Castle & Crusades thoughts?

[sgtscott658]

Hi ya-

Was checking out other RPG's and came across Troll Lord Games Castle & Crusades products. I kinda liked what I saw, very much akin to old AD&D 1E with some d20 mechanics added in. I might buy the books but I would also like to know if anybody has played this product and does the game play smoothly.

oh ya, if there are any guys in chicago that do play, send me a pm if you want another player.

Scott

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

It very much plays like 1E with a D20 engine under the hood. It's also almost comically compatible with all versions of the game, other than 4E -- you barely need to convert anything other than monster stats (which can be done on the fly) to incorporate material from other versions, other than toning down damage and hit points from 3E (just ditch the extra hit points per die for 3E and maybe knock down damage by one die type).

 

[sgtscott658]

Thanks Brian for the info, on a related note, I cruised ebay to see what was available and to my surprise most of the material is relatively cheap but it looks like the core books are in their 6th edition. Does it matter which edition you buy? Are they all the same with tweaks or have they been massively revised in each subsequent edition?

Scott

It very much plays like 1E with a D20 engine under the hood. It's also almost comically compatible with all versions of the game, other than 4E -- you barely need to convert anything other than monster stats (which can be done on the fly) to incorporate material from other versions, other than toning down damage and hit points from 3E (just ditch the extra hit points per die for 3E and maybe knock down damage by one die type).

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

Thanks Brian for the info, on a related note, I cruised ebay to see what was available and to my surprise most of the material is relatively cheap but it looks like the core books are in their 6th edition. Does it matter which edition you buy? Are they all the same with tweaks or have they been massively revised in each subsequent edition?

In the third (or fourth?) revision, monks and I think barbarians got tweaked and illusionists got more spells (including healing spells, under the theory that they're tricking the body into doing so) and I'm told the newest edition has a slight tweak to encumbrance rules. The most recent two editions have also been in full color. Otherwise, they're identical to each other.

The designers have said they actually play with different versions of the PHB around the table, and it's rare that it's an issue. (Typically when someone plays one of those three classes.)

You should be fine with whichever one you use.

And once you have the PHB, you can honestly just use any Monster Manual and Dungeon Masters Guide from pre-4E editions (the 2E reprint Monstrous Manual would be hard to beat, for instance). You can convert monsters on the fly using these guidelines, which will become second nature very quickly.

 

[DM Howard]

It's a very good system. Does the rules light type of play really well, whilst still providing a great framework to tweak with the mechanics and bring in your own house rules and nuances to the game. It's my go-to system when not doing Hackmaster or Edge of the Empire.

 

[Stormonu]

I've used C&C with B2 - Keep on the Borderlands, sadly we were in a phase where we were trying out several RPGs, and though I liked it very much, our play group leaned more towards World of Darkness and Savage Worlds and away from fantasy RPGs.

It very much feels like what D&D 3E could have been if they had toed more to the line of 1E and 2E; I didn't feel I had to change the module at all, and I suspect that it holds up very well at higher levels as well (we only played until the character were mid 2nd level).

 

[TrippyHippy]

I think it was significant at the time (at least for me!) in that it rallied against the conventional wisdom of needing to have a fully integrated skill system a la RuneQuest. D&D3rd had largely adapted this approach, and while it has it’s advantages in a non-Class&Level system like RQ, it did tend to make D&D pretty fiddly and complicated.

So, when C&C introduced their Siege System based upon simple Ability scores and level-based bonuses, it felt a lot more appealing. I do think that 5e has significantly been influenced in this way, incidentally, with it’s single Proficiency bonus (although it still retains a basic skill system along with it). Gary Gygax’s endorsement, at the time was also something of a selling point and the write-up of some of the Classes was quite good too.

That was then, and although they have since established a loyal following and some Kickstarted updates on their core rules, I do feel that, like Pathfinder, their niche is dependent on it being a critique of the current D&D rules of the time. Now that I’m happy with D&D5e, the appeal of C&C (and other games like it) is significantly diminished.

 

[Baumi]

I would actually recommend just playing 5E instead (or 13th Age which is my favorite D&D Variant).

C&C came out as a rules-light alternative to 3E (no feats, skills, simplified combat,..), which was badly needed a that time. It also was relatively compatible with older D&D Editions and had a nice old-school Flair. But 5E was designed to fill exactly the same niche, which is very simple, has that important D&D old-school flair and compared to C&C it's much better balanced and playtested.

It is not to say that C&C isn't fun, but it has some problems*. The balance of the classes is horrid (they tried to balance them with different XP tables, which obviously doesn't work) and some of them are simply boring (Fighter). Weapons have the same problem, they just copied the Weapons-tables from 3E but without the Critical Damage Stat, which makes some weapons simply obsolete or overpowered. The Encumbrance System looked nice but never worked (that might have been fixed in the last few Printings) and the success-Rates of the Attribute-Checks are frustratingly low.

* How big or small these are, depends on your view.

 

[Ratskinner]

It is not to say that C&C isn't fun, but it has some problems*. The balance of the classes is horrid (they tried to balance them with different XP tables, which obviously doesn't work) and some of them are simply boring (Fighter). Weapons have the same problem, they just copied the Weapons-tables from 3E but without the Critical Damage Stat, which makes some weapons simply obsolete or overpowered. The Encumbrance System looked nice but never worked (that might have been fixed in the last few Printings) and the success-Rates of the Attribute-Checks are frustratingly low.

* How big or small these are, depends on your view.

Seconded.

I played a somewhat houseruled version of C&C for over a year and second this. There were lots of times that I felt the system was far too restrictive and/or had glaring inadequacies and imbalances. The Fighter was far too simple, and all the "sneaky" classes seemed to suffer mightily. It is very easy to use (especially older) material from D&D. Our DM just used the Monstrous Manual from 2e.