PDA

View Full Version : C&C v. 2e



Mark Hall
2010-12-01, 04:06 PM
This is primarily for hamlet, since he mentioned it (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showpost.php?p=9874115&postcount=19), but what do you (in plural) see as making one more desirable than the other?

hamlet
2010-12-01, 04:28 PM
Me personally, there are a couple of very minor things that I don't care for.

1) I don't like the task resolution replacement for what I felt was very simple and elegant in ability checks (roll under attribute and succeed, over and fail). Not a qualitative judgement, just that I don't care for it.

2) It is too much like 1st edition for me. Dont' get me wrong, I love first edition, but what I love about 2nd edition is that while it can be 1st edition, it is very capable of much more and much more easily.

Couple other niggling little things, but what it amounts to is just personal taste. If I'm gonna run a game, I'll most likely use AD&D 2e rather than C&C, but that won't stop me from stealing things from the later that strike my fancy.

Mark Hall
2010-12-01, 04:56 PM
Me personally, there are a couple of very minor things that I don't care for.

1) I don't like the task resolution replacement for what I felt was very simple and elegant in ability checks (roll under attribute and succeed, over and fail). Not a qualitative judgement, just that I don't care for it.

2) It is too much like 1st edition for me. Dont' get me wrong, I love first edition, but what I love about 2nd edition is that while it can be 1st edition, it is very capable of much more and much more easily.

Couple other niggling little things, but what it amounts to is just personal taste. If I'm gonna run a game, I'll most likely use AD&D 2e rather than C&C, but that won't stop me from stealing things from the later that strike my fancy.

Ok, I can understand the first, but the second I'm lost on. I don't really see much in 2e that can't be done in C&C if you're willing to homebrew a little bit.

hamlet
2010-12-01, 05:06 PM
Ok, I can understand the first, but the second I'm lost on. I don't really see much in 2e that can't be done in C&C if you're willing to homebrew a little bit.

Specialist wizards.

And yes, you're right, they can be homebrewed right in. However, why am I going to spend the effort homebrewing C&C when I have 2nd edition right over here?

Mark Hall
2010-12-01, 05:27 PM
Specialist wizards.

And yes, you're right, they can be homebrewed right in. However, why am I going to spend the effort homebrewing C&C when I have 2nd edition right over here?

In my case, it's because 2nd edition has so much I have to fight. It's not Fantasy Craft by any means, but the discrete subsystems and the like... ugh.

hamlet
2010-12-01, 05:35 PM
In my case, it's because 2nd edition has so much I have to fight. It's not Fantasy Craft by any means, but the discrete subsystems and the like... ugh.

To each their own, which is something that gets lost on the interwebs.

And you do realize that this discussion, on this board, is far to esoteric to get much traction beyond, perhaps, two or three other people?:smallsmile:

Matthew
2010-12-01, 06:29 PM
I'll make three!

There is a lot to like about C&C, but I think when all is said and done it feels like a counterfeit to me. As a bridge between D20/3e and AD&D it is great, but on its own terms I end up just getting my AD&D books out, at which point I no longer need C&C. The universal task resolution system is my main dislike, but there are a lot of other niggling little things that did not bother me at first but over time have dulled my enthusiasm more and more. The non simultaneous combat round, the weight of coins, the encumbrance system and so on. Also, I wish the writing was better. I found after a while that the books were essentially just props at my table, but I definitely approve of the attribute system. :smallbiggrin:

hamlet
2010-12-02, 08:11 AM
but I definitely approve of the attribute system. :smallbiggrin:

Meh. It's nice and simple, I'll give you that, but the esoteric versions in the AD&D PHB's will always have prime place in my heart.

Mark Hall
2010-12-02, 12:10 PM
I'll make three!

There is a lot to like about C&C, but I think when all is said and done it feels like a counterfeit to me. As a bridge between D20/3e and AD&D it is great, but on its own terms I end up just getting my AD&D books out, at which point I no longer need C&C. The universal task resolution system is my main dislike, but there are a lot of other niggling little things that did not bother me at first but over time have dulled my enthusiasm more and more. The non simultaneous combat round, the weight of coins, the encumbrance system and so on. Also, I wish the writing was better. I found after a while that the books were essentially just props at my table, but I definitely approve of the attribute system. :smallbiggrin:

Heh. And some of these things are just stuff I gloss over. Weight of coins is more or less ignored, unless it gets ridiculous... big coin hauls tend to result in players going back to town, rather than trying to haul it through the dungeon.

What's wrong with the encumbrance system? While I'm not strict on it, I rather like its simplification of things.

Matthew
2010-12-02, 01:03 PM
Meh. It's nice and simple, I'll give you that, but the esoteric versions in the AD&D PHB's will always have prime place in my heart.

I have a sort of affinity for them, but basically the attribute tables are probably the thing I most dislike about AD&D.



Heh. And some of these things are just stuff I gloss over. Weight of coins is more or less ignored, unless it gets ridiculous... big coin hauls tend to result in players going back to town, rather than trying to haul it through the dungeon.

Yeah, I was glossing over them as well, which was the problem. Filling in with AD&D made me realise I might as well be playing AD&D. It is a close call, but the latter is in the end closest to my preferred version of the game.



What's wrong with the encumbrance system? While I'm not strict on it, I rather like its simplification of things.

It is not terrible, but I would much rather total the weight and decide whether the volume and arrangement is acceptable, rather than subordinate my judgement unnecessarily to a system.