valiant said:
			
		

> As for action, check out the cover of the 1E PH to see what I mean.



(I assume you mean the original Trampier cover.)  That's another one of my favorites (even more than the Sutherland DMG cover, which is also a classic).  If that's what you mean by "action," then I'm in complete agreement that we should see more of this kind of thing.  It's a scene which fires the imagination and tells a story (and drips swords-and-sorcery feel, to me).

The fact that those covers are still referenced and alluded to in modern promotions and products (in fact, if I'm not mistaken, Peter gives a nod to the Sutherland painting with his _City of Brass_ cover for Necromancer Games) speaks volumes about their classic status and effectiveness as "D&D fantasy art."


----------



## Particle_Man (Dec 3, 2007)

Hey Peter, any chance you will do or have done a tribute to Sutherland's "A Paladin in Hell"?


----------



## Dristram (Dec 3, 2007)

Valiant said:
			
		

> Phil, C&Cs artwork is far more similar to 3E then 1E (or classic fantasy of that era), its still got all the modern 3E elements I hate.



See and I am one who doesn't care for 3e artowrk, who likes the pre-DragonLance artwork, but does like the work of those artists, and I like Peter's work.  Though not completely.  I think it's a little too clean and smooth or something.  I can't quite place it.  But I see it as his style and I can definitely see his talent.



> As for action, check out the cover of the 1E PH to see what I mean. Of all the artwork I've seen from C&C, only a few pieces would fit in to old school.



I'm sure you can't mean to compare skill here.  Because Peter's skill blows away the artists of the original PHB.  But I think I understand what you mean.  There isn't a lot of "scenes" that "tell a story".  Art pieces that inspire adventure.  I would agree with you there.  I would not hold Peter accountable for that.  That is an issue for the art director.  That said, I don't know how that equates to the art in C&C being horrible.  That comment hits directly at Peter's skill at an artist.



> Like I said,  C&C is a fine game for people looking for a 3E/D20 light system, but isn't a return to 1E, not by a long shot.



A agree except for the long shot part.  If I wanted a return to 1E, I would play 1E.  I have all the books and if I didn't, I could still get them.  I think C&C would have been a better follow-on from 2E than 3E was.   3E changed D&D a lot.  C&C would have been a more minor transition.  Lets go back to 1998, and if I were asked which system woud make a better 3rd Edition AD&D between C&C, HackMaster, and d20/D&D, I'd say it would be a toss-up between HackMaster and C&C.  And C&C would be more of a change in basic mechanics as HackMaster is essentially AD&D on steriods.  I like HackMaster, but I prefer C&C because it's more rules-lite.


----------



## gideon_thorne (Dec 3, 2007)

Particle_Man said:
			
		

> Hey Peter, any chance you will do or have done a tribute to Sutherland's "A Paladin in Hell"?




Actually, yes. I haven't forgotten your initial request that you made. I have a work in progress for that very thing for the forthcoming CKG.


----------



## gideon_thorne (Dec 3, 2007)

Dristram said:
			
		

> That is an issue for the art director.




And be assured that he considers this along with any reasonably phrased issue brought to his attention. *coughs*.


----------



## Dristram (Dec 3, 2007)

Misunderstood question.  Deleted.


----------



## Philotomy Jurament (Dec 3, 2007)

Dristram said:
			
		

> ...I like Peter's work.  Though not completely.  I think it's a little too clean and smooth or something.  I can't quite place it.



I have the same reaction to some pieces.  Peter often uses a very smooth and flowing look with his shading and also his lines (fluid, organic, and curvy are also terms that spring to mind).  I think this is one of the reasons his women turn out so well.


----------



## Philotomy Jurament (Dec 3, 2007)

Love your avatar, Dristram.


----------



## gideon_thorne (Dec 3, 2007)

Philotomy Jurament said:
			
		

> I have the same reaction to some pieces.  Peter often uses a very smooth and flowing look with his shading and also his lines (fluid, organic, and curvy are also terms that spring to mind).  I think this is one of the reasons his women turn out so well.




Naturally. I tend to like women who are fluid, curvy and definitely organic. As opposed, perhaps to ones made of polymers. *impish grin*


----------



## Philotomy Jurament (Dec 3, 2007)

gideon_thorne said:
			
		

> Naturally. I tend to like women who are fluid, curvy and definitely organic. As opposed, perhaps to ones made of polymers. *impish grin*



No argument from me.  I like curvy and organic women, and avoid those made of polymers or polygons.  The name "Polly" is okay, though.  In fact, it's kind of cute...


----------



## Dristram (Dec 3, 2007)

Philotomy Jurament said:
			
		

> I think this is one of the reasons his women turn out so well.



I can't agree more!  I had asked Peter when he would do an all girl calendar.    

Oh, and I've admired your avatar as well.  It's my favorite PHB piece.  I think it's been the single biggest inspiration for me being a huge fan of Paladins since I started playing D&D.


----------



## der_kluge (Dec 3, 2007)

Just read my review of C&C to see what I thought about it.  I wish the TLG guys nothing but the best WRT to their game.

It's not for me, though.  Like others, I think they took the wrong approach towards the rules - removed stuff that worked (a single XP progression) and overly complicated stuff (SIEGE engine is completely bass-ackwards, IMHO).


----------



## Dristram (Dec 3, 2007)

gideon_thorne said:
			
		

> And be assured that he considers this along with any reasonably phrased issue brought to his attention. *coughs*.



Heh, any info you can share about what the art will be like for the CKG, or C&C UA?


----------



## Dristram (Dec 3, 2007)

der_kluge said:
			
		

> Just read my review of C&C to see what I thought about it.  I wish the TLG guys nothing but the best WRT to their game.
> 
> It's not for me, though.  Like others, I think they took the wrong approach towards the rules - removed stuff that worked (a single XP progression)



As far as I'm concerned, multiple XP tables seemed to work just fine for AD&D.  But that aside, a single XP progression to me has a generic feel.  Class-based XP tables to me have a certain charm and add character to the classes.  Kind of funny how that came out.



> and overly complicated stuff (SIEGE engine is completely bass-ackwards, IMHO).



Are you saying that the SIEGE Engine is overly complicated??


----------



## gideon_thorne (Dec 3, 2007)

Dristram said:
			
		

> Heh, any info you can share about what the art will be like for the CKG, or C&C UA?




Well, content wise, not yet. But style wise a fair bit more black and white ink work. Mainly since it seems to show up so much better. I have a few things in mind, but I am not fully cognizant enough of the interior contents to devise appropriate pieces.


----------



## gideon_thorne (Dec 3, 2007)

Philotomy Jurament said:
			
		

> (I assume you mean the original Trampier cover.)  That's another one of my favorites (even more than the Sutherland DMG cover, which is also a classic).  If that's what you mean by "action," then I'm in complete agreement that we should see more of this kind of thing.  It's a scene which fires the imagination and tells a story (and drips swords-and-sorcery feel, to me).




I actually tend to like Trampier's work on the DM screen much more than the original 1E cover. The figures are much cleaner and more detailed, and there is a real sense of mood and drama that the AD&D book cover doesn't quite capture. All IMHO of course.


----------



## Philotomy Jurament (Dec 3, 2007)

der_kluge said:
			
		

> ...I think [the C&C designers] took the wrong approach towards the rules - removed stuff that worked (a single XP progression)...



I take the contrary position on XP progressions (see here for some comments).


----------



## Philotomy Jurament (Dec 3, 2007)

gideon_thorne said:
			
		

> I actually tend to like Trampier's work on the DM screen much more than the original 1E cover. The figures are much cleaner and more detailed, and there is a real sense of mood and drama that the AD&D book cover doesn't quite capture.



I had a Trampier screen years ago, but it was stolen (along with some other stuff it pained me to lose), and I had to replace it with the later version of the 1E screen (the hooded guy opening the doors).

Anyone have a decent scan/image of art from the the Trampier 1E screen?


----------



## gideon_thorne (Dec 3, 2007)

Philotomy Jurament said:
			
		

> Anyone have a decent scan/image of art from the the Trampier 1E screen?




this is the one I am referencing


----------



## Philotomy Jurament (Dec 3, 2007)

Dristram said:
			
		

> Are you saying that the SIEGE Engine is overly complicated??



His review criticizes the 12/18 approach for target numbers, instead of using a single target number.


----------



## Particle_Man (Dec 3, 2007)

Well the easy fix for that is TN=18, primes give +6 on rolls, right?


----------



## Particle_Man (Dec 3, 2007)

*Yahoo!*



			
				gideon_thorne said:
			
		

> Actually, yes. I haven't forgotten your initial request that you made. I have a work in progress for that very thing for the forthcoming CKG.




You have just sold a copy of CKG!


----------



## gideon_thorne (Dec 3, 2007)

Philotomy Jurament said:
			
		

> His review criticizes the 12/18 approach for target numbers, instead of using a single target number.




I recall the review myself. And in answer to that critique thats been mentioned a time or two, I can say with assurance that there is only one target number, 18. Perhaps it might have been easier to phrase it as "Primes give you a +6 to your roll when factoring against the target number of 18", but it still gets you to the same place. And has no real factor during play.


----------



## Treebore (Dec 3, 2007)

Philotomy Jurament said:
			
		

> His review criticizes the 12/18 approach for target numbers, instead of using a single target number.




Which I find very funny considering how many target numbers other games have. Which one is it that has 10 and 15?

SIEGE engine complicated? I see it it as simple, incredibly flexible, and therefore extremely powerful.

Just another example of how widely opinions can differ.


----------



## Dragonhelm (Dec 4, 2007)

Particle_Man said:
			
		

> Well the easy fix for that is TN=18, primes give +6 on rolls, right?




Yes it is.  That's how I tackle it.  What I've done recently is modify that to have a base TN of 15 with a +5 modifier.  Keeps the math a bit simpler.


----------



## Clavis (Dec 4, 2007)

Valiant said:
			
		

> "Modern classic" is the problem.  This is a fantasy game set in a sword and sorcery period, not the local tatoo shop or thespian guild, modern elements only pull you out of that setting (btw 3E was just as bad).   C&C's artists are skilled enough to have painted or drawn classic images (the kind we see in the 1E DMG and PH) but choose (or are told) not to.   Also, the bulk of the art seems posed and stiff, and doesn't focus on the setting or action (which IMHO is the point of art in RPGs).




I wouldn't compare C&C's art to 3rd edition's silly "spiky bits, mismatched armor, and clothing made of belts" look. Sure, C&C's art isn't exactly like 1st edition's, but times (and artists) change. I love the old art; most of all it was fun. But it's not 1979 any more. That doesn't mean that we need to have the silly, excessive art of 3rd edition. But art, like a game, can progress while still being firmly linked to its history. IMHO 3rd edition's art (and rules) failed to do that; C&C's art (and rules) succeed.



			
				Valiant said:
			
		

> As for Gygax and his association with C&C, my understanding is that he is payed for his association, and in return the Troll Lords get the benefit of his name associated with their product.




I hope he's getting paid, just like anybody else who produces creative work that gets sold. Gary didn't found TSR because he wanted to give away his creative work! This is America, and there's absolutely nothing wrong with a mutually beneficial business relationship.



			
				Valiant said:
			
		

> In any case C&C (with its SIEGE system) is 3E/D20 light; no tables, no GM perogative on what to role to save etc., it still has the video game feel (role jump to get over this, climb to get up that, only with SIEGE).




C&C is all about GM prerogative. In fact, it's far easier to GM (or CK, rather) C&C than it was 1st edition AD&D. I stopped DMing 1st Edition (for Vampire, and later Rules Cyclopedia D&D) because I wanted a simpler, cleaner system. As for video game feel, I don't see it. 3rd Edition is video-gamey because the entire focus is on excessively increasing character abilities and absurdly large inventories of magical items. C&C's light, streamlined rules free up  the GM and players to focus on roleplaying. C&C doesn't bear some sort of mystical "taint" because it's D20. I wish 3rd edition's implementation of D20 had turned out like C&C's.


----------



## Treebore (Dec 4, 2007)

Gary Gygax has made it abundantly clear that he only does what he wants to do. Being paid doesn't change that, and is a little bit insulting to indicate that it does.


----------



## Matthew_ (Dec 4, 2007)

I quite like some of the Elmore stuff that has turned up recently for _White Silver Publishing_. However, much like Bradley's current work, they do seem very 'clean'. In general, I prefer them to what Wizards have been putting out (though there are exceptions, such as the Marilith that graces the cover of _Fiendish Codex I: Hordes of the Abyss_), but something about them just doesn't sit quite right with me. Maybe it's the lack of moustaches and eighties perms, I don't know...


----------



## GVDammerung (Dec 4, 2007)

Played it.  On its own terms its a fine game.  But is was not sufficient to make me give up 3x.  Still, I eagerly await any and all Castle Zagig materials.


----------



## T. Foster (Dec 4, 2007)

GVDammerung said:
			
		

> Still, I eagerly await any and all Castle Zagig materials.



Even though the whole thing's now being "co-written" by a team of freelancers?


----------



## Henry (Dec 4, 2007)

T. Foster said:
			
		

> Even though the whole thing's now being "co-written" by a team of freelancers?



I guess getting it co-written with Gary's notes and blessing as a guide is better than him taking it with him.  I'm just sorry he never got a chance to really write the whole thing up himself (or with Rob) as a major project.


----------



## gideon_thorne (Dec 4, 2007)

> Even though the whole thing's now being "co-written" by a team of freelancers?




This is also incorrect. 

Gary is working directly with one, I repeat *one*, co author on the Castle Zagyg dungeon material. His name is already quite clearly and prominently displayed on the CZ Eastmark Folio.

The further development of the Yggsburgh city modules, overseen by Gary at his instigation mind, were done with a team of about a dozen or so people I think. Note the word 'done'. The bulk of that writing is also finished, and has been for a while, and the modules themselves are being released a bit at a time as the publishing schedules permits..

Expecting a single person to write all that, even back in the day, is nuts. ^_~`

Even AD&D wasn't written in a vacume. There were other people around who did a bit here and there. ^_~`


----------



## Valiant (Dec 4, 2007)

Treebore said:
			
		

> Gary Gygax has made it abundantly clear that he only does what he wants to do. Being paid doesn't change that, and is a little bit insulting to indicate that it does.




I said: -As for Gygax and his association with C&C, my understanding is that he is payed for his association, and in return the Troll Lords get the benefit of his name associated with their product.- 


Gygax is paid by TLG, that is a fact.  Would he support C&C on its own merits? I have no reason to think otherwise.  Is he good friends with the Trolls, again, I think he is.  Would he work for something he didn't believe in for money...from what I know of the man, NO.  

But none of that was my point.  My point was that the Trolls are benefiting from his name and association by tying C&C to AD&D and OD&D (the games he created and co-created).  
It might appear to some unfamiliar with the game (given Gygax's involvement) that C&C is the natural progression of Gygaxian D&D, and I don't think it is (no more then 3E or 2E).  

The fact that Gary is paid by the Trolls was not a slam on Gygax or a question of his character, it was simply a statement of fact (infact I'm very happy for him and his family, its great he's able to continue working in the field he created, and bravo for the Trolls for helping him do so.  I believe Gygax hangs his shingle with TLG and C&C for all the reasons Gideon mentioned, but money likely comes into play as well (if for no other reason than thats his publishing base).  Its not known if Gygax would have gone whole hog into using C&C as his system of choice for publishing if he wasn't financially tied to TLG (personaly I doubt it, he'd likely continue with LA).   

Another question I posed was this: Would C&C have sold as many books as it did without Gygax's name involved,  I doubt it.  Gygax's name added alot to their creds.    


Peter, the Trolls have been saying they will be releasing a revamped LA for many years now.  Any idea when we will see it?


----------



## Valiant (Dec 4, 2007)

Clavis said:
			
		

> 3rd Edition is video-gamey because the entire focus is on excessively increasing character abilities and absurdly large inventories of magical items.




No, 3E is video-gamey because it has the player role a known factor (that progresses) for every action they want to take (bluff, dodge, jump, tumble, climb etc.) a push button arcade feel.  In AD&D it felt like you were actually doing it.  You didn't know your chances (often the DM roled dice for you behind a screen...sometimes for real, sometimes to freak you out) and the DM didn't make it easy to predict (role a D20, role a d100 role 3 D6 etc.).  In 3E its as if you hit a button for every conceivable move.  

C&C just removed the titles, but the player still roles SIEGE to figure out each and every action based on what attribute its most associated with...logical and easy, but it accomplishes the opposite you'd want for an FRPG.

The "excessively increasing character abilities and absurdly large inventories of magical items" you mention is NOT what most people are talking about with the video game button feel comment (though thats annoying as well).  I've played 1E campaigns with fast progression and huge magic inventories for all the PCs and it still feels totally early 80s late 70s AD&D (as long as its the exception and not the rule).  Infact, a little variation in level progression and magic availability from time to time is very Gygaxian (ie. it emulates real life...every now and then some chump gets luckk, wins powerball super-lotto, etc).  A predictable game is a bore.


----------



## gideon_thorne (Dec 4, 2007)

Valiant said:
			
		

> Peter, the Trolls have been saying they will be releasing a revamped LA for many years now.  Any idea when we will see it?




Some time next year.

As to the rest of the commentary, repeating the same old tired arguments doesn't make them any more true now, than they were 3 years ago. ^_~`



> I said: -As for Gygax and his association with C&C, my understanding is that he is payed for his association, and in return the Troll Lords get the benefit of his name associated with their product.-




And it was pointed out that this was incorrect. Gary is paid for the work he produces. Having someone 'paid' for their association sounds like they are just paid to hang out. ^_~`



> Its not known if Gygax would have gone whole hog into using C&C as his system of choice for publishing if he wasn't financially tied to TLG (personaly I doubt it, he'd likely stuck with LA).




This, despite the fact that Gary has said innumerable times that LA is unsuitable for level progression style dungeon crawls. And he made the decision to use C&C some time before it was published. So it clearly is known, and has been known for some time. ^_~`


----------



## gideon_thorne (Dec 4, 2007)

Valiant said:
			
		

> C&C just removed the titles, but the player still roles SIEGE to figure out each and every action based on what attribute its most associated with...




No they don't. _"Only those activities that have a significant chance of failure, as determined by the Castle Keeper, should be resolved by a dice roll."_

Thats a direct quote. ^_^


----------



## w_earle_wheeler (Dec 4, 2007)

As far as Elmore goes, I have never liked his paintings. I wouldn't classify him as a bad artist (quite the opposite) -- just the antithesis to my cup of tea.


----------



## Prince of Happiness (Dec 4, 2007)

I like C&C. It suits me well.


----------



## Dristram (Dec 4, 2007)

Valiant said:
			
		

> No, 3E is video-gamey because it has the player role a known factor (that progresses) for every action they want to take (bluff, dodge, jump, tumble, climb etc.).  In AD&D it felt like you were actually doing it.  You didn't know your chances (often the DM roled dice for you behind a screen...sometimes for real, sometimes to freak you out) and the DM didn't make it easy to predict (role a D20, role a d100 role 3 D6 etc.).



True, and not true.  Non-weapon Proficiencies were invented in 1e and were the precursor to the 3e Skills system.  NWPs and a Skills system or not, various DMs made rolls or made the players roll.  What's the difference?  The SIEGE is just a simple way to accomplish the rolls.  The CK has full control when and how they are used.  I find SIEGE useful as a standard way to determine a roll when I need it instead of winging it or making a houserule.  And the players don't automatically know their chances of success because the Challenge Level (CL) is determined by the CK or other factors unknown to the players.

I'd like to add though, that many may feel that the mechanics behind the SIEGE is not the best for them.  The SIEGE to me is the main thing for a person to like or not like C&C for.  Besides that, the other stuff is very classic A/D&D.


----------



## Uder (Dec 4, 2007)

I've switched over to C&C when I DM. As a player it's still 3.5, but for who knows how long!


----------



## Melan (Dec 4, 2007)

Ah, it is always intriguing to watch a "discussion" between gideon_thorne and Axe Mental Valiant. Just plain argmentum ad nauseam, without a hint of reflection or concession, repeating the same tired  points overandoverandoverandoverandoveraaagetitoffmehelphelpoverandoverandover.  :\


----------



## Valiant (Dec 4, 2007)

gideon_thorne said:
			
		

> No they don't. _"Only those activities that have a significant chance of failure, as determined by the Castle Keeper, should be resolved by a dice roll."_
> 
> Thats a direct quote. ^_^





The same is true in 3E.

Dris wrote -And the players don't automatically know their chances of success because the Challenge Level (CL) is determined by the CK or other factors unknown to the players.-

This is also the arguement made by those who defend 3Es skill system


----------



## Brutorz Bill (Dec 4, 2007)

Henry said:
			
		

> That, I'm sorry to hear, because we always try to encourage people talking about all of their gaming - hell, the ENnies doesn't close itself to just d20 gaming for that matter, it's open to ALL games. I've used these forums to talk about everything from Feng Shui, to AD&D, to C&C, to Continuum, to Battletech, and even Marvel Super Heroes before.
> 
> What I do see sometimes, however, is people who come in with both guns blazing, they get shot down, and then they go to other message forums complaining about how "biased and elitist" things are.





   I used to check EN World several times a day to get the latest gaming info. Made the migration to En World from Eric Noah's old site.  A year ago I made the switch to C&C, loved it.  I've never posted anything negative, never come in with guns blazing.  I still checked in at EN World, then the whole 4th ed. announcement came about.  It seemed everything was all about 4th ed.!  I noticed if people expressed issues against 4th ed. massive flame wars erupted.  At that point EN World changed to me. 
 I no longer come here.  I only became aware of this thread from an associate telling me about it. EN World no longer meets my gaming needs.  Not because I'm some C&C fanatical fanboy, my true gaming roots lie in P.A. gaming hence my handle, but because to me EN World is not the site it once was.  Just my opinion.
Later,
 Brutorz Bill


----------



## gideon_thorne (Dec 4, 2007)

Melan said:
			
		

> Ah, it is always intriguing to watch a "discussion" between gideon_thorne and Axe Mental Valiant. Just plain argmentum ad nauseam, without a hint of reflection or concession, repeating the same tired  points overandoverandoverandoverandoveraaagetitoffmehelphelpoverandoverandover.  :\




No reason why I should concede the facts to propaganda. But I think I covered everything so back to the sensible query's. ^_~`


----------



## gideon_thorne (Dec 4, 2007)

Valiant said:
			
		

> The same is true in 3E.
> 
> Dris wrote -And the players don't automatically know their chances of success because the Challenge Level (CL) is determined by the CK or other factors unknown to the players.-
> 
> This is also the arguement made by those who defend 3Es skill system




And the same is true in every incarnation of D&D. I fail to see the point being made.


----------



## gideon_thorne (Dec 4, 2007)

Whats even more amusing is watching the poll numbers in this thread. I'm starting to get the impression that folks are just messing with the results now. This, due to the fact that the numbers keep going up in the same increments.


----------



## francisca (Dec 5, 2007)

Frost said:
			
		

> Has anyone played it and not liked it?




Me.  

Why?  I gave it a fair shake.  Eight game sessions, and all of us at the table were like, "Why are we playing this instead of AD&D or 3.x?"

In particular, I don't care for the SIEGE system.  We have the old school D&D save system, and the d20 save system, both of which are serviceable.  I think C&C should have picked one, we didn't need another.

To me, C&C wasn't old-school enough.  Besides, if I want old school, I still have all my 1e and B/X books.  Why settle for "kinda" old school when I have all the old material and people willing to play 1e AD&D?

Now, C&C is an OK system, but I see it as just another d20 derived fantasy system...one which serves no purpose at my table.  I have 3.x for the feats, the skill system, the templates and all that whacky stuff, etc..., I have B/X and 1e for the old-school feel and nostalgia, and if I really want something _different_ in a FRPG, I have RQ sitting on the shelf. 

Also, I'm mostly a homebrewer, so the, "Yeah, but C&C is supported and 1e ain't!!11!!11!!" argument doesn't hold any water with me.

To me, C&C feels like an not-so-good impersonation of old school D&D, or an overly house-ruled version of 3e, or both.  Can't decide.

So, yeah, it's a credible d20 based system, and I understand many enjoy it, but I'm one guy who simply doesn't like it for many reasons, some of which are intangible.


----------



## Aus_Snow (Dec 5, 2007)

francisca said:
			
		

> I'm mostly a homebrewer, so the, "Yeah, but C&C is supported and *1e ain't*!!11!!11!!" argument doesn't hold any water with me.



Besides which, that (the bolded part, courtesy of me) isn't even true.

And I agree, generally, FWIW.


----------



## slimykuotoan (Dec 5, 2007)

francisca said:
			
		

> I have RQ sitting on the shelf.




What's RQ?


----------



## Greylock (Dec 5, 2007)

slimykuotoan said:
			
		

> What's RQ?




I suspect he refers to RuneQuest.


----------



## Dristram (Dec 5, 2007)

francisca said:
			
		

> I have 3.x for the feats, the skill system, the templates and all that whacky stuff, etc..., I have B/X and 1e for the old-school feel and nostalgia, and if I really want something _different_ in a FRPG, I have RQ sitting on the shelf.



I can totally agree with you.  But you left one out.  If you want to play a game with old-school feel and nostalgia, *and* that's 3.x friendly, there is C&C.


----------



## Valiant (Dec 5, 2007)

gideon_thorne said:
			
		

> And the same is true in every incarnation of D&D. I fail to see the point being made.





True, the difference though is with 1E the player doesn't know his chances or the rules related to saves,  the DM is left (per absense of rules) to figure it out using common sense.  Fewer rules (or better yet lots of rules options and ideas) make for a more unpredictable and exciting experiance (it just feels less like a formal game when you don't have a clue whats going on and just focus on immersion, tactics etc.).


----------



## Jim Hague (Dec 5, 2007)

Dristram said:
			
		

> I can totally agree with you.  But you left one out.  If you want to play a game with old-school feel and nostalgia, *and* that's 3.x friendly, there is C&C.




Or you could just play some of Goodman Games' _Dungeon Crawl Classics_.  

Seriously, the much-touted 'ease of use' between C&C and 3.x just isn't there.  We tried a dozen sessions of it and ended up going to True20.  Why?  Because C&C seems to simply shrug and say for a lot of conversions 'handwave it'.   If I wanted to handwave things, I would, but as my gaming and prep time is limited...well, when a system advertises less work and 'less work' turns out to be 'handwave it', that's irksome.  YMMV.


----------



## danzig138 (Dec 5, 2007)

gideon_thorne said:
			
		

> Having done a thing, one is better informed of the process, than one who hasn't, yes or no?



Sure. And? 



Sometimes, it is the destination that matters, not the journey.


----------



## Dragonhelm (Dec 5, 2007)

francisca said:
			
		

> Now, C&C is an OK system, but I see it as just another d20 derived fantasy system...one which serves no purpose at my table.  I have 3.x for the feats, the skill system, the templates and all that whacky stuff, etc..., I have B/X and 1e for the old-school feel and nostalgia, and if I really want something _different_ in a FRPG, I have RQ sitting on the shelf.




"C&C is too much in the middle."  

That really seems like a strange argument to me.  It just seems weird that there is criticism for it _not_ being a polarized view.  Yet that's where a lot of criticism lies.  

I can see the point, don't get me wrong.  Some people want more old school games and others want more new school games.  For me, I kind of want a place where the two meet.  It's cool, then, that we have room for all sorts of points of view.

I do think that one's experiences can influence how one views C&C, though this isn't an absolute.  We talk a lot about 1e and 3e fans with C&C, but I have to wonder too how starting out in 2e affects a person's view of C&C.


----------



## gideon_thorne (Dec 5, 2007)

Valiant said:
			
		

> True, the difference though is with 1E the player doesn't know his chances or the rules related to saves,  the DM is left (per absense of rules) to figure it out using common sense.  Fewer rules (or better yet lots of rules options and ideas) make for a more unpredictable and exciting experiance (it just feels less like a formal game when you don't have a clue whats going on and just focus on immersion, tactics etc.).





Neither does the C&C player. The CK can keep the final target number to himself, and figure it out using common sense. But I am sure glad that C&C has few rules thereby giving free reign for folks to make an unpredictable and exciting experience. ^_~`


----------



## gideon_thorne (Dec 5, 2007)

danzig138 said:
			
		

> Sure. And?
> 
> Sometimes, it is the destination that matters, not the journey.




"And" I, personally, am more apt to accept an informed opinion than an uninformed one. Clearly the millage of other folks varies. But thats OK! Be a bloody boring world if everyone thought (or gamed) alike. ^_~`


----------



## Uder (Dec 6, 2007)

Okay, I've got a few more minutes to post some thoughts, but I'm just going blather on a bit instead.

The main reason I like C&C is that it is more compatible with all editions (so far) of D&D than any other edition of D&D (and we don't call it C&C at the table any more - it's D&D to us now). Since I have a large library of books from every edition, I really appreciate the simplistic and open approach of C&C that allows "plug-ins". I won't say that I do full conversions, since I see no point in most of the hard fiddly rules for many subsystems... and I also don't want the usual suspects to jump in and try to define for me what I consider a conversion to be.


----------



## francisca (Dec 6, 2007)

Aus_Snow said:
			
		

> Besides which, that (the bolded part, courtesy of me) isn't even true.



Of course,  I have a nice stack of OSRIC stuff on my shelf.


----------



## francisca (Dec 6, 2007)

Greylock said:
			
		

> I suspect he refers to RuneQuest.



Yup.

RQ2, specifically.  I have Mongoose's version as well.

Looking forward to Chaosium's new BRP book as well.


----------



## francisca (Dec 6, 2007)

Dristram said:
			
		

> I can totally agree with you.  But you left one out.  If you want to play a game with old-school feel and nostalgia, *and* that's 3.x friendly, there is C&C.



That isn't a product I'm interested in.  Actually, I could mish-mash 3e and 1e on my own, but I prefer not too.  

I have actually spent some time pulling in some of the d20 mechanics into 1e AD&D, and it just didn't feel right to me and my group, so we decided the twain meeting was not a good option for our table.


----------



## francisca (Dec 6, 2007)

Dragonhelm said:
			
		

> I can see the point, don't get me wrong.  Some people want more old school games and others want more new school games.  For me, I kind of want a place where the two meet.  It's cool, then, that we have room for all sorts of points of view.



That's why I was careful to couch my response as an "at my table" point of view.  Clearly, C&C is just what the Dr. ordered for many group, otherwise, there never would have been a second print of the PHB.  I'm glad those groups have a system they like enough to get together with friends and chuck dice.

In regard to the "too much in the middle" argument, I dunno.  I find a lot of combinations of 2 good things unpalatable, except for Jack Daniels and Coke.  Match made in heaven, that one.

Personal pref, etc... blah blah blah...


----------



## gideon_thorne (Dec 6, 2007)

francisca said:
			
		

> That's why I was careful to couch my response as an "at my table" point of view.  Clearly, C&C is just what the Dr. ordered for many group, otherwise, there never would have been a second print of the PHB.  I'm glad those groups have a system they like enough to get together with friends and chuck dice.




Or even a third print...

I wonder.. was the doctor who placed the order a mental health professional?


----------



## moriarty777 (Dec 6, 2007)

I've abstained from replying for a few days since I was trying to think long and hard how to approach my reply.  Nothing bad though... just a longer post.

First off, I love my RPGs ... I've tried a great many of them over the years and I got my start in the very late 80's with AD&D (2nd Edition was just coming out) and was exposed to the Mentzer D&D Boxes and 1st Edition AD&D all pretty much at the same time.  Collectively, it was all Dungeons & Dragons to me.  I've also had fun with games and systems by FASA, ICE, Paladium, Chaosim, GDW, and WEG.  Loved them all for various reasons but nothing could replace my love for the stuff that TSR had put out in the past.

In the mid to late 90's thought, RPGs and I parted company for many reasons.  WOTC's new version of Dungeons & Dragons brought me back to the gaming table.  There were a couple of things that irritated me a bit and I quickly saw a couple of balance issues with the game but that didn't deter me.  I eventually switched to 3.5 once it made sense for me to do so (I sold my 3.0 core set for $60 and bought the 3.5 gift set for around $90).  The more I played 3.5, the more I got dissatisfied with certain aspects of the game.

These are some of my biggest 'gripes' about the game:

- Despite equal experience point tables, there exists balance issues, or at the very least, design problems, with some of the core classes when they are measured against others.  Some of these issues only begin to arise and be more painfully obvious after classes reach certain levels.

- The Skill system, though better thought out than the old weapon/non-weapon proficiency system needs to be better streamlined.  I'm happy to say that it seems like they are going this route after a fashion (certain skills lumped into one like Perception instead of Spot and Search).  The other problem (as is) that I have with the skill system is its ranks and synergies and the like... a streamlined mechanic would be also very nice to see.  I just feel that a slightly simpler approach to deal with certain aspects of the Skill system may not be a bad thing.

- Tactical options and aspects of combat I found to be cumbersome.  I believe True20 resolved some of these issues by addressing aspect of Attacks of Opportunity.  Other things like Grapple is a pain.  More options is not an answer if the base needs to be tweaked, fixed, or perfected.

- The Feat system needs a bit of an overhaul but part of that was brought on by an endless supply of Options Books.  Some of it also deals with the game on a tactical nature and others... well... let's just say that not all Feats are created equal.

A lot of these issues I've mentioned potentially creates more 'min-maxing' that previous editions of the game.  This in itself is a problem for me and others but not a fault of the system.  However, if certain balance issues were checked, min-maxing wouldn't be as much of an issue either.

Now these are pretty much opinions and some of these may be shared by others.  It was some of these issues that led me to C&C which I'm happily running and playing.  The issues for my in 3.5 are really not there in C&C.  This is not because it got fixed -- simply because some of the issues are not applicable.

However, I still hold on to my 3.5 ... and I have some hopes to fix aspects of it myself and the problems I have noticed that affect my game or how I play the game.  In that vein, I've seen and liked certain aspects of the E6 Rules (or should I say guidelines) as one example.  Other d20 friendly games like C&C has given me a couple of ideas to address a few things.  True20 is a different matter, and I've recently gotten the book for it but still have to go through it in depth.  In all honesty, from what I've seen, I might have switched to True20 completely had I seen it earlier.  However in the end, C&C was more reminiscent of the game I started out with with some of the features that d20 brought to the game in 3rd Edition.

I like C&C ... I like it a lot.  I have no hate for 3.x and I won't go around bashing it either.  C&C at this time seems to be a better fit for what I'm looking for and this should be the criteria that gamers in general should be looking at -- "What is the best fit for me?"  And if you're truly having a problem with finding that match, take the closest thing and adapt to it as necessary (which is why I'm a bit curious about 4th Ed).

M


----------



## slimykuotoan (Dec 6, 2007)

I actually got into C&C after I found SKYPE (a free voice chat program) and wanted to try some online gaming with a few old friends.

We couldn't imagine playing 3.5 over the internet -being more miniature focused than some other rpgs- so I searched for a 'rules lighter' alternative.

Honestly, while some in my group like more crunch in their games, all agree that C&C is absolutely perfect for online gaming.


----------



## Dragonhelm (Dec 6, 2007)

moriarty777 said:
			
		

> - The Skill system, though better thought out than the old weapon/non-weapon proficiency system needs to be better streamlined.  I'm happy to say that it seems like they are going this route after a fashion (certain skills lumped into one like Perception instead of Spot and Search).  The other problem (as is) that I have with the skill system is its ranks and synergies and the like... a streamlined mechanic would be also very nice to see.  I just feel that a slightly simpler approach to deal with certain aspects of the Skill system may not be a bad thing.




I agree.  I think you might like the 4e skill system, if the Star Wars Saga Edition rules are anything to judge by.  In my own games, I have adapted D&D skills to C&C.  I just have the players roll to see if they hit the target number I assign based on the situation.  No synergies, and level works as ranks.  Primes affect here as well.  I may want to limit that some in the future, but it works out okay for now.




> - Tactical options and aspects of combat I found to be cumbersome.  I believe True20 resolved some of these issues by addressing aspect of Attacks of Opportunity.  Other things like Grapple is a pain.  More options is not an answer if the base needs to be tweaked, fixed, or perfected.




C&C combat seemed to function quite a bit like how I like to run combat.  D&D 3e is more miniatures-friendly.  While there is nothing wrong with that, it just doesn't fit my style of DMing.  So I like having combat being more in one's head and fluid.  While this can be done with 3.5, it isn't quite as easy.  



> - The Feat system needs a bit of an overhaul but part of that was brought on by an endless supply of Options Books.  Some of it also deals with the game on a tactical nature and others... well... let's just say that not all Feats are created equal.




I really worked with the feat system when I tried to simplify 3.5.  I killed anything dealing with attacks of opportunity, and I tended to nix the more tactical-sounding feats.  I found that I liked how True20 handled feats a lot better.  It took out most prerequisites, which was great.  Overall, I think True20 has one of the best feat systems out there.




> A lot of these issues I've mentioned potentially creates more 'min-maxing' that previous editions of the game.  This in itself is a problem for me and others but not a fault of the system.  However, if certain balance issues were checked, min-maxing wouldn't be as much of an issue either.




Min-maxing will happen in any game system, but I agree that 3.5 was very susceptible to this.  What the designers found out when tackling skills for SWSE and 4e was that characters tended to be either min-maxed in skills, or they were jack-of-all-trades.  I also got tired of figuring out ranks for high-level characters, which is why I'm perfectly happy using level.  I'm very intrigued how 4e's skills are going to look.




> I like C&C ... I like it a lot.  I have no hate for 3.x and I won't go around bashing it either.  C&C at this time seems to be a better fit for what I'm looking for and this should be the criteria that gamers in general should be looking at -- "What is the best fit for me?"  And if you're truly having a problem with finding that match, take the closest thing and adapt to it as necessary (which is why I'm a bit curious about 4th Ed).




Amen!    

It strikes me as odd that so many people are so worried about the "right system," that they forget that we are all different.  We should be looking for the right system for us.  I kept looking for the perfect game for a long time, but it just wasn't coming.  What I decided upon was finding as close of a game as I could find (C&C), while making changes and adding in materials to get it where I like.  It still isn't perfect, but it's pretty good.


----------



## Greylock (Dec 6, 2007)

When we started playing C&C, we went completely without minis. It was a wonderful and refreshing thing, and for quite a while we kept playing that way, or at the minimum just placing our minis on the table as simple avatars. No grids. No measuring. No facing. Just describing the action while our minis sat there.

We've since returned, recently, to using minis as they are more commonly meant to be used, but our "year off" from minis pretty much broke us of the 3.x, D&D as chess mindset.


----------



## S'mon (Dec 6, 2007)

slimykuotoan said:
			
		

> Honestly, while some in my group like more crunch in their games, all agree that C&C is absolutely perfect for online gaming.




I find C&C great for online gaming with a small PC group; it's a little complicated for a large game.  For 10+ players I prefer houseruled Moldvay/Cook B/X D&D.


----------



## Valiant (Dec 6, 2007)

gideon_thorne said:
			
		

> Neither does the C&C player. The CK can keep the final target number to himself, and figure it out using common sense. But I am sure glad that C&C has few rules thereby giving free reign for folks to make an unpredictable and exciting experience. ^_~`





The "final target number" is not enough of a mystery in 3E or C&C to keep the player from hedging his bets (it quickly becomes a question of "is this more or less difficult than the typical stuck door, trap, rope to climb etc.).  In AD&D one pit trap might be crossed by rolling Dex (3d6) the next pit trap petrification, the next pit trap a d100 (with some target number the DM makes up in his head), using tables, no tables etc....and this could all be along the same corridor.  Flexibility for the DM in determining outcomes  using any method he chose) and ignorance (or lack of focus) of the rules by players (as well as the heavy reliance on tables by DM) were the halmarks of 1E/OD&D.  The use of SIEGE (basically D20 light/defacto skills system) is why C&C is  a great game for those  pre-disposed to the sort of "push button" video gamey feel we see in 3E, and who prefer a less powerful GM, a story teller (with a few target numbers).  Personally as a player I prefer being more surprised and as a GM more unpredictable and in complete control.  But to each their own.

PS  BTW, Its not that I'm against simpler and more standardized rules (like D20), I see AD&Ds variability and complexity (tables, etc.) as a nec. evil.  If Gygax saw it that way back then, I don't know.


----------



## Philotomy Jurament (Dec 6, 2007)

S'mon said:
			
		

> I find C&C great for online gaming with a small PC group; it's a little complicated for a large game.  For 10+ players I prefer houseruled Moldvay/Cook B/X D&D.



For online play, I suggest using the AD&D approach to movement and engagement.  It's very well-suited to an abstract approach (more so than any other edition, IMO), with its definition of engaged in melee (within 10'), closing to striking range, "who strikes whom" (DMG pg 70), et cetera.  The flank/rear position diagrams from the DMG are not used as examples of precise positioning in combat, but rather as guides to how many enemies can attack one person in an abstract melee where the combatants are maneuvering and fighting within the 10' engagement range.


----------



## Dristram (Dec 6, 2007)

Valiant said:
			
		

> In AD&D one pit trap might be crossed by rolling Dex (3d6) the next pit trap petrification, the next pit trap a d100 (with some target number the DM makes up in his head), using tables, no tables etc....and this could all be along the same corridor.  Flexibility for the DM in determining outcomes  using any method he chose) and ignorance (or lack of focus) of the rules by players (as well as the heavy reliance on tables by DM) were the halmarks of 1E/OD&D.



I really understand where you are coming from.  I come from a 1st Ed. AD&D background, and one thing that bugged me was that if I had to create a rule or run an off the cuff roll for a situation, the game ran well, but would not be the same thing another DM might do.  So in essence, my game was different than another in a basic way.  I like a little more standardization in the game so the basics of it is the same no matter where and with whom you play.  The SIEGE Engine fit that purpose nicely for me.  I understand that non-standard rolling methods does not bug everyone, but for those that do, there is the simple add of SIEGE.  SIEGE is a standard rule that still keeps me, as the DM (or CK), feeling like I'm running the game instead of just administering the game.  But not everyone feels like I do, and like you, don't see the need for a SIEGE type system, and that's totally cool.  C&C i s not for everyone, and no one says it is.  C&C is a viable alternative to either 3e or earlier versions of D&D.


----------



## S'mon (Dec 6, 2007)

Philotomy Jurament said:
			
		

> For online play, I suggest using the AD&D approach to movement and engagement.  It's very well-suited to an abstract approach (more so than any other edition, IMO), with its definition of engaged in melee (within 10'), closing to striking range, "who strikes whom" (DMG pg 70), et cetera.  The flank/rear position diagrams from the DMG are not used as examples of precise positioning in combat, but rather as guides to how many enemies can attack one person in an abstract melee where the combatants are maneuvering and fighting within the 10' engagement range.




Yeah, that's exactly what I do.


----------



## S'mon (Dec 6, 2007)

Valiant said:
			
		

> The use of SIEGE (basically D20 light/defacto skills system) is why C&C is  a great game for those  pre-disposed to the sort of "push button" video gamey feel we see in 3E, and who prefer a less powerful GM, a story teller (with a few target numbers).




The C&C GMing advice specifically says "The rules are your servant, not your master!".  The game is very much geared towards GM judgement and fiat; unlike with 3e there is no hint of 'player entitlement' - and indeed players who routinely query GM calls in 3e seem to have no trouble with going-with-the-flow in C&C.  The SIEGE engine is a handy mechanic, but unlike with 3e C&C seems fine with, say, using B/X's "roll-6-on-d6+STR bonus-to-open-doors" rule, or similar micro-systems.  It explicitly leaves it up to the GM when to use SIEGE, when to add Level to the roll (other than for class abilities), what DC/CC to set, and so on.  Personally I find this fits my GMing style very well, but it's the opposite of videogame-simulating or Monte Cook's 'taking the GM out of the equation'.  With a poor GM it will likely lead to a much worse game than would 3e.


----------



## S'mon (Dec 6, 2007)

Dristram said:
			
		

> I The SIEGE Engine fit that purpose nicely for me.  I understand that non-standard rolling methods does not bug everyone, but for those that do, there is the simple add of SIEGE.




SIEGE, like the 3e d20 'roll vs DC' mechanism from which it is derived, is good for either/or tests, but isn't great for finding eg exactly how far the PC jumped; 3e's "skill result = feet jumped" can give very unlikely results - roll 1 you jump a pathetic 1', 20 and you jump 20' - close to the real-world limit.   You'd get a better result IMO rolling 1d6 or 2d4 and adding relevant mods - for C&C that'd be eg Level + stat bonus (STR or DEX), +6 if Prime, plus whatever a reasonable minimum is, maybe 5.


----------



## trollwad (Dec 6, 2007)

This whole thread seems out of whack.  If you are reading this thread and want a prediction of whether you will like C&C read the following.

I've played every edition of D&D (and C&C) as well as a host of other ancient games (star frontiers, top secret, gamma world, metamorphosis alpha) and I will happily PLAY any of them -- I love playing 3.5e (at least up to about 10th level).  However, I will only dm C&C or OD&D or low level 3e.

Your preferences will dictate whether you want to play or dm C&C.

As a DM if you simply obsess over details, "fairness", "balance", hate pulling in things from other systems for no reason other than they are "cool" and aren't comfortable flying by the seat of your pants, stick with 3e -- you'll be happier.  If you want ease of use or preparation, a game that respects the archetypes of conan etc, a fast game where you have confidence in your DM, and a system where you can port in small subsystems and options from od&d, 1e, 2e, monte cook, and others, play or dm C&C as well.  It really is that simple.

I can't emphasize how much C&C encourages you to tinker with it -- for example, I have a C&C game with hybrid weapon mastery from Basic D&D and Arcana Unearthed, segments and the helmet rule from 1e, the thief acrobat character class from Arcana Unearthed, Specialty Priests from 2e, the Mind Witch character class from Monte Cook's Arcana Evolved system, the Gem Witch character class from the Diamond Throne website, the Crimson Mist feat and a couple of other things for barbarian characters from the Conan system, death at variable negative hp from some online poster, my own grappling and overrunning system which is much simpler than the 3e system, the harsher d20 Modern massive damage threshhold, the concept of damage with exploding dice under certain circumstances from another game, and about 20 generally very simple feats from various sources (including some 3e feats and the Enworld 1e Feats pdf).  I've assembled all of my favorite spells from all of the systems that I just mentioned including forty or fifty from Monte Cook's Arcana Evolved with different spells open to priests of various deities, the illusionist class, and the two witch classes.  This whole massive system of choices, etc. is at most one-third as complex as 3e.  The point is that C&C is such a simple engine that you may decide that you want to add x or y to that.

Finally, I think the 3e and 3.5e modules are largely pathetic (red hand of doom and the paizo APs are noble exceptions).  I've read the first part of the first installment of Castle Zagyg (Mouths of Madness) and I'd rather play or dm that or one of the 1e classics.  That is another major appeal to me.  A living system with real old school adventures.


----------



## Treebore (Dec 6, 2007)

trollwad said:
			
		

> I can't emphasize how much C&C encourages you to tinker with it -- for example, I have a C&C game with hybrid weapon mastery from Basic D&D and Arcana Unearthed, segments and the helmet rule from 1e, the thief acrobat character class from Arcana Unearthed, Specialty Priests from 2e, the Mind Witch character class from Monte Cook's Arcana Evolved system, the Gem Witch character class from the Diamond Throne website, the Crimson Mist feat and a couple of other things for barbarian characters from the Conan system, death at variable negative hp from some online poster, my own grappling and overrunning system which is much simpler than the 3e system, the harsher d20 Modern massive damage threshhold, the concept of damage with exploding dice under certain circumstances from another game, and about 20 generally very simple feats from various sources (including some 3e feats and the Enworld 1e Feats pdf).  I've assembled all of my favorite spells from all of the systems that I just mentioned including forty or fifty from Monte Cook's Arcana Evolved with different spells open to priests of various deities, the illusionist class, and the two witch classes.  This whole massive system of choices, etc. is at most one-third as complex as 3e.  The point is that C&C is such a simple engine that you may decide that you want to add x or y to that.





Now THAT is a C&C game!! Well done.


----------



## mhensley (Dec 6, 2007)

trollwad said:
			
		

> I can't emphasize how much C&C requires you to tinker with it




Fixed that for you.


----------



## Valiant (Dec 6, 2007)

S'mon said:
			
		

> The C&C GMing advice specifically says "The rules are your servant, not your master!".  The game is very much geared towards GM judgement and fiat; unlike with 3e there is no hint of 'player entitlement' - and indeed players who routinely query GM calls in 3e seem to have no trouble with going-with-the-flow in C&C.  The SIEGE engine is a handy mechanic, but unlike with 3e C&C seems fine with, say, using B/X's "roll-6-on-d6+STR bonus-to-open-doors" rule, or similar micro-systems.  It explicitly leaves it up to the GM when to use SIEGE, when to add Level to the roll (other than for class abilities), what DC/CC to set, and so on.  Personally I find this fits my GMing style very well, but it's the opposite of videogame-simulating or Monte Cook's 'taking the GM out of the equation'.  With a poor GM it will likely lead to a much worse game than would 3e.





The problem is the only presented option (the default) is SIEGE,  unless you've played AD&D and DMed it you'd never know to do anything different.  Thats not going to give anyone coming from 3E an old school feeling game (but then I don't think that was the Trolls objective).


----------



## gideon_thorne (Dec 6, 2007)

Valiant said:
			
		

> The "final target number" is not enough of a mystery in 3E or C&C to keep the player from hedging his bets (it quickly becomes a question of "is this more or less difficult than the typical stuck door, trap, rope to climb etc.).  In AD&D one pit trap might be crossed by rolling Dex (3d6) the next pit trap petrification, the next pit trap a d100 (with some target number the DM makes up in his head), using tables, no tables etc....and this could all be along the same corridor.  Flexibility for the DM in determining outcomes  using any method he chose) and ignorance (or lack of focus) of the rules by players (as well as the heavy reliance on tables by DM) were the halmarks of 1E/OD&D.




Its _*still*_ no different in C&C. The absence of rules still allows the CK to make up their own. Non sequiturs notwithstanding.


----------



## gideon_thorne (Dec 6, 2007)

Valiant said:
			
		

> The problem is the only presented option (the default) is SIEGE,  unless you've played AD&D and DMed it you'd never know to do anything different.  Thats not going to give anyone coming from 3E an old school feeling game (but then I don't think that was the Trolls objective).




There was only one presented option in AD&D as well. 

And the trolls objective is to give people the opportunity to play a *fun* game. Which is a lot more important than some nebulous subjective fuzzy feeling that no two people on the internets seem to be able to agree on the definition of.


----------



## Dragonhelm (Dec 6, 2007)

trollwad said:
			
		

> I can't emphasize how much C&C *encourages* you to tinker with it...




I figured someone had to quote you correctly.  

One of C&C's criticisms is that it is an "incomplete" game.  Now, I can see people wanting more options out of it like a skill system and multiclassing rules, but C&C can be played as-is.  

One of the design philosophies behind this game was the ability to customize it to your personal tastes.  So if you don't like skills, don't use them.  Or you can add in non-weapon proficiencies or skills and feats.  And so on and so forth.

Of course, what you've done is an amazing use of house rules!  Wow!


----------



## Philotomy Jurament (Dec 6, 2007)

Dragonhelm said:
			
		

> One of C&C's criticisms is that it is an "incomplete" game.  Now, I can see people wanting more options out of it like a skill system and multiclassing rules, but C&C can be played as-is.



I agree; C&C works just fine played strictly by-the-book.  I know because that's what I did, at first.  I usually try to play new systems "by-the-book" for a while so I can get a good feel for how things really work.  C&C works well as a "tookit" system, but it also stands alone, just fine.

Now, OD&D[1974], on the other hand...there's a system that pretty much demands some interpretation and house-ruling.  (Which is one of the reasons I like it so much.)


----------



## Jim Hague (Dec 7, 2007)

trollwad said:
			
		

> This whole thread seems out of whack.  If you are reading this thread and want a prediction of whether you will like C&C read the following.




Ok...



> Your preferences will dictate whether you want to play or dm C&C.




As they would for any game...



> As a DM if you simply obsess over details, "fairness", "balance", hate pulling in things from other systems for no reason other than they are "cool" and aren't comfortable flying by the seat of your pants, stick with 3e -- you'll be happier.  If you want ease of use or preparation, a game that respects the archetypes of conan etc, a fast game where you have confidence in your DM, and a system where you can port in small subsystems and options from od&d, 1e, 2e, monte cook, and others, play or dm C&C as well.  It really is that simple.




So, in a single paragraph, you manage to:

*Imply that improvisatiopn isn't possible with 3.x
*Concepts like fairness and balance aren't desireable
*And that C&C is the only game that 'respects the archetypes' of certain kinds of characters.

Wow.  That's a lot of big claims you're putting up, while insulting other playstyles to boot.  And for the record, my group, with an average of 20+ years of experience found C&C seriously lacking in both flavor and consistency.  Sort of a watery gruel, rules-wise.  It needs...something.  Let's see:



> I can't emphasize how much C&C encourages you to tinker with it -- for example, I have a C&C game with hybrid weapon mastery from Basic D&D and Arcana Unearthed, segments and the helmet rule from 1e, the thief acrobat character class from Arcana Unearthed, Specialty Priests from 2e, the Mind Witch character class from Monte Cook's Arcana Evolved system, the Gem Witch character class from the Diamond Throne website, the Crimson Mist feat and a couple of other things for barbarian characters from the Conan system, death at variable negative hp from some online poster, my own grappling and overrunning system which is much simpler than the 3e system, the harsher d20 Modern massive damage threshhold, the concept of damage with exploding dice under certain circumstances from another game, and about 20 generally very simple feats from various sources (including some 3e feats and the Enworld 1e Feats pdf).  I've assembled all of my favorite spells from all of the systems that I just mentioned including forty or fifty from Monte Cook's Arcana Evolved with different spells open to priests of various deities, the illusionist class, and the two witch classes.  This whole massive system of choices, etc. is at most one-third as complex as 3e.  The point is that C&C is such a simple engine that you may decide that you want to add x or y to that.




A game that requires that much tinkering isn't a complete system; it's a toolkit.  If I wanted that much work putting a system together, I'd either go with a generic like GURPS or something like True20.  There's simple, then there's _too_ simple.  In the case of C&C, it's a little too basic to serve as a robust system without all the tinkering you bring up.



> Finally, I think the 3e and 3.5e modules are largely pathetic (red hand of doom and the paizo APs are noble exceptions).  I've read the first part of the first installment of Castle Zagyg (Mouths of Madness) and I'd rather play or dm that or one of the 1e classics.  That is another major appeal to me.  A living system with real old school adventures.




Ah, you mean like 3.x and _*Dungeon Crawl Classics*_?  If you want old school style, look no further, I think.


----------



## Treebore (Dec 7, 2007)

Jim Hague said:
			
		

> Ok...
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Glad to hear C&C isn't for you, but you don't need to creating insults out of implications you want to take out of them while your telling us this. Those of us, like me with over 23+ years of gaming experience with many systems, say C&C is a complete rules system, and is easier to use as a tool kit to modify to your exact tastes.

So it wasn't to your or your groups liking, thats fine, but don't tell us you know more about gaming, rules systems, and how well they work, because you don't. C&C doesn't do what you want a system to do, so leave it at that instead of acting liking your an expert about what C&C does or does not do. 

I played and DMed for almost 5 years and have now run C&C for over two years and I don't claim to be an expert on either system. I run and play either system the way I want to, and C&C is the better of the two at letting me do it the way I like best. All I am an expert is knowing what I want out of my rules systems, C&C does that the best for me. 3E does it best for you. Thats all you need to be saying, instead of turning the statements of posters into meanings you want them to have, or claiming you or your group is more of a game expert than any of us.

You don't like C&C, it didn't do anything you wanted it to do, thats all your a qualified expert to tell us about. To claim that your an expert and that the rest of us aren't, and are lying because we are saying things your "expert opinion" says is false, is out of bounds for the rules here on ENWorld. Not to mention giving your meaning to words someone else wrote.

You want to do things like that go to other boards where such things are a favored past time. Otherwise post like you do most of the time here on these boards.


----------



## FATDRAGONGAMES (Dec 7, 2007)

Philotomy Jurament said:
			
		

> Now, OD&D[1974], on the other hand...there's a system that pretty much demands some interpretation and house-ruling.  (Which is one of the reasons I like it so much.)




Ditto.


----------



## Valiant (Dec 7, 2007)

gideon_thorne said:
			
		

> There was only one presented option in AD&D as well.
> 
> And the trolls objective is to give people the opportunity to play a *fun* game. Which is a lot more important than some nebulous subjective fuzzy feeling that no two people on the internets seem to be able to agree on the definition of.





Sure, for those things which would be realistically consistant to a PC there is standardization (combat, saves vs. magic, poison), but thats about it.  Everything else was variable in AD&D, for instance what do you role to get past your typical trap or jump across a wide pit? (though each DM typically develops there own methods, often mixing it up). 

Gideon, I don't doubt C&C is a fun game for some, my point is that its not the best fit for old schoolers who prefer non-D20 (as it was originally advertised as being). If they had wanted to get the old school Gygaxian gamers involved more they should have included tables, old school art etc.  Its pretty clear to most TLG were targetting the 3Eers despite bringng gygax onboard


----------



## Greylock (Dec 7, 2007)

mhensley said:
			
		

> trollwad said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Bull honky. As I've said elsewhere in this thread, my group has been playing C&C for over a year, and the only thing we've added are critical hit/fumble rules. Other that that, a few new spells, some new races, and those are all from AD&D sources. We've played in original AD&D modules, 3.x modules, and Hackmaster adventures. Nothing rules wise tinkered with at all. It's a very malleable system, and adapts well.


----------



## S'mon (Dec 7, 2007)

Valiant said:
			
		

> The problem is the only presented option (the default) is SIEGE,  unless you've played AD&D and DMed it you'd never know to do anything different.  Thats not going to give anyone coming from 3E an old school feeling game (but then I don't think that was the Trolls objective).




I guess they could have included more "Cleanse your mind of 3e" and "Don't sweat the small stuff" type advice, although there is quite a lot in there about eg only making SIEGE checks for major events.


----------



## Jim Hague (Dec 7, 2007)

Treebore said:
			
		

> Glad to hear C&C isn't for you, but you don't need to creating insults out of implications you want to take out of them while your telling us this. Those of us, like me with over 23+ years of gaming experience with many systems, say C&C is a complete rules system, and is easier to use as a tool kit to modify to your exact tastes.




Unfortunately, with several groups, it's too much of a toolkit - it's not crunchy enough to emulate D&D, and it's too rules-heavy to qualify as a light system.  The flexibility all too often becomes just handwaving.   I'm not crying out for One True Wayism by calling others' products 'pathetic' either, I'd point out.  It's great that your group likes C&C; mine found it to be insufficient.



> So it wasn't to your or your groups liking, thats fine, but don't tell us you know more about gaming, rules systems, and how well they work, because you don't. C&C doesn't do what you want a system to do, so leave it at that instead of acting liking your an expert about what C&C does or does not do.




Given nearly a year's worth of playing and attempting to use it both out of the box and with suggestions right off the TLG boards, I think I've got plenty of experience with the system.  I'm well-aware of its strengths and limitations.  I'm sorry that you take offense to that, but it's hardly surprising, given your own history.



> I played and DMed for almost 5 years and have now run C&C for over two years and I don't claim to be an expert on either system. I run and play either system the way I want to, and C&C is the better of the two at letting me do it the way I like best. All I am an expert is knowing what I want out of my rules systems, C&C does that the best for me. 3E does it best for you. Thats all you need to be saying, instead of turning the statements of posters into meanings you want them to have, or claiming you or your group is more of a game expert than any of us.




Did I ever say 3.x did games best for me?  Nope, not a once.  Did I claim my group is 'more expert' than others?  Nope.  Try applying your own advice at home.



> You don't like C&C, it didn't do anything you wanted it to do, thats all your a qualified expert to tell us about. To claim that your an expert and that the rest of us aren't, and are lying because we are saying things your "expert opinion" says is false, is out of bounds for the rules here on ENWorld. Not to mention giving your meaning to words someone else wrote.




See, I never said these things.  I called no one a liar.  Simply put, you're making things up.



> You want to do things like that go to other boards where such things are a favored past time. Otherwise post like you do most of the time here on these boards.




I'd rightly point out that I'm not the one going to message boards, deliberately starting flamewars and running off into the night crowing about it.   

As for my posting here - until you're elected mod, I'll simply give your suggestions the weight they're worth.


----------



## Dristram (Dec 7, 2007)

Valiant said:
			
		

> Gideon, I don't doubt C&C is a fun game for some, my point is that its not the best fit for old schoolers who prefer non-D20 (as it was originally advertised as being).



That's the first time I've heard C&C touted as such.  I would not agree with that.  It's too d20-ish in its mechanical style.  I see C&C as what 3e should have been.  It would have made a good 3rd Edition AD&D.  C&C is like 3e with an old-school feel.  For anyone who doesn't like d20, but does like B/X and AD&D, and is looking to play that kind of game again, I tell them to play B/X or AD&D, not C&C.


----------



## S'mon (Dec 7, 2007)

Jim Hague said:
			
		

> *Imply that improvisatiopn isn't possible with 3.x
> 
> A game that requires that much tinkering isn't a complete system; it's a toolkit.




On the first point, I certainly found improvisation in 3e usually had unforeseen negative side effects and was best avoided.

On the second point, I guess that's your view of what constitutes a complete system, and you regard that as desirable/necessary.  Many people disagree - to me, The Pool or Fighting Fantasy are both complete RPGS, as much as GURPs or 3e.  They just have less rules.


----------



## Jim Hague (Dec 7, 2007)

S'mon said:
			
		

> On the first point, I certainly found improvisation in 3e usually had unforeseen negative side effects and was best avoided.




I won't disagree on that point.  After playing 3.x for various years - that being the system that brought me back to D&D after leaving the nonsensical prior editions in disgust - I started feeling like improvisation wasn't something the rules encouraged.  That's bad for me, since I'm a GM that improvises quite frequently, and 3.x to me is a 'clockwork' system - take a piece out and while it may continue to function, there are consequences.  My systems of choice nowadays are Savage Worlds and True20.  I haven't strayed far, just enough to satisfy my personal style.

On the topic of C&C, I felt like it was a bad combination of toolkit and too _much_ of the old school.  While I think prior editions have the lion's share of cool background - Planescape and Ravenloft, f'rex - the handwaving necessary to make the multiple microsystems and contradictory rules work was a pain.  Is that a save vs. wands or pertifcation?  And why, again?  

When my group spent a year with various iterations of C&C, the toolkit seemed pretty flexible...except that the gaps it presented required too _much_ handwaving, and the implicit anti-3.x feel of it led to some rules decisions that hearkened back to prior editions.



> On the second point, I guess that's your view of what constitutes a complete system, and you regard that as desirable/necessary.  Many people disagree - to me, The Pool or Fighting Fantasy are both complete RPGS, as much as GURPs or 3e.  They just have less rules.




Far too few, in my opinion.  Both are barely systems, IMO.  For me, a good system has solid, internally consistent rules, ones that don't create an environment where the players are at the pure whim of the GM.  

Improvisation is good, but it needs a good skeleton to build on...and without that underlying structure, even the best GM is going to trip themselves up eventually, barring the copious taking of notes on every single ruling.  That last bit ends up making many 'light' systems fail for a lot of groups I've seen, because the GM ends up having to organize vast binders of arbitrary rulings to keep things consistent.  

Then again, some groups _like_ that sort of thing.  It is, admittedly, very 'old school'.  My mileage certainly varied.


----------



## Valiant (Dec 7, 2007)

Dristram said:
			
		

> That's the first time I've heard C&C touted as such.  I would not agree with that.  It's too d20-ish in its mechanical style.  I see C&C as what 3e should have been.  It would have made a good 3rd Edition AD&D.  C&C is like 3e with an old-school feel.  For anyone who doesn't like d20, but does like B/X and AD&D, and is looking to play that kind of game again, I tell them to play B/X or AD&D, not C&C.




Dristram, I agree, C&C is a pretty good re-interpretation of 3E (actually making the skills system work) but I get zero "old-school" feel from it  (in rules, artwork, layout, etc. its very D20).  In an evolutionary perspective, I see C&C growing out of 3E rather then 1E; its certainly not the natural progression of Gygaxian D&D as some seem to suggest.

 keep in mind that many of those who cheerlead for C&C  were involved in its creation (thus a free marketing force), the Trolls went with their D20 based ideas rather then oldschoolers who wanted a real return to Gygaxian style D&D.  The Trolls encouraged the "old school" connection (moving much of their operation to DF infact) picked up Gygax yet failed to deliver the true old school goods (but greatly benefited from the buzz early on). 


Ironically, I think the Trolls spent too much time worrying about trying to capture both camps instead of focusing on creating their own identity (ie hand wave it) and ended up shooting themselves in their own foot.  Too bad, they hit the market at the right time for a true revival of Gygaxian D&D (even picked up the man himself) but blew it trying to make everyone happy.  At least we've seen some third party 1E material coming out in the last couple of years (and yes Peter, I know Gygax is only writing for C&C).


----------



## Geron Raveneye (Dec 7, 2007)

I think we should distinguish between two kinds of "complete RPG" descriptions.

One kind of complete RPG is the one where the system as presented can do everything the designers set out to accomplish with it. Personally, I think C&C manages that quite well.

The other kind of complete RPG is the one where you can do EVERY imaginable thing with the system without improvising (though probably with plenty of pageturning). I think C&C is not necessarily built for that, SIEGE engine nonwithstanding.

I think it would be helpful if those discussing the "completeness" of Castles & Crusades would qualify their understanding of a "complete RPG" before putting any kind of label on the game. And maybe, if they discover that their definition of a "complete RPG" differs vastly from that of somebody they are discussing that fact with, simply recognize that they are driving on two completely separate tracks, and lay the topic to rest before it turns this thread into a pile of ash and cinder.


----------



## S'mon (Dec 7, 2007)

I guess for me a complete RPG is one with some kind of task-resolution mechanism.  That includes 'free kriegspiel' systems.

Edit: obviously, I disagree that "don't create an environment where the players are at the pure whim of the GM" is necessary for an RPG.  Indeed, to me the whole point of having a GM is so they can use their judgement and discretion - at whim.  Otherwise you can remove the GM.


----------



## trollwad (Dec 7, 2007)

Basically, there are two ways to play C&C.  First a "fast play" game with kids or friends stopping by when you are busy working all the time.  Play by the book.  Characters roll up quick, adventure and thats cool.

If you get more time and interest, it is very easy to house rule.  Its the same engine, you just have more classes, more spells, more character options (weapon specializations, etc).

Fast modular simple.  Its great for beginning gamers (rules as written) or very veteran gamers (comfortable importing their own modular adjustments and dming on the fly).

All the complaints about game completeness are valid if your view of the world obsesses about balance, completeness, you distrust your dm, etc.  Some people do.  I don't and thus I like the system.  

As I've said before I like playing as opposed to dming 3e but in the two of the three 3e campaigns I've played in, I've spent 2x or more time watching others look up rules (that dont really matter imho) looking for the "right" decision than I have actually playing.

If you aren't comfortable making a few CL assessments on the fly or simply narrating your search for a secret door finds x, then you shouldn't play the game.  One day you might enjoy playing it with your kids or with a group where you really trust the GM.


----------



## Dristram (Dec 7, 2007)

Valiant said:
			
		

> Dristram, I agree, C&C is a pretty good re-interpretation of 3E (actually making the skills system work) but I get zero "old-school" feel from it  (in rules, artwork, layout, etc. its very D20).  In an evolutionary perspective, I see C&C growing out of 3E rather then 1E; its certainly not the natural progression of Gygaxian D&D as some seem to suggest.



From perspectives, I find that big fans of AD&D see a lot of 3e in C&C.  And gamers who grew up on 3e D&D, don't see much 3e in C&C.     It really is all in the perspective.  There is a lot in 3e that I liked, thus I dove into it hard and fast in the beginning.  And when using primarily the core books and with a group of gamers who are playing the game primarily for the table role-playing and a big interest in the story created by taking a character on adventures, 3e is very much my kind of game.  It's the change in focus to class manipulation akin to what I understand GURPs and HERO are good at, is what turned me off on 3e as a D&D style RPG.  With C&C, it has the old school way of "take this class as written and have fun creating a character around it."  And classes as designed have an old school flair with the details like XP progression (AD&D), HP progression (AD&D), and Base Attack progression (OD&D), shield AC protection (AD&D), but with simple straight forward d20 related SIEGE system, which works akin to the d20 Skills system.  When looking back at AD&D, C&C is actually a simpler game, akin to OD&D.  It's easier to grasp for new gamers because the various rolls are unified in their use inspired by 3e, but still simple and straight forward.

It seems to me, because of what you've stated Valiant, that those GMs who love AD&D and have formed their own roll styles to determine the various abstract situations of the game, will find the C&C SIEGE engine intrusive and perhaps inferior to what they came up with.  I can totally understand that.  And if a gamer is totally happy with AD&D as is, hearing that C&C is another AD&D would feel defensive as I did when 2nd Edition AD&D came out.  I refused to play 2e until pretty much forced to by 1995.

I find no real arguement with you.  It's all a matter of taste.  I was unhappy ultimately with AD&D and looked to 3e to make me happy again.  In a way it did, but not completely.  C&C is what I wished 3e had been.  It's a game I like better.


----------



## Jim Hague (Dec 7, 2007)

trollwad said:
			
		

> All the complaints about game completeness are valid if your view of the world obsesses about balance, completeness, you distrust your dm, etc.  Some people do.  I don't and thus I like the system.




You're doing fine, right up 'til here, trollwad.  This statement absolutely smacks of One True Wayism - arguing that others' complaints are only 'valid' if they somehow are engaging in Bad Wrong Fun.  It's got nothing to do with distrust.  Game rules don't have to cover every single little thing, but they do have to be consistent and cover the most common situations.  You use 'balance' like it's a dirty word; what's wrong with balance?  For that matter, what's wrong with a complete game world?  If you could stop bashing others' playstyles and pushing your own as the One True Way, your arguments would hold more water.



> As I've said before I like playing as opposed to dming 3e but in the two of the three 3e campaigns I've played in, I've spent 2x or more time watching others look up rules (that dont really matter imho) looking for the "right" decision than I have actually playing.




That's a problem with the group, not the game.



> If you aren't comfortable making a few CL assessments on the fly or simply narrating your search for a secret door finds x, then you shouldn't play the game.  One day you might enjoy playing it with your kids or with a group where you really trust the GM.




And again, you go off with the backhanded insult against other playstyles.  Here's the thing:

_There is nothing in 3.x or any other system that prevents the GM from doing everything you've described.  Nothing._  In fact, if you actually read the core books and others like the DMG II, _this sort of play is actually encouraged_.   C&C isn't anything special in that regard.  

All you're crowing about is common sense GMing.  It's not a matter of trust in the GM; as I pointed out earlier, a GM that constantly has to handwave things as is necessary in C&C is going to slip up.  That means that constant handwaving of things produces an uneven, not-as-fun game...unless the GM spends time notating every little thing, which is as much or more intrusive than having to constantly look up rules.

Barring some sort of masochist player, people don't like being treated unfairly; that's where consistency becomes important.   As I wrote not so terribly long ago, any good game needs a skeleton, a foundation to hang all the neat bits from.  If you need to handwave so much, why use a rules-set at all?  Why not go with something like The Pool or Risus?


----------



## S'mon (Dec 7, 2007)

Jim Hague said:
			
		

> This statement absolutely smacks of One True Wayism - arguing that others' complaints are only 'valid' if they somehow are engaging in Bad Wrong Fun.  It's got nothing to do with distrust.  Game rules don't have to cover every single little thing, but they do have to be consistent and cover the most common situations.  You use 'balance' like it's a dirty word; what's wrong with balance?  For that matter, what's wrong with a complete game world?  If you could stop bashing others' playstyles and pushing your own as the One True Way, your arguments would hold more water.




Jim, you seem in your statements to be more into "One True Wayism" than the people you are criticising.  According to you, game rules should be comprehensive; game rules should be balanced.  Some of us disagree, we are ok with sketchy rules and a lack of balance.


----------



## gideon_thorne (Dec 7, 2007)

Valiant said:
			
		

> Gideon, I don't doubt C&C is a fun game for some, my point is that its not the best fit for old schoolers who prefer non-D20 (as it was originally advertised as being). If they had wanted to get the old school Gygaxian gamers involved more they should have included tables, old school art etc.  Its pretty clear to most TLG were targetting the 3Eers despite bringng gygax onboard





Why? None of these are relevant to an 'old school game', whatever that means? 

And the simple fact of the matter is, even OD&D/AD&D sold a whole hell of a lot more books when they brought folks like Elmore, Easley, Parkinson and Caldwell came on board.

*chuckles* From what I have seen, not even Gary is an 'old school Gygaxian gamer', going by the vacuous definitions for such a thing, cause even he doesn't know what the hell that means.   

It's not 'pretty clear' at all who TLG is targeting, to a fanatical few, if thats the impression one gets. 

C&C is targeted at new players, for without new blood, you don't have a hobby.


----------



## gideon_thorne (Dec 7, 2007)

Valiant said:
			
		

> keep in mind that many of those who cheerlead for C&C  were involved in its creation (thus a free marketing force), the Trolls went with their D20 based ideas rather then oldschoolers who wanted a real return to Gygaxian style D&D.  The Trolls encouraged the "old school" connection (moving much of their operation to DF infact) picked up Gygax yet failed to deliver the true old school goods (but greatly benefited from the buzz early on).




Opinion, not fact. Obviously many thousands of players disagree.

Incidentally, which seems to be a greater number than the 'cheerleaders' of more simulacrum like systems seem to be generating with the 'there's only one right way' approach.



> Ironically, I think the Trolls spent too much time worrying about trying to capture both camps instead of focusing on creating their own identity (ie hand wave it) and ended up shooting themselves in their own foot.  Too bad, they hit the market at the right time for a true revival of Gygaxian D&D (even picked up the man himself) but blew it trying to make everyone happy.  At least we've seen some third party 1E material coming out in the last couple of years (and yes Peter, I know Gygax is only writing for C&C).




But thats the thing, one can hand wave it.

Being in the top 10 game companies in the industry is 'not shooting oneself in the foot'. 

Neither is it a bad thing trying to make everyone happy. Thats called good business. Selling to a niche market is good for a hobbiest who has other sources of income, but not for anyone trying to realistically stay in business. 

Factoid: C&C was invited to have its own forum at Dragonsfoot by the DF staff. It was their own decision and naught to do with anything TLG did.

C&C can be played any way any one wishes to do so. Its only stubborn intransigence that causes denial of whats so clearly obvious.


----------



## Dragonhelm (Dec 7, 2007)

Okay, guys, let's ease up here, okay?  Obviously, there's a couple of different points of view.  I'd really hate for this thread to be closed.

I think some of the issues revolve around two different styles of gaming, subjective views, and lack of a standard definition.  

For example, what makes a "complete" system?  Can a game be run with C&C?  Yes, and in those regards, it is complete.  If your definition includes rules to cover most situations, then no, it may not be complete.  Debating whether C&C is a complete system is all subjective, and no two parties will agree on what that definition is.

We talk about game balance.  I disagree with the assessment that those who want game balance don't trust the DM.  What they're striving for is a fair game and consistency.  The problem with game balance is that it tends to be too much of a focus.  Balance is something to be strived for, but not to the exclusion of the other elements of role-playing.  Balance needs to be balanced itself against role-playing, fun, and so on.  

There are times when rules need to be looked up.  No matter what game I play in, I'm always looking up something.  I think, though, that people need to keep in mind pacing.  The last thing you want at the game table is to have bored players while you look up a rule.  If you can find it right away, great.  If not, then make a decision and then look it up later and apply it the right way from the next session on.  DM adjudication should always be in effect, no matter the system.  

I think, to be fair, we should also mention modularity.  C&C is modular in a sense in that you can add in many different subsystems.  Some may need more work than others.  Skills, feats, non-weapon proficiencies, etc. are all easy enough to add.  But what about psionics, shadow magic, or incarnum?  Likewise, the d20 system is pretty modular in that a lot of gaming material out there is designed for d20, and can be used right away without much, if any, adjustment.  At the same time, importing non-d20 items can be a bit more tricky.

You know, it really is a shame that every time a C&C thread comes along, it becomes so polarized.  I guess the "versus" mentality is just part of society.  You see it  too often.  Personally, I'm of the mind that we, as role-players, need to be more respectful of each others' points of view.  C&C and D&D fit two different styles of gaming.  While one side may not agree with the other, both sides can agree that they like to game.  We should, IMO, be supportive of each other, and respect our differences in opinions.


----------



## gideon_thorne (Dec 7, 2007)

Dragonhelm said:
			
		

> You know, it really is a shame that every time a C&C thread comes along, it becomes so polarized.  I guess the "versus" mentality is just part of society.  You see it  too often.  Personally, I'm of the mind that we, as role-players, need to be more respectful of each others' points of view.  C&C and D&D fit two different styles of gaming.  While one side may not agree with the other, both sides can agree that they like to game.  We should, IMO, be supportive of each other, and respect our differences in opinions.




To add a comment. In response to an early query about balance being an desirable goal. Yes, sure. Balance can be a desirable goal. But, unfortunately, I think it's an unrealistic one. What is balance after all? One can come up with all the equations in the world where one plugs in the values of X on either side of an = sign and it all looks very good on paper.

The thing is, what with all the math in the world, it can't predict the one random variable that no X value will compensate for. That being the players themselves. All the careful calculation in the business can't offset the random creativity of a disparate gathering of individuals.

And while, yes, I can agree that group balance and fairness is a laudable goal, it cant, in my considered opinion, be designed into any game system that has as its principle players, people. Certainly not one that relies on random probability as a determining factor. That sort of balance, in my opinion, is an illusion.

Clearly, the only real polarizing element here is how much detail one wants in ones random number determination. And for that, I can't help. I'm plain rotten at math. Especially at something as over my head as chaos theory.


----------



## Jim Hague (Dec 7, 2007)

S'mon said:
			
		

> Jim, you seem in your statements to be more into "One True Wayism" than the people you are criticising.  According to you, game rules should be comprehensive; game rules should be balanced.  Some of us disagree, we are ok with sketchy rules and a lack of balance.




Hardly true.  I've never said that people should play games with rules as I see them.  It's implicit that my opinions on rules are just that: opinions.  I'm responding to the broad strokes that gamers who don't like handwaving an extremely loose rules sets some how 'don't trust their GM', just as one example.  I stand firmly by my opinion - game rules should be as comprehensive as play style allows, internally consistent, and most of all, fun.

I'm not a proponent of ultra-detailed systems.  I've played GURPS, HERO, even (very briefly) Rolemaster.  GURPS was the only one that stuck around for any time at all, but even that got bogged down as rules were added.  As an anecdote here, GURPS suffers the same problems as C&C in some cases, but for different reasons - add enough books into the mix (the opposite of handwaving) and the rules cease to be internally consistent.

Right now, my systems of choice are True20 (middling complexity, but much room for improvisation), Mutants and Masterminds 2e (middling-high complexity in chargen), and Savage Worlds (rules-light to medium).  Heavier systems don't suit me or my group at all, honstly, which is one of the reasons we tried C&C.  Unfortunately, the gaps in the system ended up causing inconsistency in play, which wasn't fun for everyone.

Should every encounter be balanced and fair?  Of course not.  Take a look at the Conan stories for the style I'm fond of - yes, Conan is a raging machine of destruction, but there's plenty of times that he simply _runs away_ when faced with a clearly superior foe.  

For that matter, I'm fine with filling in the blanks on a game world, making details up, even letting players do so.  It's all part of the fun.  But I do like to have systems where water is always wet, gravity works, and the monster you fought early in your career and defeated is the same when you go looking for it later.  Once again, though, C&C is far too much with the handwaving for me.  

Does that mean C&C players are some sort of frothing, mad bunch?  Not at all.  The game has its fans who're happy with the mechanics.  Bully for them, I say.  For me and my group, there's simply not enough consistency in rules and tone for it to be a good game _for us_.

As always, _your_ mileage may vary.  Not applicable in the state of Denial or its outlying provinces.


----------



## gideon_thorne (Dec 7, 2007)

Jim Hague said:
			
		

> As always, _your_ mileage may vary.  Not applicable in the state of Denial or its outlying provinces.




Hahahaha!


----------



## Jim Hague (Dec 7, 2007)

Apropos of nothing else, I'd like to take a moment to thank Dragonhelm up there for chiming in.  It's always good to see a voice of reason in these threads; all too often I'm afraid I lose my own.


----------



## S'mon (Dec 7, 2007)

Dragonhelm said:
			
		

> C&C and D&D fit two different styles of gaming.  While one side may not agree with the other, both sides can agree that they like to game.  We should, IMO, be supportive of each other, and respect our differences in opinions.




I agree.  Also it's possible to like both C&C and 3e, and many people do.


----------



## Treebore (Dec 7, 2007)

Jim Hague said:
			
		

> Unfortunately, with several groups, it's too much of a toolkit - it's not crunchy enough to emulate D&D, and it's too rules-heavy to qualify as a light system.  The flexibility all too often becomes just handwaving.   I'm not crying out for One True Wayism by calling others' products 'pathetic' either, I'd point out.  It's great that your group likes C&C; mine found it to be insufficient.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




I don't start flame wars either. I start off nice threads and then tell others to watch while others jump in and get ugly real fast. Then I point out how they are rude trolls with no provocation because thats the way they are on those boards. Their problem is that they were so predictable. I got plenty of PM's and posts on other boards about this, so I am not the only one who realizes I wasn't the troll, but showing how many Trolls are in the given population of certain boards.


But I am glad to see your back to posting the way you normally do.

I will continue to post on these boards the same way I always have, as nicely as I can manage.


----------



## Treebore (Dec 7, 2007)

*Spell recovery idea*

Spell recovery Idea



I freely admit that this idea is inpsired by my playing world of Warcraft.

That being said, how about we do look at spells as being "mana based", and that mana is used to memorize and cast certain formula of certain ranks per day, what we call spells per level per day.

Now here is the BIG CHANGE, instead of saying they must rest 8 hours and then rememorize their spells why don't we say they recharge a level of spells each hour they are simply walking around, riding a horse, sitting there reading a book, and everything else that wouldn't be considered stressful work (cutting lumber, moving rock piles to build brick walls, fighting, etc...)

So the first hour of relatively sedentary time allows them to regain the mana to cast their first level spells, the second hour gives them back 2nd level, 3rd hour third level, and so on until 9 hours has passed for 9th level SPELL casters (18th level characters). This also assumes spells of all levels were used. If they cast only 4th level spells, then an hour later they have the energy for those 4th level spells back.


Keep spell memorization, but the way that will work is the spell they want to be changed is replaced by a mental ritual and study that is represented by the current rules for learning the spells for a given day. IF the caster doesn't want to change their spell selection they don't need to spend any time.

So the spell system still stay pretty vancian, but it doesn't keep spellcasters limited to one serious fight per day, nor do they become endless spell batteries.

So what do you think? Do you already do it this way? Close to this way? IF so, have you liked it, and what problems did you address, or changes made, to make it work even better?


----------



## Umbran (Dec 7, 2007)

Jim Hague, Treebore:

We have exactly zero desire for arguments or bad feelings from elsewhere to show up here.  Please stop propagating issues from one board to another, and let the subject drop.  Thank you.


----------



## moriarty777 (Dec 8, 2007)

I find this thread a bit fascinating but I agree that lack of concise definitions will invariably make a mess of things.  However, I do feel that both D&D 3.x and C&C have succeeded in improving and growing from the roots of AD&D (albeit in different ways).  Both utilize a rule set which is consistent within itself and both can be used as-is within the context and styling of the rules supplied.

Balance is a different issue and is one that can end up being largely subjective.



M


----------



## Treebore (Dec 8, 2007)

Umbran said:
			
		

> Jim Hague, Treebore:
> 
> We have exactly zero desire for arguments or bad feelings from elsewhere to show up here.  Please stop propagating issues from one board to another, and let the subject drop.  Thank you.





Sorry, I was hoping I was speaking generically enough, but obviously I wasn't.


----------



## slimykuotoan (Dec 8, 2007)

I think Mr. gideon_thorne's sig says it all: 

"Castles and Crusades. The game so cool that even people who hate it can't stop talking about it."


----------



## Frost (Dec 8, 2007)

For anybody who actually gives two squats, I've reached my decision about C&C.  By and large,  this thread has been useful.  The heat that it generated was rather unexpected, but I guess you'll have that anywhere online.  Anyhow, I plan on picking up the C&C Player's Handbook when budget allows.  I read the Quick Play rules and I am quite taken with the system.  I play 3.5 now and I do like it, but I feel that it sacrifices too much in the way of speed.  I DM a rather large group (7 players, some with multiple PCs), and we are lucky to get through one combat in a session.  Really, speed of play is what started my exploration into C&C.  Now, whether I will actually get a chance to use C&C is another matter.  I'm currently knee-deep in a Rappan Athuk Reload campaign and I can't imagine changing systems mid-campaign.  Most likely, whenever I do get around to getting the C&C PH, my group will give it a go when turn out is low for our game session.

In a fantasy land where I have time and money to spare, I'd like to pick up Grim Tales as well and explore combining it with C&C.


----------



## Treebore (Dec 8, 2007)

Frost said:
			
		

> For anybody who actually gives two squats, I've reached my decision about C&C.  By and large,  this thread has been useful.  The heat that it generated was rather unexpected, but I guess you'll have that anywhere online.  Anyhow, I plan on picking up the C&C Player's Handbook when budget allows.  I read the Quick Play rules and I am quite taken with the system.  I play 3.5 now and I do like it, but I feel that it sacrifices too much in the way of speed.  I DM a rather large group (7 players, some with multiple PCs), and we are lucky to get through one combat in a session.  Really, speed of play is what started my exploration into C&C.  Now, whether I will actually get a chance to use C&C is another matter.  I'm currently knee-deep in a Rappan Athuk Reload campaign and I can't imagine changing systems mid-campaign.  Most likely, whenever I do get around to getting the C&C PH, my group will give it a go when turn out is low for our game session.
> 
> In a fantasy land where I have time and money to spare, I'd like to pick up Grim Tales as well and explore combining it with C&C.





Yeah, switching in the middle of RA:R would be a bit much. Good luck when you do switch, and you know where our message boards are if you ever need advice or clarification.

Lets see, the middle of RA:R, averaging one combat per session. See you in about a year! Assuming no TPK.


----------



## slimykuotoan (Dec 8, 2007)

Hi Frost:

You might consider a 'one nighter' through SKYPE to get a handle on the rules as well.

They pop up all of the time on the Troll Lords site,


----------



## Scurvy_Platypus (Dec 8, 2007)

Frost said:
			
		

> In a fantasy land where I have time and money to spare, I'd like to pick up Grim Tales as well and explore combining it with C&C.




Ummm... why?

Grim Tales is a d20 toolkit based around the d20 Modern rules. It's pretty much all about rules.

Obviously you can tweak and bash things from Grim Tales to fit into C&C, but if you're going to C&C explicitly because you want a faster system, it seems kind of against your goal to immediately start plugging in rules to complicate it. Especially when it's from d20 Modern which has some rather different assumptions about the game from D&D.


----------



## gideon_thorne (Dec 8, 2007)

Frost said:
			
		

> For anybody who actually gives two squats, I've reached my decision about C&C.  By and large,  this thread has been useful.  The heat that it generated was rather unexpected, but I guess you'll have that anywhere online.  Anyhow, I plan on picking up the C&C Player's Handbook when budget allows.




Welcome to the dark side.....


----------



## Valiant (Dec 9, 2007)

Dristram said:
			
		

> I find no real arguement with you.  It's all a matter of taste.  I was unhappy ultimately with AD&D and looked to 3e to make me happy again.  In a way it did, but not completely.  C&C is what I wished 3e had been.  It's a game I like better.




 I agree with that completely, it is all a matter of taste, and more power to those who prefer 3E or C&C or whatever to AD&D or any other game  .  I just don't like to see the "old school" label placed upon it (when its anything but).  3E is modern D20 in rules, artwork, text, layout, you name it.  The fact that they have a second home at DF does suggest that they have linked themselves to 1E.


----------



## Greylock (Dec 9, 2007)

Valiant said:
			
		

> I just don't like to see the "old school" label placed upon it (when its anything but).  3E is modern D20 in rules, artwork, text, layout...




How on EARTH do you come to that conclusion? Yes, there is a d20 involved. The d20 is used to resolve most conflict situations - checks, attacks, saves etc. It has almost nothing else in common with D20 - The System ®. And how in the dickens have you determined what is D20 Art, Text and Layout? Do proper RPGs have to be written in a Gygaxian style in order to satisfy you?


----------



## jdrakeh (Dec 9, 2007)

Greylock said:
			
		

> Yes, there is a d20 involved. The d20 is used to resolve most conflict situations - checks, attacks, saves etc. It has almost nothing else in common with D20 - The System ®.




The SIEGE basic mechanic is _identical_ to the basic d20 System mechanic:

1. Roll 1d20
2. Add numbers to the result based on class, level, and ability modifiers.
3. Compare the result to a target number to determine success. 

Then you have other, smaller things, such as armor working just as it does in d20, etc. There are, of course, some differences, too (namely primes) -- but at its core, the SIEGE mechanic is very much d20 System-derived.


----------



## Treebore (Dec 9, 2007)

jdrakeh said:
			
		

> The SIEGE basic mechanic is _identical_ to the basic d20 System mechanic:
> 
> 1. Roll 1d20
> 2. Add numbers to the result based on class, level, and ability modifiers.
> ...





No doubt, that OGL statement is in there for good reasons.


----------



## gideon_thorne (Dec 9, 2007)

Greylock said:
			
		

> Do proper RPGs have to be written in a Gygaxian style in order to satisfy you?




In short, in that person's case, yes.


----------



## moriarty777 (Dec 9, 2007)

Scurvy_Platypus said:
			
		

> Ummm... why?
> 
> Grim Tales is a d20 toolkit based around the d20 Modern rules. It's pretty much all about rules.
> 
> Obviously you can tweak and bash things from Grim Tales to fit into C&C, but if you're going to C&C explicitly because you want a faster system, it seems kind of against your goal to immediately start plugging in rules to complicate it. Especially when it's from d20 Modern which has some rather different assumptions about the game from D&D.




Why not?  I don't see how *certain* elements from Grim Tales couldn't fit into C&C easily.  I would say it has more to do with how one may want to do it and what elements chosen.

However, if he wants to go the 'classless' route, my suggestion would be to take certain elements he likes from C&C and incorporate it into Grim Tales... it might be a lot easier that way.



M


----------



## Emryys (Dec 9, 2007)

moriarty777 said:
			
		

> Why not?  I don't see how *certain* elements from Grim Tales couldn't fit into C&C easily.  I would say it has more to do with how one may want to do it and what elements chosen.
> 
> However, if he wants to go the 'classless' route, my suggestion would be to take certain elements he likes from C&C and incorporate it into Grim Tales... it might be a lot easier that way.




I've already begun to explore using Grimm Tales with a C&C base.

I like Feats/Talents in conservative doses, so looking at a system that has them tied to Ability scores may be useful. I was thinking the characters class prime would dictate which talents would be available in relation to the GT classes. Str prime would give access to the GT strong hero talents, etc... just scaled _way_ back and tweaked for C&C


----------



## S'mon (Dec 9, 2007)

Scurvy_Platypus said:
			
		

> Obviously you can tweak and bash things from Grim Tales to fit into C&C, but if you're going to C&C explicitly because you want a faster system, it seems kind of against your goal to immediately start plugging in rules to complicate it. Especially when it's from d20 Modern which has some rather different assumptions about the game from D&D.




I agree - and GT is *extremely* crunchy, even by 3e standards.  The talents system on top of feats and skills makes for (IMO) very complex character generation.  And there is practically no fluff/flavour.  I can't think of anything in GT that would be a good fit with C&C.


----------



## Valiant (Dec 9, 2007)

Greylock said:
			
		

> How on EARTH do you come to that conclusion? Yes, there is a d20 involved. The d20 is used to resolve most conflict situations - checks, attacks, saves etc. It has almost nothing else in common with D20 - The System ®. And how in the dickens have you determined what is D20 Art, Text and Layout? Do proper RPGs have to be written in a Gygaxian style in order to satisfy you?




If "old school" refers to 1E and earlier (and it does) then yes, a game that was advertised to be a return to old school should have something in common with 1E or OD&D.  Remember, Gygax didn't write all that material, yet those authors (with their own styles) of earlier modules and books clearly fit into that old school classification. 
The fact C&C has its own forum at DF (the home of 1E) suggests that this is a connection TLG wants made.


----------



## gideon_thorne (Dec 9, 2007)

Gary himself has stated, without equivocation, that C&C has similar rules and the same spirit as AD&D. I suppose folks can argue with the primogenitor source if they want too, though.


----------



## Dragonhelm (Dec 9, 2007)

Valiant said:
			
		

> If "old school" refers to 1E and earlier (and it does) then yes, a game that was advertised to be a return to old school should have something in common with 1E or OD&D.  Remember, Gygax didn't write all that material, yet those authors (with their own styles) of earlier modules and books clearly fit into that old school classification.
> The fact C&C has its own forum at DF (the home of 1E) suggests that this is a connection TLG wants made.




Cool, 2nd edition isn't old school.  Woo-hoo!  

Can a game be both old school and new school at the same time?  I'm going to say yes.  Obviously, C&C is meant to evoke some old school feel.  At the same time, C&C is geared towards those who want "d20 lite" and those who want to house rule.

I guess C&C just....is.  It attracts gamers, both old school and new school.  I really like that.


----------



## Zulgyan (Dec 9, 2007)

C&C taught me that it's wonderful to have a flexible and adaptable gamesystem that you can use to make it your own and take it into the direction you want and enjoy most.

That's why a have resently discovered and felt in love with OD&D, the game I play right now. C&C was my highway to OD&D and I'm thankful for that.


----------



## Scurvy_Platypus (Dec 9, 2007)

S'mon said:
			
		

> I can't think of anything in GT that would be a good fit with C&C.




Oh I wouldn't go nearly that far, but from what I've seen you and I hold opposite views on quite a few things (everything?).

I can see the value of adding some stuff from Grim Tales to C&C, it's just that everything that would be added is rules. The rules themselves are fine, and certainly do what they set out to do. 

I just don't think that anyone really looking at C&C because they want a rules light system should be starting off promptly adding rules right back in. That's not making a rules light (or lighter) game, that's changing the rules focus of the game, which is a bit of a different proposition.

If the OP is actually looking for a d20-based system that he can "rebuild" to better suit his sensibilities, then C&C isn't a bad way to go. It certainly won't be liked by the majority of people on either side of the C&C vs D&D group, both of whom (right or wrong) would say something like, "Why don't you play True 20" or some other system that seems to aim at being d20 but lighter.

Part of the problem is that a lot of stuff is "exception based" when it comes to d20. This feat or that means you don't suffer the penalty that everyone else does when doing something, or this or that feat gives you an explicit permission to do something, which in turn implies that anyone without the special permission (feat) can't. Adding in things like Talent trees and whatnot starts to head in the direction of re-complicating things that C&C deliberately left out.

It's been my observation that some people seem to "like the simplicity that C&C has" and then want to plug in their own reworks of this or that d20 rule and promptly recomplicate it, only in a direction that suits their own particular quirks. There's nothing wrong with that (I'm a strong proponent of houserules), but if it's the sort of thing they're planning on doing, they should be honest with themselves about it. Otherwise you wind up with a mess of rules that individually are fine, but conflict and aren't clear when put together.

For example:

I like the simplicity of C&C. I did 2 major rebuilds of C&C systems. The first was the magic, and the second was class building.

For magic, the goal was to allow me to take any kind of magic whatever, and be able to plug it into C&C and have it work. I used the Elements of Magic (Revised) for that. When I was done, the C&C spells basically looked the same, and the magic system wasn't any different. But I now had a way to be able to introduce different magic systems, and have a reasonable confidence that the spells/powers would be on roughly the same level.

In the case of the class building, my goal was to be able to take a class out of whatever D&D/d20 book I felt like, and be able to bring it across to C&C and again have at least a rough confidence that the classes would be equivalent. I used Buy the Numbers for this.

In both cases I used some rules and guidelines that are _much_ more complicated than C&C is and applied them. They weren't rules that the players would ever really see or be aware of, and they weren't anything that I'd have to mess around with a lot as the game played. But they were rules, they were present, and they influenced how things looked from my perspective and how certain aspects ran.

It's possible to take rules and complications from other sources, and feed them back into C&C. You can do it in such a fashion as to overtly complicate things, by reintroducing a feat system (even if it's limited) or reintroducing some sort of skill system (another popular tweak by different C&Cers). It is possible to maintain the simplicity of C&C, while having more complicated systems that are buried in the background that the players and (usually) the GM don't have to mess with.

The OP should be clear as to what direction he wants to go, if he's looking at mixing Grim Tales with C&C. It's going to influcence how he translates/rebuilds the rules, as well as whether the game still "feels" as if it's as "simple" or "uncomplicated" as C&C is by default, or simply a lighter version of d20 that started from a C&C base.


----------



## S'mon (Dec 9, 2007)

Scurvy_Platypus said:
			
		

> Oh I wouldn't go nearly that far, but from what I've seen you and I hold opposite views on quite a few things (everything?).




Well that would explain it, then.


----------



## Valiant (Dec 10, 2007)

Dragonhelm said:
			
		

> Cool, 2nd edition isn't old school.  Woo-hoo!
> 
> Can a game be both old school and new school at the same time?  I'm going to say yes.  Obviously, C&C is meant to evoke some old school feel.  At the same time, C&C is geared towards those who want "d20 lite" and those who want to house rule.
> 
> I guess C&C just....is.  It attracts gamers, both old school and new school.  I really like that.





I don't think most people include the bulk of 2E as "old school" though some modules etc. that would fit into that def. did slip in (esp. if you skipped the crap and went to the dungeon.


----------



## Treebore (Dec 10, 2007)

I would definitely recommend playing C&C as is for a while. Probably 4 to 6 sessions. See what you do and do not like about how it does things.

Then you can add things.

My biggest add is probably feats. But I don't allow you to select feats. I allow you to use the SIEGE engine to attempt feats. So feats are also limited in that they have to be some kind of action. So cleaves, power attacks, tripping, maximizing spells, are all there. You can even earn them as a character ability. However you have to successfully make "X" amount of SIEGE checks before I will award them. A LOT of successful checks.

Another add was skills. But still very different from 3E. I just give a flat set of 10 skills plus INT bonus, and rank is equal to level.

Other than that I just use spells, magic items, and little rules from here and there.

The benefit is a game that plays exactly the way I want it to. Has exactly the degree of complication I want. Its perfect for me. So thats why I took a game like C&C, learned it, and took the time to turn it into the game I want. Perfection.


----------



## jdrakeh (Dec 10, 2007)

Valiant said:
			
		

> I don't think most people include the bulk of 2E as "old school" though some modules etc. that would fit into that def. did slip in (esp. if you skipped the crap and went to the dungeon.




That was how the community of Original Dungeons & Dragons voted recently.


----------



## gideon_thorne (Dec 10, 2007)

*wry smile* Outside of message boards, from what I gather from all the conventions I attend, and local and not so local game shops I go into, no one seems to really care what is, and what isn't 'old school'. They just wanna roll dice, beat up hapless creatures and take their stuff.


----------



## Melan (Dec 10, 2007)

gideon_thorne said:
			
		

> *wry smile* Outside of message boards, from what I gather from all the conventions I attend, and local and not so local game shops I go into, no one seems to really care what is, and what isn't 'old school'. They just wanna roll dice, beat up hapless creatures and take their stuff.



In that case, why publish a game like C&C, though? 3e is pretty fine for rolling dice and beating up hapless creatures; moreover, it tends to promise a lot more stuff.

There has to be some sort of quality which makes some people choose C&C over d20. Rules-light may be it. But then why C&C and why not True20 or some other easy system? That's a question TLG has to answer if it wishes to stay in business. "It's all the same to me" is a statement of no substance.


----------



## S'mon (Dec 10, 2007)

Melan said:
			
		

> In that case, why publish a game like C&C, though? 3e is pretty fine for rolling dice and beating up hapless creatures; moreover, it tends to promise a lot more stuff.




In 3e though 'beating up hapless monsters' is really non-core; by the book, almost every encounter is a serious threat - 'challenging' or worse - and this is true at all levels.  In 1e/2e, as in C&C, high level PCs especially will often wade through dozens of encounters with barely breaking sweat, though always there's the possibility of something dangerous or overwhelming.  High level AD&D, OD&D, and C&C give a real sense of power as you trash dozens of the same (eg) trolls you ran from when low level.  In core 3e you rarely get to do this, in fact IME players often positively _resent_ 'underpowered' encounters, because they still take a good while to set up and run (often a very long time to run), with no payoff in XP or danger.

So, in terms of 'threat demographics' C&C is very much old school.  This is one of the things I like about it.  I like 3e tactical combat, especially at lower levels, but I also like a game where PCs can become genuinely and obviously powerful in-game.


----------



## Melan (Dec 10, 2007)

S'mon said:
			
		

> So, in terms of 'threat demographics' *C&C is very much old school.*



Thank you for reaffirming my point.


----------



## Aus_Snow (Dec 10, 2007)

gideon_thorne said:
			
		

> Outside of message boards, from what I gather from all the conventions I attend, and local and not so local game shops I go into, no one seems to really care what is, and what isn't 'old school'. They just wanna roll dice, beat up hapless creatures and take their stuff.



Outside of message boards, I've never heard of anyone owning, playing, running, or even talking about Castles & Crusades, FWIW. And I know quite a few gamers.

But yeah, I agree. Most people 'IRL' don't seem to care a great deal about the system being used, except in the sense of the 'we're used to this one' kinda thing. And then again, most people will try a system once, if nothing else.


----------



## S'mon (Dec 10, 2007)

Aus_Snow said:
			
		

> Outside of message boards, I've never heard of anyone owning, playing, running, or even talking about Castles & Crusades, FWIW. And I know quite a few gamers.




*C&C - the Ron Paul of RPGS!!   *   

*ducks*


----------



## Valiant (Dec 10, 2007)

S'mon said:
			
		

> In 3e though 'beating up hapless monsters' is really non-core; by the book, almost every encounter is a serious threat - 'challenging' or worse - and this is true at all levels.  In 1e/2e, as in C&C, high level PCs especially will often wade through dozens of encounters with barely breaking sweat, though always there's the possibility of something dangerous or overwhelming.  High level AD&D, OD&D, and C&C give a real sense of power as you trash dozens of the same (eg) trolls you ran from when low level.  In core 3e you rarely get to do this, in fact IME players often positively _resent_ 'underpowered' encounters, because they still take a good while to set up and run (often a very long time to run), with no payoff in XP or danger.
> 
> So, in terms of 'threat demographics' C&C is very much old school.  This is one of the things I like about it.  I like 3e tactical combat, especially at lower levels, but I also like a game where PCs can become genuinely and obviously powerful in-game.





3E's idiotic skills feats and class attachments to monsters was one of the worst things 3Es designers came up with .  Its nice that C&C didn't follow 3E in this regard, but neither did alot of other games (also NOT "old school) so it takes more then that to qualify, but your point is well taken.

Also, C&C has many annoying 3E similarities, for instance the Illusionist (WTF) and too many open doors to import 3E.  That sort of adaptability isn't a strength, its a weakness, it comes off as wishy washy and unfocused (thats why I say its really 3E light, because thats where its most useful (something the Trolls are well aware of)...3Eers wanting something faster).     

C&C suffers from a lack of true identity.  It isn't old school, isn't 3E, and isn't unique enough on its own to make a splash.  And now with PPP and OSRIC there's no reason to publish modules using C&Cs platform either.   As Melan mentioned, just what is the point in publishing the game?

Gideon, besides the C&Cs usual marketing squad (most of them involved in its creation somehow), I have yet to see anyone whos ever played the game.  The few copies our local gaming store did have sat in a sales rack for well over a year and then disappeared (I don't think they sold, though I didn't ask). 
Anyhow, who's saying people should care if a game is "old school" or not to play it?  No one on this thread has suggested that.


----------



## Melan (Dec 10, 2007)

Valiant said:
			
		

> Also, C&C has many annoying 3E similarities, for instance the Illusionist



What the hell? *3e doesn't even have an Illusionist class, for Christ's sake!*


----------



## Greylock (Dec 10, 2007)

Valiant said:
			
		

> Also, C&C has many annoying 3E similarities, for instance the Illusionist (WTF)...




The Illusionist is a 1st Edition AD&D class.



			
				Valiant said:
			
		

> And now with PPP and OSRIC there's no reason to publish modules using C&Cs platform either. As Melan mentioned, just what is the point in publishing the game?...




C&C is on a firm legal ground, unlike OSRIC, and has a healthy, committed group of publishers supporting it. It is a unique game, and has a great bunch of people writing new material for it.



			
				Valiant said:
			
		

> Gideon, besides the C&Cs usual marketing squad (most of them involved in its creation somehow), I have yet to see anyone whos ever played the game.  The few copies our local gaming store did have sat in a sales rack for well over a year and then disappeared (I don't think they sold, though I didn't ask).




Are you suggesting that every poster here who has played the game and supports it to one degree or another is on Troll Lords marketing staff? Or all we just figments of Troll Lords imagination? I know many people who play the game, and the books sell off the shelf in my area just as quickly as those by other publishers and in other systems. I suppose my anecdotal evidence or that of the other people who play have no role in your fantasy.


----------



## Philotomy Jurament (Dec 10, 2007)

Greylock said:
			
		

> The Illusionist is a 1st Edition AD&D class.



Or an OD&D one (from the _Strategic Review_ Vol 1., No. 4).


----------



## scruffygrognard (Dec 10, 2007)

Dragonhelm said:
			
		

> One of C&C's criticisms is that it is an "incomplete" game.  Now, I can see people wanting more options out of it like a skill system and multiclassing rules, but C&C can be played as-is.
> 
> One of the design philosophies behind this game was the ability to customize it to your personal tastes.  So if you don't like skills, don't use them.  Or you can add in non-weapon proficiencies or skills and feats.  And so on and so forth.



For those interested in some heavily-houseruled C&C (with the houserules being based on 3.X and AD&D) check out:
http://homepages.nyu.edu/~dp58/AD&D3.pdf

So far it's gone well in playtesting...


----------



## S'mon (Dec 10, 2007)

Valiant said:
			
		

> Gideon, besides the C&Cs usual marketing squad (most of them involved in its creation somehow), I have yet to see anyone whos ever played the game.




Myself and my group all like it - the more grognardy players/DMs especially - and none of us were involved in its creation.  I like its 3e-ish streamlining of AD&D.


----------



## Dragonhelm (Dec 10, 2007)

Melan said:
			
		

> In that case, why publish a game like C&C, though? 3e is pretty fine for rolling dice and beating up hapless creatures; moreover, it tends to promise a lot more stuff.




Why create any other game system?

Thing is, there are different ways to beat up critters and take their stuff.  I would hope, though, that actual role-playing figures into the equation too.  I won't say that any one system lends itself better to roleplaying than any other, I think different systems may lead to different ways to role-play.



> There has to be some sort of quality which makes some people choose C&C over d20. Rules-light may be it. But then why C&C and why not True20 or some other easy system?




Because True20 isn't D&D.  Maybe C&C doesn't have the D&D brand name, but it definitely has the D&D spirit.  So it's draw, then, is a rules-lite game based on AD&D that uses the basics of the d20 mechanics.


----------



## Turanil (Dec 10, 2007)

Valiant said:
			
		

> C&C suffers from a lack of true identity.  It isn't old school, isn't 3E, and isn't unique enough on its own to make a splash.  And now with PPP and OSRIC there's no reason to publish modules using C&Cs platform either.   As Melan mentioned, just what is the point in publishing the game?
> 
> Gideon, besides the C&Cs usual marketing squad (most of them involved in its creation somehow), I have yet to see anyone whos ever played the game.



I have run C&C and enjoyed it, my players did too. In fact they greeted the very simple and easy to learn ruleset. One player who never bought any book, immediately ordered them. Now, I don't want to play OSRIC which is but 1e published in PDF under the OGL. I don't need OSRIC for that matter, since I still have all the 1e and 2e books. C&C made me want run again the kind of campaign I ran back in the day, but with much more satisfying rules. I don't care if it has a personality of its own or not. For me it's AD&D/BD&D streamlined and working better.


----------



## gideon_thorne (Dec 10, 2007)

Melan said:
			
		

> In that case, why publish a game like C&C, though? 3e is pretty fine for rolling dice and beating up hapless creatures; moreover, it tends to promise a lot more stuff.
> 
> There has to be some sort of quality which makes some people choose C&C over d20. Rules-light may be it. But then why C&C and why not True20 or some other easy system? That's a question TLG has to answer if it wishes to stay in business. "It's all the same to me" is a statement of no substance.




Familiarity. People like the familiar, but not the identical. Every time I hear folks talk at shows and various places about town, they say pretty much the same thing. They want something that is similar to what they remember from their youth, but new as well.

TLG's answered the question pretty well methinks. Considering they are still in business in a market as dodgy as this one.

And eventually, even all those OOP books on ebay are going to wear out after constant reselling and whatnot.


----------



## gideon_thorne (Dec 10, 2007)

Aus_Snow said:
			
		

> Outside of message boards, I've never heard of anyone owning, playing, running, or even talking about Castles & Crusades, FWIW. And I know quite a few gamers.
> 
> But yeah, I agree. Most people 'IRL' don't seem to care a great deal about the system being used, except in the sense of the 'we're used to this one' kinda thing. And then again, most people will try a system once, if nothing else.




I hear quite a bit different I guess. I know of a few hundred folks, personally, that play within  a 6 hour area of where I live. 50 of those live about 45 minutes from me.


----------



## gideon_thorne (Dec 10, 2007)

> C&C suffers from a lack of true identity.  It isn't old school, isn't 3E, and isn't unique enough on its own to make a splash.




Incorrect on all counts.



> And now with PPP and OSRIC there's no reason to publish modules using C&Cs platform either. As Melan mentioned, just what is the point in publishing the game?




Oh.. a little thing like a 'core book'. It actually helps drive sales beyond the hundred mark. Which is exactly why the C&C game is doing rather well indeed.



> Gideon, besides the C&Cs usual marketing squad (most of them involved in its creation somehow), I have yet to see anyone whos ever played the game.  The few copies our local gaming store did have sat in a sales rack for well over a year and then disappeared (I don't think they sold, though I didn't ask).




Perhaps you need to get out more? 



> Anyhow, who's saying people should care if a game is "old school" or not to play it?  No one on this thread has suggested that.




Actually, several have with the oft repeated mantra of 'if its not old school, its not worth playing. ^_~`



			
				Greylock said:
			
		

> Are you suggesting that every poster here who has played the game and supports it to one degree or another is on Troll Lords marketing staff?




*snickers* That would be nice if we could afford all those thousands of people.


----------



## Dragonhelm (Dec 10, 2007)

Valiant said:
			
		

> Also, C&C has many annoying 3E similarities, for instance the Illusionist (WTF) and too many open doors to import 3E.  That sort of adaptability isn't a strength, its a weakness, it comes off as wishy washy and unfocused (thats why I say its really 3E light, because thats where its most useful (something the Trolls are well aware of)...3Eers wanting something faster).




Wishy washy and unfocused?  I'm not sure I get that.    



> C&C suffers from a lack of true identity.  It isn't old school, isn't 3E, and isn't unique enough on its own to make a splash.  And now with PPP and OSRIC there's no reason to publish modules using C&Cs platform either.   As Melan mentioned, just what is the point in publishing the game?





To have a middle ground.  A system that is simultaneously old school and new school.  Or more importantly, to have a system the Trolls think is fun and they hope others will enjoy too.


----------



## Aus_Snow (Dec 10, 2007)

gideon_thorne said:
			
		

> I hear quite a bit different I guess. I know of a few hundred folks, personally, that play within  a 6 hour area of where I live. 50 of those live about 45 minutes from me.



Cool. I'm glad it's working well for you guys, and others. Different part of the world and stuff - maybe that's it.

I can see how it would appeal to some gamers, anyway: 'streamlined 1e' is how I like to think of it, if at all. I don't quite get the hat of it. But hey, it's a messageboard.


----------



## gideon_thorne (Dec 10, 2007)

Aus_Snow said:
			
		

> Cool. I'm glad it's working well for you guys, and others. Different part of the world and stuff - maybe that's it.
> 
> I can see how it would appeal to some gamers, anyway: 'streamlined 1e' is how I like to think of it, if at all. I don't quite get the hate of it. But hey, it's a message board.




Honestly, mate. Neither do I. I don't get the 'hate' for any game system. I think its rather disturbing myself the obsessive behavior and idolatry that some hobbies seem to generate. Games are meant to be played and have fun with. If people are getting that hot and bothered over a hobby I don't think its a problem with the hobby.

Fandom of most anything, I think, is a useful way to draw disparate people together. Consider popular culture, there isn't a place in the world people can't go where, chances are, they wont find someone that is into Star Trek, Star Wars, Gaming, or some kind of fantasy or sci fi fiction. Already, there is a subject in common to talk about between two or more chance met strangers, and who knows what other common interests one might find?

So in that same inclusive spirit, why not create a system that has room for people to develop in whatever direction best suits them. Even if I might go in another direction, there still remains this common groundwork to build from.


----------



## Treebore (Dec 10, 2007)

Castles and Crusades does have an identity, the one the individual CK gives it when they make the game their own.


C&C is "my" C&C, because it has my house rules added on to it, so that is its identity.


Why not 3E? True20? Because they don't go far enough for me. C&C is basic enough that I have added what I wanted to it, and it all works together.

To make 3E or True20 work for me the way C&C does I would have to strip out about 80% of the books, and totally rewrite everything else.

For C&C I just had to come up with two pages of house rules, a 1/3 of which I had for 3E and True 20, to explain how the SIEGE engine does the jobs of feats, and that everyone can attempt feats, and how to go about rolling them. How you may even eventually earn the feat/SIEGE action as a "character power", rather than a class power.

I wrote a paragraph or so about skills, how you can have 10 of them + INT bonus, etc...


All much easier than tearing apart 3E or True 20 and rebuilding it.

Plus C&C allowed, and continues to allow, me to use modules from any edition of D&D. Once I "got" how to do it I don't even write out conversions, I can do them all in my head as I run the module or run it out of a MM. Nothing I was able to do with 3E or True20, I had to rewrite thsoe to make them workable.


So my C&C has mages making SIEGE checks to maximize spells, or to even effect two targets instead of one, to change their fireball from fire to electricity, fighters cleave, power attack, even whirlwind (usually against groups of much lower HD than they are), clerics and Paladins Use SIEGE checks to ask their god to turn the divine powers of their turning ability into temporary bonuses in combat.


My players have skill lists, they don't have to worry about cross class, they don't have to worry about what is or is not on their class list, their character can do any 10 things they want their character to do.

They can even learn more skills during the course of play. They can also train to increase stats.

So my players are not listed to "X" numbers of feats/actions, or skills. With time, effort, and experience my players characters will become exactly the character they want, and I get to do it with one of the easiest,  most flexible, most adaptable systems around.

Its easier than 3E, its easier than GURPS, its easier than OD&D, 1E, and 2E, its easier than Paladium, its easier than True 20, and not only is it the easiest its so versatile I use whatever pieces and parts from every game and game edition I own that I want.


This makes the perfect game for me. Now if one fo the other games is already designed perfectly to give you exactly the kind of rules system you want, great. I've played everything extensively that I have mentioned. So I can see why many are happy with them. Heck, I even want to do a True20 game of Excalibur, simply because the way True20 does things in conjunction with the True 20 Arthurian product I reviewed, will give me the perfect flavoring I want for such a campaign.

I even DMed a couple of 3E games on international game day.

So its not like I am some system elitist. I'm just saying, and have always been saying, if your not happy with what your using right now, and are looking for a system that is very easy to build into EXACTLY what you want, then C&C is very worth giving a try.

Thats the biggest message most fo us on the TLG boards tell you, try it out, see if you can make it into what you want. IF not, fine. WE still have people on our boards who don't play C&C. They play Savage Worlds, or OD&D, or 1E, and even 3E.

Most of us don't care what you play or end up  playing, because if nothing else we are all gamers, and we all have ideas, and we don't mind talking about all of it, because we C&C users may just end up stealing your idea for our C&C game, even though you may be talking about ti for Savage Worlds or 3E.

We even talk about adapting 3E classes and PrC's. I adapted two PrC's for my own game, we are even discussing the Hexblade and turning it into a character class for C&C.

So we don't care what you play and prefer, all we want is for you to give C&C a fair effort attempt at trying it out. If your even looking for a change. You don't like it, thats fine. Its not like it makes us C&Cers dislike you.


----------



## Valiant (Dec 11, 2007)

Drag - "Wishy washy and unfocused? I'm not sure I get that."  

As much as I dislike 3E it is a very well developed game, its complete.  AD&D also feels very complete, and has a strong identity (great flavor, many rules systems etc.).  C&C (with few rules (very D20 thus not destinct), advice to heavily adapt to your liking) it just doesn't have the same unity.  For instance, If I played C&C at someones house that favored AD&D  it would likely feel very different then if I were at someones house who's coming from 3E.  That wouldn't be the case for 3E or 1E.  Both have rules systems so complete and interdependent (esp. 3E) that they couldn't become un-identifiable (ie. the guy who favors 1E running 3E couldn't remove feats for instance, there too key to the game). 

Some see this as a strength, I see it as a weakness (whats it got over any other generic D20).  Its just not a powerful reason to go out and buy a game.  

Damn Melan, been too long since I read teh 3E PH I guess.  I remember thinking the C&C illusionist had a 3E flavor anyhow.


----------



## Philotomy Jurament (Dec 11, 2007)

Valiant said:
			
		

> As much as I dislike 3E it is a very well developed game, its complete.  AD&D also feels very complete...C&C...it just doesn't have the same unity...Some see this as a strength, I see it as a weakness...



Wow, I'm definitely not with you on this one; I see system adaptability and room for interpretation as strengths...and even part of an "old school approach."  OD&D[1974] is perhaps the quintessential example of an "incomplete" game tends to be a little bit different at every gaming table.  That "make the game your own" aspect is a huge draw, for me.

Also, I don't agree that C&C falls into the "incomplete and demands house rules" category.  I think it is a complete and standalone system; it doesn't require house-rules.  It's very *easy* to house-rule and adapt, and many people do, but it isn't incomplete, as written.


----------



## Dristram (Dec 11, 2007)

Valiant said:
			
		

> C&C (with few rules (very D20 thus not destinct), advice to heavily adapt to your liking)



I wouldn't say, advice to heavily adapt to your liking.  I would say that it can be easily adapted as you like, for the most part.  I ran AD&D pretty much BTB.  I run C&C pretty much BTB.  C&C is to me as complete a system as AD&D is, if you just include the three core books.  C&C is new and growing, but fortunately will not grow too big.  Variant rules will be printed in the Crusader Magazine and in the upcoming variant rules book affectionately known as the Castle Keeper's Guide (CKG).
  And what these variant rules will show more than anything else is how to adapt the system if you like.  I think that is awesome!  But not everyone will, nor do I expect everyone to.

What this all really boils down to is opinions differ.  Some players of OD&D and AD&D like C&C and see it as an old-school system with d20ish mechanics.  Others don't.  It really comes down to ones definition of old-school.  We can go round and round and at this point, no one is going to change anyone elses mind.


----------



## Valiant (Dec 11, 2007)

Philotomy Jurament said:
			
		

> Wow, I'm definitely not with you on this one; I see system adaptability and room for interpretation as strengths...and even part of an "old school approach."  OD&D[1974] is perhaps the quintessential example of an "incomplete" game tends to be a little bit different at every gaming table.  That "make the game your own" aspect is a huge draw, for me.
> 
> Also, I don't agree that C&C falls into the "incomplete and demands house rules" category.  I think it is a complete and standalone system; it doesn't require house-rules.  It's very *easy* to house-rule and adapt, and many people do, but it isn't incomplete, as written.





I was never one to buy into the concept that AD&D or OD&D was incomplete, certainly not "broken" or having to be improved threw house rules, as you pointed out these variations between DMs were minimal (more a reflection of the ownership aspect of the DMs world then anything else), infact, so little difference occurs between tables that you can easily tell OD&D from other systems (regardless of DM house rules) when watched (its core mechanics require that).

OD&D is a complete and destinct game,  the number of rules you have (ie. not covering every situation) has nothing to do with that (as I'm sure you know, there is alot more to determining if a game is complete then the number of rules or situations covered.  All thats needed to play D&D or any FRPG is a way to determine who goes first, who hits who, who saves and how you advance.  Keep those things core and your set.  C&C doesn't do that, it allows for (and encourages) importing core rules from other systems.  It essentially allows for each table to invent its own game, so much so that its no longer C&C.  

Anyhow, I never argued that C&C is incomplete (if you play BTB its a complete system) once again, my points: 1. its not different enough from generic D20 to stand out   and 2. its suggestion to heavily house rule the game to your liking (ie. play it as 3E if you like, or as 1E) makes it even less identifiable when viewed.  Its intended purpose as being the "adaptable alternative" made it so flexible that the core game can easily be lost (where one table is not even playing the same game as the next, the way 3E or 1E are played with only slight differences in house rules).  Now, that doesn't mean its not the perfect system for guys like Treebore (as a tool to make his own house game work) it only means the core system is intentionally secondary.  

Phil -Also, I don't agree that C&C falls into the "incomplete and demands house rules" category.  I think it is a complete and standalone system; it doesn't require house-rules. -

To repeat, its not incomplete if you only consider the rule book, what I said was that it lacks a strong identity of its own (mostly generic D20 light) with its core system being secondary to house imports (ie 3E players bringing in feats etc.).  

Treebore said it best: "Castles and Crusades does have an identity, the one the individual CK gives it when they make the game their own".   

The game is generic D20 given identity, flesh and uniqueness by the individual CK (not by the game itself as we see in 3E or AD&D), its identity isn't based on the presentation of the game itself, but rather whats made of it.  

Essentially what you have with C&C are games so different (from imports and house rules) from table to table they can't be considered the same game anymore (and this is by design).  I call C&C 3E light because I think thats the market the trolls were going after (the biggest for sure), and who its core rules were most useful to for that adaptation....a system that allows for taking skills and feats and what ever other bloat you like from 3E and making it work fast.  Remember, to many 3E/3.5 is unplayable due to its complexity, for those C&C is the perfect fit). I see nothing particularly "old school" (Gygaxian D&D) about it.  Infact you'd have to completely dump its D20 core system (its core mechanic).


----------



## gideon_thorne (Dec 11, 2007)

Valiant said:
			
		

> Essentially what you have with C&C are games so different (from imports and house rules) from table to table they can't be considered the same game anymore (and this is by design).  I call C&C 3E light because I think thats the market the trolls were going after (the biggest for sure),





This, despite being told many times, that this assessment is incorrect. Read a couple pages back and you'll find the actual market that TLG is going for. One without which no hobby survives.  

Even with OD&D, the original creators expected people to house rule the game. Once again, the oft held criticism holds no merit. These same original creators will also tell folks, and have repeatedly, that AD&D was written for the sole purpose of having a common set of rules to be used at conventions and tournaments. And thats it.


----------



## Gundark (Dec 11, 2007)

Our group tried it. It was fine, however it didn't turn us.

The thing for me was the look....the print was too 1st ed. I understand this is a feature rather than a mistake, however the book was a chore to go thru as a result.


----------



## Treebore (Dec 11, 2007)

gideon_thorne said:
			
		

> This, despite being told many times, that this assessment is incorrect. Read a couple pages back and you'll find the actual market that TLG is going for. One without which no hobby survives.
> 
> Even with OD&D, the original creators expected people to house rule the game. Once again, the oft held criticism holds no merit. These same original creators will also tell folks, and have repeatedly, that AD&D was written for the sole purpose of having a common set of rules to be used at conventions and tournaments. And thats it.





I'm playing or running 4 different C&C games, each with its own house rules, etc...


I played in several 3E games at the same time, they each had their own house rules.

I played in many 2E, 1E, and OD&D games, and they all had their own house rules.

So whats the difference?

To go even further, I have played in various Paladium Fantasy, RIFTS, GURPS, Traveller, Pendragon, Chivalry and Sorcery, MERP, and Rolemaster games. Everyone had their own house rules.

So, to me, house rules are an expected part of RPG's.

What separates C&C from the rest, is those house rules are expected, allowed for, and are able to work easily when imported into C&C.

Want the 3E feat system, but no AoO? Easily done. Want the skill system from 3E, Paladium Fanatasy, or some other RPG you like better? Easy to do.

C&C is completely playable on its own, even skills are in there, just the fact that you use your own judgement to do what makes sense seems to scare some people. Fine, incorporate a system you like from another game, or simply say everyone can have 10 skills, give a write up of the skills or show me what source the skill is taken from. Skills will be modified by class level and applicable stat, and whether its Prime or not.

There, you have a skill system.

So C&C is not "3E lite", its a rules lite RPG period. One that also allows for you to house rule and complicate it up to a level that is exactly the degree you want. Make what you want of it, If you can't make it into something you like play something else that fits your style better.


----------



## gideon_thorne (Dec 11, 2007)

Gundark said:
			
		

> Our group tried it. It was fine, however it didn't turn us.
> 
> The thing for me was the look....the print was too 1st ed. I understand this is a feature rather than a mistake, however the book was a chore to go thru as a result.




Would you be so kind as to clarify this thought? I'm not looking for a fight, honest. I'm just trying to understand your comment.


----------



## moriarty777 (Dec 12, 2007)

Castles & Crusades is a fine game which can certainly stand on its own two feet.  Some people will liken aspects of it to D&D 3.x ... others to AD&D.  Then again, a lot of people who do so are coming from those games -- it's only natural.  However, I'm left pondering Valiant's statement:



> To repeat, its not incomplete if you only consider the rule book, what I said was that it lacks a strong identity of its own (mostly generic D20 light) with its core system being secondary to house imports (ie 3E players bringing in feats etc.).




Open question: What differentiates D&D 3.x from AD&D 2nd Edition?  The biggest change could arguably be that the Weapon and Non-Weapon Proficiencies were replaced in favor of Feats and Skills.  The other significant change was 'cleaning up' the system to adopt a more unified mechanic using a d20 and even then, it was a matter of standardizing a few things.

Really though, when it comes down to it, D&D 3.x and C&C both borrow and depend on the identity of earlier incarnations of Dungeons & Dragons (whether you prefer the AD&D editions or the various older D&D Editions).  In the end, it shouldn't matter.

M


----------



## DonTadow (Dec 12, 2007)

op
NO Most people who try out a new system on do so because it is a system they want to run. It has nothing to do with how good the system is.  I tried it out because its my job to do so and was not very impressed.  THe feeling just didn't feel d and d. Now, I've tried other alternative systems and they felt a lot better.


----------



## Dristram (Dec 12, 2007)

Valiant said:
			
		

> All thats needed to play D&D or any FRPG is a way to determine who goes first, who hits who, who saves and how you advance.  Keep those things core and your set.  C&C doesn't do that,



Wow, that is totally an untrue statement.  I've played C&C as is btb and it's just fine on its own.



> it allows for (and encourages) importing core rules from other systems.  It essentially allows for each table to invent its own game, so much so that its no longer C&C.



When I was first introduced to C&C, it had nothing to do with importing rules from other systems.  I think the reason it can though, as compared to older D&D versions, is that today there are many versions of D&D and FRPGs for that matter where players may want to use rules they liked from other systems.  When the older D&D versions came out, it was not so. Thus there was no real value in a system that is friendly to adding other rule.  But that did not stop DMs from creating notebooks full of their house rules.  Back in the day, no one AD&D game  I played in was the same.  I'm actually playing in a friend's home brew game created from AD&D that is hardly recognizable as AD&D anymore.  It's hardly D&D for that matter.  But he still calls it D&D.


----------



## slimykuotoan (Dec 12, 2007)

I pretty much play C&C btb with the exception of using critical hit/fumble tables.


----------



## wolfpunk (Dec 12, 2007)

I think my vote would be best placed in the "Now I play both" category. 

I like 3.5 for the ability to powergame. The level of customization is awesome, I can create pretty much anything I can think of by mixing races, templates, classes and prestige classes. Sure it is a lot of book work at high level, but it is worth it in my opinion to be able to have a character as good as any I have read about in works of fiction.

Two things that frustrate me with 3.5 is the page flipping that happens with high level casters casting spells on a round by round basis and grappling, whenever someone in our groups attempts to grapple whether it is the DM or a player, we call a "party foul" because it slows the game way way down. That being said, not much to complain about, and I will continue to play 3.5 more than likely even after 4e comes out.

I like C&C because I don't have to worry about all the concern for balance and having to review every book to decide what I am going to allow and what I am going to disallow because of balance issues. I have never seen a C&C thread dedicated to making a munchkin character (not saying there has never ever been one, I just have never seen one). C&C doesn't seem to attract powergamers. Furthermore, I can easily integrate any sort of homebrew setting with the necessary house rules. For example, I was thinking of the Hexblade class and wanted to set up something like it in C&C, so I took a look at the Hexblade class, considered what it was similar to in C&C and settled on the Bard, so I threw together a Bard that imposes penalties to enemies instead of bonuses to allies and I was pretty much ready to go. To me that was a great exercise and I know that if I am playing it and it is too powerful or too weak I can adjust the class' XP Table to make it fall in line.
For me, I don't have any real frustrations with C&C.

For me, I think it comes down to this, choose the right system for the style you want to play. Don't ask either system to do things it is not designed to do. If you keep that in mind I think you and your group will be happy with the gaming experience, and in my book, that matters more than anything else.


----------



## gideon_thorne (Dec 12, 2007)

wolfpunk said:
			
		

> I have never seen a C&C thread dedicated to making a munchkin character (not saying there has never ever been one, I just have never seen one).




Now thats a hell of an idea. I think I'll go start such a thread on the TLG forums and give these clever folks something to screwball around with for some silly fun.


----------



## Valiant (Dec 12, 2007)

Dristram said:
			
		

> Wow, that is totally an untrue statement.  I've played C&C as is btb and it's just fine on its own.
> 
> .





Dris, you chopped my paragraph and it makes it sound as if I'm saying C&C is not a complete system "as is", what I said was this: 

"OD&D is a complete and destinct game, the number of rules you have (ie. not covering every situation) has nothing to do with that (as I'm sure you know, there is alot more to determining if a game is complete then the number of rules or situations covered. All thats needed to play D&D or any FRPG is a way to determine who goes first, who hits who, who saves and how you advance. Keep those things core and your set. C&C doesn't do that, it allows for (and encourages) importing core rules from other systems. It essentially allows for each table to invent its own game, so much so that its no longer C&C."


The point of C&C was for it to be a platform one could easily customize (or you could leave it as is and play d20 light).  It allows its core systems (see above) to be drastically changed from table to table, something 3E and 1E does not easily do.  Both 3E and 1E are "best" when their core systems are left intact with only minor changes (in other words, you can't just dump skills or feats in 3E or dump the tables in 1E). Yes, C&C is a complete game in and of itself, its D20 light.  C&Cs flavor and power (as Treebore pointed out to us) comes from each player importing rules (or making them up) to create his unique game.  Thats what I mean when I say, C&C has an problem with identity: if you sit at one table it feels like your playing 3E at another 1E.  If this is the case, why not just play 3E, D20 light or 1E/OD&D?


----------



## Aus_Snow (Dec 12, 2007)

Valiant said:
			
		

> All thats needed to play D&D or any FRPG is a way to determine who goes first, who hits who, who saves and how you advance. Keep those things core and your set. C&C doesn't do that



Muh?  Firstly, where is that definition of what's 'needed to play D&D or any FRPG' from - what source, or process of logic, even? Secondly, since when did C&C not 'keep those things core'. . .?




> The point of C&C was for it to be a platform one could easily customize (or you could leave it as is and play d20 light).  It allows its core systems (see above) to be drastically changed from table to table, something 3E and 1E does not easily do.  Both 3E and 1E are "best" when their core systems are left intact with only minor changes (in other words, you can't just dump skills or feats in 3E or dump the tables in 1E). Yes, C&C is a complete game in and of itself, its D20 light.  C&Cs flavor and power (as Treebore pointed out to us) comes from each player importing rules (or making them up) to create his unique game.  Thats what I mean when I say, C&C has an problem with identity: if you sit at one table it feels like your playing 3E at another 1E.  If this is the case, why not just play 3E, D20 light or 1E/OD&D?



So. . . it's 'd20 light' according to you, and instead of playing that, why not just play 'd20 light' (or 3e or 1e/'OD&D') ?   Right.

As you were. . .


----------



## Valiant (Dec 12, 2007)

Aus_Snow said:
			
		

> Muh?  Firstly, where is that definition of what's 'needed to play D&D or any FRPG' from - what source, or process of logic, even? Secondly, since when did C&C not 'keep those things core'. . .?
> 
> 
> 
> ...





Exactly right.  d20 light does the same thing as C&C (both can be used as a spring board for 3E light, niether one is a good substitute for 1Es table based system if your going in that direction).


----------



## gideon_thorne (Dec 12, 2007)

Valiant said:
			
		

> The point of C&C was for it to be a platform one could easily customize (or you could leave it as is and play d20 light).




The point of C&C, in part, is to be flexible. A strength that the original designers of OD&D tout for that game as well



> It allows its core systems (see above) to be drastically changed from table to table, something 3E and 1E does not easily do.  Both 3E and 1E are "best" when their core systems are left intact with only minor changes (in other words, you can't just dump skills or feats in 3E or dump the tables in 1E).




The original designers would disagree. So would the majority of players and game masters. Either system is easy to alter. Otherwise C&C would not have been possible to invent. ^_~`



> Yes, C&C is a complete game in and of itself, its D20 light.  C&Cs flavor and power (as Treebore pointed out to us) comes from each player importing rules (or making them up) to create his unique game.




And pretty much every OD&D and AD&D game too. I've never seen a single game group play by the book. And I've gamed with a rather extensive variety of people.



> Thats what I mean when I say, C&C has an problem with identity: if you sit at one table it feels like your playing 3E at another 1E.  If this is the case, why not just play 3E, D20 light or 1E/OD&D?




Because, for some folks 3e is too complex and OD&D and AD&D are out of print.



			
				Valiant said:
			
		

> Exactly right.  d20 light does the same thing as C&C (both can be used as a spring board for 3E light, niether one is a good substitute for 1Es table based system if your going in that direction).




That was more nonsensical than usual. Congratulations.


----------



## Valiant (Dec 12, 2007)

GT: "Otherwise C&C would not have been possible to invent. ^_~`"

GT, this statement is idiotic...     What the hell does house ruling AD&D or 3E have to do with the Trolls making a game!   

Also, if you think the creators of 3E intended for "house ruling" out skills and feats, or AD&Ds creator intended house ruling out the tables...your out of your mind.  Like I said, the house rules seen in these 2 games are relatively minor.  If you house rule past a certain point your no longer playing the game (and thats true with any game, be it D&D or Monopoly).


----------



## gideon_thorne (Dec 12, 2007)

Valiant said:
			
		

> I have never seen 1E played without the "to hit" (or thaco) and save tables, nor have I seen 3E played without feats and skills.   The degree of houseruling possible in both systems is much less then C&C (a game that encourages importing what you like from other systems upon its generic D20 mechanic).




I've seen both. I recall a fellow who retooled a few things in AD&D to where everything ran off of the combat system. This was back in the 80's. Class abilities, saves, background checks, all of it was modified to a 'to hit' variable AC number. He wanted less to keep track of.

I've also played in games with folks who ran 3e with a completely redone rules system where feats and skills were more abstract.

I listen to people at local game shops and conventions all the time offer forth phrases like "I know you have all these books, but we're sticking to whats in this players book, plus some of my own modifications to make life easier on the DM. Me!"

It really isn't all that hard to do.

And OD&D and AD&D also encourage modification to suit. Again, the oft repeated mantra is readily debunked.


----------



## Dristram (Dec 12, 2007)

Valiant said:
			
		

> If this is the case, why not just play 3E, D20 light or 1E/OD&D?



I play C&C because it has that old AD&D feeling to me.  I don't play AD&D because I like the streamlined SIEGE mechanic.


----------



## Tharkun (Dec 12, 2007)

Philotomy Jurament said:
			
		

> Also, I don't agree that C&C falls into the "incomplete and demands house rules" category.  I think it is a complete and standalone system; it doesn't require house-rules.  It's very *easy* to house-rule and adapt, and many people do, but it isn't incomplete, as written.




So you're saying that I could recreate Star Trek, Star Wars, WWI, WWII, Post Apocyliptic, The Hitman PC game or Doom or Wolfenstein?  All without importing any rules or house ruling a single thing?  Please enlighten me as to how this can be done.

I'm curious as from what I've seen it's fantasy only that can be done.


----------



## Eridanis (Dec 12, 2007)

Please lay off terms like "idiotic"...


----------



## Dragon-Slayer (Dec 12, 2007)

C&C is complete for a simple fantasy game without a lot of frills. The game is easy to pick up and play and easy to teach others to play, which is a strong selling point to me. After buying the PHB, Monsters & Treasure and Castle Zagyg I sat down, read the rules, ran the game and sold off all my 3.x books, 4e will have to be spectacular for me to even consider looking at the books. I am not a rabid fanboy of C&C, I also run True 20 and WFRP2, and I am not a fan of the C&C art, but the game is great for roleplayers who want a clear rules system that is easy to run and allows players to roleplay from the start and not spend a lot of time looking up a variety of rules.


----------



## gideon_thorne (Dec 12, 2007)

Tharkun said:
			
		

> So you're saying that I could recreate Star Trek, Star Wars, WWI, WWII, Post Apocyliptic, The Hitman PC game or Doom or Wolfenstein?  All without importing any rules or house ruling a single thing?  Please enlighten me as to how this can be done.
> 
> I'm curious as from what I've seen it's fantasy only that can be done.




Well, down the road, TLG is looking at putting out games, based on the core C&C engine, that are WWII, sci fi, dark technology, and others.

What this says:



> Originally Posted by Philotomy Jurament
> Also, I don't agree that C&C falls into the "incomplete and demands house rules" category. I think it is a complete and stand alone system; it doesn't require house-rules. It's very *easy* to house-rule and adapt, and many people do, but it isn't incomplete, as written.




Is very simple. The game does not require house rules to play it as it stands. But it can be house ruled to adapt to a number of genres.


----------



## Jim Hague (Dec 12, 2007)

gideon_thorne said:
			
		

> I've seen both. I recall a fellow who retooled a few things in AD&D to where everything ran off of the combat system. This was back in the 80's. Class abilities, saves, background checks, all of it was modified to a 'to hit' variable AC number. He wanted less to keep track of.
> 
> I've also played in games with folks who ran 3e with a completely redone rules system where feats and skills were more abstract.
> 
> ...




Ok, first - your experience doesn't equal objective fact.  Experiences vary.  Nothing's been debunked here.  

I counter your argument that the systems mentioned 'encourage' modification by design.  Rather they _demanded_ it, due to the fact that there were parts where the rules didn't make sense (save vs. wand/death/whatever) or simply didn't cover relatively common situations (does my character know how to swim?).  Modifications were made to suit tables' playstyles because, more often than not, the early systems were simply lacking.

As for ease of houseruling...again, that's entirely subjective.  Some people're rules-oriented, others not.  Me, I prefer a system that does what I want it to do out of the box.  C&C, sadly, did not do that, and required modifications that ended up making it a step back to 3e.  YMMV.


----------



## gideon_thorne (Dec 12, 2007)

Jim Hague said:
			
		

> Ok, first - your experience doesn't equal objective fact.  Experiences vary.  Nothing's been debunked here.




Hence mentioning a wide example of experience garnered from over 25 years of role playing. What's been 'debunked', is the oft repeated mantra that C&C is any different in regards to the optional use of house rules than any other game system.



> I counter your argument that the systems mentioned 'encourage' modification by design.  Rather they _demanded_ it, due to the fact that there were parts where the rules didn't make sense (save vs. wand/death/whatever) or simply didn't cover relatively common situations (does my character know how to swim?).  Modifications were made to suit tables' play styles because, more often than not, the early systems were simply lacking.




In order to run 3e, to my play style, it required extensive modification. But thats not the fault of the system. So even the type of games that cover many more common basis, don't always have all the answers. Funny thing. I don't understand why you commented, since what you're saying basically agrees with what I've been getting at all along.

Modifications to early games were made, because that was the point. The rules, as intended, were supposed to be a fluid system because there is no game that can realistically cover all the bases for the wide variety of people that play them.

I counter your argument with the same logic. Your experience also doesn't translate to objective fact, and that no game system 'requires' alteration to play. Folks just often elect too.



> As for ease of houseruling...again, that's entirely subjective.  Some people're rules-oriented, others not.  Me, I prefer a system that does what I want it to do out of the box.  C&C, sadly, did not do that, and required modifications that ended up making it a step back to 3e.  YMMV.




So do I. But I've never encountered any single game system that does. And I've explored many. Again, C&C may have required modification for your game, but that doesn't make the system at fault. Style preference does not a 'flawed' system make. 

I certainly have no subjective beef against 3e. If the system is to your preference, bravo.


----------



## Jim Hague (Dec 12, 2007)

gideon_thorne said:
			
		

> Hence mentioning a wide example of experience garnered from over 25 years of role playing. What's been 'debunked', is the oft repeated mantra that C&C is any different in regards to the optional use of house rules than any other game system.




I'd say C&C is more prone to houseruling than a lot of systems out there, simply because it tries to be too much to too many.  That's a laudable goal, but I think that after a year of playing the system with and without houserules, it does fall short on its own.



> In order to run 3e, to my play style, it required extensive modification. But thats not the fault of the system. So even the type of games that cover many more common basis, don't always have all the answers. Funny thing. I don't understand why you commented, since what you're saying basically agrees with what I've been getting at all along.




See above.  C&C seems to tread a middle ground between generic system and one with a focused playstyle; and to quote _They Live_ - "Middle of the road's the worst place to walk."



> Modifications to early games were made, because that was the point. The rules, as intended, were supposed to be a fluid system because there is no game that can realistically cover all the bases for the wide variety of people that play them.




And IMO they fall short of that goal.  C&C could honestly use with more focus on the 'old school' feel and less on trying to be fluid.



> I counter your argument with the same logic. Your experience also doesn't translate to objective fact, and that no game system 'requires' alteration to play. Folks just often elect too.




There's plenty of systems out there that require modification as part and parcel of the design goal.  There's games that're simply shoddily done or outright broken.  All require exactly what I described.



> So do I. But I've never encountered any single game system that does. And I've explored many. Again, C&C may have required modification for your game, but that doesn't make the system at fault. Style preference does not a 'flawed' system make.




Again, I think the flaw is that it didn't go _far enough_ - it's weakly-oriented.  Too much generic feel, not enough focus.  Go more earlier edition, I say.  OSRIC, a system I'm not fond of in the least for a number of reasons, accomplishes its goal of being very old-school by adopting old systems, warts and all.  While the outcome mechanics-wise isn't great, it does get a distinctive 'feel', something I think C&C lacks.


----------



## gideon_thorne (Dec 12, 2007)

Jim Hague said:
			
		

> Again, I think the flaw is that it didn't go _far enough_ - it's weakly-oriented.  Too much generic feel, not enough focus.




Well, fair enough. We could go round and round about this all day. Your welcome to your opinion, naturally. Its obvious that perspectives differ. Its all good.


----------



## gideon_thorne (Dec 13, 2007)

Valiant said:
			
		

> GT: "Otherwise C&C would not have been possible to invent. ^_~`"
> 
> GT, this statement is idiotic...     What the hell does house ruling AD&D or 3E have to do with the Trolls making a game!




A great deal. Since AD&D and 3d were just someone's house rules being made into a game. C&C did something similar, just more abstract.  Might as well ask what the hell the sun has to do with keeping the planet warm. ^_~`



> Also, if you think the creators of 3E intended for "house ruling" out skills and feats, or AD&Ds creator intended house ruling out the tables...your out of your mind.  Like I said, the house rules seen in these 2 games are relatively minor.  If you house rule past a certain point your no longer playing the game (and thats true with any game, be it D&D or Monopoly).




No matter how many house rules one puts in a game, the title on the book cover doesn't change. And if 'house rules' weren't part of the equation, there wouldn't be so many 'house rules' being published as books.  

Course, specifically, on AD&D, the creators themselves state without equivocation, one can house rule in or out anything they pleased to make the game their own. It even says so in the books. ^_~`


----------



## Valiant (Dec 14, 2007)

Dristram said:
			
		

> I play C&C because it has that old AD&D feeling to me.  I don't play AD&D because I like the streamlined SIEGE mechanic.





I see the tables and save system key to the "old AD&D feeling/experiance", D20 just doesn't mesh with Old School IMO.  

Gideon, your arguements continue to be completely wacked.


----------



## Dragonhelm (Dec 14, 2007)

Valiant said:
			
		

> I see the tables and save system key to the "old AD&D feeling/experiance", D20 just doesn't mesh with Old School IMO.




At this point, I would say that we have a few different opinions on what constitutes old school.  Everybody's definition may differ.



> Gideon, your arguements continue to be completely wacked.




I would say that at this point, you guys might want to agree to disagree.


----------



## Treebore (Dec 14, 2007)

For me its a good thing C&C is as "fluid" as it is, or I likely wouldn't be using it.

Its fluidity is what allows me to use every book I own of every edition plus books/rules from several other systems.

So C&C allows you to play it very simplistic, to as complicated as you want. Perfect as far as I am concerned.


----------



## gideon_thorne (Dec 14, 2007)

Dragonhelm said:
			
		

> At this point, I would say that we have a few different opinions on what constitutes old school.  Everybody's definition may differ.




And clearly does. There's no absolute definition that anyone can legitimately point too.





> I would say that at this point, you guys might want to agree to disagree.




*chuckles* Don't include me in this. *I'm* not the one descending into histrionics to make *my* case.


----------



## Piratecat (Dec 14, 2007)

Valiant said:
			
		

> Gideon, your arguements continue to be completely wacked.



You know, when a moderator specifically warns you not to use terms like 'idiotic' just a few posts above, I'd think you'd evaluate your own posts a little better.

Insults aren't cool. Valiant, please don't post in this thread from this point forward.


----------



## slimykuotoan (Jan 19, 2008)

bored and seeking players for one stop starting in a few mins

http://www.freeyabb.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?t=4004&mforum=trolllordgames


----------



## Mechnomancer (Jan 19, 2008)

Well, I never got a chance to play the old modules like Keep on the Borderland, or Expedition to the Barrier Peaks.  I never played D&D before 3rd Edition.  But like my sig says, i am playing C&C.  I figure this is the next best thing to playing ~30 years ago.  And i can honestly say that this game ROCKS!  A little more crunch than say octaNe, but a lot lighter then HERO.  I probably won't run it due to all the other games i have on the back burners, but i'll certainly play it anytime.  Plus, the Trolls' support of  the military goes a long way with me.  +1 awsome game added to my collection.


----------

