AA as the ruleset for fantasy INSTEAD of C&C?

[ahndrostalgan]

While I have not had yet an opportunity to play the AA rules, I am familiar with C&C and any number of other similar simulacrums and RPGs. To me, AA is a better, improved version of C&C that would be great run as a straight fantasy rpg. I love the way magic works, the various class abilities work great, and there are numerous other little things that I like. Has anyone given this thought?

I realize it would take some tweaking with the classes, etc., but you get the general gist.

[Arduin]

Has anyone given this thought?

While I like AA, it doesn't say "D&D" like the C&C rule set. So I would never consider it as a substitute for it.

[finarvyn]

I hadn't really thought about it, but I can see the merits of your question. I guess if one thinks about AA as being "C&C 2E" and that any rules updates could be back-ported into C&C then it might work.

I agree with Arduin that the C&C rules set has a certain "D&D feel" to it that is misplaced in AA, but that may be due to the changes in class names and the like instead of specific rules changes.

I'd be interested in seeing a full list of what rules you'd upgrade in your "C&C 2E".

[Piperdog]

When I look at tweaking C&C rules, I view AA like an extension of the CKG. The CKG offers a lot of ways to tinker under the hood and modify what you want. I look at AA that way for my C&C game. My buddy Jason put a lot of golden nuggets in AA that are fun ports over to my C&C game. It's Amazing (pun intended) to see how a few new tweaks can totally alter the feel of a campaign. For instance, adding insanity to a C&C game will bring out the Warhammer, fantasy horror feel if that is the direction you want to go. C&C was always meant to become the game you want it to be at your table, and TLG has been consistent with that philosophy.

[Jason Vey]

When I look at tweaking C&C rules, I view AA like an extension of the CKG. The CKG offers a lot of ways to tinker under the hood and modify what you want. I look at AA that way for my C&C game. My buddy Jason put a lot of golden nuggets in AA that are fun ports over to my C&C game. It's Amazing (pun intended) to see how a few new tweaks can totally alter the feel of a campaign. For instance, adding insanity to a C&C game will bring out the Warhammer, fantasy horror feel if that is the direction you want to go. C&C was always meant to become the game you want it to be at your table, and TLG has been consistent with that philosophy.

What Piper said. I'd never intend AA to replace C&C. It's meant to supplement and combine with C&C to vastly expand your options. If C&C is your D&D-style fantasy, AA can cover all of your Renaissance to modern needs. Want to play Solomon Kane, the 3 Musketeers or Pirates of the Carribbean? AA has you covered. Obviously, any modern gaming from the 1920s through 2015 is good to go. Sci-fi and space opera? Yup, it can handle that, too. Gothic horror? It's practically built for it.

The Companion actually has fairly detailed discussions of combining C&C with AA for your fantasy games, and how to use it for various sub-genres of pulp. The best way to combine the two, of course, is to use the AA magic system with insanity to mimic swords-and-sorcery in the style of Conan, Elric or Fahfrd and the Gray Mouser.

[lobocastle]

I have not considered AA as a total replacement of C&C, but I will draw heavily on both AA and Victorious to flesh out my fantasy game. I like the Gumshoe and Raider character classes. I also like the Mentalist class, which I am modifying into three versions based on each mental attribute, (Wisdom, Intellegence, Charisma). I am sure that I will also data mine ideas from Victorious to incorporate into my C&C campaign.

JLL

[finarvyn]

The Companion actually has fairly detailed discussions of combining C&C with AA for your fantasy games, and how to use it for various sub-genres of pulp.

I bought the companion but haven't had time to read it "for real" -- what I can say is that in just thumbing through the thing I agree that there are some pretty cool C&C-to-AA ideas therein.

The best way to combine the two, of course, is to use the AA magic system with insanity to mimic swords-and-sorcery in the style of Conan, Elric or Fahfrd and the Gray Mouser.

This is where I have been leaning, but it's nice to have you verify that it gives the feel I anticipated. I like the free-form feel of AA magic a lot and haven't had a chance to try out the insanity rules, but insanity would a big key for a REH-based horror-pulp campaign.

[Jason Vey]

I have not considered AA as a total replacement of C&C, but I will draw heavily on both AA and Victorious to flesh out my fantasy game. I like the Gumshoe and Raider character classes. I also like the Mentalist class, which I am modifying into three versions based on each mental attribute, (Wisdom, Intellegence, Charisma). I am sure that I will also data mine ideas from Victorious to incorporate into my C&C campaign.

JLL

That shouldn't be too hard to do since each power has an associated ability check anyway. Intriguing idea that kind of nicely mirrors the way arcane magic works in AA.

[ahndrostalgan]

What I meant in the OP was that AA very much seems a C&C second edition, more fleshed out and more complicated but still very true to its roots as an OSR/modern-lite hybrid. Of course, AA is a "pulp" not "fantasy" rpg, but one IMHO could port over many features and tweaks of AA to a C&C game in the same way one could options from CKG.

But when I started thinking about it, rather than porting over pieces from AA to C&C to create a C&C 2E, I almost prefer the idea of house-ruling or modifying AA to play a fantasy C&C game, treating AA as a "universal" system in a sense. The big modification off the top would be to rewrite the core character classes, using the C&C PHB, the CKG, and the class abilities from AA. I particularly prefer the magic system of AA over the base system of the C&C PHB, and the class abilities in AA sort of straddle the divide between the simple C&C PHB and D&D 5th edition (with its class abilities plus limited feats, etc.).

At the end of the day, to compete with D&D 5th edition, I think C&C needs a second edition, and AA IMHO is the perfect draft to start with. It is hands down the best "pulp" game I have seen (and I own almost all of them), and its incremental improvements over the base C&C engine would work very well.

[Jason Vey]

That's a really nice compliment, but I'd never suggest that C&C be overhauled to incorporate AA. Rather, I like to think that people who own both can easily adopt whatever they like from AA and dump it right into their C&C games with little to no adaptation necessary. What adjustments do need to be made are covered in the Companion. Heck, a lot of it is in the CKG already, albeit in more raw form.

I'm not trying to brush you off--hope it's not coming off that way. Like I said, that's a really nice compliment and I'm flattered and honored. I just think C&C has its own thing and the Trolls really don't "do" Editions.

[finarvyn]

I suppose the idea is really that C&C and AA complement each other and that a crafty GM can take parts from each rules system to cobble together things to run the way they like them. Not that one has to actually "redo C&C" but that one can borrow from AA as needed to get the right effect.

I know that I borrow ideas from OD&D and 5E for my C&C games. Pretty much the same thing.