Its been some time since this game came out, and Im wondering whether it actually accomplished its intended goals as a cut-down simplier more enjoyable version of DND.

And how does it compare directly with Green Ronin's and Levi's versions?

Or am I best sticking with DND Cyclopedia?

I really enjoy the game, but I've just started a campaign of it.  I've done quite a few one shots with it.

It's nostalgic to play, but the system is unified and modern compared to the Cyclopedia.  I think it succeeds with what it's trying to do.

I got the main two books but haven't been able to play, is it just me or are there no demons or devils in the monster section of the Monsters and Treasure book?

Quote from: LawbagIts been some time since this game came out, and Im wondering whether it actually accomplished its intended goals as a cut-down simplier more enjoyable version of DND.

And how does it compare directly with Green Ronin's and Levi's versions?

Or am I best sticking with DND Cyclopedia?

I'll pimp Erin D. Smale's house rules again:

http://www.tridrpg.org/

Smale's adapted the best parts of C&C's "SIEGE Engine" to the Cyclopedia, so if you want the best of both systems his site's worth a visit.

Quote from: William G. GruffSmale's adapted the best parts of C&C's "SIEGE Engine" to the Cyclopedia, so if you want the best of both systems his site's worth a visit.

I'm not quite liking the magic system, but the rest of it is excellent and reccomendable to anyone looking to make the RC better.

Quote from: LawbagIts been some time since this game came out, and Im wondering whether it actually accomplished its intended goals as a cut-down simplier more enjoyable version of DND.

And how does it compare directly with Green Ronin's and Levi's versions?

Are you fond of a lot of character classes, big books of monsters, and treasure tables?  C&C whups both in those areas.  There's a lot of games that I could run using True20 or Perfect20, but for old fashion monster-stomping treasure-grabbing fantasy I would choose C&C every time.

QuoteOr am I best sticking with DND Cyclopedia?

I can't blame someone for sticking with the Cyclopedia.  It's one of the best one-book RPGs every written.  But if I were pitching a game to a group of players who weren't there for the glory days of Basic/Expert/whatever D&D, then I would go with C&C.  The fact that it is in print and supported keeps you from having to deflect arguments about playing an 'old' or 'dead' game.  And the rules are close enough to mainstream D&D as to allow easier transitions for players.

Can someone give a short explanation of C&C?

Quote from: JongWKCan someone give a short explanation of C&C?

1st Ed AD&D except simplified with one roll system. (you always want to roll high, just like in 3rd ed.)

Quote from: JongWKCan someone give a short explanation of C&C?

Well it is basically old school D&D. Maybe a mix of 1st, 2nd , and 3rd edition in some ways.

Attacks roll d20 + attack bonus, if you roll over the AC of the target you hit. Hit points and AC work basically the same as D&D 3.5.

The Siege Engine is used in place of a skill system. You choose 2 stats as your "primes" (IIRC, 3 for humans). All checks are stat checks and the base DC is 18 (I think), but 12 instead if the stat you are using is a "prime" stat.

I would say that, in essence, they didn't really succeed at what they were doing. The claim was that C&C would be like old school RC D&D or AD&D 1st. Instead, what it really ended up being was a simplified version of D&D 3.x with some nostalgia slapped on like a coat of paint.

On the other hand, that doesn't mean C&C is bad. Its still playable, and now it actually has a setting worth playing in what with Necromancer deciding to shift the Wilderlands/Invincible Overlord setting over to C&C (that automatically adds another coat of nostalgia paint on top of C&C, btw).

Its just, if you really want Old School, you have to go Old School.  I know that between C&C and The Rules Cyclopedia, I'm going with the RC every time.

RPGPundit

While I wouldn't go as far as calling it "D&D 3.x with some nostalgia slapped on like a coat of paint" I would agree that the final draft of C&C came out mechanically more like 3.x than I was expecting.  But I still think its a neat little game.  If mastery of the 3.5 version of the game wasn't my own personal great white whale, I'd probably be running C&C right now.

Quote from: RPGPunditOn the other hand, that doesn't mean C&C is bad. Its still playable, and now it actually has a setting worth playing in what with Necromancer deciding to shift the Wilderlands/Invincible Overlord setting over to C&C (that automatically adds another coat of nostalgia paint on top of C&C, btw).
RPGPundit

Actually, Necromancer is not shifing anything over to C&C -- in fact, Necro has said that after Tegel Manor is published (GenCon '07 is the latest release date), they won't be doing any more Judges Guild stuff.  The new Wilderlands project is a separate entity that's going to be published through Troll Lords.

I was expecting Levi to come in and pimp (in a good way) his game, because his is the only free D20 variant of the trio.

Levi's game is pretty cool, but it doesn't beat C&C.  I'm too young for the RC to seem playable, having only been introduced to roleplaying through AD&D 2nd...which I never liked.

C&C is more than nostalgia, it's a good rules light system that to me is a decent version of d20.  What I don't like about d20 are the damn skills and feats and all that extraneous stuff.  I'd like to have a bit more control over my character in a fantasy story.

Quote from: LawbagI was expecting Levi to come in and pimp (in a good way) his game, because his is the only free D20 variant of the trio.

*Shrug*

I haven't played C&C, so I can't make a good comparison to pimp with.