4E or C&C?

[apocryphean]

First things first, I should get out of the way that I am currently playing 4e. That said, here's the issues I have.

4e is an alright system (albeit tough to get used to for an old stalwart used to how things used to be), which is to say it plays out fairly well, and while my players are just totally and completely in love with it, I find it... well, uninspiring. I just don't have the same feeling coming up with stuff for 4e as I did for any previous edition. It all feels so cold and clinical... there seems to be rigid formulae for everything, including all the mechanics of a monster. I'm also disheartened that unlike previous editions, it's not all that easy to make a monster with class levels. I guess I just overall am too used to previous editions to really enjoy myself. I first started playing CnC shortly after it first came out, and during the interim between the tail end of 3e and the release of 4e. Overall, as you might guess given that I'm posting on these boards, I just find CnC more to my liking.

I'm thinking of keeping on with 4e with my group, and maybe doing a C&C mini-game with the wife, who's not 100% sold on it, either. That said, using Omote's Advanced C&C stuff with its more-or-less feat system, I think I could sway my players over. Plus, any CnC I do is likely going to steal a few 4e-isms (notably a few races).

So my problem is this.

Most everyone *except* me is enjoying 4e. So do I just forge ahead, being the good guy? Or do I say "screw everyone, I'm most important" and dive-bomb 4e in favor of CnC? I talked a bit to my players about this, I believe at least the bard's player is on board with possibly playing another system. The other two players, not so much. All else fails, I guess I could more or less dissolve the group, and reform it with just me, the wife and the bard's player, but obviously I don't particularly like that option.

Obviously, there's going to be some, well, a good bit of, leanings toward the CnC end of the titular question, but it's really more of a what would you do question than a question of system mechanics.

So, mods, while it may sound like one of the dreaded system war threads it's not how I'm approaching it. It's a simple question to DMs, not as much anything else.

[Treebore]

I would play an RPG I do not like, but I would never, ever run one. Especially for what sounds like a long, long time. I could handle doing it for a couple of months, but longer than that? No way!

So I would tell them that you will wrap things up, but after that, someone else needs to step up and DM. If they want you to DM they are going to have to be willing to play a system your willing to run. See what happens.
_________________
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

[Rigon]

I agree with Tree. I would never run a system that I didn't like. If someone else was willing to put in the time and effort to run the system, then I'd be willing to play, but if they wanted me to run the game, I get to pick the system.

R-
_________________
Rigon o' the Lakelands, Baron of The Castles & Crusades Society
The Book of the Mind

[Relaxo]

It's admirable you wan to "take one for the team" but this is supposed to be FUN.

it's a GAME.

If you're not having fun, it's WORK.

Just be honest, your friends should understand.

[GameOgre]

Really how bad is it? If running your 4E game was not fun then I would agree and change or take a back seat to another DM and play it.

If it stillis fun and you stil have a good time but its a question of your not really that found of 4E then I would play out what I had already commited to then decide once I had finished.

I don't agree to run a long term game lightly. So when I do people can count on my to finish what I start and make long term plans around that. Playing a rpg game takes a lot of commitment from everyone. I expect my players to honor our agreement and show up regardless of lifes toils"within reason" and I am expected to do the same.

How long is your agreement with them to run a game? What other game might you all want to play? I would try to reach a agreement with them and make this a positive issue instead of a negative one. Maybe everyone has been itching to play a new rpg game? Maybe everyone would love to play one of the old ones that they did not get a chance to play?

Often a change in the type of game works best....something Sci-fi or horror maybe?

Anyway...hope everything works out for you.
_________________
Baron Golden, Knights of the Tin Palace (GameOgre)

Subscriber to Crusader Magazine!
http://www.cncsociety.org

[serleran]

Kill them and take their stuff.
_________________
If it matters, leave a message at the beep.
Serl's Corner

[concobar]

Play both.

As an aside no rule in 4E is set in stone and as the DM one should feel free to modify or out right break any rule that interferes with telling a good story.
_________________

[serleran]

concobar wrote:
Play both.

As an aside no rule in 4E is set in stone and as the DM one should feel free to modify or out right break any rule that interferes with telling a good story.

Or running a better (for you and your players) game. Story is not all important. Fun is.
_________________
If it matters, leave a message at the beep.
Serl's Corner

[concobar]

The players love 4E. The DM doesn't. Maybe the DM should play and let one of the other guys DM?

Sounds like he is already running the best game for the group Serl.

If you go Sci Fi Mongoose traveller is the way to go no doubt.
_________________

[concobar]

I would like to break this down in the interest of helping resolve this situation. Keep in mind i have just got home this morning from one hell of a 24hr shift at the station and have yet to get some sleep. I may ramble.

apocryphean wrote:
First things first, I should get out of the way that I am currently playing 4e. That said, here's the issues I have.

You are in good company here. Many of the more prodigious posters here play 4E, some more occasionally than others.

apocryphean wrote:
4e is an alright system (albeit tough to get used to for an old stalwart used to how things used to be), which is to say it plays out fairly well, and while my players are just totally and completely in love with it, I find it... well, uninspiring.

In what way exactly? I run a 4E Greyhawk campaign using the original GH folio and box set for setting. When writing an adventure rules are always the last thing I worry with.

I tend to write out the story and situations first.

ex. I determine that there is an abandoned warehouse in the riverside district of Critwall in the shield lands that is being used as a base of operations for a vicious murderous gang of bandits who are adherents of Erythnul, Further I have determined that a few members of this bandit gang are wererats (I know, real imaginative right?) who have a series of warrens under the city with numerous exits one of which is in the warehouse. This is how the bandits move in and out of the city undetected.

At this point I would set down, break out my trusty quad rule graphing paper and a .005 mechanical pencil and draw up a warehouse and a set of sewer/warrens. I tend to rethink things a few times so using a pencil is a must for me. While drawing up the maps I will be looking to add a few interesting features and or traps. When I am happy with the results I ink the map with my beloved sharpie pen.

Having some of the story elements and a couple of maps finished it is time to hash out the math. I know what my groups make up is and their abilities so I will go through my MMs and pick out the monsters that I feel will give a fun and challenging result remembering to vary the strength of different encounter groups to keep things interesting. At this point I decided the leader of the bandits would be a evil paladin devotee of Erythnul so I whipped up a paladin on the 4E character builder that was a few levels higher than the group average. I decided that this evil bastards right hand man would be a evil druid also devoted to Erythnul and whipped that up as well.

The warehouse basically consists of four encounters starting with a few guards at the door if the players go the route and a few more bandits scattered about the interior of the place. I had decided to add the druid into one of the encounters to make things a bit more challenging. The paladin will be encountered in his inner sanctum, a converted office upstairs from the warehouse floor and is accompanied by six crazed bandits (minions)

I could go on and on. Nothing i have written is rules dependent really. I could be describing a C&C GH adventure or any version of D&D adventure. This one just happened to be a 4E adventure.

apocryphean wrote:
I just don't have the same feeling coming up with stuff for 4e as I did for any previous edition. It all feels so cold and clinical... there seems to be rigid formulae for everything, including all the mechanics of a monster.

Every version of D&D has mechanics for monsters. While I can not help you with your feelings I can give you some advise from someone who has ran 4E for quite a while now. If the monster you want is not in a book use the monster builder from the WotC page. If you are still unsatisfied just make it up. The D&D 4E rules belong to you and you can and should adjust and make up monsters and monster powers as you see fit. I have yet to find the ruling in any of my 4E books that states otherwise.

apocryphean wrote:
I'm also disheartened that unlike previous editions, it's not all that easy to make a monster with class levels.

The character builder allows for classes to be made for pretty much every humanoid race in the D&D game. Unless you are looking to make a Bullette with fighter class levels, and why would you, that should be all you need. Further what is preventing you from making a fighter of what ever level you want and added the orc racial abilities and powers to it as an example? If anything it is easier to make monsters with class levels than in other editions.

apocryphean wrote:
I guess I just overall am too used to previous editions to really enjoy myself. I first started playing CnC shortly after it first came out, and during the interim between the tail end of 3e and the release of 4e. Overall, as you might guess given that I'm posting on these boards, I just find CnC more to my liking.

Nothing wrong with that. some people do.

apocryphean wrote:
I'm thinking of keeping on with 4e with my group, and maybe doing a C&C mini-game with the wife, who's not 100% sold on it, either. That said, using Omote's Advanced C&C stuff with its more-or-less feat system, I think I could sway my players over. Plus, any CnC I do is likely going to steal a few 4e-isms (notably a few races).

Same thing i do when i run C&C. Actually I dropped the siege system and imported so much from 1st ed AD&D and 4E that i realize now that i am not even playing C&C.

apocryphean wrote:
So my problem is this.

Most everyone *except* me is enjoying 4e. So do I just forge ahead, being the good guy? Or do I say "screw everyone, I'm most important" and dive-bomb 4e in favor of CnC? I talked a bit to my players about this, I believe at least the bard's player is on board with possibly playing another system. The other two players, not so much. All else fails, I guess I could more or less dissolve the group, and reform it with just me, the wife and the bard's player, but obviously I don't particularly like that option.

Do what makes you happy. Maybe the guys that do like 4E will find a group that shares their interests and be happy with that and you, your wife, and the bard player can enjoy whatever it is you end up playing.

apocryphean wrote:
Obviously, there's going to be some, well, a good bit of, leanings toward the CnC end of the titular question, but it's really more of a what would you do question than a question of system mechanics.

I would, if i were you, realize that most of the complaints I made in this thread are minor and based on prejudices arising from a remembrance of the good ol days of D&D. The good ol days were not that good. The older systems were ridden with issues and over complicated rules that made no sense at all. I would not let nostalgia destroy my game group. I would realize that game mechanics do not interact with story and adventure creation and I would feel free to alter any thing i felt needed to be altered.

apocryphean wrote:
So, mods, while it may sound like one of the dreaded system war threads it's not how I'm approaching it. It's a simple question to DMs, not as much anything else.

I also do not think you are trying to start a edition war thread. looks more like you are a novice DM seeking advice to me. I hope I have helped you in some way. It is what I do.
_________________

[serleran]

concobar wrote:
The players love 4E. The DM doesn't. Maybe the DM should play and let one of the other guys DM?

Sounds like he is already running the best game for the group Serl.

If you go Sci Fi Mongoose traveller is the way to go no doubt.

Ah, well, if they're having a good time, the specifics of how is rather irrelevant... until the authorities get involved, I imagine. Or morality. Or whatever.

I do agree that the best DMs are those who pine to be a player... Or, at least have known what it is like to be on the "other side."
_________________
If it matters, leave a message at the beep.
Serl's Corner

[Omote]

It's a tough call. I've been there with ya brother. The best suggestion is to do both if possible. Possibly tell the group that you are willing to play a C&C game on another night, and let one of the other 4E players take over. They are playing with you as GM, so you must be pretty good at your job. If you decide to run some C&C, perhaps some of them will play based on the experience of your 4E game.

All the best.

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

[alcyone]

I was in a similar situation recently, and it was a difficult decision to ditch the system that everyone mostly thought was fine, but I think things are better for it. There was some risk of losing people, but I wasn't interested in embracing the system, keeping current on books and subscriptions, or basically playing the game the way the players wanted anyway, so who wins if I stay with it?

I didn't make any attempt to accommodate the 4e style characters moving to C&C; I thought I'd fare better letting it play to its strengths. The last session I ran went really well, and had a feeling totally unlike the 4e game, loose, lots of judgement calls instead of rule lookups, and lots of freeform fun. I think if you try to ween them slowly from 4e by mirroring it in C&C it will come up short. Every group is different, but I think it's a less distracting showcase of the rules to start off BtB with the archetypes.

I've also integrated some solo quests into the regular campaign and I think that's an excellent way to get everyone onboard. You can cater directly to their background and also present your campaign through multiple perspectives; then when you get the group together you scarcely need a hook; they'll explain the going ons to one another through these solo experiences.
_________________
Sir Aergraith Aethelmar of Cyrswud, CaCS,OotF

[Joe]

I avoided the dilemna by not buying one 4e book.

The game is the GM's. Whenever i think of past games i first identify them first with the particular GM, THEN the system comes second.

Thus I refer to them as Ron's Conan game, Joes C&C game, etc. I have one GM that has ran so many other systems in the past that it's hard to remember which was which. I call them all his game by his name, never by the system.

If you are the GM I suspect you are, it is YOUR game apocryphean.

That being said, I suggest you run the game YOU are most excited about.

Don't pretend to make it a democracy either. State the game outright which you would prefer to run. Ask the players if they are willing to play in said game.

Edit: I would also suggest you start a new campaign rather than try to transfer the current campaign.

Rangers will benefit while other classes not so much, as an example.

i tried a transfer from 3.x to C&C. For various reasons the results were horrible, but thats another story.

All things aside, though I could make it work, everyone was constantly comparing one to the other rather than just playing the game on hand.

I suspect you wish to run a campaign on it's own merits. if you modify from one system to another it will just be an experiment with comparisons.

Trust me on this. I have been playtesting an new game at home. We did not have all the spells figured out ahead of time and figured just use SRD spells for the time being.

Long story short...2 years of "Playtesting" wasted. 2 years of players bringing books from other systems and comparing old systems to the new. 2 years of comments about how x system used to do such and such rather than a focus on playtesting the new game for what it is. Now that the magic system is almost done, I will take great pleasure in telling folks to leave their other books at home. But I guarnatee you those players playing SRD spells instead of the original spell lists will be humming and hawing about what they used to be able to do rather than embracing and exploring what they NOW can do with the current stuff. Yet not one person has bothered to create their own spells no matter how often I encouraged it. (side note)

When you do finally switch to C&C you will want a fresh start...not an excuse for everyone to compare the new to the old.
_________________
'Nosce te Ipsum' -Delphic Maxim

'Follow your bliss.' -Joseph Campbell

[concobar]

Joe wrote:
Edit: I would also suggest you start a new campaign rather than try to transfer the current campaign.

Rangers will benefit while other classes not so much, as an example.

i tried a transfer from 3.x to C&C. For various reasons the results were horrible, but thats another story.

All things aside, though I could make it work, everyone was constantly comparing one to the other rather than just playing the game on hand.

this is great advise.
_________________

[Sir Ironside]

I find it easier to switch genre's rather than change rules sets.

In this case (If you wish to handle the little extra work) suggest a sci-fi game and play Starseige. It has the Seige rules and if they like that game/system then suggest them trying out C&C.
_________________
That is SIR! to you!

[dunbruha]

I would suggest that you give your players some advance notice before you do anything. Tell them that you will continue running the current game for x sessions (or until some natural break in the story occurs), but then you want to try a new system. If they don't want to try a new system, then suggest that another player take over behind the screen after you wrap things up. If no one else wants to GM, and no one wants to play a game you like, then find a new group...

[Relaxo]

If you wanna try Sci Fi I can't reccommend X-Plorers highly enough.

Like C&C it's rules light and quick to play.

The "do both" option seems workable, play 4e and C&C.

Leveling (up) with everyone still makes sense to me, "Look, I'm just not having fun with blah blah blah, ... do you wanna try... yadda yadda"

I hope this helps.

[GreyLord]

You CAN combine C&C with 4e, believe it or not. Everything that you deal with 4e will need a HP kicker if it's from the C&C rulebook (HP kicker of about 20 HP), but designing monsters with class levels is quite easy in 4e, or at least as easy as 3e if they are humanoid. Just go to the back of the MM, use a standard array, and add the monster stats utilized at the back of the MM or MM2, and add class levels on with their powers. That's it, you're done. No Effective levels, no adjustments, just monsters with classes. You want an Orc Fighter...simply make one.

However, 4e, due to how skills work, is extremely easy to meld the skill system with C&C. Instead of a +5 on their skills, just grant them a +6, and account for skills with their primary stat as well.

Powers are a little more difficult, but at least on the New DMG screen they have approximate damage each creature does at each level. Just assign that to the creature that you want with the HP kicker from the M&T from C&C (if you don't feel the creature does enough damage already) and you're done.

I find that you can actually run both at the same time if you want to.

[papercut]

Interesting method Grey,

One thing I messed around with when 4e came out was use the MM1 with C&C. Things worked out pretty well. Basically I used the monster's level as HD (you could use standard d8 or make it variable), for their attacks I would use the dice listed but ignore the + damage. For saves I would use the standard C&C way by simply determining if they were a P or M monster. Ongoing effects could be resolved the 4e way or w/e way you like.

AC was the hardest thing to grok, but I figured it out. 4e generally has AC start at 14 then go up 1 per level of the monster (base 12 for brutes, 16 for soldiers). C&C has AC starting at base 10, then adding various modifiers. Thus one could just -4 from ACs (-2 for brutes, and -6 for soldiers if you want to be more granular) to make things more inline with C&C. C&C has a level range of 12 or so, so the highest monster AC would be around 28 (soldier 16 +12) and this could be adjusted to 22 or 24, numbers reasonable for C&C. If AC was 47 or so, then it would be different.

This works with MM1 and probably MM2, I think the monsters from MM3 and onward may be too powerful for the C&C heroes :p
_________________
Someone send me some dice!

[Benoist]

Most everyone *except* me is enjoying 4e. So do I just forge ahead, being the good guy? Or do I say "screw everyone, I'm most important" and dive-bomb 4e in favor of CnC?

Middle-ground: "I get you guys like 4e, but the game really isn't for me. So I would like to run something else, and someone else could take over the GMing of 4e. I'll play, but not run it anymore. It's just cold and well, uninspiring, to me."

Then see what happens.

[anglefish]

Maybe I'm lucky, but most of the times my players are more interested in ME running a game and the stories we get to tell and share than what system I used.

Do I hear them bellyaching about how X system does something else "better?" All the time. Sometimes it's good ribbing on the player's part, other times it's self-centered wishes on their part. Sometimes I discovered that giving into those requests only invited more demands from the same people who were never happy unless the game centered solely on them.

I suggest that you start a new campaign to give yourself a clean break when you start up the CnC rules. Begin the game at 3rd level to soften the blow that they've gone from higher level characters in the old game to this one (and to show off what level bonuses can do).