Any more info on Castles and Crusades?

[TiQuinn]

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.

For that reason, I'm less interested in playing or DMing Castle Greyhawk as I am in just seeing what a compiled version of it looks like and reading through it as a bit of nostalgia/history. Gary's given us bits and pieces and various stories of his old campaign throughout the years, but now I'm really hoping to take a look at some of the old maps and encounters.

 

[herald]

The only question in my mind is, will it be as close as a comparison to the original work as possible. Never mind the system. If C&C is 3.0 light, I can flesh out the rest of the rules, if I want. But I want the levels that Iuz was trapped. I want the locations where EX1 and EX2 link into the game. I want to know where where S3 and WG1 link in as well.

I want to know if there are any other dieties still trapped there. I know things will have to be renamed to avoid infringement. That I expect. But I would like the setting to be as much alike as it was originally. I hope I am clear on this.

I look at modules as scripts and the DM as a director. I can change the script as I like to (as in rules aplication), but I want to have the original script.

 

[Mouseferatu]

All

I thought I might intervene in here before a meaness starts that I would really rather not see.

*snip*

Davis Chenault
Troll Lord Trolling

Fair enough. And if any of my posts came across as "mean" (not that you were necessarily referring to me), my apologies to all concerned.

I'd love to see a rules-lite (or at least rules-liter, if I may mangle a word) system for those who want it. And I'd love to see a system that captures the feel of 1E. I'd just like to see it done without losing the greatest single advantage of 3E--character customization options.

I wish you only the best with all of this, and I really do hope the product takes off, regardless of what it actually looks like. I just also hope that I'm one of the folks to whom the final product appeals.

 

[tsadkiel]

Rather than hijack this thread, I've started a thread about what I'd want from a rules-light d20 here.

 

[The Blue Elf]

The only question in my mind is, will it be as close as a comparison to the original work as possible. Never mind the system. If C&C is 3.0 light, I can flesh out the rest of the rules, if I want. But I want the levels that Iuz was trapped. I want the locations where EX1 and EX2 link into the game. I want to know where where S3 and WG1 link in as well.

I want to know if there are any other dieties still trapped there. I know things will have to be renamed to avoid infringement. That I expect. But I would like the setting to be as much alike as it was originally. I hope I am clear on this.

I look at modules as scripts and the DM as a director. I can change the script as I like to (as in rules aplication), but I want to have the original script.

Hell, as player I just hate game lawyers trying too alter a players or a Dm's script by any means try to screw the player and the DM.Some rules I except others I hate in the game.I know for the fact there will always be a game lawyers in any system.

 

[vogie]

C and C

Any word when we can expect some sample material? I'm watching this stuff close because it has great potential. I think the devil will be in the details of the products.

 

[Greyhawk_DM]

I for one am very interested in this latest rules project...
I still play 1st Edition in a 20+ year Greyhawk Campaign that a friend of mine has been running...
I am currently DM'ing a 3rd Edition Campaign that is also set in the World of Greyhawk.
I like both systems and would love to see a melding of the two.
I would love to see the Gary Gygax version of Castle Greyhawk or whatever it ends up being.
Later...

 

[jasamcarl]

JasamCarl, I'm assuming you're talking about Gary here, and not WDSmith, since you weren't clear until your second post.

But to me, I honestly think Gary has less of an opinion over 3E than his version - and he's certainly entitled; I'm not sure how disliking a newer game over what he personally designed is "stroking his ego."

One thing I've learned in my sojourns between d20 sites and Dragonsfoot (and other non-d20 sites) - 3E is not inherently "better" than the older versions of the game, because no rules system can deliver in ALL categories. And one thing 3E CAN'T deliver in, is one-line stat blocks in published materials. It also has a much tighter integration between class ability and magic ownership than previous games, due to the readjustment of the XP scales to equivalence, IMO.

Also, it cannot satisfy all people at all times. No game system can. So if 1E-preferred players can have an outlet where they can publish and share NEW materials with the style and feel of the older systems, and possess a system that Gary Gygax can get his ideas to print in a relatively "unbastardized" form, then more power to them.



no.


Davis Chenault:

Thanks for dropping in. I plan to keep up on this project as much as possible, because I am very interested in seeing it, and what I consider the ultimate fruit of it: Gary and Rob's castle come to life. I'm just sorry I never got in on the playtesting part.

Ok, did you read through both of my posts? Its not that he has a preference of one edition of another. Its that the reasons he gives don't make sense, which leads me to believe that they are not made from any real conviction, but rather from an attempt to foster an online fanbase of 1e devotees.

As to treasure being linked to level, of course it should in any BALANCED level-based game. Levels are suppossed to represent an ability to surmount challenges of a given levels while expending an appropriate portion of the party's resources. As long as magic items have a mechanical benefit, they have to be keyed to level, otherwise levels become meaningless. Its very easy to change the link between treasure value and level, the results just won't be balanced with the cr/el system..but how is that worse than prior editions, which had no concept of treasure values at all? 3e atleast gives a baseline.

As to one line stat-blocks...well, if you are going to use a crappy, incomplete system, the least that system can do is offer a conveniently small statblock to reflect its vacuous nature.

 

[The Blue Elf]

From what I understand what Gary told us, that is the place were Zagyg earn his divine rank.

 

[BVB]

Now, don't anybody yell at me for jumping to conclusions. ...

I really resent the way you jumped to the conclusion that we would yell at you.