Castle & Crusades - who has tried it and not stuck with it?

[Aus_Snow]

While many people claim "you can do anything with C&C" the fact is that you can do "anything" with any RPG system... or with a blank sheet of paper, for that matter. It's all a matter of how much work you want to put into personal revisions and house rule design.

QFT.


Also, I came away pretty disillusioned in general, after reading through it. I can see the appeal, for many, but for me it simply lacked a real "motivator" of any kind. I went from reading that to re-reading some 1e, and found I preferred the 1e, if anything (even despite my many misgivings). So. . . yeah. :\


If it came down to it, I would rather run, or play, a "genuine" old-school (rather than old-school styled) game.

 

[Dragonhelm]

I'm curious to know if C&C's use of 3e-isms (i.e. spell levels, ascending AC) affected anyone's outlook on C&C, or if it just didn't matter in the long run. I found that aspect appealing, personally.

 

[seskis281]

I'm curious to know if C&C's use of 3e-isms (i.e. spell levels, ascending AC) affected anyone's outlook on C&C, or if it just didn't matter in the long run. I found that aspect appealing, personally.

That's the crux - C&C is indeed a hybrid, mixing elements of 1e (variable XP progression, unbalanced character progression, etc.) with elements of 3.x (the ascending AC, d20 base mechanic), looking for a middle ground. For some, the elements taken for both sides were good, others look and say "the kept what I didn't like from both/either." It added the Siege mechanic and the philosophy of "the GM (CK) should expand and change variations on the rules" and eschewed trying to provide specific rules beyond the foundation.

Some of us love it. Others find it still too much like 3.x lite, and so prefer earlier (OD&D, B/X, 1e, even 2e); others find it runs faster but prefer the more elaborate character "building" of 3.x. C&C has its niche, and those who find it and like will be happy, those who don't will stick with or explore different systems. Or, probably most commonly as a trend soon, mix and match and produce their own personal hybrids.

Plenty out there for all of us!

 

[Teflon Billy]

I ran it once and my players were kind of lukewarm on how little differentiation there was (mechanically) between characters of the same class.

In the end, I just decided that if I want to play a game like C&C, I'll just bust out the D&D Rules Cyclopedia.

 

[seskis281]

I think it's fitting here to say this...

As a C&Cer who does love the system and uses it as my primary game, I thank all of those who have posted here for giving it a chance in the first place. The fact that is wasn't your cup of tea doesn't bother me at all, and I say just have fun at your next game table no matter what you are playing!

I have the utmost respect for those who are open to trying all sorts of differing game experiences. I think a thread like this is great, even if you didn't fall in love with C&C like I did.

 

[Dragonhelm]

I think it's fitting here to say this...

As a C&Cer who does love the system and uses it as my primary game, I thank all of those who have posted here for giving it a chance in the first place. The fact that is wasn't your cup of tea doesn't bother me at all, and I say just have fun at your next game table no matter what you are playing!

I have the utmost respect for those who are open to trying all sorts of differing game experiences. I think a thread like this is great, even if you didn't fall in love with C&C like I did.

Agreed. I see too many people who are trying to place their system over others. The system is just the tool for the fun part - the game. The key, in my mind, is finding the right system for you.

So I'm glad people gave C&C a fair shake, even if it wasn't for them.

 

[Teflon Billy]

Agreed. I see too many people who are trying to place their system over others. The system is just the tool for the fun part - the game. The key, in my mind, is finding the right system for you.

So I'm glad people gave C&C a fair shake, even if it wasn't for them.

Agreed. D&D isn't even our main system...

Number one is Mutants and Masterminds

Number two is Conan

Number three...Spycraft 2.0

Then D&D

 

[Dragonhelm]

Agreed. D&D isn't even our main system...

Number one is Mutants and Masterminds

Number two is Conan

Number three...Spycraft 2.0

Then D&D

You bring up an excellent point as well, which is that we don't have to stick with one system. For example, I'd probably use D&D for a Dragonlance game, then C&C if I'm running an old AD&D module. If I'm playing L5R, I may use either the d10 or d20 system.

Different systems for different occasions.

A trap I fall into is that I feel there should be "one system to rule them all" - that singular system you use for everything. Really, that's a bit of a fallacy. A person could theoretically use d20, GURPS, d6, etc. for any number of games.


What I do (for some strange, stupid reason) is beat myself up trying to figure out what game system to use. My ideal system is somewhere between C&C and D&D. I've gone back and forth between the two systems half a dozen times. It doesn't help not having a real-life game going on. I guess, really, there comes a time when you just have to house-rule it, take the best of all editions, and go with what you want.

BTW, kudos to this thread. It's been most helpful.

 

[HellHound]

You bring up an excellent point as well, which is that we don't have to stick with one system.

Thank goodness for that.

I would hate to try to run Dread using the D&D system.

I'm running D&D again after more than a year of downtime, but my heart is still with a lot of other game systems like CyberPunk, Vampire and Star Frontiers.

 

[Falstaff]

I bought the books, PH and Monster book. I love the "idea" of C&C, but I didn't care for the SEIGE system.

I prefer to DM basic D&D and First Edition.

happy gaming!