In my opinion, the best way to personalize C&C PCs is by giving them personalities and backgrounds.

Yeah, it sure seems like I'm being a smartassed little snarkhole.  BUT!  In C&C (as in any game, really) it's very easy for the player to point to some aspect of his/her PC's background/personality and get a mechanical bonus/effect out of it:

» Did the PC help her Mom run the inn while she was growing up?  Give a bonus on rolls to appraise the quality of certain goods, bargain for good prices on food and clean up the Prince's room so no one knows anyone was ever in there.

» Does the player keep making successful attempts at charming the bar wenches?  Give him a permanent +2 to Charisma rolls involving bar wenches.  Maybe it counts for scullery maids, too.

» Is the PC afraid of snakes?  Take a malus to your surprise rolls when the naga come 'round the bend, Chester!

Again, any game can support that to one degree or another.  For me, though, C&C makes it easier because nothing exists in the rules to say I can't.

It's decent.  It's cleaner than that AD&D.  The classes are interesting and well done.  A few interesting mechanics.  I'd pick it over AD&D, I might go with it over Basic or one of its OGL clones.  It doesn't have as much flexibility as D20 (no skills or feats) but it's simpler/quicker.  I remember finding a few minor issues but it's a good neo-old school game suitable for dungeon crawls and most any thing else.

QuoteSources? Not a challenge, just a request.

Can't give specifics in public without a hullabaloo, but I will say it's a 'loose' adaptation of Gary's notes (not a manuscript). Ever read any of those Brian Herbert Dune novels?? Kinda like that.

Quote from: KellriCan't give specifics in public without a hullabaloo, but I will say it's a 'loose' adaptation of Gary's notes (not a manuscript). Ever read any of those Brian Herbert Dune novels?? Kinda like that.

This strikes me as a grossly uncharitable interpretation of what is going on with Castle Zagyg.  While EGG obviously couldn't finish CZ before leaving us, he did a lot more than simply give TLG his 'notes'.  He was actively guiding its development until the very end.  To say that CZ will end up being merely a 'loose adaptation' of EGG's original dungeon is quite unfair.

QuoteHe was actively guiding its development until the very end. To say that CZ will end up being merely a 'loose adaptation' of EGG's original dungeon is quite unfair.

It might be better of them to at least admit ON THE COVER that those things were produced by a team of mostly younger, unknown writers working from notes. TLG has consistently farmed out the work (sometimes by dungeon level!).
That's no gross misinterpretation.

Quote from: KellriIt might be better of them to at least admit ON THE COVER that those things were produced by a team of mostly younger, unknown writers working from notes. TLG has consistently farmed out the work (sometimes by dungeon level!).
That's no gross misinterpretation.

As I understand it, the development of CZ (the dungeon, not the Yggsburgh city modules) was primarily done by EGG and one other person, who worked closely with EGG up until his unfortunate demise.  A fair amount of work seems to have been completed already.  It's sad that the entire dungeon couldn't have been written entirely by EGG himself, but that wasn't going to happen at this stage, given his health.

So my understanding is that CZ ultimately will be based on EGG's notes and expansions upon those notes which he approved (at least up until his demise).    

If you have any evidence that contradicts that understanding, please feel free to provide appropriate links.

I'm in the midst of having kind of a strange experience with C&C.

I'm a player in a C&C campaign and we're five sessions in right now.

In the first couple of sessions, we were experiencing a pretty high wiff factor.  It was hard to hit people in combat.  We were failing skill checks left and right, etc.  

So we just sort of naturally developed into a play style that didn't require rolls.  We started avoiding any action that would require a roll.  We avoid combat competely.  We haven't had a combat for the last three sessions because we run away or talk our way out of it.  And we avoid skill rolls by doing everything verbally.  For example, instead of rolling to disarm a trap, we're like, "No, no. Describe the trap to us and we'll tell you what we do to it."

And now that I think about it as I'm writing this, we have been avoiding the mechanics for so long that I can't even remember what my character's stats are without looking.  I can't remember at all what my character's Charisma Score is or how many Hit Points he has...etc.

Also, I'm playing a cleric and in five sessions I have cast two spells.  Cure Light Wounds once and Speak with Dead once.

I understand that others are having a great time with the system, but for us, something is......askew.

That's weird, Enlightened.  My wife tends to whiff a lot, too, but that's regardless of what game we're playing...we think her dice are all assed.

Anyway, we played C&C the other night and there was a good combination of rolling-for-stuff and not-rolling-for-stuff.  It was a pretty straightforward combat, but she got some good rolls for a change -- and she learned the value of lateral thinking in combat situations.

Enlightened, your experience might be the result of your GM (er, CK) treating ability checks like skill rolls in 3e.  However, the default target numbers in C&C (12 if a prime, 18 if not a prime) are higher than standard DCs in 3e -- and PC bonuses tend to me smaller as well.  That might be the cause of the 'wiff factor' that you describe.  However, the C&C PHB states that ability checks should be made only if the task in question is especially difficult; otherwise, the CK should just let the PCs succeed.

If your CK wants to use ability checks like skill rolls in 3e, I'd simply use the 3e values, and give rolls involving a prime a +5 bonus.

Hope that helps.  

Akrasia is probably right about the CK's approach.  Easy mistake to make -- I had to stop making it myself!

Also, I busted Secondary (non-Prime) Challenge Bases from 18 to 15.  I saw that on the Troll Lords fora and thought, "Yeah, that'd make the PCs suck less."

Quote from: EnlightenedI'm in the midst of having kind of a strange experience with C&C.

I'm a player in a C&C campaign and we're five sessions in right now.

In the first couple of sessions, we were experiencing a pretty high wiff factor.  It was hard to hit people in combat.  We were failing skill checks left and right, etc.  

So we just sort of naturally developed into a play style that didn't require rolls.  We started avoiding any action that would require a roll.  We avoid combat competely.  We haven't had a combat for the last three sessions because we run away or talk our way out of it.  And we avoid skill rolls by doing everything verbally.  For example, instead of rolling to disarm a trap, we're like, "No, no. Describe the trap to us and we'll tell you what we do to it."

And now that I think about it as I'm writing this, we have been avoiding the mechanics for so long that I can't even remember what my character's stats are without looking.  I can't remember at all what my character's Charisma Score is or how many Hit Points he has...etc.

Also, I'm playing a cleric and in five sessions I have cast two spells.  Cure Light Wounds once and Speak with Dead once.

I understand that others are having a great time with the system, but for us, something is......askew.

That sounds a lot like how I prefer my games to be, and is one of the reasons I've settled on 1974 OD&D as my edition of choice -- because its rules are so minimal that you basically have to handle everything through freeform verbal interaction -- there are no other rules for finding or disarming traps, most ability scores only provide a quantitative adjustment in char-gen (languages for Int) or leveling-up (hp for Con, XP for prime requisite), a 1st level cleric doesn't get any spells and even at 2nd level only gets 1, and 1st level OD&D characters are so fragile (with all characters having 1-6hp and all weapons doing 1-6 damage, any 1 hit is likely to kill -- and with no -10hp buffer) that in almost every case talking or running is the better option that standing and fighting.

Kinda funny that you ended up in seemingly the same place via a supposedly more robust system that's intended to support a different style of play but, at least from my perspective, you should embrace what you've got because it's probably more fun and engaging than a more "standard" C&C game would be.

Quote from: T. FosterThat sounds a lot like how I prefer my games to be, and is one of the reasons I've settled on 1974 OD&D as my edition of choice

I prefer 1E or else 3.x, but if I'm going to run/play in a minimalist game that would be my choice also, and my beef with C&C. When it comes to certain forms of D&D I'm not a fan of universal task resolution. Describe what you do, and then either resolve without rolling or get a bonus to the roll based on ingenuity.

I know, the latter's perfectly possible in C&C, but I like the ten-foot pole as skill roll avoidance instrument.

I would just like to add my CK's Screen was signed by Gary himself last year at Gen Con.

And yeah dropping the challenges to 15 from 18 allows for a bit more heroic-style play.  Easy fix.

Also, I don't mean it to sound like we aren't having fun with the campaign.  Just that there was a bit of strangeness a foot.  Expectations and realities weren't clicking.

Quote from: Dr Rotwang!Also, I busted Secondary (non-Prime) Challenge Bases from 18 to 15.  I saw that on the Troll Lords fora and thought, "Yeah, that'd make the PCs suck less."

This is a good idea.

I will definitely be suggesting this to my ..uh....Castle Keeper   I've also decided I'm going to use this term more when we play and I'm going to pronounce it with a lisp

Quote from: Zachary The FirstI would just like to add my CK's Screen was signed by Gary himself last year at Gen Con.

Do you like the screen?  Unlike Hackmaster, it's not obvious to me that I need the official screen for C&C.