Just discovered Castles and Crusades

[Jahydin]

By not having a "roll-under" system reminiscent of THAC0 with positive modifiers used to subtract from a DC - which is set based on what your favored ability checks are - and again modified by a Challenge Rating. (I guess that's how it works - I'm actually too confused by it now to adequately explain it.)

That's the best part though!

You just described how to tweak it to make it the perfect system for you. Someone else will think that's not the way to do it and tweak it completely differently.

C&C is the perfect toolbox to play the best version of AD&D possible, with a tiny bit of work.

But seriously, your explanation is pretty darn close to what I've done in the past:
One number to roll over (I call it "To Hit Challenge Class 0" (THCC0)) for each attribute.
Start at 16. Prime gives +3, Non-Prime -3. Modified by Attribute Bonus of course. Then lower it by one for every other level.
Makes skill checks lighting fast and bakes in Save progression just like AD&D.

Now I've gotten to like the extra layer Challenge Levels offer though, especially when comparing Levels and HD to determine how hard Saves are.

 

[Jahydin]

I've read of CKs instead setting difficulty to a default of 18. If the check involves your Prime, roll and add +6. If it's not prime, roll. Still gives a chance, but more successful with a Prime.

This is an easier way of thinking about it for sure! I imagine this is how 90% of the players handle checks.

Worth noting: the math is exactly the same as RAW.

 

[Jahydin]

"Your target number is X, unless it's difficult, in which case, it's Y."

By doing that you lose the impact of leveling though. Made more interesting by the different advancement rates.

But agree there should be a lot more advice on what Challenge Level to choose when there isn't a Level or HD to compare to.
For most checks, CL = Average Party Level works. Use -3 of that for Easy checks, +3 that for Hard.

 

[Jahydin]

Literally, all you have to do is to use the d20 system that was already a thing when C&C was first written. You get a number from your ability score. You get a bonus if it's your preferred (aka "trained" or "proficient" ability score). You roll and compare that to a DC set by the DM/GM/Keeper. That's all it has to be. I explained in two sentences what would be a half page or more in C&C.

Just so we're clear, that is how this game is intended to be played.

With a little bit of work, it can be rewritten as:
Target Number is 18.
It's modified by Prime, Attribute Bonus, and Level.
Write down the modified number next to each stat.

When asked to make a check, roll a D20 and tell the CK how much you were over.
If it's higher than the Challenge Level (CL) set, you succeed!

Most of the time, CL is the Level or HD of the creature. If none can be referenced, CK can gauge success just by the roll made.

If you want though, would be fun to create a SIEGE system that works exactly how you want. Wouldn't take much time at all.

 

[amethal]

I've read of CKs instead setting difficulty to a default of 18. If the check involves your Prime, roll and add +6. If it's not prime, roll. Still gives a chance, but more successful with a Prime.

That's offered as a suggestion in the Castle Keeper's Guide (pp276-7 in my version).

Along with some other options that I find bizarre, such as setting the default to 15 and adjusting the roll by +3 if prime and -3 if not prime.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

Just so we're clear, that is how this game is intended to be played.

With a little bit of work, it can be rewritten as:
Target Number is 18.
It's modified by Prime, Attribute Bonus, and Level.
Write down the modified number next to each stat.

When asked to make a check, roll a D20 and tell the CK how much you were over.
If it's higher than the Challenge Level (CL) set, you succeed!

Most of the time, CL is the Level or HD of the creature. If none can be referenced, CK can gauge success just by the roll made.

To reiterate, this is extremely similar to how the D20 resolution system works, both in 3E and 5E, as characters' ability to accomplish tasks will improve as they level and what they consider challenging will go up over time, as they become more accomplished. In both cases, having strong stats in the applicable areas also improves their chances, along with other potential bonuses.

This is a reinvented wheel for no real gain, as far as I can tell. Obviously, there are fans of the SIEGE Engine, but the Troll Lords' weird insistence that it does things no other system does is strange and incorrect.

I do think that if it was replaced with a more familiar D20 system, even if just as a sidebar in the main rulebook (not hidden in the CKG), it would make the game more approachable for would-be switchers.

Given how intuitive and easy to pick up the rest of C&C is, the SIEGE Engine stands out by its opacity.

 

[deganawida]

To reiterate, this is extremely similar to how the D20 resolution system works, both in 3E and 5E, as characters' ability to accomplish tasks will improve as they level and what they consider challenging will go up over time, as they become more accomplished. In both cases, having strong stats in the applicable areas also improves their chances, along with other potential bonuses.

This is a reinvented wheel for no real gain, as far as I can tell. Obviously, there are fans of the SIEGE Engine, but the Troll Lords' weird insistence that it does things no other system does is strange and incorrect.

I do think that if it was replaced with a more familiar D20 system, even if just as a sidebar in the main rulebook (not hidden in the CKG), it would make the game more approachable for would-be switchers.

Given how intuitive and easy to pick up the rest of C&C is, the SIEGE Engine stands out by its opacity.

I see your point, and don't disagree necessarily with your reasoning. I think part of the reason SIEGE Engine is pushed so much is that it's a identifier to separate C&C from D&D, which was probably much more important in 2003 (?) when it first came out. I personally don't mind it, as I'm not one to call for lots of skill rolls, instead having the players describe what they're doing in detail to me.

EDIT: I hope that this doesn't come across as dismissive, as that is entirely the opposite effect that I intended. I thought that I saw some frustration that no one was getting what you were saying, and wanted to let you know that I do see it.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

I see your point, and don't disagree necessarily with your reasoning. I think part of the reason SIEGE Engine is pushed so much is that it's a identifier to separate C&C from D&D, which was probably much more important in 2003 (?) when it first came out. I personally don't mind it, as I'm not one to call for lots of skill rolls, instead having the players describe what they're doing in detail to me. Y

Yeah, that probably helps. My players came to C&C straight from 3E (instead of us moving to 4E) and the not-a-skill-system was the focus of a lot of confusion and frustration. I think it's fine, and I think my players today would handle it better, but it was an issue in those years that we used C&C and it meant a lot of continual friction with the SIEGE Engine.

I'm a better DM today than I was then, thanks to doing a lot more of it due to the pandemic, so I'd probably get in there with my toolbox and rip some things out and reconfigure other things in C&C were I play it today. (That said, I still think it's my preferred non-WotC chassis -- AD&D + a stripped down 3E is my sweet spot.)

 

[Retreater]

I see your point, and don't disagree necessarily with your reasoning. I think part of the reason SIEGE Engine is pushed so much is that it's a identifier to separate C&C from D&D, which was probably much more important in 2003 (?) when it first came out. I personally don't mind it, as I'm not one to call for lots of skill rolls, instead having the players describe what they're doing in detail to me.

Oh, I think C&C was poised to be THE answer to 3.5/PF's remarkably complex system and D&D's foray in 4E that lost touch with its tradition. When it was released, I recall it being one of the first major OSR releases - in a way, maybe the "godfather" of the entire movement. [Yes, I'm aware of OSRIC, but it was not really a full-fledged system with an entire product line.] For crying out loud, they got Gary Gygax to write for them!

Why it's not in a place where Old School Essentials or Dungeon Crawl Classics are today, I don't know, but I don't often see its name listed as a competitor in the old school space. It basically predicted the streamlined and nostalgic approach 5E would take after 3.x and 4E. I think SIEGE is a big part of it.

It's THAC0-level bad.

 

[deganawida]

Eh, I like it, but I just mentally set 18 as the CL base for everything and add +6 if prime. Granted, I also like THAC0, so YMMV (I mostly like THAC0 because there's a hard cap on non-immortal AC).