Quote from: Akrasia;390375I was a huge fan of C&C around 2004-2007, although I only managed to run two short campaigns with it (one was cut short due to moving across the Atlantic, the other was an online campaign).  It was fun, but I increasingly found the SEIGE mechanic problematic.  

And, after a while, the question became: why not just run TSR D&D?  So I eventually decided to go with classic D&D (Basic/Expert) and Swords & Wizardry (the 0e retro-clone) for my old school D&D gaming.

My experience with C&C was more recent.  I sort of ignored C&C initially when it was first released.  The series of pickup games of C&C I played in recently, were with several friends who wanted to try it out.

The only reason why I bothered playing 3.5E D&D (and later 4E) in the first place over the last 5+ years or so, was due to my inability to find a stable local group to play 1E AD&D or the older Moldvay or Mentzer D&D box sets.  The few groups I did find locally that played 1E or 2E AD&D, were very dysfunctional.  I only lasted a few sessions in these dysfunctional groups, before telling them I was resigning from their game.

Quote from: Akrasia;390375If one really likes certain aspects of d20/3e, but wants a simpler system, then I think that C&C is a very good choice.

If I wanted a really simple version of d20/3E, I probably would have chosen something like Microlite20 or Microlite74.

Quote from: Peregrin;390326If anyone here has any experiences, what did you like/not like about it in play?  Did it differ from AD&D substantially, or did it just feel like a more streamlined version?

I like the SIEGE engine, but I make 15 the base TN and give +3 bonus for Primes.   I've yanked the idea of primes for my OD&D / S&W games.  

I am mostly happy with C&C and I would rather play it than AD&D, even though it keeps too much of AD&D's clunkiness that I throw out when I run OD&D.

Quote from: Lawbag;390349So if it was a straight 3-way battle between C&C, DND Basic/Cyclopedia and Dark Dungeons, which would win.

There is no Ten Commandments, just a Chinese Menu.  

Take what you like from anywhere, then toss the rest.

Thanks guys.  

I guess I'll be tweaking the system a bit if I do decide to use it.  Easy enough to modify.

Quote from: mhensley;390347Compared to free rulesets like OSRIC, BFRPG, and LL, C&C looks weak in comparison.

I have to take issue with this, just 'cause BFRPG uses a horrible version of Soutane as its main font. Absolutely childish looking. Might as well be Comic Sans.

My experience of the C&C modules is that they are woefully average. I've read more exciting MERP adventures than these.

Quote from: Spinachcat;390451There is no Ten Commandments, just a Chinese Menu.  

Take what you like from anywhere, then toss the rest.

The master spoke wisdom unto him...

Quote from: Peregrin;390466I guess I'll be tweaking the system a bit if I do decide to use it.  Easy enough to modify.

...and lo, he was Enlightened.

Myself, I'm currently partial to D&D RC with the class/race split from Basic Fantasy RPG, the spell list from S&W, and assorted bits and pieces from LL AEC.

Quote from: FASERIP;390478I have to take issue with this, just 'cause BFRPG uses a horrible version of Soutane as its main font. Absolutely childish looking. Might as well be Comic Sans.

I don't mind it. BFRPG is a decent game, which skirts the border between retro-clone and tribute game, with some good implementations of old ideas. It does deserve a lot more love than it gets, IMO.

Quote from: Lawbag;390479My experience of the C&C modules is that they are woefully average. I've read more exciting MERP adventures than these.

Yup. The ones by Casey Christopherson are pretty good, Dark Chateau by Rob Kuntz was decent, but the rest always had this "soooo, why did this need to be published?" vibe. Which is weird since there have been a lot of great old school modules in the last few years from other sources.

That said, this should not be a barrier before trying the game, since C&C makes it very easy to convert AD&D/OSRIC/whatever stats on the fly.

Short version:  I liked C&C a lot, at first, but after playing it for a while I ended up finding things I didn't like, which led to me ripping out the SIEGE engine and house-ruling it to be more and more like TSR D&D.  In the end, it made more sense for me to play the real deal.  

Long version: See this post on big purple

Quote from: Melan;390497Yup. The ones by Casey Christopherson are pretty good, Dark Chateau by Rob Kuntz was decent, but the rest always had this "soooo, why did this need to be published?" vibe. Which is weird since there have been a lot of great old school modules in the last few years from other sources.

Agreed, mostly.  I'd really like to see some old-fashioned quality crawls put out for it.  There aren't a lot of really bad adventures for C&C, but there aren't a lot of A+ ones, either.

DB4 and DB5, the Dro Mandras modules, were pretty good.  Those were by Christopherson.

Those are the ones I'd also recommend first. Dark Chateau is also a good take on the low level goblin module concept; it has all sorts of problems*, but it works and haz the crazy imaginative Kuntzian elements in the background. Otherwise... as you wrote, they are 'meh'.
____________
* The major thing, which affects all Kuntz modules, is invisible depth -- imaginative "holy shit this is so cool" details on locales and items the players will probable never, ever learn, since they would have to jump through several hoops backwards to get to them.

Quote from: Melan;390683* The major thing, which affects all Kuntz modules, is invisible depth -- imaginative "holy shit this is so cool" details on locales and items the players will probable never, ever learn, since they would have to jump through several hoops backwards to get to them.

Tinsel.

Well, I still like C&C alot.

It's easy to run games, both one-shot adventures and campaigns. It's a bit of work to pregen mid and high level characters, however designing adventures is a snap, and adjusting challenges and encounters for different sizes and types of parties requires only a bit of effort.

Most games I run are sandbox style adventures, with multiple possible outcomes, some of which depend on the actions of the players, and some of which depend on the actions of NPCs.

Quote from: Philotomy Jurament;390572Short version:  I liked C&C a lot, at first, but after playing it for a while I ended up finding things I didn't like, which led to me ripping out the SIEGE engine and house-ruling it to be more and more like TSR D&D.  In the end, it made more sense for me to play the real deal.  

Yep, I did the same.

I love C&C.

It's extremely compatible with all your pre 3e monster books, sourcebooks, adventures etc. which is a huge plus. To me it mixes the flavor of 1e with the smoothness of 2e and some of the modern elements of 3e. I especially like the takes on the various classes and their abilities - by far my favorite versions from any D&D game.

The siege mechanic is meh in my opinion. Works just as well as other systems but doesn't knock my socks off as being a big improvement. The game as a whole is very easy to houserule and create new material for, making it simple to tweak things to your taste and customize as needed.

People have mentioned a slow release of supplements but this is one game where I really don't see the need for anything outside of the main book and the monster book.

Quote from: GoOrange;390868People have mentioned a slow release of supplements but this is one game where I really don't see the need for anything outside of the main book and the monster book.

That is absolutely true.
I think that when people complain about C&C supplements they think about the Castle Keeper Guide (CKG) more than anything else.
Maybe how long Castle Zagyg took to unfold as well.