Castles & Crusades: Player's Handbook

[Henry]

der Kluge has played C&C, and unless something has changed is still playing a modified version of it with fellow poster Scadgrad; don't be quick to assume the reviewer has had no experience with it. I'd also say it's worth, as Akrasia did, offering another viewpoint in the reviews yourself, as unbiased as possible to serve as a counterpoint, if you feel the review didn't accurately protray the game.

I can understand der Kluge's take on it, and for many players more happy with other game systems, this is liable to be the case. If there's one thing I've seen about C&C, there's not a wide middle-ground on people exposed to it; the number of "take it or leave it" gamers for C&C is very, very, slim compared to "love it" or "hate it."

 

[ghul]

Do you have a link to your review? I find it's easy to critizie what is in essence a critic but a lot of people do it from their own "armchair" and never put up their own reviews. Love to see you're take of it.

So, in order for one to be recognized as a reputable criticiser of critics, one must himself first become a critic, thus drawing the ire of those who disagree with his critiques from time to time. It sounds like an interesting life of endless catch-22. Alas, I'm afraid I'm not very interested. But you may continue to enjoy yourself in this capacity if criticisms are fun for you. I don't mind. But if you wish to shed negative light on a subject for which you exhibit a poor understanding, I reserve the right to be critical of your criticism if it so behooves me. This is America, afterall. Flame on!

--Ghul

 

[JoeGKushner]

Just noting that it takes work to write a review as opposed to shooting off randomly on a message board and that if you feel strongly enough against a review, instead of ranting, a well thought out review to showcase your points of view is usually a better tactic. YMMV and all that.

 

[ghul]

der Kluge has played C&C, and unless something has changed is still playing a modified version of it with fellow poster Scadgrad; don't be quick to assume the reviewer has had no experience with it. I'd also say it's worth, as Akrasia did, offering another viewpoint in the reviews yourself, as unbiased as possible to serve as a counterpoint, if you feel the review didn't accurately protray the game.

Well said. I may get around to such a thing sooner or later. And let it be well understood that any criticism I have stated in regards to the critic in question are solely aimed at the criticism as written, not the author himself. I'm sure he's a fine fellow, and good RPGer, to boot. His critique was not well done, IMO.

I can understand der Kluge's take on it, and for many players more happy with other game systems, this is liable to be the case. If there's one thing I've seen about C&C, there's not a wide middle-ground on people exposed to it; the number of "take it or leave it" gamers for C&C is very, very, slim compared to "love it" or "hate it."

Well, I can't say I have as much insight in that regard, as I don't have the opportunity to troll the forums as much as I'd like to. Trolling is fun, though, I'll admit. However, in the time I've spent browsing for C&C topics, I have found a rash of 3e apologists who are quick to dismiss what they do not understand; in fact, I was that same 3e apologist myself not long ago. If you asked me what I thought of a rules-light D&D-ish game a year ago, I would have told you it was for simple-minded fools who failed to comprehend the brilliant complexity of D&D.

Now, having run D&D 3.0/3.5e for five years, and witnessing first hand as a DM how high-level gaming results, I've changed my outlook. Exposure to C&C has helped fuel this change for me. I was about to go back to 1e before I found C&C. And I'm not saying C&C is for everyone, but it is a grass-roots game, and because I enjoy it, it behooves me to defend it if I feel a negative spin born largely out of ignorance is used to describe it. So, in a nutshell, I am now a biased C&C apologist, yes sir. Stone me! Burn me at the stake! Flame on!

Beer!
--Ghul

 

[Akrasia]

Let's not get too sidetracked discussing the merits of Kluge's review (you can comment on the review directly, if you want).

There are FIVE reviews of the C&C PHB (including one by yours truly). Two give it 5/5, two give it 3/5, and one (mine) gives it 4/5.

Look through all five reviews and come to your own conclusions.

(I think it's a great game, but only for a certain audience, and the editing problems prevented me from giving it a 5/5.)

 

[ghul]

Just noting that it takes work to write a review as opposed to shooting off randomly on a message board and that if you feel strongly enough against a review, instead of ranting, a well thought out review to showcase your points of view is usually a better tactic. YMMV and all that.

Point taken and appreciated. And mayhap I will throw in a few crits here and there as time permits. I have been known to do so at Amazon, but those are fiction reviews and music reviews. But don't, my friend, discount the power, the fun, and the enjoyable hostility of the forum RANT! I'm certain with 8,355 posts under your belt, you've been known to rant a time or two.


--Ghul

 

[JoeGKushner]

A time or two?

Maybe a few magnitudes more than that. Sometimes I fear that my reviews themselves are rants.

 

[Dragonhelm]

C&C has many great qualities to it, many of which are mentioned above. It's a great beginner's game. It has simple rules. You can adapt any edition, especially 1e/2e, to C&C. It has the ability to be customized. It appeals to those looking for an old school feel.

To me, it's a great middle ground between old school and new school. Sure, it appeals to old schoolers quite a bit more, but there's a middle ground there that you can reach too. Want to use 2e non-weapon proficiencies and a small selection of feats? Go for it. Want to use 3e skills and no feats? You can do that too. Want to borrow a mechanic from another source? Feel free.

Though most gamers seem to take a "black or white" approach with C&C, I think it's a great system for some middle ground. You could theoretically run a game using C&C along with materials from all editions. You can mix and match rules all you want, or run it as-is. It's elegant in its simplicity.

 

[Odhanan]

Looks like people are overly ... personal on this thread.

 

[Henry]

Looks like people are overly ... personal on this thread.

Nah - this is tame - you should have seen the threads around March or so of this year. I've had to close more than one C&C/3E thread for pure nastiness. If I had temp-banned the offenders, the sheer number would have left visible gaps in the forums.

By now, though, most posters have learned that C&C is its own game, and fills a certain need, like - well, every other game out there now. Even back then, the leading proponents of C&C though were a lot nicer than some rather vehement proponents I've seen in other places.

My personal opinion? There's a lot of slighting of C&C, but then there's also a lot of perceived slighting of C&C that isn't meant to be; however, I've seen proponents in the past so used to defending against the genuine insults that they overreacted to the perceived slights and lost sight of why they were proponents in the first place: Because there's another choice out there, and it suits them. Then both sides get entrenched in lop-sided positions, denying that their game has any bad points, and making statements they wouldn't ordinarily make.

It totally covers over the fact that we're all gamers, looking for ways to maximize our good times, and want to help others do the same; hence, regardless of game, we're in the same boat.

And then I go to some Political-Party-argumentative message board, realize there's no one calling one another chicken-heads and spouting death threats, and thank the powers that we're so tame.