I don't know C&C, but I keep hearing negative things about it that I'd at least like to understand what people are talking about.

From what I've read, the two keywords that come in for the most complains are: Primes (IIRC), and the SIEGE system. So what are they, and what's the argument against them?

EDIT: should have been "What are the main criticisms?"

and what is it C&C stands for... it's one of the abbreviations I can't suss without google... is it Castles and Crusades/Crusaders?

Quote from: Elliot Wilen;503663I don't know C&C, but I keep hearing negative things about it that I'd at least like to understand what people are talking about.

From what I've read, the two keywords that come in for the most complains are: Primes (IIRC), and the SIEGE system. So what are they, and what's the argument against them?

EDIT: should have been "What are the main criticisms?"

The SIEGE system and the Primes thing never took with me.

Plus art, editing, and layout, the fact that the CKG took forever...lotsa things.

Reposting the stuff from another thread (Part of C&C's problems included).

Here's what I basically answered to someone who clearly expressed the hope that "D&D Next"'s nod towards AD&D wouldn't look like C&C... because well, there's AD&D for that (personal opinions on said C&C follow, but that's not really my point here):

I don't think 5e will replace AD&D in ANY case. You'd just have to clone AD&D, and we have that. Twice. It's the Original + OSRIC.

AND YET, I think it *is* possible to have a game that is based on a d20 premise and basically builds its own thing based on AD&D's vibe and premise, rather than cloning it in a sort of pastiche way like C&C did. The way Swords & Wizardry reproduces OD&D from a d20 frame in its own way. Now take Swords & Wizardry Complete Rules (i.e. clone of late OD&D, almost AD&D). Imagine that AC is Ascending by default (you have the choice in S&W Complete). You basically have a d20 game in substance, but the logic sustaining it, the way it plays, the things it's focused on... is actually pretty much AD&D. You see what I mean?

Basically, I'm saying that creating a game on a d20 frame that is in the tradition of First Ed IS possible. C&C just did it *wrong*, like a Sprague de Camp pastiche of the real thing and bits and pieces glued onto the system like different XP charts and shit, and that awful SIEGE engine that just has NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with AD&D in the first place.

It's not the only way to do it. Far from it.

I was initially very enthusiastic about C&C.  Over time, though, I noticed a few things that I wasn't keen on.

Namely:

Quote from: thedungeondelver;503671The SIEGE system and the Primes thing never took with me.

Eventually I decided that S&W did everything for me that C&C did (ascending AC, simplified saving throws, etc.) without the cruft (SIEGE system).  

Regarding:

Quote from: thedungeondelver;503671Plus art, editing, and layout, the fact that the CKG took forever...lotsa things.

The poor editing did grate.

Also, Peter Bradley is perhaps the single most annoying person affiliated with a RPG company to post on any RPG forum anywhere.

That said, I do like C&C, and would be happy to play in a game with a decent CK.

Quote from: Akrasia;503678Also, Peter Bradley is perhaps the single most annoying person affiliated with a RPG company to post on any RPG forum anywhere.

At least he isn't some non-gaming, Jew-hating OSR groupie like Stefan Poag.

Quote from: Akrasia;503678I was initially very enthusiastic about C&C.  Over time, though, I noticed a few things that I wasn't keen on.

That was my experience, as well.  I went from running a 3e game to running a C&C game, and loved it, at first.  However, after playing C&C for a while I found that some things just didn't work as well as I thought they would, and other things worked completely differently than I wanted them to.  I started house-ruling, and my house rules almost always took C&C closer and closer to TSR D&D.  Eventually I realized that I should save myself some trouble and just run TSR D&D.

EDIT:
Here's an old rpg.net thread where I went into specific criticisms in more detail.

I like C&C. The classes are well done. Its a solid AD&D 2.5e and its well supported with adventures.

I like the Primes because they allow very quick ways to customize characters.

The big argument about the SIEGE system is how Clerics can spot traps better than Thieves. This can be an issue, but it never bothered me and its easily houseruled.

However, like Akrasia, I defected to S&W:WB. For me, it was the ruleset closest to my own 0e homebrew and I really like how S&W does saves.

I have recently been considering adding Primes to my 0e games.

The SIEGE engine™ (yes, it is indeed trademarked) is essentially an ability-based task resolution/saving throw system. You roll 1d20 + ability score bonus + experience level vs. a target number, which is the sum of two variables:

• 12/18. For ability scores the character has training in (primes), the base is 12. For other scores, it is 18.
• a GM-determined modifier.

A character has two or three primes:

• one is set by the character's class (Strength for Fighters, Dexterity for Rogues and Assassins, Wisdom for Clerics, and so on);
• humans can assign two more as they'd like, while other characters can assign one more.

Saving throws, as well as non-combat tasks, are tied to these ability checks.

This system has been criticised as a "de facto skill system" by people who are against skills in their level-based games, and as sloppy or badly explained by others. I think the main issue was not really this bit of the rules, but rather that C&C was neither a lighter form of d20 nor an OGL-based recreation of Gygaxian AD&D. It is probably closest in tone to post-Unearthed Arcana 1e; lots of different classes, a pronounced high fantasy feel, seriously fluffed-up prose and so on.

[EDIT]

QuoteAlso, Peter Bradley is perhaps the single most annoying person affiliated with a RPG company to post on any RPG forum anywhere.

Yeah, that guy.

Quote from: Philotomy Jurament;503688I went from running a 3e game to running a C&C game, and loved it, at first.  However, after playing C&C for a while I found that some things just didn't work as well as I thought they would, and other things worked completely differently than I wanted them to.  I started house-ruling, and my house rules almost always took C&C closer and closer to TSR D&D.  Eventually I realized that I should save myself some trouble and just run TSR D&D.

Ironically, I also went from 3e into C&C and started with it as a base (the playtest documents and the initial discussions), but ended up going the other way, towards a compact, old-schoolish d20 variant we have been happily using ever since (and which now has a small but active community around it). I am still grateful for the ideas, even if I ended up, well, not really playing proper C&C.

My greatest letdown came from the modules, though. So promising, so unfulfilling. We could have had Castle Zagyg, and instead we got Yggsburgh and, well, I can't even remember what the rest were about. Goblins and orcs, I think?

Quote from: Akrasia;503678I was initially very enthusiastic about C&C.  Over time, though, I noticed a few things that I wasn't keen on.

I should add that I was enthusiastic, too, and played early versions (a couple of sessions with Gary at Milwaukee Gamefest)!

QuoteEventually I decided that S&W did everything for me that C&C did (ascending AC, simplified saving throws, etc.) without the cruft (SIEGE system).  

Once I (you punk kids and your ascending AC!  Get off my lawn!) started saying "OK I'll do this like AD&D.  I'll do this like AD&D." it became...AD&D.  Ergo quod sum, I stuck with AD&D.

QuoteThe poor editing did grate.

What bothered me the most about the editing was it damaged C&Cs reputation out of the gate, and it marred really well done stuff by their staff of writers (of which I was one for the Yggsburgh project, sadly Gary's passing meant none of that got out...maybe someday, somehow).

QuoteAlso, Peter Bradley is perhaps the single most annoying person affiliated with a RPG company to post on any RPG forum anywhere.

Brother, you ain't just whistlin' dixie and this is a world that Sean K. Reynolds, Bruce BAWWWGH and Ryan Dancey inhabit.

QuoteThat said, I do like C&C, and would be happy to play in a game with a decent CK.

If my buddy Don MacVittie (who was also a C&C writer - there's a story there about how we came to be friends, but for another time) ever shows up in FL again and deigns to run some C&C, I'd play in a heartbeat.

Quote from: thedungeondelver;503671The SIEGE system and the Primes thing never took with me.

Plus art, editing, and layout, the fact that the CKG took forever...lotsa things.

+1

Every single amateur osr effort has featured superior art, editing, and layout.   Why pay for C&C when better can be had for free?

The few times I played C&C, the SIEGE system seemed extraneous.  In the middle of the game, we ended up going back to the popular 1E AD&D houserule of rolling a d20 less than a particular character stat for a success, when called for by the DM.  This made C&C and the SIEGE system kinda pointless, for our games.

Thanks, especially to Melan & Philotomy, who went into some detail to explain how the system work.

It sounds like there were/are multiple problems with C&C, but the SIEGE system sounds like it just plain wasn't designed well at all.

The notion of having seperate target numbers for Primes is just stupid and unnecessary.  Why would you even do that, and not just give them a bonus to rolls?  It's the same effect, but one requires less tracking.  

That's just a facepalm worthy mechanic.