How can C&C possibly work?

[alcyone]

If you read outside these hallowed environs, you almost get the impression that C&C, or any game of the D&D/AD&D lineage simply cannot be played. Why? The rules are not regular, normalized, complete, balanced, or modular. What's worse, apparently, is the only game you can play with D&D is D&D.

Now, we know otherwise. We play these games every week and it mostly works ok. Sometimes you need a house rule here or there. The fact is, for many of us, it's been a long time since we read the rules for the purpose of learning how to play. We reference the rules for minutiae about how this or that works, mostly how it differs from what we're already doing or think it works, but we aren't trying to figure out how it works. to play.

I find my happiest games are with people who play like I do, and that means players and the DM or CK. We automatically adjust our expectations, actions, and play-styles to accommodate one another, the setting, and the game we agreed to play. There's not a lot of conversation about it. Whether you started with AD&D, D&D, OD&D, Labyrinth Lord, C&C, if you like those things, you seem to get it and fit in. People from all over the world, if they played and liked these things, seem to adopt the correct approach and everything works. If there is no rule that says I can't carry 100 magic items, I still won't carry 100 magic items, because that would be stupid and make the game suck. If there is no rule that makes the wizard deal less damage so it can be the same as my fighter, I shrug and say, boy am I glad there is a wizard in the group. If the rules on dragons don't make sense, I choose the ones that do and everyone fights it and that's that.

So, what's going on? Why can't we write that down and give it to someone from outside and have them like it and get it? It's not for lack of trying. My shelf is filled with books that I think do a great job of it. Some are maybe too preachy about it, some pick one interpretation and set it in stone, or do other things that might decrease desirability to an outsider, but for all of the world they mostly seem fine to me.

Maybe it's a question to ask the converts, who came from first experiences with 3rd edition or later D&D, or GURPS (do we get any of theirs?), or any of the actually thousands of core rules that are nothing like D&D. How did you manage to play such an unbalanced, vague, poorly-specified, bunch of rules like these? Why did you come back and do it again?

Of course, we don't need to appeal to everyone. We can't, anyway. And maybe it's just the people who pick one game or one kind of game and won't play anything else that are making all the noise. Or maybe I am just imagining things. You might note I haven't cited any sources.

But, maybe if we knew, we could find more people who play like we do.

-- Aergraith, who should probably just make a blog or something and set it to private for long rants like this.

[Treebore]

Heh, having just once again played 1E AD&D not too long ago, I wouldn't call those rules vague, or poorly specified. Maybe poorly explained, maybe even "unbalanced', but when you have rules for how much you move in every kind of terrain situation, Grappling rules, initiative rules that took into account every type of weapon you could be using, and whether it was long or short, ranged or melee, and what type of armors you were using each type of weapon against, well, I think you get the picture I am trying to paint.

[alcyone]

Indeed. I am sure you noted those weren't really my words, but those of my strawman.

[Treebore]

My experience has been, that those who speak poorly of an RPG, any RPG, not just older editions of D&D, either never sat down and really read through the rules to see what is really there, or its been so long since they last read the rules, they have forgotten much of what is actually there. Like when I played 1E AD&D again, from level 2 up to level 6, so for close to a year, weekly, I was constantly reminded of just how much of 1E AD&D was actually in 3E D&D. The only thing 3E really did was add Feats, and a much more defined skill list. Plus a vastly easier to understand Initiative system. Did 3E "balance" the classes? Oh heck no! Clerics, Druids, and Wizards still had the over powering abilities when compared to classes like the Fighter and Rogue/Thief, and plenty of people found plenty of things to cry about being "broken". So in comparison, I found going back and actually playing, and seeing played, the 1E Classes, that the exact same problems were still there, despite 30 or so years of RPG "advances". So even though I almost always saw those "complaints" and laughed, remembering that those exact same complaints have always been there, and now we get to add feats, skills, and Prestige Classes to the lists of "What is broken".

Another RPG I get this kid of "kick" out of, is Synnibar. I repeatedly see people say how horrible of an RPG it is, and I keep asking myself, "If its so horrible how did I run that year long game of it for my 10 to 12 players, and we had a blast?" Plus I also considered it far more "balanced" than RIFTS has ever been. I know my "House Rules" for Synnibar were far shorter than they were for RIFTS.

Frankly, its gotten to the point where I don't really listen to anyone's complaints about RPG's anymore. I've come to realize that everyone has a wide variety of tastes, and an equally wide range of comprehension. If I listened to such complaints I wouldn't have played CORTEX, Legend of the 5 Rings, Marvel Superheroes, Synnibar, Mouse Guard, and darn near every RPG I own outside of D&D. Plus, if I listened to complaints about D&D, I wouldn't be playing that either, because according to what is so often posted on the internet, every single RPG in existence has a host of "problems".

So now I just take a look at everything myself, give it a try when I can, and if I like what I read, or get to experience through play, I invest in the system, hoping I get to have more of that experience in the future.

Since D&D is the "hot topic" right now with the announcement of the new edition, let me use it as another example. A lot of people are saying they are either eagerly awaiting a new version of D&D, that will surely "fix all the problems of the past", or aren't going to bother wit it for a variety of reasons. I don't really care what their opinions are, even those with whom I share opinions with, because at the end of the day, I have already pre ordered the Starter box and the adventure being released the same month. I am going to look at the material, and if I like what I see, I will play it for at least a few weeks with my face to face group, and probably give it a run with one of my on line groups, maybe even our Monday group, if everyone is willing, and if I keep liking what I read, experience, and see about the core books, I will look further. If I find its not exciting me, then I will stop buying and playing, just like I do with every other RPG that doesn't maintain my interest. That is what happened with 4E, I tried it, played it for something like 5 months, and while I had fun playing it, I had more fun with C&C, so I stayed with it. That is what I will be considering with the new D&D, what ratio of fun versus effort put into it, do I get out of the new D&D? How easy is it for me to use any material I have from every edition of D&D with it versus C&C? Which RPG do I think I will have more fun with over all? Once I figure all of that out, I will know which RPG I will be using from then on.

[alcyone]

Another RPG I get this kid of "kick" out of, is Synnibar. I repeatedly see people say how horrible of an RPG it is, and I keep asking myself, "If its so horrible how did I run that year long game of it for my 10 to 12 players, and we had a blast?" Plus I also considered it far more "balanced" than RIFTS has ever been. I know my "House Rules" for Synnibar were far shorter than they were for RIFTS.

You shouldn't discount the fact that you have long and wide-ranging experience running games. Maybe it takes a Treebore to run. I have tried many times to work out Synnibarr and never get very far before I go cross-eyed. Of course, if you can figure out Synnibarr, Traveller 5 shouldn't present much of a challenge.

[Pat Payne]

I can only speak for myself and my group, but after repeated rules arguments playing 3e, we went to C&C and at this point, will never go back. It works near perfectly for us. In fact, I've been able to play 1e AD&D modules completely on the fly right at the table with no issues.

[Treebore]

Another RPG I get this kid of "kick" out of, is Synnibar. I repeatedly see people say how horrible of an RPG it is, and I keep asking myself, "If its so horrible how did I run that year long game of it for my 10 to 12 players, and we had a blast?" Plus I also considered it far more "balanced" than RIFTS has ever been. I know my "House Rules" for Synnibar were far shorter than they were for RIFTS.

You shouldn't discount the fact that you have long and wide-ranging experience running games. Maybe it takes a Treebore to run. I have tried many times to work out Synnibarr and never get very far before I go cross-eyed. Of course, if you can figure out Synnibarr, Traveller 5 shouldn't present much of a challenge.

Oh, I am not saying that the writing is crystal clear and doesn't take hours to figure out. It took one of my gaming friends and I sitting down for a couple of hours, together, and helping each other figure what was meant, how the tenths added up, when they do, when they don't etc... as well as a number of other things that were confusing. Still, we did it, and it was worth it. Players still didn't like having to work with such large numbers, and a couple still, for whatever reason, had a hard time understanding all we were doing was moving the decimal point 1 to 4 or 5 places to the left, but we all stuck it out for a year, with one of the original 12 being lost due to moving to the night shift, and the other lost due to a military transfer over to Europe.

Aside from that, issues were similar to what I dealt with in RIFTS, so I found it very easy to deal with in Synn, since I already had experience working out the "This isn't as powerful as this" problems. So I am not saying it is an easy to understand, run right away kind of game. I'm just saying its not the horribly broken and unplayable system I've seen so many claim. As I mention above, I found it easier to work with than RIFTS, but then again, my experiences with making RIFTS work as intended (IE different power level characters actually can work together and be fun) probably helped me reach solutions faster with the problems I ran into with Synn.