Any more info on Castles and Crusades?

[WSmith]

Hmm... I've read through the various posts there...

So we're looking at going back to restricted multiclassing, back to a game with no skills or feats to differentiate Bob Fighter from Joe Fighter, and back to a game where only a thief can learn to pick a lock no matter how much the wizard may practice at it?

Yes. I never liked Multiclassing anyway, especially when there are no restrictions. Bob and Joe are different cause of the way the players play them, not cause of numbers written on their character sheet. The wizard can learn to pick a lock, if he is willing to suffer the consequences for multiclassing. Otherwise, he should be studying his grimore and seeking greater powers.

 

[Mouseferatu]

Yes. I never liked Multiclassing anyway, especially when there are no restrictions. Bob and Joe are different cause of the way the players play them, not cause of numbers written on their character sheet. The wizard can learn to pick a lock, if he is willing to suffer the consequences for multiclassing. Otherwise, he should be studying his grimore and seeking greater powers.

Makes no sense to me, though. A wizard should be able to take a little time out of his studies to focus on picking locks. Yes, he loses out--on other skills that he's not learning. But if you force him to multiclass, he's learning how to pick locks and climb walls and detect traps and pick pockets, and those just don't always have to go together.

Besides, you just said you didn't like free-reign multiclassing either.

And it's silly (IMO) to say Bob Fighter and Joe Fighter can only be different via roleplaying. A battle-axe wielding knight in plate mail should have very different skills/stats than a leather-armor-clad rapier-wielder--not just different equipment, but different mechanics--yet they're both fighters.

Honestly, lessening mutliclassing restrictions was one of the first things I did to 1E/2E. I can't even contemplate going back now without some other benefit in exchange.

 

[Mouseferatu]

Given the relatively negative tenor of my past two posts, I should point out that I really do think there's a lot of potential in a project of this sort, if approached properly.

(I'm speaking of my own view here, of course. "Properly" for me isn't the same as "properly" for everyone else, and I'm not saying it should be. Just saying what it would take to hook me personally on such a project.)

There's a lot about the feel of 1st edition AD&D that I liked. I liked the rarity of certain types of magic items. I liked the slower advancement, though to be honest, the way we played, it was only a little bit slower than 3E. We usually averaged 4-5 games per level, rather than 3.

I liked the fact that the imagery and feel of the setting wasn't "uber-fantastic." Don't get me wrong, the "magic is relatively common, armor and weapons don't look like their historical equivalents" imagery of 3.5 is just fine for some campaigns. But I preferred the default being a slightly more historical look at things. I liked the fact that magic items were rare, and couldn't often be purchased regardless of the size of the city.

I definitely preferred the art. Call me old-fashioned, but I found the black-and-white drawings of the 1E books far more inspiring and fantastic than the current art. I mean that as no disprespect to the current artists, most of whom are quite good. It's purely a style preference.

I liked the lack of focus on miniatures. I liked the fact that some spells had risks associated with their use. And I even (don't tell anyone) occasionally miss the different classes advancing at different rates.

Now, all that being said...

I would never go back. The magic and feel issues are easily dealt with through simple tweaks in description. I ignore the minis. And I like the current class system so much better than the old one that the classes all having the same advancement isn't a problem for me.

I like the multiclassing, I like the skills, I like the fact that you can customize characters in ways the old system simply wasn't designed to handle. I like the fact that PCs can create magic items, though I do make the process a bit more mysterious and involved in my settings. I like the fact that the system is unified, and everything is based off the same rules set.

So my problem with what I've heard of Castles & Crusades isn't that they're trying to recapture the feel of 1E. I want them to succeed at that; more power to 'em. But I think it could be done, at least to an extent, without sacrificing the options and customization that make 3.5 the superior system when it comes to actually building the character you want. If character-customization is one of the elements they're ditching, I can't imagine anything they could offer in its place that would make the system worthwhile to me. Doesn't mean they won't find a way; I hope they do. But I can't see it from here.

 

[Henry]

First of all, let's not get into fightin' words, guys. I appreciate the civil tone through now, but I don't want to see it develop into anything mean.

Second, I come from a different perspective. I love 3E for my gaming, but I can certainly see the appeal of "quick 'n dirty" for a game system like this Castle & Crusade idea, too. Some people want to get together for an hour and play D&D; by the time an hour's past with 3E, I feel like we've just started.

The other hurdle is familiarity with the system. Gary, as a designer, does not like 3E. He's said he's played it before, and likes it for that, but he seems to get bogged down in the details when writing it.

Given that gaming is wide enough for multiple systems, and thanks to the OGL, I've been waiting for a "Basic" D&D for a long time now. Heck, I was hoping that Hackmaster was going to be it, but it has its own level of complexity to deal with.

 

[ColonelHardisson]

Okay, I've got a minor rant, but this is something that bugs me...whenever I hear about the possibility of a Castle Greyhawk project.

I know Gary's busy. I know he's got a lot of other projects that probably take precedence. I know there's a whole lot of notes spread between him and Rob Kuntz that probably need to be pulled together and sorted through for a product like Castle Greyhawk (Zagyg). But sheesh, I'm really tired of hearing/being teased about this one.

I know what you mean. It's something we've been hearing about for 25+ years now. Remember how it seemed like forever before Temple of Elemental Evil appeared? I remember being in stores in the very early 80s, and overhearing guys going through modules muttering "T2, T2, T2..." It arrived eventually, but nothing could ever live up to that much anticipation.

 

[Mouseferatu]

Given that gaming is wide enough for multiple systems, and thanks to the OGL, I've been waiting for a "Basic" D&D for a long time now. Heck, I was hoping that Hackmaster was going to be it, but it has its own level of complexity to deal with.

Oh, I agree. Even if C&C turns out to be everything I disliked about 1E and nothing I liked, I'd still never tell them not to make it.

Of course, it's not going to be "Basic" D&D, from what they're saying; it's going to be a 3E-ish version of AD&D. Which isn't to say some writers in the industry aren't discussing a Basic version with some publishers.

(Assuming that WotC themselves aren't doing the same thing; I'm still not 100% sure what "First Challenge" is going to be.)

And I also agree, there's appeal to "quick 'n dirty." I've got (I feel) a very strong grasp of the 3E combat system and AOOs, but there are times I don't bother using them, because I don't like the "tactical, planning my moves out square-by-square" attitude it inspires in some players. (Not all; some.) Nothing wrong with wargaming; it's just not what I personally want when I sit down to play. And I'd certainly look at C&C for that if nothing else.

(That said, I wouldn't want to see AOOs go away. I just occasionally tweak the rules for 'em in my home campaigns to make them less frequent/easy to draw.)

 

[WSmith]

I think really I am so excited cause I thought, during the pre 3e release hype, that 3e was going to be lighter on the rules then it really was/is. After about 2 years of d20 D&D, I finally admitted it wasn't for me. I tried to write a "Basic" d20 version, but never got to finish it. I see C&C, if it is completed and pulled off by TLG, as the "lighter" version of the game I so wanted to love but couldn't for various reasons.

Thats about it. We will see in time.

 

[tsadkiel]

You know, I had a long post all planned out, but mouseferatu said basically everything I wanted to say. I'm interested in a rules-light d20, but not so much interested in a 1E retread; I've got my 1E books sitting on my shelf if I ever feel the urge. I wish them luck, but it sounds like the book's not for me.

 

[The Blue Elf]

I remember, how Gary told us how he felt about that 3rd edition not because of the rules,or its a great system its because of the creative issues and freedom for both the DM and the player can do.For the old vets who play the game my DM doesn't like playing a Epic level Campagin ever he felt its way too much power for Charactors to have in a game even by the fact some people I talked to don't like 3rd on some issues 3rd and 3.5.Sure, 3rd maybe a good edition for D&D by your standers, but for others it isn't. Some of people in the board hope that 4th edition would come this year because 3rd or 3.5 still doesn't impress them.

 

[jasamcarl]

Uh, no people. A lot of his posts have been pretty underhanded slams about DnD of the 'its not about roleplaying' or its 'all about power' type. And he is contradictory on the dm control factor; on the one hand, he thinks players have it easy, not having the challenging games experience of 1e and on the other, he moans over how the rules are too strict and prevent him from achieving high cinimatic adventure. The only semi-coherent sentiment i could take from this is that, besides hating everything 3e just because, is that he wants a fudge-heavy game where the dms, with little guidlines, run it the way HE DOES, i.e. mostly to screw players. Nevermind that 1e doesn't really do this at all well, being rules heavy in some places, rules non-existent in others, but oh well..heavens forbid that such a master actually use reason when posting...