who else loves the C&C...?

[Dragonhelm]

I like C&C quite a bit. For me, I like the simplicity of use combined with some of the 3e concepts. I’ve done enough 3e design in my time that it’s hard to totally switch over, but that’s okay.

C&C is definitely a DM-friendly system. It allows for house rules like you wouldn’t believe. So if you want non-weapon proficiencies or 3e’s skills and feats, you can use them with minor tweaking. It’s also great that any edition of D&D converts to it.

From a player standpoint, it doesn’t offer up as much in terms of character builds, but it is free-form enough to allow players to play the sort of character they want without a lot of rules.

Now, I don’t use encumbrance when I run C&C, and I’m debating primes since I use a variant of the 3.0 skill system. I may allow primes for some things but not others.

I think if you like character builds and miniatures battle, this system won’t be to your tastes. If you’re into rules-light games focused on role-playing, then C&C is a great system.

 

[Deuce Traveler]

Is there any D&D version that handles encumberance well, though? I certainly haven't seen one!

Good point.

 

[Ralif Redhammer]

I love C&C.

But to answer your question, I think it's equally attractive to both players and DMs. For example, when a player tries some crazy stunt, or asks "can I do this?" we're not stuck flipping pages for a couple of minutes to see if it provokes an attack of opportunity or if there's a specific rule that covers it. Just set the difficulty level and roll the dice. And that make both parties happy.

Hey all!

I am just wondering (and I am talking from a position of ignorance in this matter because I haven't seen it yet) does Castles & Crusades appear a more attractive prospect for DMs than Players specifically?

 

[S'mon]

I concur with Jyrdan. My 3e group were quite happy to switch over to C&C. Playtesting it we found the battles went fine with minis (I allowed 5' step as part of a melee attack, which is a rule in the old RC D&D anyway). Battles went about 3 times faster than in 3e and had about 90% as much fun, so fun to time ratio much better.

 

[S'mon]

C&C seems to encourage customisation at the Class stage, you can design a new PC class pretty easily & there are tons available to suit a wide range of concepts. Most seem pretty well balanced, too!

 

[MaxKaladin]

Well, to be the voice of dissent, I didn't like it.

I've only played it and not used it as a DM, but I didn't like it. As others have said, it lacks customization options and that annoys me.

 

[NilesB]

I found C&C eliminated complexity where it increased tactical depth or fun and added complexity that reduced fun and consistency without increasing tactical depth.

 

[Treebore]

Well, to be the voice of dissent, I didn't like it.

I've only played it and not used it as a DM, but I didn't like it. As others have said, it lacks customization options and that annoys me.

IT only lacks customization options because it doesn't tell you how to customize. Using a little bit of system buidling skills you can add whatever customizations you want from any other D&D system.

Like I still have a feat type of mechanic and I use 3.5 skills as a guideline.

C&C is all about customizing the game how you want it to be customized, not how a bunch of game designers tell you to do it.

So you play C&C, find out what doesn't do what you want, then steal mechanics from other games based off the d20 to make it do exactly what you want.

That is one thing C&C can allow you to do.

Obviously this also assumes you don't already have a game doing exactly what you want.

I get a simplistic rules set that allows my players and I to play a fun game. So I am happy. Everyones likes/dislikes vary, so it obviously is not going to please everyone.

 

[Xyanthon]

I have the Player's Guide, Monster's and Treasure, and the Collector's Boxed set along with Yggsburg. I like what I've read but haven't played it yet to be able to say how well it playes. I am a big 1e fan so it definitely does capture some of the feel. I think it is strange that for me the System itself seems a little more old school D&D to me than 1e does but the art (while pretty good) definitely is not old school D&D. Not sure why that is but that's my take after reading through it.

 

[Larcen]

Is there any D&D version that handles encumberance well, though? I certainly haven't seen one!

Encumbrance? What's That?

In my 25+ years of gaming, we have never had the need for it.

We have always assumed that unless we find an obviously massive amount of loot, the party can always spread the loot out among all the members without doing any math.

So encumbrance for us was the DM saying one of the following

"You cant possibly carry all this. Make two trips."

Or

"Ok, you guys snatch up all the loot and leave..."