Why is there no talk about the Castle Keepers Guide preview?

[Darrin Drader]

I like C&C. It's a fun system to play when I'm in the mood for something more pared down from Pathfinder. It's also an RPG with a level of complexity that makes it possible to share with my kids.

Their prose ranges from good to lackluster, which is normal in most RPG books. Aside from that, there's probably a reason that Gary Gygax chose to work as closely as he did with them for such a long period of time. Gygax did not suffer fools. I suspect that he endorsed C&C because it most closely resembled the game that he would have made, had he been allowed to evolve AD&D himself.

Personally, I bought their C&C Complete set and I look forward to its arrival.

 

[Treebore]

I like C&C. It's a fun system to play when I'm in the mood for something more pared down from Pathfinder. It's also an RPG with a level of complexity that makes it possible to share with my kids.

Their prose ranges from good to lackluster, which is normal in most RPG books. Aside from that, there's probably a reason that Gary Gygax chose to work as closely as he did with them for such a long period of time. Gygax did not suffer fools. I suspect that he endorsed C&C because it most closely resembled the game that he would have made, had he been allowed to evolve AD&D himself.

Personally, I bought their C&C Complete set and I look forward to its arrival.

Not really, Gary likes the Trolls. He rarely, if ever, ran or played C&C. His game was his game of choice. Either 1E AD&D or his LA system was what I heard about him playing.

So I think he endorsed C&C for two reasons, he liked the Trolls, and C&C is HIGHLY compatible with 1E AD&D. As well as earlier versions. He definitely did not prefer it over LA, thats for sure.

As for the Trolls "prose", they are all over the map with that. They will have sections where their prose is very heavy, then they will have other sections that are just "here is the information". I have a theory where the more "prose" Steve has in his writing directly correlates to how many Dr. Peppers he has drank by the time he writes on any given day.

 

[Frost]

So how far off the original rules are my 1st printing C&C books? Would I need to buy a new one if I ever decided to give it a whirl again? Is there a PDF errata file I can download that brings me current?

Here you go:

C&C Errata

All the folks reading this thread should check it out for the title page alone. The Trolls are not without a sense of humor... ;-)

 

[FATDRAGONGAMES]

I like C&C. It's a fun system to play when I'm in the mood for something more pared down from Pathfinder. It's also an RPG with a level of complexity that makes it possible to share with my kids.

Their prose ranges from good to lackluster, which is normal in most RPG books. Aside from that, there's probably a reason that Gary Gygax chose to work as closely as he did with them for such a long period of time. Gygax did not suffer fools. I suspect that he endorsed C&C because it most closely resembled the game that he would have made, had he been allowed to evolve AD&D himself.

Personally, I bought their C&C Complete set and I look forward to its arrival.

From my talks with Gary, a lot of it (in addition to what you've said above) was his fondness for Steve and Davis. He had a lot of respect for them and mentioned that to me on a number of occasions. Gary loved working with them, and my impression was he really felt 'at home' so to speak with TLG.

 

[catsclaw227]

Here you go:

C&C Errata

All the folks reading this thread should check it out for the title page alone. The Trolls are not without a sense of humor... ;-)

I already found a typo on the very first page of errata (Ir-Rada 3).

They use the title "Shark, Magalodon", then reference it with it's correct spelling "Megalodon".

Also, it appears as though this errata only "fixes" two items.

1. The Shark entry
2. The change to a Fighter's Combat Dominance ability

The other items are Illusionist additions and a new/updated Barbarian class.

Why did they have 4 revisions?

EDIT: I think I see.... it is a 4th printing, not revision.

 

[qstor]

I compare them to Paizo, WOTC, Green Ronin and Mongoose all the time, so I am very aware that their quality of work is completely on par.

I know that their customer relations is the next closest to Paizo in the whole RPG community. I know their response to fan input is completely on par with Paizo. I know that when you meet the Trolls in person they are just as cool a group of people to meet as those who work for Paizo. They are equally as responsive, equally as open to talk about their products, etc...

I have to say that the editing in the Mongoose Traveller books that I've purchased isn't great. Much of the books seem rushed and the material isn't that great. The artwork is subpar too.

Comparing everything to Paizo then a lot of RPG stuff wouldn't meet muster.

But as far as TLG, I like the products that they've made. I got the original C&C books and the 4th edition ones. I preordered the book. Its funny, I've yet to play C&C but I'm really interested in the idea.

Mike

 

[rogueattorney]

Here you go:

C&C Errata

All the folks reading this thread should check it out for the title page alone. The Trolls are not without a sense of humor... ;-)

That's the errata for the third printing of what was fixed in the 4th printing.

There were two erratas compiled for the first printing of the book. One was a fairly light document of about 6 or 7 pages. The other was a fan-compiled document, 20-some pages long. The first was available in the downloads section of the TLG website. The other was buried in a link in the TLG forums.

These were simply for errors in the 1st printing of the book and did not contain the various rules changes and additions that came in with the 2nd printing. As far as I know, the Trolls never did issue a compiled errata of the rules additions and corrections between the 1st and 2nd printing.

Personally, I think the 1st printing of the C&C PHB is the worst edited "professional" rpg document I've ever seen.

 

[catsclaw227]

That's the errata for the third printing of what was fixed in the 4th printing.

There were two erratas compiled for the first printing of the book. One was a fairly light document of about 6 or 7 pages. The other was a fan-compiled document, 20-some pages long. The first was available in the downloads section of the TLG website. The other was buried in a link in the TLG forums.

These were simply for errors in the 1st printing of the book and did not contain the various rules changes and additions that came in with the 2nd printing. As far as I know, the Trolls never did issue a compiled errata of the rules additions and corrections between the 1st and 2nd printing.

Personally, I think the 1st printing of the C&C PHB is the worst edited "professional" rpg document I've ever seen.

This explains why the document seemed so "errata-lite".

 

[Treebore]

That's the errata for the third printing of what was fixed in the 4th printing.

There were two erratas compiled for the first printing of the book. One was a fairly light document of about 6 or 7 pages. The other was a fan-compiled document, 20-some pages long. The first was available in the downloads section of the TLG website. The other was buried in a link in the TLG forums.

These were simply for errors in the 1st printing of the book and did not contain the various rules changes and additions that came in with the 2nd printing. As far as I know, the Trolls never did issue a compiled errata of the rules additions and corrections between the 1st and 2nd printing.

Personally, I think the 1st printing of the C&C PHB is the worst edited "professional" rpg document I've ever seen.

The first printing was definitely bad. I don't remember there ever being a 20 page long document of errata, the longest I remember seeing was 8 pages, and that was far more in the way of spelling type errors, C&C has always had very little in the way of rules errata.

I think the "20" document your thinking of is the compilation I made of 22 CK's and why we are fans of C&C.

 

[catsclaw227]

The first printing was definitely bad. I don't remember there ever being a 20 page long document of errata, the longest I remember seeing was 8 pages, and that was far more in the way of spelling type errors, C&C has always had very little in the way of rules errata.

I think the "20" document your thinking of is the compilation I made of 22 CK's and why we are fans of C&C.

OK, well if that's the case, then fine. Did you and the other 22 CKs feel this errata document should have been made by the Troll Lords? And is it a valid errata document fixing problems with the then current revision?