Style vs. Substance

Omote · Post by **Omote** » Wed Mar 07, 2007 4:23 am

So what are your feelings on C&C? Is there more style or is there more substance to our favorite RPG?

You can only pick one. What is YOUR choice?!

...........................................Omote

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

Rigon · Post by **Rigon** » Wed Mar 07, 2007 4:26 am

That's not fair, I think the substance is influenced by the style, and the style is influenced by the substance.

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

DangerDwarf · Post by **DangerDwarf** » Wed Mar 07, 2007 4:31 am

I have to go with style.

Not that there isn't any substance to C&C but I consider it a different "style" of roleplaying than seems to be pervasive these days.

What makes C&C great is the style of play that it promotes. Gone are the 1,000,001 rules telling you what you may or may not do. Gone is the need to reference one of a hundred rulebooks to make a single call. The style of C&C promotes player imagination governed by sound CK ajudication.

That's what makes it great.

Omote · Post by **Omote** » Wed Mar 07, 2007 4:36 am

Rigon wrote:
That's not fair, I think the substance is influenced by the style, and the style is influenced by the substance.

No one said life was fair. We are presented with few choices in life, and the few that we do receive are often difficult to make.

[Jigsaw voice] Now, make your choice. [/Jigsaw voice]

.........................................Omote

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

serleran · Post by **serleran** » Wed Mar 07, 2007 12:44 pm

Style is what is made from what is given to you... therefore, without substance, there is no style.

The answer must be substance. All other choices are invalid.

Nifelhein · Post by **Nifelhein** » Wed Mar 07, 2007 1:16 pm

I first got the good impression on how C&C dealt with things in a given way, one interesting and good way, so i go with style, but the substance that comes from using that style to develop the rules is just great as well.

(Had to counter Serleran somehow).
_________________
"We cannot live only for ourselves. A thousand fibers connect us with our fellow men; and among those fibers, as sympathetic threads, our actions run as causes, and they come back to us as effects." - Attributed to Herman Melville.

Geleg · Post by **Geleg** » Wed Mar 07, 2007 4:58 pm

I'm not certain of the difference between style and substance, but I voted for 'style'. For me, C&C evokes the old 1st edition style, albeit with improved mechanics.

Omote · Post by **Omote** » Wed Mar 07, 2007 5:06 pm

I could put substance in a game of TWERPS if need be, therefore IMHO C&C is a sytle of playing.

............................................Omote

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

sieg · Post by **sieg** » Wed Mar 07, 2007 6:20 pm

I voted style, as both in playtesting and final product, the substance was always guided by the style of gaming sought after.

BTW, DD; did you notice you're a "Dwarf Crusher" now? Isn't that contradictory?
_________________
Always remember, as a first principle of all D&D: playing BtB is not now, never was and never will be old school.- Tim Kask, Dragonsfoot

DangerDwarf · Post by **DangerDwarf** » Wed Mar 07, 2007 7:57 pm

sieg wrote:
BTW, DD; did you notice you're a "Dwarf Crusher" now? Isn't that contradictory?

Just like you may find an elven warrior, a human mage or halfling cook so might you find a dwarf crusher.

A dwarf crusher is not a crusher of dwarves, rather he is a dwarf who crushes things. Just like a halfling cook is not a cooker of halflings.

Ummm....

Yeah, thats it.

Rigon · Post by **Rigon** » Wed Mar 07, 2007 9:48 pm

DangerDwarf wrote:
I have to go with style.

Not that there isn't any substance to C&C but I consider it a different "style" of roleplaying than seems to be pervasive these days.

What makes C&C great is the style of play that it promotes. Gone are the 1,000,001 rules telling you what you may or may not do. Gone is the need to reference one of a hundred rulebooks to make a single call. The style of C&C promotes player imagination governed by sound CK ajudication.

That's what makes it great.

DD took the words right out of my mouth.

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

Tadhg · Post by **Tadhg** » Wed Mar 07, 2007 10:41 pm

C&C has the substance that could make it a great game, but it most certainly is the style, IMO, that WILL and/or HAS made it a great game!
_________________
Count Rhuveinus - Lejendary Keeper of Castle Franqueforte

"Enjoy a 'world' where the fantastic is fact and magic really works!" ~ Gary Gygax

"By the pricking of my thumbs, Something wicked this way comes:" - Macbeth

pineappleleader · Post by **pineappleleader** » Thu Mar 08, 2007 7:23 pm

serleran wrote:
Style is what is made from what is given to you... therefore, without substance, there is no style.

The answer must be substance. All other choices are invalid.

Well done! An excellent example of sophistry. I always loved the Sophists as philosophers - going around pulling everyone's philosophical nose. Sometimes their arguments were very clever and one had to really think to find the hole in their logic.

Everything that exists in the physical world has substance (in the physical sense). That C&C books have substance, in the physical sense, is not relevant to the poll question.

The poll question did not ask if C&C had substance, in the physical sense, it asked whether it had more substance or more style in the literary sense.

I voted for C&C having more literary style, than literary substance. The reason I voted this way is that SIEGE is a new mechanic for an "old" game. In C&C there are also many other "new" takes on established ideas. C&C is more a style of written presentation and play, than a whole new game.

I can see why you would vote for substance (sophistry aside). You wrote much of it (M&T, etc.) and this is very hard work . All your hard production work makes the "substance" very real to you. To you C&C ideas are phyical things - You can hold them in your hand (along with the books) and proudly say "I created this."

Still C&C is not (yet?) a complete game. It is based on the 3E SRD and one really needs another edition of "the game" to use C&C to the fullest.

Thus "C&C has more style than substance". QED
_________________
The Blood of Dragons flows through my veins!

Prepare to meet your DOOM!

Kobold battle cry

rabindranath72 · Post by **rabindranath72** » Thu Mar 08, 2007 8:59 pm

pineappleleader wrote:
Still C&C is not (yet?) a complete game. It is based on the 3E SRD and one really needs another edition of "the game" to use C&C to the fullest.

Care to explain? I do not have any 3e books (just had phb, dmg and mm 3.0) yet I routinely use C&C without any reference to other books.

gideon_thorne · Post by **gideon_thorne** » Thu Mar 08, 2007 9:09 pm

rabindranath72 wrote:
Care to explain? I do not have any 3e books (just had phb, dmg and mm 3.0) yet I routinely use C&C without any reference to other books.

*smiles* I think this is a matter of taste. There are those who use the C&C white box as a complete game. The definition is subjective.

Some like boxed sets, some like 2 book systems, some like 3. We'll cater to all tastes soon enough. ^_^
_________________
"We'll go out through the kitchen!" Tanis Half-Elven

Peter Bradley

Omote · Post by **Omote** » Thu Mar 08, 2007 10:36 pm

gideon_thorne wrote:
There are those who use the C&C white box as a complete game.

*nods*

gideon_thorne wrote:
We'll cater to all tastes soon enough. ^_^

Hells yeah, m' dawg. Zats whut m' tawkin' bout.

.................................................Omote

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

Nifelhein · Post by **Nifelhein** » Fri Mar 09, 2007 12:44 am

pineappleleader wrote:
Still C&C is not (yet?) a complete game. It is based on the 3E SRD and one really needs another edition of "the game" to use C&C to the fullest.

I really disagree, with the PHB and M&T you have all one needs to play the game, it is based on the SRD, true, but it is not d20, thus it can have all rules it needs in the books it defines as core.

But that is fairly minor, actually, specially given what this thread is about.
_________________
"We cannot live only for ourselves. A thousand fibers connect us with our fellow men; and among those fibers, as sympathetic threads, our actions run as causes, and they come back to us as effects." - Attributed to Herman Melville.

Omote · Post by **Omote** » Fri Mar 09, 2007 2:51 pm

The C&C game is complete from the persepctive of seasoned gamers IMO. If you're a gamer, then you know what you're doing and don't need the CKG as a resource.

Not that C&C targets a new gamer audience, but I think the CKG should be more like the 1E DMG with many persepctives on how to run adventures, creating adventures, lists of things to stimulate creation, a general guide on this and that (that is not covered in the PHB or M&T. I know the CKG will cover some of these topics, but from the general description of the product it seems like the CKG will nearly be all optional and varying rules to supplement the existing game. I know it's been done before, but I think it's best to mimic (not flat out copy) the 1E DMG.

..............................................Omote

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

rabindranath72 · Post by **rabindranath72** » Fri Mar 09, 2007 4:13 pm

Omote wrote:
The C&C game is complete for the persepctive of seasoned gamers IMO. If you're a gamer, then you know what you're doing and don;t need the CKG as a resource.

Not that C&C targets a new gamer audience,

Don't know, I gave the PHB to people who never played, who had just an idea of what RPGs are (just played Risus!), and they had no problems in playing afterward. In fact, tomorrow I will start a C&C Conan campaign with these people!

Omote · Post by **Omote** » Fri Mar 09, 2007 4:28 pm

Well, you are correct that this game is not difficult to learn, but there is a whole lot more to say regarding the topic that is certainly not covered in the PHB and M&T, especially if someone wishes to CK.

But yes, it can be played by the uninitiated. Although it could be tough.

......................................Omote

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

Nifelhein · Post by **Nifelhein** » Fri Mar 09, 2007 4:35 pm

I see what you mean, he books alone do not prepare a new Ck to begin an rpg group at all, I agree with you. But C&C is truly not meant to target a new audience, whose knowledge of rpgs is nearly or absolutely none.

But then, there were two great moments of thr rpg history where massive groups of players and Gms joined the fray: D&D and Storyteller. All other rpgs hoped to cannibalize the market those two had, and while 3.X brought a lot of new blood into the mix, I consider it to be closer to system reasons than to genre reasons.

In short, D&D 3.X increased the amount of people playing rpgs, but it focused on the MMORPG audience, as well as the wargaming one. So it is not really bringing new people, but rather, making them migrate from something close by.
_________________
"We cannot live only for ourselves. A thousand fibers connect us with our fellow men; and among those fibers, as sympathetic threads, our actions run as causes, and they come back to us as effects." - Attributed to Herman Melville.

gideon_thorne · Post by **gideon_thorne** » Fri Mar 09, 2007 4:38 pm

Omote wrote:
But yes, it can be played by the uninitiated. Although it could be tough.

......................................Omote

FPQ

I taught an 8 year old kid how to play it. Himself, and his brothers, who also play 3e, certainly found nothing lacking. ^_^

What it boils down to is, indeed, a difference in style.

It depends on how one answers this question:

"Can I do (insert given action)"

1) "Give me a good character reason why you can? What in your characters background suggests he might have the ability to acomplish X.

Roll attribute check if necessary.

or

2) "Do you have a special ability, skill et all to acomplish this? No? Cant do it."

Style and substance in different proportion. The former brings more style and substance forth from the player, the latter more from the system. IMHO

Not that a rule set can lock anyone down into any style if one doesn't let it. But in my estimation its far more encouraging to creativity to be permissive than dismissive. ^_^
_________________
"We'll go out through the kitchen!" Tanis Half-Elven

Peter Bradley

Orpheus · Post by **Orpheus** » Fri Mar 09, 2007 4:58 pm

The New C&C PHB

Nifelhein · Post by **Nifelhein** » Fri Mar 09, 2007 5:23 pm

I actually heard good things of that book. 8)
_________________
"We cannot live only for ourselves. A thousand fibers connect us with our fellow men; and among those fibers, as sympathetic threads, our actions run as causes, and they come back to us as effects." - Attributed to Herman Melville.

Deogolf · Post by **Deogolf** » Fri Mar 09, 2007 6:07 pm

I went with substance.

Even great actors look bad when the writing is poor! It's rare that one can overcome a really bad script!

phadeout · Post by **phadeout** » Fri Mar 09, 2007 8:58 pm

I think the only reason why some people would feel C&C is incomplete, is because they are use to so much more.

If you started your RPGing on C&C, you would never see anything "missing".

I voted Style.

pineappleleader · Post by **pineappleleader** » Sat Mar 10, 2007 3:10 am

rabindranath72 wrote:
Care to explain? I do not have any 3e books (just had phb, dmg and mm 3.0) yet I routinely use C&C without any reference to other books.

Sure. If you want to play monsters up as characters you need to look them up in the 3E monster book to get stat adjustments (kobold, -4 Str, +2 Dex, -2 Con) as C&C M&T does not give this information. Not a major problem. In a standard style of play would not even come up.

1E AD&D MM did not have stats for monsters either. In fact, the first year that I played I do not think it ever came up (the monster as a player character).

3E effectly lets you play about anything as a player character. This is part of its problems. Too much detail for the DM to keep track of and run the game too. You almost need a "story" DM to run the game and 5 or 6 "monster" DMs to play the monsters. It is no longer an RPG it is a mass battle teams game.

I guess I like the player flexability of 3E, but I still want the old style roleplaying of C&C. I will have to think about this some more.

And no I do not think C&C needs four monster books, and dozens of CK and PBHs. A 2 book system is great. I also look forward to the release of the CKG.
_________________
The Blood of Dragons flows through my veins!

Prepare to meet your DOOM!

Kobold battle cry

DangerDwarf · Post by **DangerDwarf** » Sat Mar 10, 2007 3:24 am

pineappleleader wrote:
Sure. If you want to play monsters up as characters you need to look them up in the 3E monster book to get stat adjustments (kobold, -4 Str, +2 Dex, -2 Con) as C&C M&T does not give this information. Not a major problem. In a standard style of play would not even come up.

I don't think that makes it non-complete. That's like saying that 2nd Edition AD&D wasn't complete until the Complete Book of Humanoids or the Player's Options crud came out.

The only non-C&C stuff I use for my games with any regularity is the various 2nd Edition AD&D spells. Hell, theres alot of 'em.

pineappleleader · Post by **pineappleleader** » Sat Mar 10, 2007 3:51 am

DangerDwarf wrote:
I don't think that makes it non-complete. That's like saying that 2nd Edition AD&D wasn't complete until the Complete Book of Humanoids or the Player's Options crud came out.

The only non-C&C stuff I use for my games with any regularity is the various 2nd Edition AD&D spells. Hell, theres alot of 'em.

I have never played 2E and do not own the core books. From what you say the "play anything as a PC" has been around for quite some time. IMHO it is kind of the new standard.

Even you, DD, admit that you use other game books in your C&C games. C&C encourages this. That is one of its strengths. There are other RPGs that will freeze you out of their forums just for suggesting that outside materials be used.

My point was that IMHO you really have to own another edition of D&D to use C&C to the fullest. You can play C&C with only the 2 books and have a great time. By "not a complete game" I did not mean unplayable or not fun.
_________________
The Blood of Dragons flows through my veins!

Prepare to meet your DOOM!

Kobold battle cry

DangerDwarf · Post by **DangerDwarf** » Sat Mar 10, 2007 4:19 am

pineappleleader wrote:
I have never played 2E and do not own the core books. From what you say the "play anything as a PC" has been around for quite some time. IMHO it is kind of the new standard.

Just to further derail this topic....

In my opinion it is that "standard" which has led to the half-fiend ninjas riding robot dinosaurs, half-dragon treants, were-badger paladins with their magical blade of evil ass-kicking, and numerous other things which just irritate me. I'm one of those nazi DM's who sticks to core races and classes. Not that the other stuff is wrong, its just not for me.

The books I mentioned were released in the mid 90's and rank among my list of "crap" that TSR was spewing out at the time. Not that everything they did at the time was awful, but there was a high level of it coming out then.

So, while C&C's modular nature does allow for easy customization, it is a perfectly self contained game that doesn't require other systems to get the "full" benefit. These ease of using those other systems if you chose to do so is just a plus.

Hell, I use things from multiple systems for just about every game I play. That doesn't make any of them incomplete. It makes me a tinkerer.