Castles and Crusades Rules are Incomplete

[Omote]

Here's another thing to think about. The current C&C PHB is 142 pages. If the Trolls added a little bit of information to the game to clarify, the page count would increase. However, nobody wants to see the level of detail that is within 3E. That means, that perhaps a few more pages would be added to the PHB or the M&T. The fact of the matter is, shops that produce books do not often books at odd number pages. They also make books with X amount of pages, sometimes in 12-page lots. If TLG were to add a few pages of material, it is possible they would have to actually add 8-12 pages of content just to keep the book at a respectable price. Years ago, TLG actually struggled with raising the price point of the PHB above the $20 mark. TLG Steve deliberated for months to take the PHB from $19.95, to $24.95. That additional price was counter-intuitive to the Trolls. With the release of the color PHB for the 5th printing, they raised the price again. Now, to keep the cost of the new book to $29.95 to $34.95, the Trolls will have to include 8-12 pages of content. Perhaps there isn't enough to add to justify such a move. Perhaps making the PHB $160 pages (or whatever) is not something the Trolls want to do. Think about if the Trolls did this to multiple books. Now the price-point to get into the game is $10 or more higher then the previous printing. Perhaps finding another 8-12 pages is more than just book cost? Maybe TLG has to hire another writer, editor, artwork, layout, etc. That could cost TLG thousands of dollars, and may not be worth it in the end. Maybe adding another 8-12 pages sells only 200 PHBs. Maybe it sells less.

The point is, there is much more to think about then simply adding a few more pages to the books based on what only a few people claim to want on these MBs.

~O

If that was all that big of an issue they wouldn't have added all those Illusionist spells or the appendix.

Which was about 8 pages of material. See mmbutter's comment about signatures below.

~O

[Treebore]

Here's another thing to think about. The current C&C PHB is 142 pages. If the Trolls added a little bit of information to the game to clarify, the page count would increase. However, nobody wants to see the level of detail that is within 3E. That means, that perhaps a few more pages would be added to the PHB or the M&T. The fact of the matter is, shops that produce books do not often books at odd number pages. They also make books with X amount of pages, sometimes in 12-page lots. If TLG were to add a few pages of material, it is possible they would have to actually add 8-12 pages of content just to keep the book at a respectable price. Years ago, TLG actually struggled with raising the price point of the PHB above the $20 mark. TLG Steve deliberated for months to take the PHB from $19.95, to $24.95. That additional price was counter-intuitive to the Trolls. With the release of the color PHB for the 5th printing, they raised the price again. Now, to keep the cost of the new book to $29.95 to $34.95, the Trolls will have to include 8-12 pages of content. Perhaps there isn't enough to add to justify such a move. Perhaps making the PHB $160 pages (or whatever) is not something the Trolls want to do. Think about if the Trolls did this to multiple books. Now the price-point to get into the game is $10 or more higher then the previous printing. Perhaps finding another 8-12 pages is more than just book cost? Maybe TLG has to hire another writer, editor, artwork, layout, etc. That could cost TLG thousands of dollars, and may not be worth it in the end. Maybe adding another 8-12 pages sells only 200 PHBs. Maybe it sells less.

The point is, there is much more to think about then simply adding a few more pages to the books based on what only a few people claim to want on these MBs.

~O

If that was all that big of an issue they wouldn't have added all those Illusionist spells or the appendix.

Which was about 8 pages of material. See mmbutter's comment about signatures below.

~O

And? Still didn't seem to be that big of a deal. Plus much of what we have talked about can be done in a "zero sum" manner. Such as not giving the full definition to Incorporeal in the Ghost write up, but up in front of the book where they do define other things in the M&T. So word count is still the same, just in a different, and easier to find location. I bet they could also do some layout tricks to get the space to add things like AC stacking rules without changing page count. So sure it will take some real thought and effort, but I doubt its an insurmountable obstacle.

[Treebore]

The point is, there is much more to think about then simply adding a few more pages to the books based on what only a few people claim to want on these MBs.

~O

Let me point out there are only a few people claiming they don't want any of this too.

[alcyone]

Sorry in advance for the rambling; skip it if you aren't in the mood.

It's worth saying again, too, that the difference between what is being asked for (by most, anyway) and 3.5/PF/D20SRD is huge. Don't let the slippery slope dissuade you from doing anything at all. The product can be improved without changing it into something else. We've weathered new illusionist spells and a new barbarian among other things, and those are additional features. Here, we're mostly talking about a few clarifications to head off these conversations.

I sympathize with the trolls and wanting to keep this book from invalidating older printings. The fact is, it won't, at least in terms of official adventures and supplements, which have always simply referenced other books or reproduced in whole anything novel.

One problem I had when I started playing 3.5 was coming to the realization that every term meant something very specific and the cascade effect of changing anything mechanical (and it's all mechanical) was disastrous. Couple that with players who expect predictability from the rules so their "builds" work and you get a pretty complex system. That system is so far from Castles and Crusades that I doubt that telling people what "incorporeal" means is going to bring about the apocalypse. We are talking about (probably, we haven't tried the Gom Jabbar) human game designers doing these; I doubt Stephen is going to go batshit crazy and start building a labyrinth of carefully balanced rules, all of which affect one another in exact, immutable ways. It's just not going to happen.

My advice to someone who wants everything to be precisely defined and balanced should pick up Pathfinder and no hard feelings; it's not a bad game if that's what you are looking for.

One thing I've found about C&C CKs anyway; most of them, despite their best intentions, don't really play C&C. They play whatever game they used to play before C&C using the C&C books as a way to let players generate a character and lay down some basic rules like ability checks. Which I think is great, but makes them somewhat ill-equipped for making any serious decisions about the presentation of the rules. It's the actual content of these books which we are talking about here. Realize that even PF and 3.5 aren't the first games that people new to the hobby are picking up anymore. All they have to go on is what's in print.

[dachda]

I'll throw my two cents into this discussion. I've been playing C&C for about 5 yrs now, as both player and CK. I've always played RAW and have never pulled out any other game books to figure something out. I either used the siege mechanic or just made a quick decision when something wasn't in the books. And I do have the books of the two AD&D editions as well as 3rd ed, plus many others.

Someone mentioned some needing spells like Grease, but many extra spells were released in various adventures, including Grease which has shown up in at least two separate adventures. As well as in the Haunted Highland material, Gods & Monsters, and more to come with the new Haunted Highland material. Why bother taking more from the SRD when we can use new and unseen before ones?

We've got three monsters books now, with some unique and fantastic monsters in the Aihrde book which most players have never encountered before. We'll get more unique monsters with the new Haunted Highlands stuff soon to come out. Why repeat 3rd ed monsters which everyone has seen before?

Rules can always be reorganized to be easier to use. But is that the best use of a teeny publisher's time and money, when a perfectly playable game (at least as far as I'm concerned) by them already exists? I would buy a new reorganized book but since I already play RAW it certainly isn't my first choice for Steve's efforts. Perhaps such a reorganization is something the fans can do themselves and then talk with Steve about publishing it as a download of some sort?

Pardon my grammer, I've got a three year old begging for attention!

[Omote]

The point is, there is much more to think about then simply adding a few more pages to the books based on what only a few people claim to want on these MBs.

~O

Let me point out there are only a few people claiming they don't want any of this too.

There are over 12,000 PHBs in print (TLG stated this earlier in the summer of 2013), yet only few people on these message boards are calling this an issue. Take this for what it is, but it's probably not necessary to change the page count because a dozen players (out of thousands) see the need for change. Look, I also want the game to be clear as possible, but not at the sacrifice of having page bloat. Looking back, I played Mentzer D&D for decades and that game is pretty vague at times, and doesn't have weapon pictures or all descriptions, etc. some of the same things being discussed here. Other than these board, I have heard some people say they wanted the same types of things. But where does it stop? How far do you go before the C&C game becomes something that the majority of players who don't voice their opinions here lose faith in the game because there is too much? I play C&C regularly with a group of about 12 players among 2 campaigns. 2 players have brought this some discussion up as issues. As CK I go over the rules when necessary, and that is that. Only one other player consistently wants change to the C&C game to clarify (almost literally) everything.

But there is another side to that coin. I would say that there are 8 out of the 12 players that still play with 3rd and 4th printing C&C PHB books. For fact, none of them complain or even care about this discussion at all. When the new shiny 5th printing books came out, most of them never even upgraded ~ despite me trying to sell them into buying new PHBs, even when they are on sale.

Using my little microcosm of the C&C player universe, 67% of the players don't care even one ounce about this discussion. Only 8% cares enough to make repeated requests for change.

Again, personally I wouldn't mind clarity added to the game. Many of the suggestions here are valid or good. But, please... PLEASE LORDS OF TROLL, do not clarify the game to the point of C&C becoming a sterile clone of 3rd edition.

~O

[Arduin]

There are over 12,000 PHBs in print (TLG stated this earlier in the summer of 2013), yet only few people on these message boards are calling this an issue.

And that doesn't take into account PDF sales. I don't own any printed TL material.

[mmbutter]

Plus much of what we have talked about can be done in a "zero sum" manner. Such as not giving the full definition to Incorporeal in the Ghost write up, but up in front of the book where they do define other things in the M&T. So word count is still the same, just in a different, and easier to find location. I bet they could also do some layout tricks to get the space to add things like AC stacking rules without changing page count. So sure it will take some real thought and effort, but I doubt its an insurmountable obstacle.

You do realize that if they did this, you would be happy, but there would be a bunch of people saying "Why isn't the definition of incorporeal in the description of Ghost, so I don't have to flip back and forth in the book? I just want it all in one place."

[Julian Grimm]

Of all the PHB's that are in print only 20% of owners (Assuming one owner per book) are on these forums. Of those here only about 40% or so are active with about 10 in this discussion. In other words this discussion is being held by only .08% of PHB owners. Far to little to tell anything. While the raw number looks good finding out that this is being argued by less than 1% of C&C owners lends some hilarity to the thread.

If TLG makes their decisions based on the majority opinion of this .08% I will pretty much give up on the human race.

[Arduin]

If TLG makes their decisions based on the majority opinion of this .08% I will pretty much give up on the human race.

And, if they make their decision based on the minority here it would be even funnier...

[Julian Grimm]

Gakkk....Never type after a panic attack pill....disregard.

[Dracyian]

I have seen weirder things come from the troll den though

[alcyone]

From the A12 discussion:

So you guys are suggesting I just quit my belly aching and as soon as the Codex of Aihrde is done hammer down Aufstrag?

Market research? This is TLG we kind of go by our gut . . . after a few Guinness of course. And I'm pretty sure even if we did a poll, that the two of you serve as enough market research!

Steve

Heh .

[Dracyian]

From the A12 discussion:

So you guys are suggesting I just quit my belly aching and as soon as the Codex of Aihrde is done hammer down Aufstrag?

Market research? This is TLG we kind of go by our gut . . . after a few Guinness of course. And I'm pretty sure even if we did a poll, that the two of you serve as enough market research!

Steve

Heh .

Thank you Aergraith lol also I would like to point out that because I think of that same thread we 6 of us ended up tributed in A12

[Julian Grimm]

I have to say that I find that less funny than I do scary. I remember a certain company that did not think market research was important; it is now owned by WOTC.

[NJPDX]

I guess I'll add my two cents. As a total neophyte to C&C in the last 3 or 4 months, I can say that I do find some of the grammatical errors especially jarring when I'm reading the books, but when it comes to the hard and fast rules and applying them in play, I've always been more prone to use a framework I like and then fill in the blanks with my own rulings and borrow from other systems, so I'm almost never playing a game RAW. I guess what I'm trying to say is that I think it would be nice to see the Trolls make some edits for clarity and grammar, but I doubt it would spur me to repurchase my books.

[Dracyian]

I have to say that I find that less funny than I do scary. I remember a certain company that did not think market research was important; it is now owned by WOTC.

I do think there was some dissension amongst the ranks amongst other contributing factors to that

[Arduin]

I do think there was some dissension amongst the ranks amongst other contributing factors to that

Yes, internal strife played a MUCH bigger role than lack of mktg surveys.

[Treebore]

The point is, there is much more to think about then simply adding a few more pages to the books based on what only a few people claim to want on these MBs.

~O

Let me point out there are only a few people claiming they don't want any of this too.

There are over 12,000 PHBs in print (TLG stated this earlier in the summer of 2013), yet only few people on these message boards are calling this an issue. Take this for what it is, but it's probably not necessary to change the page count because a dozen players (out of thousands) see the need for change. Look, I also want the game to be clear as possible, but not at the sacrifice of having page bloat. Looking back, I played Mentzer D&D for decades and that game is pretty vague at times, and doesn't have weapon pictures or all descriptions, etc. some of the same things being discussed here. Other than these board, I have heard some people say they wanted the same types of things. But where does it stop? How far do you go before the C&C game becomes something that the majority of players who don't voice their opinions here lose faith in the game because there is too much? I play C&C regularly with a group of about 12 players among 2 campaigns. 2 players have brought this some discussion up as issues. As CK I go over the rules when necessary, and that is that. Only one other player consistently wants change to the C&C game to clarify (almost literally) everything.

But there is another side to that coin. I would say that there are 8 out of the 12 players that still play with 3rd and 4th printing C&C PHB books. For fact, none of them complain or even care about this discussion at all. When the new shiny 5th printing books came out, most of them never even upgraded ~ despite me trying to sell them into buying new PHBs, even when they are on sale.

Using my little microcosm of the C&C player universe, 67% of the players don't care even one ounce about this discussion. Only 8% cares enough to make repeated requests for change.

Again, personally I wouldn't mind clarity added to the game. Many of the suggestions here are valid or good. But, please... PLEASE LORDS OF TROLL, do not clarify the game to the point of C&C becoming a sterile clone of 3rd edition.

~O

What does that have to do with anything? You know who we hear absolutely nothing from? The people who refuse to play C&C. Those are the people we really need to hear from and determine what can be done to get them to play and LIKE C&C. Thats how you grow the market.

What little I have heard on OTHER forums is they don't like the 12/18 split of the SIEGE engine, how crappy the editing is, how crappy the layout/organization is, and how incomplete the rules are.
I am someone who loves C&C, and I agree with them on everything except the 12/18 split.

So if people do want to "grow" the popularity of C&C, then the complaints against it have to be listened to and acted upon. Not ignored just because you THINK not enough people are complaining. There aren't that many complaining because there aren't that many playing C&C in the first place.

Look at the WOTC boards. They have 100's of thousands of people presumably playing their D&D, yet you see less than 1% of that number ever commenting about anything at their forums. Yet WOTC does listen to them, and when they see a valid complaint, or good ideas for solutions, they do usually fix the problem or implement the solution. Something TLG does as well, but they still have things that can be done, and should, if they want their sales to grow.

People who love C&C exactly as it is are already taken care of. They already have their copies of the books and are happily playing away. Now its time to clean it up and fix it up in order to attract those who have refused to play it for the known reasons. Its no skin off of my back if TLG doesn't do it. I have two solid groups I have been gaming with for 4 and 6 years, respectively. What TLG does or doesn't do will not affect that for me. So if they want to keep ignoring repeated complaints, more power to them. Its their RPG, and their company. I have my 20+ Player Handbooks and 4 M&T's and I have everything in PDF. So TLG could go out of business tomorrow and I'll be continuing to play C&C until I quit gaming. I would prefer they stay in business and that the popularity of C&C grows much more rapidly. If it doesn't, I am not going to lose anything because of it.

So TLG can continue to stay the same, and continue to see very little growth, or they can try to do something about it. Its completely up to them, like it always has been, and always will be.

[Arduin]

So if people do want to "grow" the popularity of C&C, then the complaints against it have to be listened to and acted upon. Not ignored just because you THINK not enough people are complaining. There aren't that many complaining because there aren't that many playing C&C in the first place.

Totally depends on what the complaints are about from people who aren't playing it. I've never met someone who refuses to play it because of some typo's. I HAVE met MANY people who refuse to because it isn't D&D 4th or, 3.x or PF. So, making just like PF WILL bring in lots on new players. But, they would destroy what C&C is.


Your argument isn't refined enough to comment on beyond that...

[Snoring Rock]

Meh,

I read through the entire thread here, and not a single mention of making the game like PF is evident. Lets not get personal and tell one another that certain comments or personal opinions are not worth remarking on. We are better than that.

Back to the original point I made. There are some mechanics that are understood by one to be derived from AD&D or OD&D, while others may think D20. The point is, it can be either or something different. There are many mechanics like basic combat that MUST be codified well. If not, the game is broken. Some conditions are the same, some not

C&C is not broken. But the rules in many cases are incomplete. No one wants a PF here, but no one wants Candy Land either. Clarification and consistency is what would help some people take a longer look at the game. I know this, as I ran games for 64 different players at GenCon this year. 3 games I ran for TLG asking nothing in return. I am a fan of the game and entitled to say what I think will help.

Number one reason why they do not play C&C at home....."incomplete rules set" as in too many undefined things. Number two reason.....it is not like PF. And last of all, never heard of it before my game on the grid. I sold 3 PHB's this year.

As for numbers on forum vs. actual players, as the QA Director in a large manufacturing company, and as a statistician, I will tell you as a matter of scientific fact that the small numbers that are vocal, do very much represent the whole. Yes, it can be skewed, but statistical math and success bears out what I say to be true. Case in point....PF and the playtest of the century. WOTC learned a thing or two eh?

Again, it is just a few small things that need cleaned up. That in no way is the same as adding 8 pages to the book or making it just like PF. Simply placing the same block in each monster entry for that specific trait, or ability, will do neither of those things.

Really simple. And none of this has been a justified reason for telling anyone that their opinion is not worth comment or valueless. If you cant join the conversation and be civil, and polite then pass and go read something else.

We are all fans of this game.

[Snoring Rock]

Wow....never expected 5 pages out of this.

[Dracyian]

Meh,

I read through the entire thread here, and not a single mention of making the game like PF is evident. Lets not get personal and tell one another that certain comments or personal opinions are not worth remarking on. We are better than that.

Back to the original point I made. There are some mechanics that are understood by one to be derived from AD&D or OD&D, while others may think D20. The point is, it can be either or something different. There are many mechanics like basic combat that MUST be codified well. If not, the game is broken. Some conditions are the same, some not

C&C is not broken. But the rules in many cases are incomplete. No one wants a PF here, but no one wants Candy Land either. Clarification and consistency is what would help some people take a longer look at the game. I know this, as I ran games for 64 different players at GenCon this year. 3 games I ran for TLG asking nothing in return. I am a fan of the game and entitled to say what I think will help.

Number one reason why they do not play C&C at home....."incomplete rules set" as in too many undefined things. Number two reason.....it is not like PF. And last of all, never heard of it before my game on the grid. I sold 3 PHB's this year.

As for numbers on forum vs. actual players, as the QA Director in a large manufacturing company, and as a statistician, I will tell you as a matter of scientific fact that the small numbers that are vocal, do very much represent the whole. Yes, it can be skewed, but statistical math and success bears out what I say to be true. Case in point....PF and the playtest of the century. WOTC learned a thing or two eh?

Again, it is just a few small things that need cleaned up. That in no way is the same as adding 8 pages to the book or making it just like PF. Simply placing the same block in each monster entry for that specific trait, or ability, will do neither of those things.

Really simple. And none of this has been a justified reason for telling anyone that their opinion is not worth comment or valueless. If you cant join the conversation and be civil, and polite then pass and go read something else.

We are all fans of this game.

+1 very well put sir

[Arduin]

Meh,

I read through the entire thread here, and not a single mention of making the game like PF is evident.

Then you missed the part about adding all D20 spells that a D20 gamer would expect to see in an RPG.

A skunk by any other name...

[Omote]

Look at the WOTC boards. They have 100's of thousands of people presumably playing their D&D, yet you see less than 1% of that number ever commenting about anything at their forums. Yet WOTC does listen to them, and when they see a valid complaint, or good ideas for solutions, they do usually fix the problem or implement the solution.

Not from me. Not from the thousands of gamers over the past 12 years that clamored for a more simplified rules set and less feats which many agree unbalance that game. Take a look at the basis for D&DNext. Originally, 14 months or so ago I was at a seminar for D&DNext where WOTC claimed that they were going to streamline the game and let any other version of D&D work with D&DNext. It became apparent over the last 8 months or so that WOTC is once again moving away from the game being simple, and once again overloading the game with feats. WOTC certainly didn't listen to me or the older D&D generation crowd that many are practically begging for D&D to become simpler, and more like it's forefathers.

But none of that is really the point of this discussion. The fact of the matter is that we all agree that there can be some corrections to errata. What not everybody agrees on is what is clear and what isn't. Personally I'm not of the impression that C&C should add anything else to the game ~ no added "definitions," no more making the game even closer to d20 than it already is. We all love C&C, that seems clear. But why keep making a stink about what you and you and you want? There will never be a 100% consensus. There never has been in this hobby. So let TLG make their game. Perhaps they take these suggestions, perhaps they don't. Whatever there decision, if I like it I will play it. If I don't like it, I will not play.

Side note, to me, it seems like more and more people are becoming dissatisfied with the uber-complex nature of the modern fantasy RPGs. I would be willing to wager that regardless of what D&DNext is doing, I bet the Pathfinder market is no longer growing. Sure, 100s of people quite the game, and hundreds are added, but strictly from my perspective it seems as if the Pathfinder RPG market is slowly starting to shrink. That doesn't mean that it is collapsing, but perhaps it has already reached its peak.

With C&C, I'm not sure that is the case. I have no indication of any numbers, but TLG seems to be changing its PHB with new styles much more often than it once did. It seems that the C&C game is not shrinking, but slowly growing. If that is true, if that is the case, perhaps C&C shouldn't change a thing.

~O

[Arduin]

With C&C, I'm not sure that is the case. I have no indication of any numbers, but TLG seems to be changing its PHB with new styles much more often than it once did. It seems that the C&C game is not shrinking, but slowly growing. If that is true, if that is the case, perhaps C&C shouldn't change a thing.

~O

If C&C sales are growing, the TL's should stick with whatever "formula" they are using to make decisions.

[Julian Grimm]

Meh,

I read through the entire thread here, and not a single mention of making the game like PF is evident.

Then you missed the part about adding all D20 spells that a D20 gamer would expect to see in an RPG.

A skunk by any other name...

Why would adding in the rest of the SRD spell list make the game like Pathfinder? Looking at how the C&C spells were converted I see no reason why this would make the game a PF clone any more than adding in the rest of the SRD monsters. Now, if TLG added in the feats, skills and tactical combat then, you could call it a PF clone. A few spells does not a Pathfinder clone make.

Totally depends on what the complaints are about from people who aren't playing it. I've never met someone who refuses to play it because of some typo's. I HAVE met MANY people who refuse to because it isn't D&D 4th or, 3.x or PF.

I have yet to hear that typos have killed the game for any but, I have heard a lot about sloppy editing being a problem that has held some off. Outside of what you mention above, which I have also heard, the biggest two reasons that people did not pick the game up had to do with the CKG debacle and the lack of product support for the system. Of course this has been a few years ago when I was trying to convince a game shop in Springfield to carry the game. I don't know what the current attitudes are now but, considering the store had no C&C material on their shelves nor a spot for it in the store, I think they haven't changed much.


If TLG wants to turn the 12,000 PHBs into 120,000 they do need to look at things like this to see how to grow their market.

[Snoring Rock]

Look at the WOTC boards. They have 100's of thousands of people presumably playing their D&D, yet you see less than 1% of that number ever commenting about anything at their forums. Yet WOTC does listen to them, and when they see a valid complaint, or good ideas for solutions, they do usually fix the problem or implement the solution.

Not from me. Not from the thousands of gamers over the past 12 years that clamored for a more simplified rules set and less feats which many agree unbalance that game. Take a look at the basis for D&DNext. Originally, 14 months or so ago I was at a seminar for D&DNext where WOTC claimed that they were going to streamline the game and let any other version of D&D work with D&DNext. It became apparent over the last 8 months or so that WOTC is once again moving away from the game being simple, and once again overloading the game with feats. WOTC certainly didn't listen to me or the older D&D generation crowd that many are practically begging for D&D to become simpler, and more like it's forefathers.

But none of that is really the point of this discussion. The fact of the matter is that we all agree that there can be some corrections to errata. What not everybody agrees on is what is clear and what isn't. Personally I'm not of the impression that C&C should add anything else to the game ~ no added "definitions," no more making the game even closer to d20 than it already is. We all love C&C, that seems clear. But why keep making a stink about what you and you and you want? There will never be a 100% consensus. There never has been in this hobby. So let TLG make their game. Perhaps they take these suggestions, perhaps they don't. Whatever there decision, if I like it I will play it. If I don't like it, I will not play.

Side note, to me, it seems like more and more people are becoming dissatisfied with the uber-complex nature of the modern fantasy RPGs. I would be willing to wager that regardless of what D&DNext is doing, I bet the Pathfinder market is no longer growing. Sure, 100s of people quite the game, and hundreds are added, but strictly from my perspective it seems as if the Pathfinder RPG market is slowly starting to shrink. That doesn't mean that it is collapsing, but perhaps it has already reached its peak.

With C&C, I'm not sure that is the case. I have no indication of any numbers, but TLG seems to be changing its PHB with new styles much more often than it once did. It seems that the C&C game is not shrinking, but slowly growing. If that is true, if that is the case, perhaps C&C shouldn't change a thing.

~O

I think since that time D&DN is moving toward an easier to learn, more streamlined game. I will not be playing it. I have seen all I need. But I have to say, they have trimmed a lot since the test began. All that said, I still think the TL's could clean up the editing and standardize the presentation of what rules they do have in place. I love C&C. Seeing room to improve on presentation is not an attack. I don't want to see it go away is all.

Change sometimes takes discipline. The right amount of change, equals success. Don't change the game, fix the presentation. Every time I read a negative blog, both things come up.

[Arduin]

Change sometimes takes discipline. The right amount of change, equals success. Don't change the game, fix the presentation. Every time I read a negative blog, both things come up.

Yes, make the game that is there easier to use. That could be done without added a single page to the rules.

[Traveller]

So what exactly do you believe needs work in the PHB and M&T?