Difference between C&C and DCC?

[mr baron]

How would you describe the differnences between Castles and Crusades and DCC?

I really like C&C, but I am wondering about the differences between the two games.

[mshensley]

From what I've seen so far:

DCC will be in one book, not 2 or 3.

DCC will have better art than C&C.

GG actually knows how to run spellchecker.

GG modules are a lot better than the ones TLG makes.

[smathis]

Hi mr baron:

I like C&C and appreciate what TLG has done in putting it together. To give them credit where it's due, C&C kicked off this "old-school renaissance" with the publication of their little white box for C&C. Goodman Games and Necromancer both deserve kudos in this department for their adventures and supplements but, in a way, it was C&C that created the first "retro-clone", several years before OSRIC even.

Both DCC and C&C are based on OGL 3e D&D. That much they have in common. That said, we don't have a lot of information about DCC at the moment. Even playtesters have been a little foggy on some of the rule differences. But of what we know, here's what I can say would be different. Joseph or someone can correct me if I'm wrong...

• DCC stats have been renamed... Strength, Agility, Stamina, Intelligence, Luck, Personality. Some of the rules around these attributes (and how they are used) is significantly different. For example, Luck applies its bonus to a random "thing" determined at character creation -- such as Saving Throws.
• DCC starts out as 0-level. Players start out with non-classed "commoner" characters that advance to first level and beyond.
• The "game balance" of DCC is handled through randomization. Use of tables for crits and spell-casting make it difficult for a player to game the system and apply bonuses to get consistent benefits out of them.
• Magic in DCC is randomized. With each spell having greater and lesser effects based on a spellcaster's spell roll. Spellcasters start out with a bonus that goes down each time they cast a spell in a day -- whether that spell is successful or not. This bonus can go as negative as you want but it's been said that once you get into the -4 neighborhood you're effectively "done" for the day. Even more, spells are not "lost" when cast. They are only lost when the spell fails. A caster can also burn attribute points to boost Spell Rolls on a one-for-one basis. This is called Spellburn. Spellburn is taking temporary attribute damage to increase spell effects. Spellburn can also lead to some nasty side effects as it's one of the ways a spellcaster draws the attention of extraplanar entities.
• DCC will use a whole bunch more funky dice. Things like d3s, d5s, d14, d16 and d24. Mainly this is all about the randomization. Instead of dropping a -4 penalty down on someone, you might knock them down one die type (from a d20 to a d16, per se). I'm not sure if this is actually how it works but it sounds like it from what I've heard/read. The funky dice are also used with the crit tables, enabling characters to reach better and better results as they increase in level.

Hope that helps. I don't have any information about the class abilities yet. Nor do I know anything about the skill system -- besides that the 0-level "profession" plays a part in it.

So I can't speak to how a DCC Fighter would differ from a C&C Fighter. DCC is supposed to have race-as-class. This is a sticking point for some. But I think it's appropriate given the literature on which DCC is based. Other than that, I think DCC is going to have the classic four D&D classes (Fighter, Cleric, Thief, Magic-User) as well as Elf, Dwarf and Halfling.

I know that C&C has other classes such as Barbarian, Knight, Assassin and Monk. And it doesn't do race-as-class.

[geordie racer]

one game has equipment lists, detailed, with how much everything costs. Count up your pennies and proceed to your favourite store in Yggsburgh. I'll have some wolvesbane and a week's rations please. Shopping, so adventurous, non ?

the other game - you probably have to thieve stuff from the bazaar then scarper thru labyrinthine alleys, or hang upside-down from a rope to gather Black Lotus cuttings from the Gardens of Gomballuh.

OK so what I'm saying is that C&C wants to be 1E and ends up being able to mirror that form of gameplay, it's a game built to emulate a game. It looks back only as far as Gygax.

I personally think the biggest shift is the greater randomization in DCC that will make the games more fun for both DM and player.

[finarvyn]

DCC will have better art than C&C. GG actually knows how to run spellchecker. GG modules are a lot better than the ones TLG makes.

Ouch. I take it you're not a C&C guy, eh Mike?

Smathis has a pretty good list so far of the key differences. I'm hoping that there is enough compatibility between C&C and DCC that I can swap monsters back and forth and things like that, but we'll just have to see how DCC shakes out. Joseph has some innovative ideas and DCC seems to be emerging as a "not quite like anything else" rpg, so making an exact comparrison looks to be a tricky task.

C&C was more of an attempt to bring a newer edition (3E) back to the days of an older edition (AD&D) and its development process reflected that. It's a blend of the new and the old, which means that some folks like it better and some folks hate it because it's not either one.

DCC is more of an attempt to bring in an "alternate universe D&D" where the game will go in a different direction than D&D did, taking as inspiration the literature of the day and building a system off of that. Totally different philosophy.

Since both are "built" off of 3E, there are bound to be basic mechanical similarities -- armor class, hit points, some spells perhaps, etc -- but the different philosohies are going to cause some differences as well so it's hard to say just how close they will be when all of the smoke clears.

Maybe that helps?

[mshensley]

Ouch. I take it you're not a C&C guy, eh Mike?

I really wanted to like C&C. I was a playtester, bought the white box, and bought the first two printings. Even when my group laughed at how horribly edited the game was, I still wanted to run it. But after BFRPG came out and showed that one guy with no company could put out a properly edited and laid out rulebook, I lost all faith in TLG.

I'd still happily play in a C&C game, but I doubt I would ever buy it or run it again.

[rabindranath72]

Ouch. I take it you're not a C&C guy, eh Mike?

I really wanted to like C&C. I was a playtester, bought the white box, and bought the first two printings. Even when my group laughed at how horribly edited the game was, I still wanted to run it. But after BFRPG came out and showed that one guy with no company could put out a properly edited and laid out rulebook, I lost all faith in TLG.

I'd still happily play in a C&C game, but I doubt I would ever buy it or run it again.

+1