Picked up C&C -very disappointed...

Open Discussion on all things C&C from new product to general questions to the rules, the laws, and the chaos.
Post Reply
User avatar
slimykuotoan
Greater Lore Drake
Posts: 3629
Joined: Sun Mar 11, 2007 8:00 am
Location: Nine Hells

Picked up C&C -very disappointed...

Post by slimykuotoan »

...that it took me so long to pick these books up.

Seriously though, I'm verily satisfied so far; I even felt nostalgic when I saw the picture of the pig-like orc in the monster book.

I'm really looking forward to Gming ( Cming? ) this, so I can't wait to pull out some old first edition AD&D modules to give em a whirl.

Selling my players is gonna be tough though...
For crying out loud, do what you can with the attributes the dice have given you. This is what separates the men from the boys... -Kayolan

User avatar
Julian Grimm
Greater Lore Drake
Posts: 4514
Joined: Thu May 11, 2006 7:00 am
Location: SW Missouri
Contact:

Re: Picked up C&C -very disappointed...

Post by Julian Grimm »

slimykuotoan wrote:
...that it took me so long to pick these books up!!!

I'm verily satisfied so far; I even felt nostalgic when I saw the picture of the pig-like orc in the monster book.

I'm really looking forward to Gming ( Cming? ) this.

Seriously, the player's guide looks awesome, and I can't wait to pull out some old first edition AD&D modules to give em a whirl.

Selling my players is gonna be tough though...

Castle Keeper is the word you're looking for. Welcome to the Crusade!!!
_________________
The Lord of Ravens
My blog
Lord Skystorm

Grand Knight Commander KoTC, Member C&CS

Donner Party Meats: We're here to serve YOU!

AD&D per se is as dead a system as Latin is a language, while the C&C game has much the same spirit and nearly the same mechanics. --Gary Gygax 8/16/06

sieg
Unkbartig
Posts: 885
Joined: Wed May 03, 2006 7:00 am

Post by sieg »

Ow! That's a harsh set-up there.... Here I was girding myself for a C&C bashing.
Yeah, it might be hard to sell the players on the game, though (and I can't believe I'm saying this* ) but you might bring in a small list of Feats and/or skills from 3X so they're not giving up their munchkin bits "Cold Turkey". Just a thought...

*= FWIW, I've played all of 2 games of 3.0 and I can't stand Feats. At all. Period.
_________________
Always remember, as a first principle of all D&D: playing BtB is not now, never was and never will be old school.- Tim Kask, Dragonsfoot

Nifelhein
Red Cap
Posts: 383
Joined: Tue Aug 22, 2006 7:00 am

Post by Nifelhein »

Yeah, never do that again to my poor heart, I felt soooo bad because the other day you asked about it here and all...
To seel them on the game do the following, whenever one of the players cannot show up, make them quickly generate characters and start GMing some adventure (there are free ones anyway) and then you will certainly have a group of people interested in how fast they could do things and still, do them well.
_________________
"We cannot live only for ourselves. A thousand fibers connect us with our fellow men; and among those fibers, as sympathetic threads, our actions run as causes, and they come back to us as effects." - Attributed to Herman Melville.

Gnostic Gnoll
Ungern
Posts: 56
Joined: Fri Jan 05, 2007 8:00 am

Post by Gnostic Gnoll »

Curses! And here I thought I almost had another slip into my clutches. Oh well, there is time for that. Time enough indeed. Mwahaha!

From a player's perspective, one could lose a lot by switching to C&C from D&D 3.5. Primary among these loses is choice. Now, many people here will tell you that players have so many more choices available to them in C&C, and that D&D 3.5 is restricting and so on and so forth. And they're all having lots of fun, so good for them. And if your players are on board with the idea, then hey, more power to you.

Unfortunately, this comforting tale is simply untrue. The choice part though, not the having lots of fun part. I hardly think all the people who say they love C&C are lying. I, however, continue to tinker.

C&C gives very little choice to players regarding their characters. Aside from (perhaps) some peripheral options like spells or a favored enemy, one character of a given class and race is very much like any other character of that class and race.
C&C does not give the players choices. You give the players choices. This may seem to be a trivial distinction but it is an extremely important one. With D&D 3.5, most of the rules are there, scribed in stone so to speak. And there are a plethora of customization options even in the core books, let alone the mountain of splatbooks. The DM's ability to limit player choice basically boils down to which splatbooks s/he does or doesn't allow. They also tend to guide the story as per typical DM duties, but as far as actual rules go, most of it is fairly transparent.

In C&C, almost all player decisions and actions are passed through you to rule upon in a very black-box sort of way, because all the modifiers to the actions (or if the action is even allowed) aren't out in the open by default. Now almost everything is up to CK interpretation. I mean, there's a die roll, and the SIEGE mechanic is pretty solid in its resolution, but the process of determining the right number to roll can be very "smoke and mirrors"-ish. Players lose the tangible ability to point to something and say, "My character can do that." It becomes more a matter of "I hope the CK will let my character do that."

Basically choice within the rules is taken away from the player, and given to the CK to do with as s/he pleases. So the question then becomes, do the players trust their CK, and vice versa? If you feel your players are walking all over you with the 3.5 rules and you're seeking to "regain control," the solution is unfortunately not to switch to C&C but to stop playing with those people (I mean, you can switch if you want, but not with them). Or at the very least least sit down and have a discussion about what you're all looking for out of the game and come to some kind of compromise. Because if you're looking to "bring your players in line," things aren't going to go well at all. But if you feel a "lite-er" rules system would help everyone to contribute to making a story, that's probably the best place to start.

So if you decide to try and sell your players on the game, make sure to talk about why you think it would be good for them, as well. And a CK who is less frustrated about creating things is actually a decent selling point, to be honest. Just make sure to keep your players in mind while you make and arrange things. If you can't convince them with that, then you aren't going to convince them at all, and the time has perhaps sadly come to move on.

In any case, though, I wish you the best of luck.

Fizz
Lore Drake
Posts: 1081
Joined: Mon Feb 19, 2007 8:00 am

Post by Fizz »

Gnostic Gnoll wrote:
From a player's perspective, one could lose a lot by switching to C&C from D&D 3.5. Primary among these loses is choice. Now, many people here will tell you that players have so many more choices available to them in C&C, and that D&D 3.5 is restricting and so on and so forth. And they're all having lots of fun, so good for them. And if your players are on board with the idea, then hey, more power to you.

This is a matter of perspective.

Consider 3E feats. Without a particular feat, you can't do something in 3E. Rapid shot for example. Since the feat exists to allow you do something, by default you must not be able to do it. Period.

In C&C though, this is up to the CK. I let my characters attempt multiple shots if needed. I've been letting my characters attempt whirlwind attacks ever since 2nd Ed AD&D.

So, the question is not `what can a character do' or `how many choices he has'. It's what can he attempt. IMO, that should be just about anything.

3E is rife with the influence of Magic the Gathering: a set of rules, with rules to contradict the base rules, and yet more rules to contradict those, etc etc. It has become so regimented that any time someone attempts something the first question is `do you have the feat?'.

In this context then, C&C does allow more options. They're not formalized, but rules don't have to be scribed in stone to allow characters to attempt something.
Quote:
C&C gives very little choice to players regarding their characters. Aside from (perhaps) some peripheral options like spells or a favored enemy, one character of a given class and race is very much like any other character of that class and race.

C&C is very archetypical game, yes. And it doesn't apologize for it. But it's very easy to expand on to it and tweak classes to get exactly what you want. There are already dozens if not hundreds variant and new classes that can be found around the web.
Quote:
Now almost everything is up to CK interpretation. I mean, there's a die roll, and the SIEGE mechanic is pretty solid in its resolution, but the process of determining the right number to roll can be very "smoke and mirrors"-ish. Players lose the tangible ability to point to something and say, "My character can do that." It becomes more a matter of "I hope the CK will let my character do that."

I disagree here. First, determining the right number to roll is no different in C&C than in 3E. The DM at some point has to decide what the DC is, which as you stated can be very "somke and mirrors"-ish.

But the difference is that in 3E much of what a character can't do is already determined. "Do you have that feat? Nope? Can't do it. Have a rank in that skill? Nope, can't do it." It's out of the DM's hands entirely. But in C&C, all the CK has to do is allow the attempt of anything. Of course the CK might rule something is impossible, but his hands aren't automatically tied by the restrictions of feats and/or skills.

So yes, this gives more power to the CK, but also more to the player. The player is not automatically prohibited from attempting virtually anything.

This i think is one of the great attractions of C&C. It's not that the character can do anything. It's that the character can attempt anything with a single simple mechanic. Instead of spending hours flipping through books to resolve the series of rules that counter one another, it's lets the players focus on role-playing

-Fizz

User avatar
Zudrak
Lore Drake
Posts: 1377
Joined: Wed May 03, 2006 7:00 am
Location: Audubon, NJ

Post by Zudrak »

Fizz wrote:
This is a matter of perspective.

Consider 3E feats. Without a particular feat, you can't do something in 3E. Rapid shot for example. Since the feat exists to allow you do something, by default you must not be able to do it. Period.

In C&C though, this is up to the CK. I let my characters attempt multiple shots if needed. I've been letting my characters attempt whirlwind attacks ever since 2nd Ed AD&D.

So, the question is not `what can a character do' or `how many choices he has'. It's what can he attempt. IMO, that should be just about anything.

3E is rife with the influence of Magic the Gathering: a set of rules, with rules to contradict the base rules, and yet more rules to contradict those, etc etc. It has become so regimented that any time someone attempts something the first question is `do you have the feat?'.

In this context then, C&C does allow more options. They're not formalized, but rules don't have to be scribed in stone to allow characters to attempt something.



C&C is very archetypical game, yes. And it doesn't apologize for it. But it's very easy to expand on to it and tweak classes to get exactly what you want. There are already dozens if not hundreds variant and new classes that can be found around the web.



I disagree here. First, determining the right number to roll is no different in C&C than in 3E. The DM at some point has to decide what the DC is, which as you stated can be very "somke and mirrors"-ish.

But the difference is that in 3E much of what a character can't do is already determined. "Do you have that feat? Nope? Can't do it. Have a rank in that skill? Nope, can't do it." It's out of the DM's hands entirely. But in C&C, all the CK has to do is allow the attempt of anything. Of course the CK might rule something is impossible, but his hands aren't automatically tied by the restrictions of feats and/or skills.

So yes, this gives more power to the CK, but also more to the player. The player is not automatically prohibited from attempting virtually anything.

This i think is one of the great attractions of C&C. It's not that the character can do anything. It's that the character can attempt anything with a single simple mechanic. Instead of spending hours flipping through books to resolve the series of rules that counter one another, it's lets the players focus on role-playing

-Fizz



_________________
AD&D, Amish Dungeons & Dragons.

"Galstaff, ye are in a cornfield, when a moustachioed man approaches. What say ye?"

"I shun him."

-----

"Knowledge, logic, reason, and common sense serve better than a dozen rule books."

-- E. Gary Gygax
Psalm 73:26

"Knowledge, logic, reason, and common sense serve better than a dozen rule books."

"Rules not understood should have appropriate questions directed to the publisher; disputes with the Dungeon Master are another matter entirely. THE REFEREE IS THE FINAL ARBITER OF ALL AFFAIRS OF HIS OR HER CAMPAIGN."
-- E. Gary Gygax

sieg
Unkbartig
Posts: 885
Joined: Wed May 03, 2006 7:00 am

Post by sieg »

Having played 3X all of two times I'm not going to pretend to be any kind of expert, but I wish to say two things.

1. The above by GG doesn't consider all the "variety" of Primes. With primes, you can have a Strong fighter, a dexterous fighter, a smart fighter, a wise fighter a Healthy fighter and/or a Charismatic fighter; or any combination therof depending on race. I'm no statistician, but off the top of my head that seems to be at least 36 possible combinations of character. You haven't even chosen class yet!
2. Regarding the PC "knowing" and "not knowing" for sure if something will work. Well, in the real world we don't know "for sure" if a given thing will work or not; save perhaps scientific laws. In a fantasy world, even those are up in the air. Aaron Allston once wrote an article in Adventurers Club (an old mag for Champions) about Mystery powers in which he lamented the Hero system and how it put everything into absolutes. To paraphrase, "Our favorite Amazon doesn't *know* she can deflect bullets with her armbands on a 14 or less, our favorite webslinger doesn't *know* he can shoot webs with a 16 or less to hit, etc.".

So, why should a PC *know* they can always whirlwhind attack, or *know* they can't do rapid arrow fire....just because they do or don't have a given feat?
Just my two fennings,
_________________
Always remember, as a first principle of all D&D: playing BtB is not now, never was and never will be old school.- Tim Kask, Dragonsfoot

johns
Red Cap
Posts: 243
Joined: Thu May 11, 2006 7:00 am

Post by johns »

C&C sure doesn't spoon feed options to the players, but I like that aspect of the game.

Re: Can't do things without a feat: The worst case of this is the Goad feat that appears in a couple splat books. The feat allows you to goad people into attacking you. Give me a break. That's role-playing, and maybe a DM giving the monster a saving throw if making the attack was seriously not in its best interest.

rabindranath72
Lore Drake
Posts: 1102
Joined: Wed May 17, 2006 7:00 am

Post by rabindranath72 »

johns wrote:
That's role-playing.

Who taught you these bad words?

User avatar
Julian Grimm
Greater Lore Drake
Posts: 4514
Joined: Thu May 11, 2006 7:00 am
Location: SW Missouri
Contact:

Post by Julian Grimm »

Gnostic Gnoll wrote:
Curses! And here I thought I almost had another slip into my clutches. Oh well, there is time for that. Time enough indeed. Mwahaha!

From a player's perspective, one could lose a lot by switching to C&C from D&D 3.5. Primary among these loses is choice. Now, many people here will tell you that players have so many more choices available to them in C&C, and that D&D 3.5 is restricting and so on and so forth. And they're all having lots of fun, so good for them. And if your players are on board with the idea, then hey, more power to you.

Unfortunately, this comforting tale is simply untrue. The choice part though, not the having lots of fun part. I hardly think all the people who say they love C&C are lying. I, however, continue to tinker.

C&C gives very little choice to players regarding their characters. Aside from (perhaps) some peripheral options like spells or a favored enemy, one character of a given class and race is very much like any other character of that class and race.
C&C does not give the players choices. You give the players choices. This may seem to be a trivial distinction but it is an extremely important one. With D&D 3.5, most of the rules are there, scribed in stone so to speak. And there are a plethora of customization options even in the core books, let alone the mountain of splatbooks. The DM's ability to limit player choice basically boils down to which splatbooks s/he does or doesn't allow. They also tend to guide the story as per typical DM duties, but as far as actual rules go, most of it is fairly transparent.

In C&C, almost all player decisions and actions are passed through you to rule upon in a very black-box sort of way, because all the modifiers to the actions (or if the action is even allowed) aren't out in the open by default. Now almost everything is up to CK interpretation. I mean, there's a die roll, and the SIEGE mechanic is pretty solid in its resolution, but the process of determining the right number to roll can be very "smoke and mirrors"-ish. Players lose the tangible ability to point to something and say, "My character can do that." It becomes more a matter of "I hope the CK will let my character do that."

Basically choice within the rules is taken away from the player, and given to the CK to do with as s/he pleases. So the question then becomes, do the players trust their CK, and vice versa? If you feel your players are walking all over you with the 3.5 rules and you're seeking to "regain control," the solution is unfortunately not to switch to C&C but to stop playing with those people (I mean, you can switch if you want, but not with them). Or at the very least least sit down and have a discussion about what you're all looking for out of the game and come to some kind of compromise. Because if you're looking to "bring your players in line," things aren't going to go well at all. But if you feel a "lite-er" rules system would help everyone to contribute to making a story, that's probably the best place to start.

So if you decide to try and sell your players on the game, make sure to talk about why you think it would be good for them, as well. And a CK who is less frustrated about creating things is actually a decent selling point, to be honest. Just make sure to keep your players in mind while you make and arrange things. If you can't convince them with that, then you aren't going to convince them at all, and the time has perhaps sadly come to move on.

In any case, though, I wish you the best of luck.

Hmm time to try those new smiles....I belive I want to use this one:

Sorry, The hillbilly hellraiser side took over for a minute.
_________________
The Lord of Ravens
My blog
Lord Skystorm

Grand Knight Commander KoTC, Member C&CS

Donner Party Meats: We're here to serve YOU!

AD&D per se is as dead a system as Latin is a language, while the C&C game has much the same spirit and nearly the same mechanics. --Gary Gygax 8/16/06

User avatar
gideon_thorne
Maukling
Posts: 6176
Joined: Thu Mar 30, 2006 8:00 am
Contact:

Post by gideon_thorne »

Julian Grimm wrote:
Hmm time to try those new smiles....I belive I want to use this one:

I understand the smiley face, but what are the two fleur de lis on either side for?
_________________
"We'll go out through the kitchen!" Tanis Half-Elven

Peter Bradley
"The accumulated filth of all their sex and murder will foam up about their waists and all the whores and politicians will look up and shout, 'Save us!' And I'll look down, and whisper 'No.' " ~Rorschach

Gnostic Gnoll
Ungern
Posts: 56
Joined: Fri Jan 05, 2007 8:00 am

Post by Gnostic Gnoll »

Fizz, you raise a number of good points. So I'd like to try and reframe my suggestion. As you said, it's a matter of perspective, and I do sincerely believe that for anyone attempting to get 3.5 players to play C&C, it is an important perspective to understand. And it may not be in exactly these words--they might not even have thought seriously about why they like 3.5 so much, but I guarantee it'll probably exist in some form.

Yes, D&D 3.5 is in fact a lot like M:tG nowadays. It is a game that rewards players for making the right choices regarding a given (and expanding) selection of skills, feats, race, and class(es)--very much like a non-random deck. A good DM will be able to provide a tailored selection of these elements suited to the campaign, as well as have enough mastery of the rules to provide adequate challenges to the PCs.

It is a competitive game, in the sense of player-vs-DM (will my character overcome what's thrown at it?) and to some extent player-vs-player (is my fighter better than some other player's fighter?). But it is a role-playing game. Stories are formed around these conflicts. However, here the story is a method to drive these challenges. While a given person might not agree with how the story is formed, that doesn't make it less of one.

The problem is that the books don't really try to explain this. Which makes sense, because WotC would probably like it to be the Only Game in Town. They're going to want you to think it's the Answer to All of Your RPG Prayers Forever. And chances are, if you're on this board, well... it wasn't. Even if you liked parts of it.

There are Rules, and there is Fluff. Rules is everything the game specifically defines, and Fluff is whatever either provides purpose to or is generated by the Rules. Descriptions of your character's actions, the plot, having a longsword instead of a battle axe when they both simply do 1d8 damage--this is all Fluff. And if any of your players are truly 3.5 lovers, but you are earnestly interested in having them come to your C&C game, this is an important thing to keep in mind: Fluff cannot balance or stand in for Rules. People who are in to 3.5 the way you may be in to C&C probably enjoy their Fluff, but they love their Rules.

So when you tell them that their character will be able to do so much more in C&C, you're thinking Fluff, and they're thinking Rules. So they're going to see the races, and the classes, and how Primes work (sieg, you're absolutely right, I forgot about the ability to choose Primes as being part of defining your character, so that's a bit more choice to work with). Then they will see the combat system and the SIEGE engine. And all the SIEGE Engine will tell them is this: "When you want to do something with the Fluff, ask the CK, they will come up with a number using a few modifiers you probably don't know about, and you'll try and roll it. It's like this for everything you do."

Now you're thinking, "Simple, fast, convenient... FREEDOM!" Your 3.5 friend, however, is thinking "By Tweet, Cook, and Williams! I never knew a human being could be gutted by a book. Must... hold... innards... in..."

Automatic prohibitions on actions are not always a bad thing to someone focused on the Rules. It helps define the challenge, and gives them something to strive for. Sure, they might not be able to Rapid Shot now, but next level when they pick up the feat they will.

So these differences may be irreconcilable, at least as far as getting them to join your game. But not necessarily. If you're in the habit of making defined house rules, well... those actually are Rules and can beef up your portfolio, so to speak. And if they're friends of yours, that can mean a lot, so long as you're aware they're giving up a bit in the interest of being around. (If they're merely acquaintances and you're going this far for them, well, you probably don't get told enough that you're a mighty fine person.)

I hope this helps provide some perspective on what I said, or rather what I was attempting to get at. Basically it's two sides of the same coin. Though there are destructive personalities on both sides, in player and GM flavors. As for everyone else, though, I'd say it's just a matter of goals, and style.

As for your second point, sieg, I can't speak for anyone else, but my answer is that while my character might not know he can or can't do something, I want to know as a player. But I'm not adverse to having my character try to do things I know they're not capable of, if it suits the situation and the character. I'm not sure the "problem" of players knowing what their characters are generally capable of can be avoided, unless the GM designs the characters, keeps the sheets, and rolls all the dice. The GM as the Ultimate Black Box, really. Though that does have the potential to be interesting...
gideon_thorne wrote:
I understand the smiley face, but what are the two fleur de lis on either side for?

Just hazarding a guess, but I'm thinking either "Scouts Rule!" or "L'tat, c'est moi." I'm leaning toward the second.

Fizz
Lore Drake
Posts: 1081
Joined: Mon Feb 19, 2007 8:00 am

Post by Fizz »

Gnostic Gnoll wrote:
Fizz, you raise a number of good points. So I'd like to try and reframe my suggestion. As you said, it's a matter of perspective, and I do sincerely believe that for anyone attempting to get 3.5 players to play C&C, it is an important perspective to understand. And it may not be in exactly these words--they might not even have thought seriously about why they like 3.5 so much, but I guarantee it'll probably exist in some form.

Yes, D&D 3.5 is in fact a lot like M:tG nowadays. It is a game that rewards players for making the right choices regarding a given (and expanding) selection of skills, feats, race, and class(es)--very much like a non-random deck. A good DM will be able to provide a tailored selection of these elements suited to the campaign, as well as have enough mastery of the rules to provide adequate challenges to the PCs.
Quote:
It is a competitive game, in the sense of player-vs-DM (will my character overcome what's thrown at it?) and to some extent player-vs-player (is my fighter better than some other player's fighter?). But it is a role-playing game. Stories are formed around these conflicts.

I didn't mean to imply that i didn't think 3E was not (or could not be) a roleplaying game.

However, having played in several groups and many sessions at conventions, it usually reduces itself to a tactical war game, with people arguing over what can and can't be done and what feats counters what, etc. When a 10 minute game-time skirmish takes 4 hours of real time to resolve, it leaves roleplaying and becomes a tactical battle game.

3.5's reliance on battle maps further enforces that- it even describes movement in terms of squares. This isn't supposed to be chess. As johns pointed out, the Goad feat- it doesn't serve a roleplaying purpose, it's for use inside of combat. In fact, most feats are related to combat in some way.

Then you've got exacting rules as to how much space a monster uses up, rules describing how to move through those spaces, Attacks of opportunity (ack!). Also consider the fact that ALL classes are much more capable in combat compared to previous incarnations- compare the THAC0 of a 2nd Ed thief to a 3E rogue, and how only warriors got extra attacks, etc.

So while yes, 3E can be about roleplaying, it's entire structure has been built with an overinflated importance on combat. And thus most players (in my experience) go down that road. The story is just a means to have a combat.

Whereas in a real story-driven game, the combat is incidental to the story.
Quote:
So when you tell them that their character will be able to do so much more in C&C, you're thinking Fluff, and they're thinking Rules.

I don't think i'm thinking fluff. It's not the trivial difference of a long sword vs a battle axe we're looking at. We're looking at what can be attempted by the characters, and what restrictions they have in their choice of actions. 3E characters are more restricted because feats tell them what they can and can't do. C&C does not put this limitation on them.

C&C is more dependent on imagination. 3E has a set of rules. You can read the rules and say `ooo that's cool, i want to do that!'. Then the character adds feats as he advance until he can do what he wants. If you like that level of structure, that's fine.

Whereas in C&C, you need to think up these nifty manuevers yourself, but nothing is stopping you from trying at any point.

As i said, i'd been letting players attempt a whirlwind attack since 2nd Ed AD&D, long before i ever heard about feats. I DM'd a character who was surrounded by skeletons. He said he wanted to sweep his club in a circle around him smashing the legs of each skeleton. Seemed like a logical manuever to me, so i allowed an attack roll, with the effective AC of each skeleton increasing (the momentum of the swing would be slowed at each hit). He wiped out 5 of them. So, without a feat, this character suddenly felt very heroic.

The 3E way would be, no, you don't have that feat, you can't do it. You have to wait 9 levels while you work your way through that feat chain.

I hope that clarifies my side of things a bit better. While 3E can be about roleplaying, it's entire structure says otherwise. I think that has turned off a lot of players who would like more variety in their storytelling.

-Fizz

Nifelhein
Red Cap
Posts: 383
Joined: Tue Aug 22, 2006 7:00 am

Post by Nifelhein »

I do not mind 3.5 rules, provided there is a pc accounting for each of them it is fine.
_________________
"We cannot live only for ourselves. A thousand fibers connect us with our fellow men; and among those fibers, as sympathetic threads, our actions run as causes, and they come back to us as effects." - Attributed to Herman Melville.

User avatar
Julian Grimm
Greater Lore Drake
Posts: 4514
Joined: Thu May 11, 2006 7:00 am
Location: SW Missouri
Contact:

Post by Julian Grimm »

3.5 is a great set of rules for a computer game. It's also a decent combat game. it fails as an rpg and is D&D in name only
_________________
The Lord of Ravens
My blog
Lord Skystorm

Grand Knight Commander KoTC, Member C&CS

Donner Party Meats: We're here to serve YOU!

AD&D per se is as dead a system as Latin is a language, while the C&C game has much the same spirit and nearly the same mechanics. --Gary Gygax 8/16/06

User avatar
Omote
Battle Stag
Posts: 11560
Joined: Wed May 03, 2006 7:00 am
Location: The fairest view in the park, Ohio.
Contact:

Post by Omote »

[insert game show ding] *ding*

.........................................................Omote

FPQ
_________________
> Omote's Advanced C&C stuff <
Duke Omote Landwehr, Holy Order of the FPQ ~ Prince of the Castles & Crusades Society
@-Duke Omote Landwehr, Holy Order of the FPQ ~ Prince of the Castles & Crusades Society-@
VAE VICTUS!
>> Omote's Advanced C&C stuff <<

User avatar
Zudrak
Lore Drake
Posts: 1377
Joined: Wed May 03, 2006 7:00 am
Location: Audubon, NJ

Post by Zudrak »

Julian Grimm wrote:
It's also a decent combat game.

...That takes 6 hours per combat.
_________________
AD&D, Amish Dungeons & Dragons.

"Galstaff, ye are in a cornfield, when a moustachioed man approaches. What say ye?"

"I shun him."

-----

"Knowledge, logic, reason, and common sense serve better than a dozen rule books."

-- E. Gary Gygax
Psalm 73:26

"Knowledge, logic, reason, and common sense serve better than a dozen rule books."

"Rules not understood should have appropriate questions directed to the publisher; disputes with the Dungeon Master are another matter entirely. THE REFEREE IS THE FINAL ARBITER OF ALL AFFAIRS OF HIS OR HER CAMPAIGN."
-- E. Gary Gygax

User avatar
Julian Grimm
Greater Lore Drake
Posts: 4514
Joined: Thu May 11, 2006 7:00 am
Location: SW Missouri
Contact:

Post by Julian Grimm »

Zudrak wrote:
...That takes 6 hours per combat.

Point taken. I take back the combat game comment.
_________________
The Lord of Ravens
My blog
Lord Skystorm

Grand Knight Commander KoTC, Member C&CS

Donner Party Meats: We're here to serve YOU!

AD&D per se is as dead a system as Latin is a language, while the C&C game has much the same spirit and nearly the same mechanics. --Gary Gygax 8/16/06

User avatar
slimykuotoan
Greater Lore Drake
Posts: 3629
Joined: Sun Mar 11, 2007 8:00 am
Location: Nine Hells

Re: Picked up C&C -very disappointed...

Post by slimykuotoan »

Ah memories.

I can still remember where I bought 'em, and how enthralled I was at first read...
For crying out loud, do what you can with the attributes the dice have given you. This is what separates the men from the boys... -Kayolan

User avatar
DMSamuel
Red Cap
Posts: 346
Joined: Thu Jun 19, 2014 2:48 am
Location: Downstate NY
Contact:

Re: Picked up C&C -very disappointed...

Post by DMSamuel »

The real question is...

Are you still disappointed?


:P
~DMSamuel
---
Website: RPG Musings
Actual Play Podcast (5e): D&DeBrief

User avatar
slimykuotoan
Greater Lore Drake
Posts: 3629
Joined: Sun Mar 11, 2007 8:00 am
Location: Nine Hells

Re: Picked up C&C -very disappointed...

Post by slimykuotoan »

Lol: still disappointed I didn't find this game sooner! ;)
For crying out loud, do what you can with the attributes the dice have given you. This is what separates the men from the boys... -Kayolan

Retrogamer_Meph
Skobbit
Posts: 12
Joined: Sat Jun 27, 2020 4:38 pm

Re: Picked up C&C -very disappointed...

Post by Retrogamer_Meph »

slimykuotoan wrote:
Sun Mar 18, 2007 12:57 am
...that it took me so long to pick these books up.

Seriously though, I'm verily satisfied so far; I even felt nostalgic when I saw the picture of the pig-like orc in the monster book.

I'm really looking forward to Gming ( Cming? ) this, so I can't wait to pull out some old first edition AD&D modules to give em a whirl.

Selling my players is gonna be tough though...
I have pretty much been the DM for my group for 30+ years. Ya know how I sold them on it? I told them I was switching to C&C and they were welcome to play with me. I learned over the last few years of running the popular 5th edition of a certain game system that if the DM isn't enjoying himself, it's never going to work. If your players are with you because they like how you run your game then you should be all good. If they are the type that likes "building" characters and always have to min/max...they might be disappointed with C&C. It's an awesome system imo. I have shelves and shelve of 1E & 2E stuff. The reason I chose C&C rather than just going back to the editions I have run for decades is the streamlined systems and some "newer" mechanics that I think helps to bridge the gap a little between new and old players.

User avatar
old school gamer
Red Cap
Posts: 256
Joined: Sun Oct 08, 2006 7:00 am

Re: Picked up C&C -very disappointed...

Post by old school gamer »

You can also use the earlier editions of D&D material for C&C. I used the 1st edition Monster Manual for my first game and then later used the 2nd edition Monstrous Manual because that is my favorite MM for the game. All you have to do is flip the AC.

User avatar
Lurker
Greater Lore Drake
Posts: 4044
Joined: Thu Jan 18, 2007 8:00 am
Location: Oklahoma

Re: Picked up C&C -very disappointed...

Post by Lurker »

Rgr on using earlier material easily with C&C (and its derivatives like Victorious and AA).

For the Masque of Red Death AA game every monster I used or had prepped for you came from 1e or 2e AD&D.
"And so I am become a knight of the Kingdom of Dreams and Shadows!" - Mark Twain

Forgive all spelling errors.

Knight Errant & Humble C&C Society Contributor
C&C Society

Post Reply