Troll Lord Games

What is it about gamers that makes them so opinionated and judgemental about some rule systems, players, play styles, character classes etc?

I have a group of friends that fit this description well.

We started with 2 people really excited about C&C. The 3rd player was not sold on the packaging and the simp-listic look to the game.

Then when the 3rd got excited, one player was already boo hoo about the game.

When asked, they describe how the characters lack individuality. You know...the old old subject of they have no feats and skills that make them unique. When I reminded it was the roleplaying that made them unique all I heard was hmph.

Then it was a complaint about consistency. "Well there is no chart for how difficult doors are to open."

Well there you go...if no rules tell you how hard a door is to open the game must be junk.

Meanwhile the 3rd player is loving the game and jonesing to play because he realizes the spirit of the game is reminiscient of the original phenomena. (I've yet to find "Spirit of the Game" in any rules)

When I enter the debate about the rules that make up C&C I find myself immersed in back and forth debate about trivial rules or perceived flaws in matrix tables.

Meanwhile while all this is going on WOTC is doing what they can to drive the final nail into my favorite past time.

The only ones enjoying C&C in all it's beauty and simplicity is my fiance, my daughter and her sisters that have no preconceived notions or reference to past systems.

All they know is IT IS EASIER TO PLAY and less confusing than, "that other game".

Something tells me the children may have hit the target when I and other adults keep hitting trees.

Join the crusade...give it time...and open thine own freaking mind for Petes sake!

C&C rocks!

Some people need the codification of a systemic engine to guide their creativity -- my fiance is like that. She likes to look at a list and see what is permissible, and what is not, rather than feeling the overwhelming "do anything" that I do when we play. It has caused friction before, where she says "but you've got all this experience with other games, so you know how to do this, and that" and my response is always "and so do you -- you simply say 'I want to try' and then do it." It is nothing against her, or the rules -- its just a mindset where some feel more comfortable knowing the expectations. I think part of that is also her occupation where everything is an ingredient -- a list of ordered instructions where deviation from the list causes serious issues, so she is used to thinking in rigid patterns.

So, don't fault someone for perceiving a different way. The key is to try and get them to allow themselves to look at it differently... a thing not easily done, I must say.

Joe wrote:
The only ones enjoying C&C in all it's beauty and simplicity is my fiance, my daughter and her sisters that have no preconceived notions or reference to past systems.

There's your solution squire. Find new players, preferably young players, who've not had experience with the rpg type of system. Especially if you have a daughter who has friends she can bring over.

I see a lot of folks wanting to 'recapture their youth'. Simplest way. Find youth to recapture it with. No fuss over rules, no worrying over 'asking someone how to do this', just fun.
_________________
"We'll go out through the kitchen!" Tanis Half-Elven

Peter Bradley

In my group the only player who really gets C&C is one who just joined with no previous experience with RPGs. Everyone else in the group played 3E and are used to having a rigidly defined set of things they are allowed to do. Since the C&C rules don't specifically tell them what they can do, they figure they can't do anything.

The new guy is going nuts researching new spells and really trying to think like his character would, and he emails me nearly every day with a new idea he want to run past me before giving it a try. Hopefully with him as a role model, the experienced players will get into the swing of things too.

Too true. I was one of those people, that saw 3E in all its "terrible majesty." A rule for everything. It sure beat 1e and 2e, where you had to guess at so much stuff. I played those earlier editions, and they were fun, but now I everything I ever want to possibly do with a character codified, explained, spelled out....ugh...

I ashamed to admit, but I got lost in the wonder that was 3e. I thought that having a rule for everything was great. With all the rules, the players could really get down to roleplaying.

I was wrong. What it got down to was losing the magic of roleplaying in a never-ending attempt to find the correct rule, the most exploitable rule, the least exploitable rule, the correct set of conditions for the rule, etc., etc. Roleplaying got lost in the mire of rules. 4e actually saved me. It got me to open my eyes and not only turn away from it, but question my 3e faith as well.

So now, I'm with C&C. A homecoming of sorts. I think you made a lot of sense, Joe. Not only with some of the problems plaguing transplanted 3.x players (I'm having that problem, too) but also the solution to finding pure roleplaying joy and wonder.

Before C&C came along I was lost for a FRPG.

I hated, and I mean hated, 3/3.5 and 4E wasn't looking any better to me.

I mean what happened to "May a Dex save" or "Hmmm... roll under your STR". Suddenly everything had a rule and everythign was balanced off of everything else (except when it wasn't) and all could be achieved with one little d20.

The magic was gone, it made no sense. As as an GM it took forever jsut to populate an adventure with adversaries and those bloody stat blocks took forever to read... and don't even get me started about character creation.

I gave up. I moved on. I started playing Classic Marvel Superheroes again, cause it was simple and easy and I could teach anyone how to play in under 10 minutes.

Then C&C came along and I saw the forest AND the trees!

My love of fantasy has been rekindled. My desire to run an epic campaign reborn!

So please, let me say this. Young or old isn't the point, jaded is. Young people tend to be less jaded, it's true, but some of us old farts are completly jaded yet.

So thank you Trolls! Thank you for making me WANT to run a fantasy campagin again and not have to comprimise to a system I don't like but it's all that is there.
_________________
=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Earth Alpha: Yet another RPG blog!

=-=-=-=-=-=-=

Visit the new BASH Forums!

=-=-=-=-=-=-=

I was at work yesterday, and encountered one guy who loved dragons (his words). So I asked him what edition of D&D he played (d20 of course). My knee jerk response was "stupid choice" and tried to explain to him that he should look to Castles & Crusades for his gaming, simply because with it you don't need a rule to go to the bathroom. Whether I got through to him or not I'll never know, but I can hope that he'll find the magic that d20 sucked from role playing.
_________________
NOTE TO ALL: If you don't like something I've said, PM me and tell me to my face, then give me a chance to set things right before you call a moderator.
My small homage to E.G.G.

Alas, I find that I am not alone.

Please keep up these sort of posts...or express another perspective.

It really makes me reflect on role playing in general.

I have much the same story as those who have already replied. I never played 1e (I started with the red box and 2e) so when I found C&C (after having sold all my 2e material to jump on the 3e bandwagon like an idiot) I was very much looking for something to recapture my experiences with 2e.

What I found was actually something more and it took me some time to get used to it. While I was never fixated on charts and tables I was fixated on rules giving you a fully constructed house when it came to telling you what can and can't be done (not to be confused with the fully constructed city that 3e used to tell you EVERYTHING that can and can't be done).

But C&C went one step further (from my point of view at least) and gave me a great foundation that allowed me to fill in all the gaps I wanted. It manged this and still had time to incorporate the good bits of d20 AND come up with a game mechanic that is simply brilliant.

So give your players some time and compromise with them. Play a session or two of the game they enjoy and run a session or two of C&C. If you really want to show them C&C in all its glory, start with a 3e game, convert the characters to C&C and switch back and forth. With a little imagination I think your players will find the C&C characters allow for much more freedom in terms of what they can and can't do (so you don't have to rely on the "how you play them makes them unique" answer). I never liked that answer myself...but I do like not having to take "quick draw" to draw my weapon and attack in the same round or simply having to make an intelligence check to "maximize" a spell, etc.

Hey, I know how you feel. When I made the move to C&C I lost two players who absolutely refused to try anything but the 3.5e game we had been playing for a couple of years. The rest of my group was more open to it and we had a rocky start with C&C since I didnt quite "get it" yet as a CK. However, within 3 sessions things ramped up nicely and I started figuring out the flexibility of the system. I gained some really good players (most of the Troll Lord crew!) and a wonderful new game that doesn't require hours and hours of my time just preparing stat blocks, so I feel completely relieved that I found Castles & Crusades!

I really have enjoyed getting back to a simple RPGing experience with C&C. My players found D&D 3.5 too rules confining, but C&C has been a perfect fit and harkens back to our old 1st ed. AD&D days. Plus, my kids can play C&C, D&D 3.5 was just too much for them.

One of the most positive things about C&C is the ease of prep time to make and populate dungeons, or making encounters on the fly.
_________________
Lord Aladar

Warden of the Welk Wood

Baron of the Castles & Crusades Society

The Poster formerly known as Alwyn

Senior Gamer - Member of the Senior RPG Tour

"NEMO ME IMPUNE LACESSIT - At least not in Yu Gi Oh"
http://www.cncsociety.org/

Joe wrote:
Alas, I find that I am not alone.

Please keep up these sort of posts...or express another perspective.

It really makes me reflect on role playing in general.

As a former 3e gamer, I have found that I must unlearn what I had unlearned. Yoda taught me that...

_________________
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

Breakdaddy wrote:
I gained some really good players (most of the Troll Lord crew!) and a wonderful new game that doesn't require hours and hours of my time just preparing stat blocks

Amen to that, brother. I once spent an entire Saturday afternoon preparing a stat-block for one NPC, whom the PC's killed in one round of combat. It shouldn't take longer to build an NPC than it does to kill him.

Running a campaign had become a tedious chore, and I started to resent the amount of time I had to commit to prepare for it. C&C made being a game master fun again.

I think the thing is this.

3/3.5 made being a player way more interactive and hands on. You built the character you really wanted and every level there were new and exciting things to add to your character.

But for the DM/Gm it was a slog through a mire of preparation that took insane amounts of time to populate and adventure, time that could have been spent making richer more textured settings was spent figuring out stat blocks and crs.

In the end, I can see why player's love 3/3.5 but I am a GM, in fact I refer to myself as a narrator (one of the few pretentsions from White Wolf rpgs I hold on to) and as such, it isn't about kill the monster, get the gold, find the treasure. It is about being heroes and major characters that affect the world I have created for them to play in.

So for now and until someone gets it better than they have, make mine C&C!
_________________
=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Earth Alpha: Yet another RPG blog!

=-=-=-=-=-=-=

Visit the new BASH Forums!

=-=-=-=-=-=-=

I played 3e until 3.5 and the splatbook tide made it unbearable. I thought 4e would be an improvement, but after looking at 'advanced' copies of the core books, I immediately asked myself, 'what was it that got me role-playing in the first place' because it sure as hell wasn't the encyclopedic rules manuals to constantly reference and a ton of fiddly bits of info to keep up with during play.

Of course, at that point a light went off in my head and I went running back to the beginning. I looked at Labyrinth Lord and other retro-type games and even considered going out and buying a used set of 1e core books, but the THAC0, Races Classes, negative ACs, Theiving tables, etc. all stopped me cold. That's when I found C&C and the perfect mix of OD&D playstyle (no more skill ranks or feats, the players have to think through an adventure, not roll their way through and the DM is the final power, not a rulebook. Yay!), with the 1e races and classes (no race classes. Yay!), and the unified system of 3e (no THAC0, negative ACs, Theiving Tables, etc. Yay!). And all it took to get going was two core books for $20 each and best of all, my mountain of old D&D material was still useful!

I have my high fantasy gaming system for the forseeable future and you can bet when I have kids and they're old enough, they'll find themselves at the Keep on the Borderlands, courtesy of C&C...

Luther... your avatar freaks me the F out. That is all.

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

Omote wrote:
Luther... you avatar freaks me the F out. That is all.

-O

Just be glad you haven't met a real life person that looks like that. In the Navy. On submarines. Fortunately, once you got past his looks, and his problems from abuse he had taken for years over his looks, he was a pretty nice guy.

As for the OP, that is why I wrote up my "Feat like Actions" rules. It isn't really anything new. IF you read the SIEGE rules these actions are already allowed by the SIEGE engine with the CK's agreement. I just found that by writing it up in 3E familiar terminology my players were able to "get it". Plus I happened upon a standard formula with which I could adjudicate them with.

IT still took some of my players some time, but they definitely "get" that when the chips are down, or they just feel like trying something cool, they can ask to make a SIEGE check to try and do it.

I also went through a 3E detox period. It took several months for me to quit thinking in terms of "rules for everything", and to relearn "just go with it".

I really want to kick myself, sometimes. For years people would ask me, "Why don't you play GURPS, Rolemaster, etc...?" My answer was, "Because D&D is simple and gets the job done."

Then 3E came along and I somehow got pulled onto the band wagon and stayed there for 5 years. Plus I had totally forgotten, "Its simple and gets the job done."

Then the crash and burn happened, and fortunately C&C was there. IT still took me some time, but I knew that C&C was my answer. IT reminded me "Simple and gets the job done." is where it is at for me. Plus it made all my OD&D, 1E, 2E, and 3E stuff either viable again, or still viable. So all those books I had been lugging around for about 2 decades were "front and center" viable again, and all those thousands of dollars I had spent on 3E would not become wasted.

Yes, I very much look at C&C as my "RPG Miracle Cure".
_________________
The Ruby Lord, Earl of the Society

Next Con I am attending: http://www.neoncon.com/

My House Rules: http://www.freeyabb.com/phpbb/viewtopic ... llordgames

I find the lack of a rule for everything expands my gaming options greatly. The fact that you can boil down almost any activity to a simple decision by the CK or a Attribute roll opens many doors. I got a hardcore 3.x player to really enjoy C&C with this simple argument:

The fact that there isn't a rule for everything simply means what you can do is limited by your imagination.

Here is an example of said player putting this "rule into use: The party was in a mine overrun with giant ants on a murderous streak, to get down to another level of the mine the party rode a couple of mine carts (i.e. Indy Jones) and smashed them into some ants. Much laughter and excitement was had at the table during this, the rule mechanic behind it:

A Dex check at a Difficulty of +2 for each party member to stay in the cart. Any party member failing the roll was thrown from the cart and stunned for a round anyone and took 1d4 damage (1st level adventure I would have scaled it up for a higher level party).

The ability to make seat-of-the-pants rules decisions like this is why I love running a C&C game. Imagination is the only limit.
_________________
CK the CK
"My goddess touched me at an early age."

-Grikis Valmorgen, Paladin

The beginnings of my homebrew campaign world and info for my play by chat game:
http://kbdekker.googlepages.com/home

You have two kinds of people/gamers, Mountain lions & Sheep. Sheep must be given orders and rules to feel secure. Lions are free roaming and independent. So us C&C players get lots O mutton for dinner. Gaming styles are different, I play C&C if I want classic LOTR/Gygax game play. If I want supers I play M&M( well.. steal rules from it for c&c mostly). Both are flexible systems that free the IMAGINATION, sumthing wiz$bro don't want, "players making stuff without us?" Mark my words we will get more "Lions in the roaps" before long.
_________________
Awww Craap.

Lord Dynel wrote:
Too true. I was one of those people, that saw 3E in all its "terrible majesty." A rule for everything. It sure beat 1e and 2e, where you had to guess at so much stuff. I played those earlier editions, and they were fun, but now I everything I ever want to possibly do with a character codified, explained, spelled out....ugh...

I ashamed to admit, but I got lost in the wonder that was 3e. I thought that having a rule for everything was great. With all the rules, the players could really get down to roleplaying.

I was wrong. What it got down to was losing the magic of roleplaying in a never-ending attempt to find the correct rule, the most exploitable rule, the least exploitable rule, the correct set of conditions for the rule, etc., etc. Roleplaying got lost in the mire of rules. 4e actually saved me. It got me to open my eyes and not only turn away from it, but question my 3e faith as well.

So now, I'm with C&C. A homecoming of sorts. I think you made a lot of sense, Joe. Not only with some of the problems plaguing transplanted 3.x players (I'm having that problem, too) but also the solution to finding pure roleplaying joy and wonder.

Welcome home!

Group Hug!

I have to sort of come in on this thread from something of a wierd angle - I am NOT a long time D&D fan (in fact I never actually owned the game) but came into gaming via the 'great enemy' of Runequest (back in the early 80's). I got C&C a bit back on a whim to try and run a 'D&D style' game, but never really got round to it.

Then I bought the recent revised and expanded Basic Role Playing (on which Runequest was based) and, even though it is clear, well written and rules consistent, made me feel a bit restricted with too many 'optional' rules to cover everything, and longing for something simpler (remembering the days of GMing 'on the fly' and making descisions that kept the game fun, rather than looking up the correct table or subsystem)......and a bizarre stroke of fate, clearing up my old games box I came across the 1st edition C&C and started reading it through again - and realised THIS is what I wanted (finally, after years of tweaking rules from a number of games and writing my own house-rule games, I finally found something that made me think of ADVENTURES not RULES!)

So just want to say that you don't have to be an Old Time D&D fan to fall in love with C&C
D.

I had the same problem when I tried MERP, ROLEMASTER. Its a little more complicated than D&D, but mostly for the GM. It does have detailed critical system. The players liked it when they did devastating strikes on their enemies....not so much when they were on the recieving end.....Some(alot) people ae against change & prefer to stay in their comfort zone.

Omote wrote:
Luther... you avatar freaks me the F out. That is all. -O

Mission accomplished, then. That is one of my favourite pictures from one of my favourite old school artists, from the best RPG campaign of all time: The Daemon Gideon in disguise as a pageboy, by Will Rees, from The Enemy Within for WFRP. I'm currently TEW running for a new generation of gamers who are fighting for their lives tonight in Etleka Hertzen's tower, but who remember that little bastard not just for all the trouble he caused them, but by how much he creeped them out.

Will Rees, John Blanche, Ian Miller, Adrian Smith... there were just so many great artists at GW. They, along with Erol Otus, John Howe, Frazetta, Achellios, Elmore and Vallego really defined fantasy art for me. In those days, every artist had such a unique signature style and they all captured the raw pulp essence of the subject material with such wonder. I find it an utter shame that almost all modern fantasy art is a mishmash dungeon punk anime theme and I pine mightily for the old days.

Peter Bradley is my modern fave, though, and I'm digging his retro-fantasy-realism style. I especially love the pencil work which flies in the face of the overdone commercial art/comic book approach a lot of games use (especially 4e, with it's stripper pose women and people contorted in the most retarded shapes to look more action hero-ish). It reminds of of my favourite art from WFRP v1. and other games from the eighties...

Luther wrote:
Peter Bradley is my modern fave, though, and I'm digging his retro-fantasy-realism style. I especially love the pencil work which flies in the face of the overdone commercial art/comic book approach a lot of games use (especially 4e, with it's stripper pose women and people contorted in the most retarded shapes to look more action hero-ish). It reminds of of my favourite art from WFRP v1. and other games from the eighties...

*chuckles* Elmore and dynamic comic action art from Marvel and their How to Draw book are two of my stronger influences.

I use models, but I don't stop with the model. Sometimes folk just cant hold the extreme pose, so take a photo and dynamic it up a bit.
_________________
"We'll go out through the kitchen!" Tanis Half-Elven

Peter Bradley

gideon_thorne wrote:
*chuckles* Elmore and dynamic comic action art from Marvel and their How to Draw book are two of my stronger influences.

I use models, but I don't stop with the model. Sometimes folk just cant hold the extreme pose, so take a photo and dynamic it up a bit.

But there's such a huge difference. Your characters seem to be in action, not posing for action. Take for instance your picture of a Barbarian fighting a Halfling Woman. A great action sequence and the poses those characters are in don;'t look like poses, they look like freeze frames of the action. Also, they are dressed in what seems to me normal attire for such a background. Simple clothing and boots.

Now look at the cover for the 4e PHB. Why is it that all of Wayne Reynolds women look like they're 'givin' up the booty' no matter what they do? Seriously, every action, from casting spells to walking down the street seems to give them a major 'O.' And then there's the armour and those weapons. Seriously, someone's been watching too much anime.

Another good example is the art of Tony Ackland in the WFRP v2 books. Everyone is screaming or pissed off, their tongues are fat and hang out of their mouths, their eyes bug out and all the action is an over the top, people flying everywhere, heavily inked comic book nightmare. Dude, your stuff is far more subtle and infinitely superior. Iconic, even...

Luther wrote:
But there's such a huge difference. Your characters seem to be in action, not posing for action. Take for instance your picture of a Barbarian fighting a Halfling Woman. A great action sequence and the poses those characters are in don;'t look like poses, they look like freeze frames of the action. Also, they are dressed in what seems to me normal attire for such a background. Simple clothing and boots.

Now look at the cover for the 4e PHB. Why is it that all of Wayne Reynolds women look like they're 'givin' up the booty' no matter what they do? Seriously, every action, from casting spells to walking down the street seems to give them a major 'O.' And then there's the armour and those weapons. Seriously, someone's been watching too much anime.

Another good example is the art of Tony Ackland in the WFRP v2 books. Everyone is screaming or pissed off, their tongues are fat and hang out of their mouths, their eyes bug out and all the action is an over the top, people flying everywhere, heavily inked comic book nightmare. Dude, your stuff is far more subtle and infinitely superior. Iconic, even...

Well said.
_________________
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

Luther wrote:
But there's such a huge difference. Your characters seem to be in action, not posing for action. Take for instance your picture of a Barbarian fighting a Halfling Woman. A great action sequence and the poses those characters are in don;'t look like poses, they look like freeze frames of the action. Also, they are dressed in what seems to me normal attire for such a background. Simple clothing and boots.

I have friends who do live stage combat at ren faires. Most helpful people. ^_^
_________________
"We'll go out through the kitchen!" Tanis Half-Elven

Peter Bradley

Joe wrote:
What is it about gamers that makes them so opinionated and judgemental about some rule systems, players, play styles, character classes etc?

I have a group of friends that fit this description well.

We started with 2 people really excited about C&C. The 3rd player was not sold on the packaging and the simp-listic look to the game.

Then when the 3rd got excited, one player was already boo hoo about the game.

When asked, they describe how the characters lack individuality. You know...the old old subject of they have no feats and skills that make them unique. When I reminded it was the roleplaying that made them unique all I heard was hmph.

Then it was a complaint about consistency. "Well there is no chart for how difficult doors are to open."

Well there you go...if no rules tell you how hard a door is to open the game must be junk.

Meanwhile the 3rd player is loving the game and jonesing to play because he realizes the spirit of the game is reminiscient of the original phenomena. (I've yet to find "Spirit of the Game" in any rules)

When I enter the debate about the rules that make up C&C I find myself immersed in back and forth debate about trivial rules or perceived flaws in matrix tables.

Meanwhile while all this is going on WOTC is doing what they can to drive the final nail into my favorite past time.

The only ones enjoying C&C in all it's beauty and simplicity is my fiance, my daughter and her sisters that have no preconceived notions or reference to past systems.

All they know is IT IS EASIER TO PLAY and less confusing than, "that other game".

Something tells me the children may have hit the target when I and other adults keep hitting trees.

Join the crusade...give it time...and open thine own freaking mind for Petes sake!

C&C rocks!

I am one of those players. Joe just run C&C for crying out loud and quit worrying about what everyone else thinks. I play in your 3.5 game and I can tell you despise the 3.5 rules but you refuse to transition over to C&C which i am more than willing to do.

I think your biggest challenge is getting on the same page as your players. Sometimes the problem with using your imagination is that your players have a different idea of what they are imagining. It takes a good GM to recognize this and overcome that challenge but once it happens its awsome. C&C is this type of game where you have a simple base rules set but you have to make quick judgements that everyone can get behind.

I have played in great games where the rules are very simple and much is left to the imagination, but the GM was good at being fair and descriptive with the rules. It came to the point where we trusted his rulings and decisions because they were consistent and fair for everyone.

I am a player in your game and i am more than willing to play C&C. Lets switch and stop moaning and groaning about no one wanting to play. There will always be rules debates. Join the crusade Joe! Start running C&C! I await your reply with eager anticipation.

I think I'm in the minority on these boards, but I actually really enjoy both 3.x AND C&C. As I've said elsewhere, I find 3.x wonderfully intricate and C&C wonderfully simple.

In general, 3.x is a "player's game." The classes have lots of options and it can be really fun to "get under the hood" and make your character work... adding features via feats, classes, etc. As a GM, it can be a bit rough because every monster is more or less the same as PC (and therefore as equally complicated). Still, it can be fun to get under the hood as a GM and add levels and classes or templates to monsters, etc. It just takes a lot of time.

I think what makes 3.x what it is are the AoO and the Feats. You strip those out and it's not the same game. They seem to be what really complicates things a lot. I know some folks play 3.x without the AoOs, but to me, I don't see the point. They are such a big part and a lot of skills and feats involve them, you might as well look for another system (like C&C ).

The other 3.x stuff, it's not that different to GM than C&C. Sure, the DMG/PH have all these set DCs for running, swimming, etc... but, hell, when I DM, I just think "hmmm this is hard jump, so the DC is this...." I don't consult the DMG or my screen all the time.

The problem there is though if you have the rules, it's easy to feel that you "need" to use them. If you bend the rules, the players are likely to know it. C&C relieves this burden from the GM (and the players too for that matter). As such, I see C&C as a GM's game. Why can a monster do this? Because he can, not because he has such and such ability. Why is the target number for that check what it is? Because the CK thought so. Again, that is really how 3.x works, but C&C institutionalizes it. I have only had a chance to CK C&C once so far, but it was great. No reaching for the book to see what this skill does or what bonus, etc. No more counting off spaces to see if your PC is walking through AoOs, etc. Player just picked up their minis and moved them.

That is what I really like about C&C... it speeds up play. 3.x can be a lot of fun, but combat can turn into medieval Battletech. The slow speed of play is my main concern with 3.x.

Here is a funny side note... the first time we played, one player asked me what being size "Small" meant. "Uhmm .. that you're small." Ha, he meant what bonuses/penalties did it incur. It shows you the mentality that 3.x brings about (and, conversely, the C&C way of looking at things).

3.x is fun to me because of its rules... C&C is fun to me because of its lack of rules... ha, does that make sense?

edited to expand a bit.
_________________
Lord Frost

Baron of the Pitt
Castles & Crusades Society
The Dungeoneering Dad

old school gamer wrote:
Welcome home!

Group Hug!

Thanks, man!

Combat_Kyle wrote:
I find the lack of a rule for everything expands my gaming options greatly. The fact that you can boil down almost any activity to a simple decision by the CK or a Attribute roll opens many doors. I got a hardcore 3.x player to really enjoy C&C with this simple argument:

The fact that there isn't a rule for everything simply means what you can do is limited by your imagination.

I find a lot of truth in this. This and what Frost said in the post above mine. I agree that, after being blinded for a long time, having a rule for everything is more of a hindrance than not. Not because it's comprehensive, but because I think there's a point in which rules go from being effective to being a hindrance. Are the rules for 3.5 "better" than those for C&C? I don't think so. More comprehensive, certainly - as in being able to let me know just how good I am at running a tavern compared to the player next to me. But why do I need a rule for that? If my character's parents were tavern keepers and I'm halfway intelligent, then I should be better than the PC nest to me. The latter reasoning is much more immersive yet still makes sense, as opposed to a set of numbers - mechanics - that dictates my skill in tavern keeping.

But I like 3.5. I think of it as a "realistic" version of D&D. I've played 3.x for its entire run, and there are some merits to the system. I just think, for me, it was time to make a change. I'll probably play more 3.x in the future but for now I'm enjoying C&C and what it offers - a simple, yet comprehensive, roleplaying game that is thoroughly enjoyable.

I think somewhere along the way, WotC thought that we, as D&D players, needed everything spelled out for us. We didn't. But once WotC did it, we (some of us) embraced it.