People upset w/ 4e = More gamers for C&C?

Julian Grimm · Post by **Julian Grimm** » Tue Dec 04, 2007 12:29 am

I think it will be a mixed effect. Some will come to C&C for the simpler feel and compatability with all editions. Of those a few will decide it's not for them and drop out. The others will want more of a 3e experience and either stick to 3e like many of us did with AD&D or drop out entirely.

In the end though the ones that choose C&C will be good for us. Let's just hope the numbers are in our favor.
_________________
The Lord of Ravens
My blog

Matthew · Post by **Matthew** » Tue Dec 04, 2007 12:36 am

ZeornWarlock wrote:
Same here, I also discourage my players with multi-classing. I prefer to use more classes instead. Ones, which deal with some adventuring, like Pirates, or even Samurai to name a few. I try to avoid classes, which are too define or needs to stay in town like smiths.

As you said, what is the point to have classes if you must multi-class?

Indeed. I much prefer to create a new Class, Sub Class or Kit that does exactly what the Player wants (within reason) over fiddling around with various class combinations.
_________________
It is a joyful thing indeed to hold intimate converse with a man after ones own heart, chatting without reserve about things of interest or the fleeting topics of the world; but such, alas, are few and far between.

Yoshida Kenko (1283-1350)

Barrataria · Post by **Barrataria** » Tue Dec 04, 2007 1:02 am

CharlieRock wrote:
Balance is for boardgames. That includes wargames.

Hmmm... I can see France 1940 on my shelf from where I'm sitting
BB
_________________
Fantasy Roleplaying Supplements for Basic, Expert, and Advanced games, free for download or print-on-demand and available now! http://www.barrataria.com/

serleran · Post by **serleran** » Tue Dec 04, 2007 1:09 am

Balance is not needed for any game; games are meant to be fun. Some people have fun through being more powerful; others have persecution complexes. It is not fun to force everyone to some impossible equality unless you are the one doing the forcing... maybe.

Omote · Post by **Omote** » Tue Dec 04, 2007 1:16 am

You could easily argue that balance makes a game not fun. In the case of C&C, I think the game is balanced for the most part. In the case of a boardgame, balance is usually an important aspect.

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

Harry Joy · Post by **Harry Joy** » Tue Dec 04, 2007 3:26 am

jamesmishler wrote:
I've been trying to avoid sweeping industry analysis lately...(snip)

James Mishler, I think I love you. In a totally respectful, platonic, and manly heterosexual back-slapping way.
Re: Progression tables affecting multiclassed characters - I don't care, in fact, I think it is entirely justified. Just ask Saxifrage, my Rogue/Wizard.

Re: 3.x Collections - I am also ditching a large part of mine, mostly rules stuff not fluff, which I dig, and began the process of unloading it almost a year and a half ago. Unfortunately, it's not as profitable now that WotC has announced the endtimes.

CharlieRock · Post by **CharlieRock** » Tue Dec 04, 2007 4:14 am

Barrataria wrote:
Hmmm... I can see France 1940 on my shelf from where I'm sitting
BB

Yeah, depending on your point of view Fortress America wasn't either.
_________________
The Rock says ...

Know your roll!

Dristram · Post by **Dristram** » Tue Dec 04, 2007 5:50 am

Great post James!

jamesmishler wrote:
4E, as mentioned elsewhere in many other posts by multitudious peoples, is the most radically divergent edition of D&D than anything ever done before.

And I'm one who's mentioned it. To me, 4e looks like it could be a cool RPG. But, too different from the classic elements of D&D to be considered a true version of D&D. Only because they get to use the name of D&D does it get extra recognition. Without the name, I don't think anyone would equate it to D&D. It's an abuse of the name IMHO.

Quote:
Then there are the Old School gamers, who made the jump to 3E, and are horrified by the changes they see being made in 4E.

That's me all the way! And it didn't take 4e for me to make the jump to C&C though. It just took C&C.

Montague · Post by **Montague** » Tue Dec 04, 2007 6:22 pm

I will not be buying 4E in any way, shape or form. I have no interest in World of Dungeons & Dragonscraft.

Omote · Post by **Omote** » Tue Dec 04, 2007 6:24 pm

Beautiful wordplay, so true. Welcome Montague.

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

CharlieRock · Post by **CharlieRock** » Tue Dec 04, 2007 6:42 pm

Omote wrote:
Beautiful wordplay, so true. Welcome Montague.

-O

Who was it that said it should get called D&DBZ?
Hey, Montague!
_________________
The Rock says ...

Know your roll!

Turanil · Post by **Turanil** » Tue Dec 04, 2007 7:07 pm

BASH MAN wrote:
I have noticed on the EN World boards that a plethora of people are upset by some of the changes suggested for D&D 4e. I tend to agree w/ such people regarding their concerns "demonic subraces are a core race, but gnomes are not? WTF???" and gently invite them to join the crusade!

I wonder whether or not C&C will pick up a whole new wave of Grognards as a result... If so, 4e would be the best marketing campaign for C&C ever!

I don't think that 3e gamers disappointed with 4e will, as a result, opt for C&C. I think they will just stick with 3.5.

In any case, may I suggest all of those here, who are not interested in 4e, to add your voice to this thread.
_________________
Homebrews Wiki a list of campaign settings on the web.

Omote · Post by **Omote** » Tue Dec 04, 2007 7:15 pm

CharlieRock wrote:
Who was it that said it should get called D&DBZ?
Hey, Montague!

Nooice CharlieRock. I'm going to use that one to.
-O
_________________
> Omote's Advanced C&C stuff <
Duke Omote Landwehr, Holy Order of the FPQ ~ Prince of the Castles & Crusades Society

James Maliszewski · Post by **James Maliszewski** » Tue Dec 04, 2007 7:18 pm

jamesmishler wrote:
Then there are the Old School gamers, who made the jump to 3E, and are horrified by the changes they see being made in 4E. Of these, there is a very, very large segment of "Returnists," gamers who played in the early 80s and returned to D&D with the new edition. These players, especially, are unlikely to make the jump to 4E. In fact, many of them were already disenchanted with the complexity of 3E. These players are the ones most likely to jump from 3E to C&C with the advent of 4E. This market was a HUGE factor in the success of 3E initially; I'd say at least one quarter if not a full third of 3E sales were to the Returnist market.

That pretty well describes me. I played a lot of 1E back in the day, half-heartedly stuck with 2E when my thoughts turned to fantasy, but I hadn't played D&D in some time prior to the release of 3E, which initially seemed be exactly what I wanted out of a new edition. Indeed, I liked it enough that I spent a lot of time writing for it professionally!

By the time of v.3.5, though, it was clear that something had changed in the direction of the game. While I'm sure the prophets among us will say "I told you so!" it wasn't at all clear time back in 2000 that 3E contained within it the seeds of the destruction of the feel and play style I associated with D&D. A year before the 4E announcement, I'd begun to have enough and I first came across C&C. I bought the two rule books and liked what I read, but not enough to start playing it. I'll confess that my long-time association with 3E, disappointed though I was with it, made it hard to contemplate a clean break.

The 4E announcement was the final straw or rather the snippets of information we've been getting about 4E was. I'm not a huge "fluff" man. While I have a lot of fondness for D&D's accumulated "lore," I can take it or leave. The loss of the Great Wheel or even the switching of the succubus to the devilish camp ultimately matters far less than the rules. And 4E's rules seem set to simultaneously be just as complex as 3E's while destroying the feel of earlier editions. D&D will no longer be a game I recognize or one I want to play.

I'd have been happy for a new edition of the game that pared away years of accumulated cruft to take purify its spirit and make it true to its roots. Call it the "Ultimate" approach, after the Marvel comics lines that sought to do the same. Instead, we seem set to get "Extreme D&D," where everything is turned up to 11. No thank you.

And so here I am -- a little later than I should have been, but I'm home at last.

Montague · Post by **Montague** » Tue Dec 04, 2007 7:27 pm

Omote wrote:
Beautiful wordplay, so true. Welcome Montague.

-O

Thanks
It's sad, really. I've been a loyal D&D customer for over 20 years, and while I much prefer C&C over 3rd Edition I had some high hopes for 4E when I read the first teasers that WOTC was streamlining gameplay and such.

Then I read about the talent trees.

Then a few days ago I read about the... *gulp* quest cards?

It's insane. Instead of streamlining the rules and giving the GM more tools to work with, they're moving in the exact opposite direction.

Treebore · Post by **Treebore** » Tue Dec 04, 2007 8:38 pm

Montague wrote:
Thanks
It's sad, really. I've been a loyal D&D customer for over 20 years, and while I much prefer C&C over 3rd Edition I had some high hopes for 4E when I read the first teasers that WOTC was streamlining gameplay and such.

Then I read about the talent trees.

Then a few days ago I read about the... *gulp* quest cards?

It's insane. Instead of streamlining the rules and giving the GM more tools to work with, they're moving in the exact opposite direction.

Hey, I avidly ran 3E for nearly 5 years before I regained my gaming sanity by switching.

I'm happy for those who like 3E, just like I was happy for those who liked GURPS back when I thought it was one of the most overly complex RPG's on the market.

My thing is C&C and how I hybridize it. 3E, 1E, 2E, and soon 4E, are other peoples things to do. Simple as that. What makes it complicated and a heated debate is when we say why we like one over the other.
_________________
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

Dristram · Post by **Dristram** » Tue Dec 04, 2007 10:07 pm

What's funny is that I used to be such an evangelist of 3e. I was an original member of Erik Noahs site and defended 3e against the 2nd Edition fanboys. Even when I initially ran my game store, when customers would come in looking for 2nd Edition stuff, I would sing the praises of 3e and won a lot of converts. I was a 1st Ed. AD&D fan who was not all that happy with 2nd Edition and it took until 1995 for me to finally switch. I was looking forward to 3e being a comeback to the game I loved. Especially with Greyhawk being touted as the core setting again! Ah what a ploy that was. But as 3.5 progressed, it just seemed to get silly. And the focus of the game play changed and I became a 3e hater. I had thoughts about going back to AD&D, but there were elements of 3e I thought were good. I found C&C at just the right time.

Post by **Breakdaddy** » Tue Dec 04, 2007 10:51 pm

Dristram wrote:
What's funny is that I used to be such an evangelist of 3e. I was an original member of Erik Noahs site and defended 3e against the 2nd Edition fanboys. Even when I initially ran my game store, when customers would come in looking for 2nd Edition stuff, I would sing the praises of 3e and won a lot of converts. I was a 1st Ed. AD&D fan who was not all that happy with 2nd Edition and it took until 1995 for me to finally switch. I was looking forward to 3e being a comeback to the game I loved. Especially with Greyhawk being touted as the core setting again! Ah what a ploy that was. But as 3.5 progressed, it just seemed to get silly. And the focus of the game play changed and I became a 3e hater. I had thoughts about going back to AD&D, but there were elements of 3e I thought were good. I found C&C at just the right time.

Its cool that you found C&C and enjoy the game. I was playing a lot of 3.5e when I switched and would still play it but prefer C&C. I also care a great deal for WFRP and Savage Worlds, which are excellent games as well.

Julian Grimm · Post by **Julian Grimm** » Tue Dec 04, 2007 10:58 pm

Dristram wrote:
Especially with Greyhawk being touted as the core setting again!

And with 4e what will happen to Greyhawk? Living Greyhawk* is shutting down and with it not being the 'core' D&D setting** I wonder just what the future holds for it. Will we see the return to the 2e days where it languished a slow death only to be teasingly reborn and then killed off again or is it going to die a cruel fate with settings like Dark Sun and Planescape?

* Which makes me wonder at the fate of FR now. You all seen how Greyhawk suffered as a living setting and with the talk of Living FR are we seeing the end of that setting as well. Does 'Living' really mean put out to pasture?

**Not that it was much of a core setting. Outside of one book and a few mentions in generic material GH again languished.
_________________
The Lord of Ravens
My blog

Post by **Breakdaddy** » Tue Dec 04, 2007 11:00 pm

Julian Grimm wrote:
And with 4e what will happen to Greyhawk? Living Greyhawk* is shutting down and with it not being the 'core' D&D setting** I wonder just what the future holds for it. Will we see the return to the 2e days where it languished a slow death only to be teasingly reborn and then killed off again or is it going to die a cruel fate with settings like Dark Sun and Planescape?

* Which makes me wonder at the fate of FR now. You all seen how Greyhawk suffered as a living setting and with the talk of Living FR are we seeing the end of that setting as well. Does 'Living' really mean put out to pasture?

**Not that it was much of a core setting. Outside of one book and a few mentions in generic material GH again languished.

Don't forget Erik Mona's Castle Greyhawk offering (with Bulmahn and Jacobs, Expedition to the Ruins of Greyhawk) which is actually pretty good. Mona is a true Greyhawk fan and I think he did a good job with what he was given. Of course, I am still very much looking forward to Gary Gygax's offerings on the Zagyg front

Julian Grimm · Post by **Julian Grimm** » Tue Dec 04, 2007 11:06 pm

Breakdaddy wrote:
Don't forget Erik Mona's Castle Greyhawk offering which is actually pretty good. Mona is a true Greyhawk fan and I think he did a good job with what he was given. Of course, I am still very much looking forward to Gary Gygax's offerings on the Zagyg front

Mona has done alot to keep Greyhawk alive. Look at his work in Dungeon. Even though it was generic he still snuck alot of GH into the adventures. As to the Expedition book I'm not real sure what that was about. Was WOTC trying to cash in on the Expedition series or was it a true attempt at trying to bring it back?

That will remain to be seen. However with WOTC killing alot of tradition as of late I do fear the worst. Now Zagyg on the other hand may be our last best look at GH. I believe it was the Eastmark Foilio that had the world of Yggsburgh named Urth. Those that are up on their GH lore should recognize that name.
_________________
The Lord of Ravens
My blog

Post by **Breakdaddy** » Tue Dec 04, 2007 11:16 pm

As far as Zagyg being our last best look at GH I hope it's not the last but I suspect it will be the best. Gary and Jeff are rocking with the new material, I just wish there were more of it!

serleran · Post by **serleran** » Tue Dec 04, 2007 11:29 pm

Quote:
I just wish there were more of it!

There is.

Dristram · Post by **Dristram** » Tue Dec 04, 2007 11:34 pm

Julian Grimm wrote:
* Which makes me wonder at the fate of FR now. You all seen how Greyhawk suffered as a living setting and with the talk of Living FR are we seeing the end of that setting as well. Does 'Living' really mean put out to pasture?

It may well be. Look at Living Kalamar too. It seemed to wane in popularity around the time LK began.

serleran · Post by **serleran** » Wed Dec 05, 2007 4:05 am

Die, Forgotten Realms, die. Be unborn!

Oh, wait, sorry, I bet some of you like that misbegotten step-child...

Oh, umm, sorry again, I really do think some of you enjoy that festering pustule of disgusting misery and vile filth!

No, seriously... any time a setting becomes "Living" it means "goodbye" because there are now "rules" and forced canon and all sorts of other things that many people., especially the creative types like those who actually play RPGs, find repulsive.

(I really have nothing against FR - I just don't find it that interesting a setting.)

Philotomy Jurament · Post by **Philotomy Jurament** » Wed Dec 05, 2007 5:45 am

serleran wrote:
...any time a setting becomes "Living" it means "goodbye" because there are now "rules" and forced canon and all sorts of other things that many people., especially the creative types like those who actually play RPGs, find repulsive.

"Living" means "undead:" shambling along in a pitiful state of pseudo-life, and stinking more the longer it continues...
_________________
http://www.philotomy.com
Lost City Campaign Log

Harry Joy · Post by **Harry Joy** » Wed Dec 05, 2007 5:56 am

Philotomy Jurament wrote:
"Living" means "undead:" shambling along in a pitiful state of pseudo-life, and stinking more the longer it continues...

Kind of like the one time champion of Living campaigns in my neck of the woods, the Forge, not to be confused with all the other Forges I cannot abide, but which has this connotation for me:

Forge: To beat something until it's bent out of shape.

Julian Grimm · Post by **Julian Grimm** » Wed Dec 05, 2007 2:00 pm

Breakdaddy wrote:
As far as Zagyg being our last best look at GH I hope it's not the last but I suspect it will be the best. Gary and Jeff are rocking with the new material, I just wish there were more of it!

Let's not forget RJK's work either. The new stuff he is putting out under his new label does look like it will fit GH rather well and is useable. The sad part of all this is that if a new setting material is not produced the lack of material will eventually kill Greyhawk. Mr. Average Joe gamer may not want to scour Ebay or other places for older material and will opt for a current setting being produced. That does leave Yggsburgh and the Zagyg material in the position to carry the torch.
_________________
The Lord of Ravens
My blog

Julian Grimm · Post by **Julian Grimm** » Wed Dec 05, 2007 2:04 pm

I just had another thought. WOTC seems to be ignoring a demographic of gamers that TLG is picking up. Those of use who are old enough to have families and less disposable income than the average 13 year old. There are those of us who have turned gaming into a family event, our own take on the 'Family game night' so to speak. TLG's price points are very friendly to us and the C&C rules are helpful for all ages of gamer. This may be a pool that TLG wants to pursue in the future.
_________________
The Lord of Ravens
My blog

CharlieRock · Post by **CharlieRock** » Wed Dec 05, 2007 2:07 pm

Julian Grimm wrote:
I just had another thought. WOTC seems to be ignoring a demographic of gamers that TLG is picking up. Those of use who are old enough to have families and less disposable income than the average 13 year old. There are those of us who have turned gaming into a family event, our own take on the 'Family game night' so to speak. TLG's price points are very friendly to us and the C&C rules are helpful for all ages of gamer. This may be a pool that TLG wants to pursue in the future.

I know my Dad hates me because he's killed me FOUR TIMES! The world is so unfair and nobody really gets it! He's never killed anybody else! Aaaaaaargh ....

_________________
The Rock says ...

Know your roll!

Troll Lord Games

People upset w/ 4e = More gamers for C&C?

Re: People upset w/ 4e = More gamers for C&C?