...and sorry to say, I'm not really very impressed.

I've been gaming for over 20 years.  I started with the three-hole-punched Basic set, moved on to an unholy mix between OD&D and AD&D, and have many fond memories of those days.

I thought - especially with my ever-unfolding appreciation of the Wilderlands and Dungeon Crawl Classics series - that C&C would strike some kind of chord with me - but unfortunately it seems I was wrong.

I guess my tastes in gaming have moved on more than I thought they had.  Things like the random senselessness of the weapon table, homogeneity of same-classed characters, and crazy XP advancement really threw me off.

I'm still letting my read-through percolate for a bit before I sell/trade my copies of the Player's Handbook and Monsters & Treasure, but I don't think right now that it's a style of gaming I'd particularly enjoy.

-O

Honestly I just couldn't get past the fact that the presentation was some of the most slap-dash I've seen since BESM1.

It looked like someone's cheesy free homebrew, not something I'd pay actual money for.

The first printing of the the player's book was very rough.  It looked rushed out the door.  Many pages had too much greyscale crap hiding the text.  There were some omissions.  At least one spell was just plain missing.  And initially Troll Lords made some wild claims that the player's book would be all that you needed to play the game, despite the lack of monsters or magic items.  All of which I discovered after trying to get my hands on the book and failing a couple times.  Very disappointing.

That all being said, I really like how they merged some of the idiosyncratic old school flavor with the sleek d20 "prime attribute" system.  If I owned the superior 2nd printing player's book I might be running C&C right now instead of 3.5.

Well, I have the 2nd printing.  I have few problems with the layout, appearance, binding, etc.

About my biggest layout gripe is that it's difficult to tell where one class description ends and the next begins.  The pictures in this section interrupt the flow and organization.

-O

I can see your gripes, but I love the game nonetheless.

I find that people who just pick the game up having never played it don't like it, as opposed to people who play it and then pick it up.

It's hella fun for those of us who find d20 too complex.

It's possible it may not just be for you. That being said:

You can customize classes somewhat by primes selection and there are several rudimentary skill systems & multi-classing rules out there, most free. There are at least two books of net classes so far (Beyond Belief Games' & Colin Sez).

I'd try one of the sample adventures here if you've not already done so.

Also take a look at some of the free stuff in places like
http://www.geocities.com/cnctraveller/cnc1.html
http://www.cncplayer.net/
http://www.grey-elf.com/candc/
http://www.dragonsfoot.org/cc/
http://www.geocities.com/legendsoftheland/crusades.html

It's fairly easy to add in material from other versions of D&D/d20 to C&C, treat the C&C books as baselines to be expanded upon. XP can be flattened ala D&D3E & the weapon categories etc. folded in. Still it's worth trying C&C without any houserules first IMO and you may not feel it worth adding anything to C&C (as in, why use C&C then?).

TLG have a pretty good forum for the game I understand and Dragonsfoot does as well.

Quote from: joewolzI find that people who just pick the game up having never played it don't like it, as opposed to people who play it and then pick it up.

It's hella fun for those of us who find d20 to me too complex.

I joined a C&C chat game playing a thief (sorry, rogue) specifically to see how the rules worked and if I'd like it. Very fast playing and fairly easy with the game system helping me to just try stuff instead of looking at my character sheet to see what I could do.

Quotehomogeneity of same-classed character

That was my single biggest complaint about C&C. I guess that I've been spoiled by systems like D&D 3.5 and Rolemaster, where two characters of the same class and level can be as mechanically different as night and day. I ran a C&C campaign over the Summer and had fun, but that lack of mechanical diffferentiation between characters of the same class and level (past prime attribute selection) really bothered me more than I initially thought it would.

Yeah, I'd like to point out that I don't think the game is a bad one.  I have no doubt there are folks it will appeal to, and I'd recommend it without hesitation to those who are looking for an old-school feel in a rules-light format.  It's just not compelling to me - I have little desire to sit down with a group and run/play it.  And yes, I do find that surprising.  I thought I'd be a good target for it, and that it would ring a chord.  I'm surprised it didn't.

While the system is a lot cleaner than 1e/2e, and I respect the basic concepts of the SIEGE engine, it kept some features of 1e that I didn't like (infinite polearms, narrow classes, weird XP) while not natively supporting some features I thought important (multiclassing, class progressions kept interesting to upper levels) and changing some things I didn't much care for (the knight class, weird attack progression, monks w/ d12 hit dice, etc.)

I think it's just not my flavor of oldschool.

-O

i love it.  if i'm in the mood for generic fantasy, it's great. it's no me being 10 again and playing D&D for the first time, but it'll work in a pinch.

Quote from: jdrakehI guess that I've been spoiled by systems like D&D 3.5 and Rolemaster, where two characters of the same class and level can be as mechanically different as night and day.

Maybe I'm blind, but character's in D&D 3.X don't seem all that mechanically different to me.  Sure, they have one or two different feats and a few different points in skills.

But I don't really see that being all that mechanically different.  And in the end, people always gravitate towards the "optimum build" strategy so they end up more or less the same, anyways (the same, I find, is true of point-based char gen games like GURPS or Hero - hundreds of options, but most PCs end up alike anyways).

Quote from: jgantsMaybe I'm blind, but character's in D&D 3.X don't seem all that mechanically different to me.  Sure, they have one or two different feats and a few different points in skills.

But I don't really see that being all that mechanically different.  And in the end, people always gravitate towards the "optimum build" strategy so they end up more or less the same, anyways (the same, I find, is true of point-based char gen games like GURPS or Hero - hundreds of options, but most PCs end up alike anyways).

exactly my thoughts. The thing is that in 3.5 if you want to build a character of particular class, there is a certain feat/skill path you need to follow to make them the most effective. OTOH, C&C just lays it out for you. You can customize 3.5 characters a little more and choose what order some of abilities start working.

Quote from: jgantsMaybe I'm blind, but character's in D&D 3.X don't seem all that mechanically different to me.  Sure, they have one or two different feats and a few different points in skills.

But I don't really see that being all that mechanically different.  And in the end, people always gravitate towards the "optimum build" strategy so they end up more or less the same, anyways (the same, I find, is true of point-based char gen games like GURPS or Hero - hundreds of options, but most PCs end up alike anyways).

That's very different from my experiences.  In addition to the wide (some may say overwhelming) variety of base classes, 3e's multiclassing rules are extremely flexible.  I also find a wide variety in skills, weapon use, and feats.  I can't even comprehend an argument that there's as much mechanical variety in C&C.

-O

Quote from: jgantsMaybe I'm blind, but character's in D&D 3.X don't seem all that mechanically different to me.  Sure, they have one or two different feats and a few different points in skills.

You're minimizing, I think. The fact is, in D&D 3.5, you can choose to specialize in certain areas of skill and or ability, which can lead to very mechanically diverse characters.

For example, you can have a rogue like Vance's Cugel who is mechanically proficient in social parley and deceit, but rather unspectacular with a sword or you can have a rogue who is a mechanical wonder with a blade, but who lacks all social grace (like Gord).

That's not even an option in C&C, mechanically speaking.

QuoteAnd in the end, people always gravitate towards the "optimum build" strategy

While this can be true, it isn't always. That's a bit of hyperbole. The people I usually play with, for example, typically consider character concept first and mechanical efficiency second (if at all).

Mcrow, jgants, how much D&D have you played and using how many supplements?  Maybe my experience is atypical, but I have not seen a lot of cookie cutter characters.  Cohorts tend to be a bit stereotyped, but the PCs I've seen over the years have all been precious little snowflakes of twinkery.