Quote from: Nicephorus;256848C&C is ok.  For my tastes, it took brough back some of the wrong things about older editions, such as differing XP for classes and the resultant lack of simple multiclassing.  
 
I'd play it but not run it.

I don't particularly like any of the systems methods of multi-classing.  AD&D added extra work to try and keep track of everything, and for some reason used one system for demi-humans and another for humans.  D&D 3 was way too free - it ruined the point of classes (strong archetypes) and got rather confusing at times (class level vs character level, etc).  D&D 4 is just a bit too restrictive.

My idea for simple multi-classing for a game like C&C - use a common XP chart for all classes.  Allow all races to multi-class in the way AD&D did (gaining levels in all classes simultaneously) and let everyone choose whether they want to have 2 or 3 classes that can be any combination of classes (or if you want to stick to racial restrictions, whichever one your race can choose).  Then, when awarding XP, simply divide the amount you reward the character by 2 or 3, depending on how many classes they had.

Yeah, I know, it won't work with the whole "keeping everyone perfectly balanced at all times" concept, but I think if people multi-class they should progress slower than everyone else (or else everyone in the group could just multi-class).

Quote from: Akrasia;256986Does it pain you to know that I use your old school netbooks with C&C?

Er.  Guilty also.

Quote from: DeadUematsu;256708C&C is pretty cool and I find Kell's antagonism a bit disturbing.

Yeah...I heart me some C&C, in fact I'd say it's one of my favorite games EVAR.

Kellri...now...if he'd just said, "meh, I don't like it", or somesuch, then -- OK.  But -- antagonism, yeah, uncalled for.  It's...what the fuck Kellri?  I mean, seriously?

EDIT: In fact, today I was talking about C&Cwith my wife, and I remarked: "I like that I can play AD&D again but with better rules."  Better for me, anyway.

I ran C&C for quite a while, and liked it a lot, at first.  However, after spending more time with the system, I kept running into things that didn't work like I wanted them to.  Often, this seemed to be "side-effects" from the universal mechanic (i.e. the SIEGE engine).  For example, I dislike the use of the SIEGE engine for surprise.  Since perception is Wis based, that tends to make the Cleric (who is likely to have high Wis that is also Prime) your ambush detector, rather than your Thief or your Ranger.  I also disliked the probabilities that result from the SIEGE engine for surprise.  Another example was saving throws: with C&C, what really counts is your stat (and whether it's Prime), rather than your class.  I favor class over stats.  I also disliked the way challenges and PC level tend to track (and cancel out) one another.  There were other details here and there, but you get the idea.

I also found myself using the SIEGE engine less and less for handling miscellaneous actions in-game.  What I found myself doing was considering an action, and thinking "this PC should have about an X% chance of pulling that off..." and then *backing into* a SIEGE engine target number.  I even had a printed off table that indexed challenge levels, stats, and target number percentages (for both Prime and non-Prime) that I had downloaded from somewhere!  When I realized what I was doing (i.e. making more work for myself), I cut out the extra steps and just went with the % chance.

As I continued to play C&C, I house ruled and changed things, like everyone does.  One day I played a game of Holmes Basic D&D, and I realized that many of the things that I was aiming for in my house-ruled C&C game were already present in TSR-era D&D.  That is, I was house-ruling C&C in ways that were like TSR D&D.  I think I'm really dense, sometimes, but eventually even I realized that what really suited me *was* the older D&D editions.

I still think C&C is a good via media system; I just found that it doesn't suit me as well as I first thought.  It definitely straddles the line between the older and the modern editions of D&D.  I think that is its strength and its weakness at the same time.

Does C&C use a BAB-style roll-over d20 attack mechanic, or is it the tables again? I've been disappointed to find most of the old-school clones stick with some version of the attack tables despite their clunkiness in play (esp. when players are new and need to look things up in the book or perform unintuitive calculations every time they roll an attack).

Ascending AC, BAB (here called 'Base to Hit or BtH).  So it's like 3.x in that respect.

Quote from: Dr Rotwang!;257081Ascending AC, BAB (here called 'Base to Hit or BtH).  So it's like 3.x in that respect.

That's cool. That's what I was hoping.

Quote from: Pseudoephedrine;257080I've been disappointed to find most of the old-school clones stick with some version of the attack tables despite their clunkiness in play (esp. when players are new and need to look things up in the book or perform unintuitive calculations every time they roll an attack).

In addition to C&C (which I wouldn't characterize as a clone), BFRPG and Swords & Wizardry have ascending AC.  With BFRPG it's "baked in."  Swords & Wizardry uses a "Flip-AC" system where both AC options are presented and you can choose which one you want to use.

For my part, I don't find the old-style AC to be an hindrance in play.  Players typically write down their target numbers on their character sheet, which I find works very fast (and with no calculation at all).  The DM still has a table to reference, but it's either on his screen or on some reference sheets in front of him.

By the way, Philotomy, while we have you here, I just want to say your OD&D musings are superb, and a fantastic inspiration.

Quote from: Zachary The First;257087By the way, Philotomy, while we have you here, I just want to say your OD&D musings are superb, and a fantastic inspiration.

Thank you, I appreciate that.  It's gratifying to know that others are finding them interesting or useful.

I think Castles&Crusades is the bee's knees, and it also led me to write this (although the end result is more "d20 light meets old school design sensibilities meets weird fantasy").

On the whole animosity thing, that is based on a lot of old history and hysteria from the design process, but also the unpalatable attitudes of both opposing old-schoolers (the rants about "gay-ass elves with floppy ears" and "wig-wearing illusionists" being the most entertaining) and artist Peter Bradley, whom I personally find to be one of the most annoying persons I have interacted with on the Internet.

Ah yes the siege engine, because my 3 dexterity is just as good as your 18 dexterity.  Really the 12 / 18 split is about twice what it needs to be.  Especially since the character's level adds to class related abilities.

Quote from: Melan;257122I think Castles&Crusades is the bee's knees, and it also led me to write this

After following that link, possibly for the first time in my life, I thought to myself, "I wish I knew Hungarian."

Quote...artist Peter Bradley, whom I personally find to be one of the most annoying persons I have interacted with on the Internet.

Despite being a C&C fan, I rarely post at the TLG forums for this reason.

Quote from: Philotomy Jurament;257086For my part, I don't find the old-style AC to be an hindrance in play.  Players typically write down their target numbers on their character sheet, which I find works very fast (and with no calculation at all).

Even back in 1976, players in groups I was familiar with would write the numbers 0 through 9 on their character sheet and the target number they needed to hit that AC next to it. We'd roll the dice, glance at the chart on our character sheet and tell the DM "I hit armor class 5" (or whatever the best armor we could hit with that roll was) and the DM would tell us if it hit the monster or not. It wasn't any slower than the WOTC D&D hit roll.

Quote from: David Johansen;257153Ah yes the siege engine, because my 3 dexterity is just as good as your 18 dexterity.  Really the 12 / 18 split is about twice what it needs to be.  Especially since the character's level adds to class related abilities.

I assume you mean this in cases where the Dex3 is Prime and Dex18 is not. Well, I'd say that the clumsy guy who spent his whole life retraining his body to overcome his innate flaws could be as good as the "natural athlete".

This quickly can devolve into a Nature/Nurture argument, but boils down to the fact that the Prime mechanics are there to represent long-term training and as a very, very basic skill system. We won't get into the feasibility of the Dex3 person realistically going into a field that required much training in Dex.... that's a min/max issue. But for me it doesn't ruin any verisimilitude... a guy who trains will get better at things even if it doesn't inherantly change his innate form.