Played 4e - My experience

seskis281 · Post by **seskis281** » Mon Mar 02, 2009 1:32 am

Edit: Deleted because I was in such a schmucky bad mood lol....

And I've swornd to be positive rather than negative no matter what!

_________________
John "Sir Seskis" Wright

Ilshara: Lands of Exile:
http://johnwright281.tripod.com/

High Squire of the C&C Society
www.cncsociety.org

CKDad · Post by **CKDad** » Mon Mar 02, 2009 2:21 am

First up, that sounds like a truly horribly written adventure. Railroading central!

But yeah, that doesn't sound much like a role-playing game. Skirmish-level miniatures, maybe.
_________________
"I don't wanna be remembered as the guy who died because he underestimated the threat posed by a monkey."

gideon_thorne · Post by **gideon_thorne** » Mon Mar 02, 2009 2:35 am

Well, from the sound of it, it sounds more like a problem with those running the game than the game itself. Granted, the current system is geared to be run in a certain fashion, but that doesn't mean someone has to run it that way. Were I to run a 4e game I'd run it the same way I run every other game.

Course, I'd be wearing my "Rules Lawyers Hate Me" shirt.
_________________
"We'll go out through the kitchen!" Tanis Half-Elven

Peter Bradley

seskis281 · Post by **seskis281** » Mon Mar 02, 2009 2:50 am

Indeed, you are both right here - much of the experience was definitely found in the structure of the writing and execution of the particular session... though I would say I liked the GMs very much personally... the husband especially tried hard to add some role playing elements in, but the players weren't biting.... in fact for the most part they didn't listen to him that much, unless the combat was going. He told me personally he finds that frustrating, so perhaps the players bear some of the need as well.

I guess in the end my biggest beef with the system itself is that the tactical focus and the time needed for combats sort of pressure all the other elements of the game to move fast in the little spaces between, or to be dropped and passed by altogether because of the time crunch. The crunch of the system is built exclusively on what your character can DO in combat. Everything else is secondary.

I ran 2 C&C games, and I played in a 1e game. The 1e game lasted about 5 hrs and was a blast... both my wife and I had fun, and it was her first AD&D experience (she's only done 3e and C&C, and a tiny bit of LA). I still enjoyed my overall experience at this little con, and I was excited to give 4e a try. I was also excited to check out a Living Campaign, because the idea (at least in principle) that you are a part of a larger world is interesting - but there was so little story or connection to Faerun at all that I didn't even feel like it was an FR game. Ah well. Again, the guys (and gals) doing it were all good people, and maybe I'm just getting to be an old codger --- "In my day we never....."

_________________
John "Sir Seskis" Wright

Ilshara: Lands of Exile:
http://johnwright281.tripod.com/

High Squire of the C&C Society
www.cncsociety.org

Omote · Post by **Omote** » Mon Mar 02, 2009 3:02 am

I've heard a lot of people claim the same types of stories. While I'm not a fan of the game at all, so I'm probably a bit biased, I've heard that much of the game module structure relies on a particular string of skill checks to complete the scenario.

From numerous people, they say that you can roleplay all that you want, but sometimes the modules break down to a series of skill checks needed to bypass certain parts of the module. That sounds terrible... I mean just plain awful.

I'm sure "DMs" can handwave such skill checks to proceed, but still. When an adventure comes down ONLY to who can roll better, you are not really playing a traditional roleplaying game anymore.

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

seskis281 · Post by **seskis281** » Mon Mar 02, 2009 3:07 am

Omote - that's it on the head.

You can try and roll-play, but the structure of the adventures and the scenarios being produced for it (at least in this experience) don't reward role-play - that gets in the way of making the needed checks to proceed to the next linear point in the encounter progression.
_________________
John "Sir Seskis" Wright

Ilshara: Lands of Exile:
http://johnwright281.tripod.com/

High Squire of the C&C Society
www.cncsociety.org

Maliki · Post by **Maliki** » Mon Mar 02, 2009 5:09 am

It does sound like the DM/module/players may have added to your dislike of the game, it should be possible to run the game more like traditional D&D even if the rules are not written that way. That being said, from your experience I'm glad I never bothered with this, I have one of the preview books and a fast play module and that was enough for me to decide that this is not D&D or even close.
_________________
Never throw rocks at a man with a Vorpal Sword!

Buttmonkey · Post by **Buttmonkey** » Mon Mar 02, 2009 4:36 pm

seskis281 wrote:
My general reaction is that this was the least enjoyable experience at a gaming table I've ever had.

Yay! I'm not at the bottom anymore!
Sounds awful. I'm fairly hack-and-slash in my orientation, but that session scares me. I'm actually afraid that that session is going to rise from the grave and attack me in my sleep tonight. 4E really is evil.

Treebore · Post by **Treebore** » Mon Mar 02, 2009 5:29 pm

It sounds like most of the problem was with how it was run. When I played in nwelte's 4E game fro a couple of months we role played. It was also very combat oriented and linear, just like any other planned out adventure, to fight/kill monsters at point A, B, C, D, E and then F to "win".

However we role played finding out info from various NPC's and we were able to develop character personalities. So the role play part was likely the fault of the DM and those there who think that is the way 4E should be played.

Even so, despite my having fun and being able to roleplay I STILL felt that 4E is not D&D any more than GURPS or Paladium is. It has similarities, but its not the same RPG other than in name. So I continue to use C&C as my core and adapt stuff from every edition, including an idea or two from 4E, and I still have a game that I consider to be "D&D".

It was weird playing a game for the last few years called C&C and saying, "Its still D&D.", but I find it even stranger to have played 4E and have people still insist its "D&D". To me it no longer is. What WOTC and I call "D&D" have gone their separate ways.
_________________
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

moriarty777 · Post by **moriarty777** » Mon Mar 02, 2009 5:54 pm

Man... I hate to sound like I might be actually defending 4th Edition but here goes.

I don't think the system itself is really to blame. Peter has a good point and in this case, it was either a combination of the people running the game, playing the game, and probably the way the module was written.

I think that, mechanically speaking, the game is sound and well designed enough. It certainly isn't perfect but nothing will be either when looking at different systems. You mention the healing surges for example but there are limitations to using a healing surge. Let's face it, you'll probably never use all your healing surges in a given day because of how these are set up. At least this has been my experience.

Unfortunately, a lot of the game is centered around combat and it feels much like a miniatures based skirmish game.

I'm sure that in the hands of a capable writers and GM, you can have some stellar adventures that has a good blend of combat, puzzles, and role-play. If your fellow players are only interested in miniatures skirmish, you can kiss your RPG session goodbye.

I've had the pleasure to play a few sessions of 4E and it can be an enjoyable experience. We were a large enough group and all the people I had been playing with were all great roleplayers. Even with combat being a tad long it was because of the numbers of opponents stacked against us. Even then, I had people 'role-play' their various powers as they were using them which brought some 'sense' to these.

Sure... there were checks but I found they were a bit less numerous than their use in 3rd ed but, once again, this is more to do with who is running the game. People who switch to C&C from 3.5 for the first time tend to be a bit 'siege-happy' and still have many many rolls to do various things.

Overall, I did enjoy it but it's still a different game. To be honest, I've only really played four sessions and there was only one where I found myself really bored. Interestingly enough, that was also my first one. Maybe if you tried again with different people, your experience might be a bit different.

I've been invited to take part on that next D&D Worldwide day thingy where they are releasing the PHB II. I'm curious to see what that looks like and might sit in on a session and play the role of the 'newbie' once again. Thus far, the only money I've put into 4th is a copy of the PHB. If I *really* like the PHB II, I may end up picking it up. If I don't, I'll probably sell my sole 4th ed product -- I might even be able to trade it in for another copy of the C&C PHB!
M
_________________
"You face Death itself in the form of... 1d4 Tarrasques!"

Partner to Brave Halfling Publishing
http://www.arcanacreations.com

Lord Dynel · Post by **Lord Dynel** » Mon Mar 02, 2009 6:34 pm

I will try to straddle the fence here (and coming from a person who dislikes 4e, that's saying something ). I think some of the problem is, like others said, how the game was ran or how the adventure was written. It sounds like you had a terrible experience, sir, but I pray that the system is not that bad.

Now that being said, I have heard these stories before as well. The game breaks down to checks to the point that sometimes non-combat sutuations feel like combat situations - you have to "hit" X amount of skill checks to succeed at something. Everything has to be "flashy" with secondary effects for every single thing in combat. And combat being the single main focus in the game, so it seems. I agree that a game cannot tell one to roleplay or how to roleplay, but I think rules can be pre-disposed to one way or another - and I think 4e doesn't take roleplaying into consideration (that it's a trivial thing the players can do, if they want),

One thing seskis said that hit the nail on the head for me was this:

Quote:
...but it was clear they play this like you play Magic or a card game - an application of or playing of a power or a card at the right moment to maximize effect/damage against an opponent.

I just don't think any rpg should focus on somehting like this.
_________________
LD's C&C creations - the witch, a half-ogre, skill and 0-level rules

Troll Lord wrote:
Lord D: you understand where I"m coming from.

Sir Osis of Liver · Post by **Sir Osis of Liver** » Mon Mar 02, 2009 6:58 pm

Lord Dynel wrote:
I will try to straddle the fence here (and coming from a person who dislikes 4e, that's saying something ). I think some of the problem is, like others said, how the game was ran or how the adventure was written. It sounds like you had a terrible experience, sir, but I pray that the system is not that bad.

Now that being said, I have heard these stories before as well. The game breaks down to checks to the point that sometimes non-combat sutuations feel like combat situations - you have to "hit" X amount of skill checks to succeed at something. Everything has to be "flashy" with secondary effects for every single thing in combat. And combat being the single main focus in the game, so it seems. I agree that a game cannot tell one to roleplay or how to roleplay, but I think rules can be pre-disposed to one way or another - and I think 4e doesn't take roleplaying into consideration (that it's a trivial thing the players can do, if they want),

I just don't think any rpg should focus on somehting like this.

First, I can't believe that this debate still rages, and I can't believe that I'm actually falling back into it. I gave 4e a chance, and actually ran a session of Keep on the Shadowfell for my regular gaming group as a tuneup for this past year's Goodman Games DCC tourney. If it's any consolation, they won it, as they had the previous year. Still, WotC must've really done it this time to warrant this protracted debate.

Dynel, I'm with you. I don't especially care for the system, especially as something to run a long-term campaign. It's fine for tournament play, when you want to evaluate, among other things, your players' use of creative tactics and their understanding of the rules. But I think the comments about turning the game into Magic or some other CCG is right on the money. It's not a role-playing game. It's an overly (and needlessly) complicated game of chess. This piece can move like that, and that piece can move like this and so on. Sorry, that's not my idea of a good time for an extended campaign.

TSR used to have as their motto, "Products of your imagination." Perhaps I'm falling into the fuddy-duddy category here too, but a lot of the younger folks whose posts I've read vehemently defending 4e and vilifying those who don't like it probably lack the imaginative skills to allow them to enjoy the older editions of the game as much as many of us have. There are exceptions to this rule, of course, but for the most part, that's what I've seen. Sad, actually.

Sir Osis of Liver

Treebore · Post by **Treebore** » Mon Mar 02, 2009 7:26 pm

Liver, I have seen people who have played D&D for 30 years defend 4E. Its simply a matter of tastes and perspective. Like I have said before, GURPS, Paladium, etc... are good games in their own right, including 4E, but they are not my kind of fantasy game. Simple as that. Apparently 4E is able to be a number of peoples kind fo fantasy game, just like there are those who love GURPS, Paladium, OD&D, 1E, 2E, and 3E and have no interest in anything else.

I like C&C because it facilitates my doing what I like the easiest out of any version of D&D. It allows me to sue modules from any edition of D&D, including 4E, with ease. Its a system tailor made for me, and presumably people on this board have similar reasons for liking C&C. Simply put C&C helps us play D&D exactly the way we wish, whether that is btb C&C, or if its like me and steals rules/ideas from every single edition of D&D and its cousins.

People play RPG's that give them what they want better than any thing else they have tried or looked at.

4E is not capable of giving me what i want for my D&D experience, that is why I don't like it. People don't like C&C because it doesn't give them the D&D experience in the way they want it.

Thats what this "debate" between the editions comes down to. The angry vitriol comes from people who can't stand other people thinking differently than they do.

This thread, so far, is "I don't like 4E because...", which is fine. Problems will arise when people come in and try to tell us how we are wrong to have these "problems". Sorry, Seskis and I did more than most. We actually played the game. I played for about 2 months (9 sessions, I believe). I do agree Seskis should give it a couple of more tries, but that stems more from my belief that in order to give a game a truly fair shake you need to play at least 3 sessions of it before deciding if it sucks, is good, or is not good enough. Plus I think it helps to play with a DM and players you know you like gaming with. Thats why I played 4E for as long as I did, despite the mechanics being a total turn off to me, I liked who I was gaming with, so had fun despite my dislikes for the game itself.

So people can come along and tell me how wrong they think I am about 4E and that C&C sucks, but I will just look back on my months of playing 4E, compare them to my years of playing C&C, and just respond that "C&C is the clearly superior game system for me, bub, so move along!"
_________________
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

gideon_thorne · Post by **gideon_thorne** » Mon Mar 02, 2009 7:38 pm

I cant say as I dislike the 4e game per say. The mechanics are fundamentally the same as C&C after all. Perhaps the flavor or the style of the game is a bit off putting to someone who's into more of a freeform approach.

Hell, I even found a lite 4e D&D app on facebook that I've been goofing around with to see what the game is all about. There's no reason why someone has to run a 4e game the way the current designers seem to want people to do so.

However, the problem lay in a different area. Its hard to push past a morass of rules followers and teach people to be creative and independent thinkers. I for one would be a lot happier if I saw more "This is what I've done with my rules variants, and I thought I'd share." Instead of "What did the designers intend and is this workable?" The difference between the two statements is fundamental. The first shows a person who's not at all concerned about what the popular road is, and the second shows a person looking to be led by the nose. IMHO anyhow.
_________________
"We'll go out through the kitchen!" Tanis Half-Elven

Peter Bradley

Sir Osis of Liver · Post by **Sir Osis of Liver** » Mon Mar 02, 2009 7:44 pm

gideon_thorne wrote:
I cant say as I dislike the 4e game per say. The mechanics are fundamentally the same as C&C after all. Perhaps the flavor or the style of the game is a bit off putting to someone who's into more of a freeform approach.

Hell, I even found a lite 4e D&D app on facebook that I've been goofing around with to see what the game is all about. There's no reason why someone has to run a 4e game the way the current designers seem to want people to do so.

However, the problem lay in a different area. Its hard to push past a morass of rules followers and teach people to be creative and independent thinkers. I for one would be a lot happier if I saw more "This is what I've done with my rules variants, and I thought I'd share." Instead of "What did the designers intend and is this workable?" The difference between the two statements is fundamental. The first shows a person who's not at all concerned about what the popular road is, and the second shows a person looking to be led by the nose. IMHO anyhow.

I like the way Steve puts it with regard to the rules. Sums it up perfectly.

Sir Osis of Liver

Sir Osis of Liver · Post by **Sir Osis of Liver** » Mon Mar 02, 2009 7:53 pm

Treebore wrote:
I like C&C because it facilitates my doing what I like the easiest out of any version of D&D. It allows me to sue modules from any edition of D&D, including 4E, with ease. Its a system tailor made for me, and presumably people on this board have similar reasons for liking C&C. Simply put C&C helps us play D&D exactly the way we wish, whether that is btb C&C, or if its like me and steals rules/ideas from every single edition of D&D and its cousins.

Thats what this "debate" between the editions comes down to. The angry vitriol comes from people who can't stand other people thinking differently than they do.

This thread, so far, is "I don't like 4E because...", which is fine. Problems will arise when people come in and try to tell us how we are wrong to have these "problems". Sorry, Seskis and I did more than most. We actually played the game. I played for about 2 months (9 sessions, I believe). I do agree Seskis should give it a couple of more tries, but that stems more from my belief that in order to give a game a truly fair shake you need to play at least 3 sessions of it before deciding if it sucks, is good, or is not good enough. Plus I think it helps to play with a DM and players you know you like gaming with. Thats why I played 4E for as long as I did, despite the mechanics being a total turn off to me, I liked who I was gaming with, so had fun despite my dislikes for the game itself.

So people can come along and tell me how wrong they think I am about 4E and that C&C sucks, but I will just look back on my months of playing 4E, compare them to my years of playing C&C, and just respond that "C&C is the clearly superior game system for me, bub, so move along!"

You're absolutely right Tree. My opinions on 4e, like those of yours and Seskis, are also based on having played the game. I don't care for it and have voiced my reasons why I don't care for it. It is certainly useful to hear other peoples' takes on the game system. At least here, it seems like there aren't that many folks who will get bent out of shape because somebody dares to like an RPG better than D&D. I trolled the waters of the EN boards for a while, reading peoples' opinions and had to walk away from those boards. I've found a game system I like (C&C). I don't care for 4e as much, but that doesn't mean that I won't get into the DCC tournament at GenCon or some other possible 4e tourney. If I could make C&C my main game, so much the better.

Coincidentally, I finally got my C&C campaign off the ground this past Friday night. It was nice not having to deal with the players all having to go back to their stack of sourcebooks before they declared each and every action. The fast pace of the combat led to a much more enjoyable RP experience than we've had in a while.

Sir Osis of LIver

GameOgre · Post by **GameOgre** » Fri Mar 06, 2009 1:31 pm

I play 4E and C&C.

Mostly C&C but my oldest son really likes 4E so we play that to.

When we play we sometimes use minatures(if in the mood) and sometimes not. When I dont use the minatures we use all those move so many squares ect abilities without them. Really if you dont like them cut them out of the game or just use the general idea behind them(the rogue slips behind the orc).

We play the same sort of games with both systems. Heavy combat with a good mix of role playing.

That game sounded very bad and I can understand where you are coming from. If you had been playing C&C with those same people and that same adventure im sure it would have blown chunks as well.

4E is a good game for those (like my son) who want more crunch in their rpg.For those who feel that crunch gets in the way of actually role playing it's not so hot. Sure you could cut out most of the crunchy minature stuff and play the game anyway and have fun......but why bother to work so hard to make a crunch filled game less so when there are so many great games(C&C) that are focused on that?

While I find it fun to play I myself just dont generaly need that much crunch. I felt the same way about 3.5 as I do 4E.

For those that love 4E awsome!! I'm thrilled for them and save me a seat at the table every once in a while!
_________________
Baron Golden, Knights of the Tin Palace (GameOgre)

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

DangerDwarf · Post by **DangerDwarf** » Fri Mar 06, 2009 1:48 pm

It does sound like the DMs and players were a big part of the problem. I've run my share of 4e and it hasn't played out that way. But, I can see how people can get bogged down and allow it to effect their playstyle, warping it into that.

The skill challenges especially can turn into that but my group loves them because I ensure that it remains a mixture of RP and rolling.

As for, "Is it D&D?". Well, I'm quite adamant in NOT using the "e" terminology for D&D. For Dungeons & Dragons I always take the time to type out the edition (D&D, AD&D or 2nd Edition) that "e" crap is reserved for this new wave RPG'ing stuff. I have no issues using the "e" for 4e or if I'm feeling particularly snarky going with "d20 2nd Edition" or "2e d20".
I only insist on using the D&D term for 4e with folks who like to use the term for that d20 game.
But, as with all games, it will fans and it will have folks who hate it. I happen to enjoy it, just when I want to run D&D I pull out my C&C books.

DangerDwarf · Post by **DangerDwarf** » Fri Mar 06, 2009 1:59 pm

Oh, also...

Judging by some stories I'm hearing, I will say that it definitely sounds like there are quite a few 4e players who I'd not enjoy having at my table.

Sir Osis of Liver · Post by **Sir Osis of Liver** » Fri Mar 06, 2009 3:32 pm

DangerDwarf wrote:
Oh, also...

Judging by some stories I'm hearing, I will say that it definitely sounds like there are quite a few 4e players who I'd not enjoy having at my table.

That is one sentiment to which I will gladly drink!

Sir Osis of Liver

Orpheus · Post by **Orpheus** » Sat Mar 07, 2009 4:30 pm

I finally played in a 4th Edition session about two weeks ago. My expereience was fairly positive although at that one table we had a total dichotomy of players.

The DM was VERY laid-back and not really much of a rules-y kind of guy. This DM allowed for some roleplaying up front and plenty of interaction amongst the PC's and NPC's, then we were dropped right into danger as the floor of the tavern in which we were resting collapsed. We weren't dropped right into combat mind you, but we were no presented with the issue of being in a cavern which no one knew was there and now we had to find our way out. I liked the way the DM put us right into the dungeon with a motive without having to go through the typical "I have a dungeon that needs clearing" a la "Clearing Castle Caldwell" adventure.

After wandering off to find the exit we found out that kobolds were to blame for the collapsing floor as we discovered that they had been excavating underneath the tavern to expand their keep. We had to kill all of them despite the fact that the tavern owner was surely insured against the damages.

Anyway, the three encounters we had were really the highlight of the whole session and the DM did a fair job with the rules combined with the hand-waving. This guy would make a great DM regardless of the system, I will say that.

The only real problem at the table was the one guy who plays in one regular 4E game, runs another 4E game and was looking for MORE 4E games to play. I got the impression that he was a stay-at-home dad with NO job. He was a nice guy, very helpful, and SUPER knowledgable of the rules.

This last point was the problem.

This player was one of those guys who knows the rules so well that he wants to tell you what to do all the time, which I really didn't care for. I wanted to see how the rules work and the best way to do that is with a little hands-on experience. I was not unhappy with the fact that the game was mostly fighting, and I pretty much made it clear to the DM that this was what I wanted as I was really itchin' to see just exactly how the rules worked in combat and with skill challenges.

I had fun. In all honesty, thanks to Mr. Rules Lawyer the game did turn into a tactical wargame for the most part. However, after the first encounter the DM made it clear to us that the guys he has in his campaign roleplay ALL of their combats by deciding what they want to do before it's their turn, rolling the appropriate dice and then describing the outcome of their action. I honestly think that he felt a little bit irked by the Rules Lawyer.

The Rules Lawyer wasn't all that bad as he actually remarked how he liked the fact that some of the super-crunch from 3.5 wasn't really there anymore. Also, he did start playing with Basic D&D years ago and shrugged off another sit-in guy (regular 4E player) who remarked about square-counting and how the new sqares-are-sqaures method of distance counting which didn't take into consideration the added distance from moving diagonally just "didn't make any sense." The guy was a good player, but he was just a very tactically-minded player. No biggie as it takes all kinds to sit around the table.

In the end, I do kind of like how a character can interrupt a monster's turn with a special move that might save his friends. It kind of reminded me of Legolas in the LOTR films where he would turn around just in time enough to sink an arrow into an orc's head before he clobbered Gimli. The powers aspect provided for a very cinematic style-of-play that was easily managed within the rules without frequent perusals of the greater rules in the PHB.

I thought the rules were very nice, although I can see how some campaigns could collapse into a big tactical board game. Also, I'd have to find a regualr group of players before I'd throw down some coin for the PHB. Nevermind all of the crap that I would need before I could RUN a game: three core books, a battlemat (I've never really used one), some type of counters (probably just paper mini's for me), a screen (I'm a sucker for a good screen). Besides, I'm hoping to take the GMAT at the end of April, and then enroll in a local Masters of Accounting program so I don't really see myself having a lot of time to play anymore often than I currently do anyway.

In the meantime, I'm already doing a bi-weekly C&C Middle Earth game, and I might have a good D6 Star Wars game starting up soon.

I liked 4th Edition.

I just don't need it right now.

Treebore · Post by **Treebore** » Sat Mar 07, 2009 5:53 pm

Yep, 4E is a good rules set. It clearly was not designed by idiots. Roleplaying is definitely just as viable in 4E as it is for any other RPG. However it is overly complex and just doesn't give me the feel I am looking for. GURPS is a good game, HARP is a good game, Rolemaster is a good game, Paladium Fantasy is a good game, they just are not games I like the best for my fantasy play. Neither is 3E or 4E D&D. For me C&C simply gives me the game I want better than all the rest.

Thats all I am saying when I say I don't like 4E. Its not that I think its a bad rules system, it simply isn't a rules system for me. I am tired of games that spell out every possible action I can take, I much prefer a idea and a SIEGE check to determine such things.

However I understand the comfort of such a thorough rules system. You don't have to do much thinking, just remembering, you have a set of rules to blame when players don't like how something is done, you don't have to use your creative imagination to resolve how to handle something and worry about players thinking your an idiot.

I like rules that are as freeform as life is and C&C comes closest to giving me that. I'm not worried about looking like an idiot, I have done it hundreds of times and I am still here. If players don't like how I adjudicate something they better tell me a better way to do it or shut up until they can.

C&C simply fits me and the way I wish to run and play games the best out of any RPG out there. Thats what I mean when I say I don't like other RPG's. They are good RPG's, but they aren't good for me.
_________________
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

DangerDwarf · Post by **DangerDwarf** » Sat Mar 07, 2009 6:03 pm

Treebore wrote:
GURPS is a good game, HARP is a good game, Rolemaster is a good game, Paladium Fantasy is a good game, they just are not games I like the best for my fantasy play. Neither is 3E or 4E D&D. For me C&C simply gives me the game I want better than all the rest.

Bingo.

I just find that particularly relevant today because I'm working on a Domesday Book submission for RMX and its taking me forever because I keep stopping to jot notes on how I would do this for C&C.

My brain is under SIEGE.

Treebore · Post by **Treebore** » Sat Mar 07, 2009 7:05 pm

DangerDwarf wrote:
Bingo.

I just find that particularly relevant today because I'm working on a Domesday Book submission for RMX and its taking me forever because I keep stopping to jot notes on how I would do this for C&C.

My brain is under SIEGE.

Be sure to share those notes. Maybe even write them up nicely and submit them to Domesday as well. There are lots of cool elements to Rolemaster that would be awesome to bring to a C&C game.
_________________
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

qstor · Post by **qstor** » Sun Mar 08, 2009 11:58 pm

I've played 1e, 2e, 3e, GUPRS, Rifts, the HERO System, and Call of Cthulhu. I've also played a number of RPGA games both 3e and 4e.

I have all the C&C books but haven't found a game in my area. I've been wanting to try it. I might at GenCon.

Anyways...I agree with the comments that 4e is geared more towards miniature play. At the beginning I really didn't care for the system at all. Now for D&D I prefer other editions like 2e or 3e for D&D. 4e doesn't seem like D&D to me. It took away the Vancian magic system and for me, no matter what edition the game is., that magic system is the heart of D&D to me. The powers seem geared towards attracting WoW players. I think that the class abilities are better geared towards each class identity rather than the powers.

And each magic item has a level limit to it. I think that inhibits the game. Is it SO overpowering if a DM wants a talking sword to be the focus of a game and give it to a 1st level PC? Who can say? Apparently the designers of 4e thought so.

Another big let down for me is, that each D&D "world" now has to be a generic 4e world. So Greyhawk and Dragonlance "have" to have dragonborn and tieflings.... *sigh*

I've had fun playing 4e but if given the chance I'd play something else.

Mike
_________________
"I am a Ranger. We walk in the dark places no others will enter. We stand on the bridge, and no one may pass. We live for the One we die for the One"

Marcus B5

seskis281 · Post by **seskis281** » Mon Mar 09, 2009 12:21 pm

I do want to voice my apologies for the tone of my initial post. I am realizing I too keep letting myself drag down into a negativity I don't like.

_________________
John "Sir Seskis" Wright

Ilshara: Lands of Exile:
http://johnwright281.tripod.com/

High Squire of the C&C Society
www.cncsociety.org

Grendel T. Troll · Post by **Grendel T. Troll** » Mon Mar 09, 2009 10:33 pm

I will try not to repeat what has previously been said. I can only do my best.....

I am one of those players/GM's that don't really care WHAT is being played, as long as I enjoy the company and have fun...

Have fun.....that IS the common denominator in gaming; that's why we do it. I know I'm stating the obvious with what I just posted, but sometimes people have to be reminded of this.

I have (like all of us) been in D&D and AD&D games where I have walked out in disgust. At that time, some of the best Fantasy RP'ing I did was Fantasy Hero. When I was 15, I blamed the game. Years later, I am a little wiser and know better.

In conclusion: I guess I am saying that if you are having fun, it doesn't matter. Be proud. Find your gamers - the ones you really like (some of us are fortunate enough to have these people enrich our lives) and game on!!!
_________________
Registered Linux Minion #299419
Pathfinder RPG Advocate and C&C Acolyte

C&C Society: Sir Grendel of the Troll Lands
www.cncsociety.org
Famous Last Words: "Can I have a succubus for a familiar?"

Sir Osis of Liver · Post by **Sir Osis of Liver** » Mon Mar 09, 2009 11:26 pm

Grendel T. Troll wrote:
I will try not to repeat what has previously been said. I can only do my best.....

Have fun.....that IS the common denominator in gaming; that's why we do it. I know I'm stating the obvious with what I just posted, but sometimes people have to be reminded of this.

I have (like all of us) been in D&D and AD&D games where I have walked out in disgust. At that time, some of the best Fantasy RP'ing I did was Fantasy Hero When I was 15, I blamed the game. Years later, I am a little wiser and know better.

In conclusion: I guess I am saying that if you are having fun, it doesn't matter. Be proud. Find your gamers - the ones you really like (some of us are fortunate enough to have these people enrich our lives) and game on!!!

Amen, brother.

Sir Osis of Liver

Lord Dynel · Post by **Lord Dynel** » Tue Mar 10, 2009 1:31 pm

Good post, Grendel.

I guess for me, 4e marked the end of my excitement with D&D. Let me explain.

When I got into role-playing (1986), I did so with Mentzer D&D. I played that for about six months before I even heard of AD&D, but when I heard about it, talked to a few folks, picked up a Dragon magazine or two, I started getting terribly interested in it. When 2nd Edition was coming closer to reality, I remember reading articles in Dragon and, again, I was terribly excited. That trend continued with 3rd Edition and even (though to a lesser extent) 3.5 - I was particularily excited about the ranger revamp and the changes to skills.

When 4th Edition was announced I was skeptical, which honestly was no different when I learned of new editions in the past. But the more I heard about it, the more information that was revealed, and the ultimate release of the Core books, I found myself scratching my head. Things they were doing to "improve" the game were turning me off. The game was just not one I was excited about.

I took that opportunity to move on, away from the "current edition" of D&D - something I had not done since I had begun role-playing. But I guess it's not all bad - it got me to C&C!
_________________
LD's C&C creations - the witch, a half-ogre, skill and 0-level rules

Troll Lord wrote:
Lord D: you understand where I"m coming from.

DangerDwarf · Post by **DangerDwarf** » Tue Mar 10, 2009 1:41 pm

Lord Dynel wrote:
I took that opportunity to move on, away from the "current edition" of D&D - something I had not done since I had begun role-playing. But I guess it's not all bad - it got me to C&C!

Wait....

C&C isn't the current edition?

I've been bamboozled!

Troll Lord Games

Played 4e - My experience

Played 4e - My experience

Re: Played 4e - My experience