Castle & Crusades - who has tried it and not stuck with it?

[Ourph]

So, which system did the people who ruled out D&D AND C&C go to?

Does 1e do the job better?

I'm playing and running both B/X D&D and WFRP 2e at present.

 

[Scurvy_Platypus]

I liked the system well enough, and unlike a lot of people I didn't have a problem with not being able to mechanically differentiate characters. I especially liked the whole "no skill list" aspect, and the Siege mechanic in general.

What I didn't like was a rather strong "OMG 3.x is teh suxorz!!1!1" vibe that seems to be a part of the fanbase. The whole point to C&C for me was simplicity AND compatibility across multiple editions.

I didn't want to get stuck playing 1st-edition-grim-n-gritty-low-magic-take-2-years-to-get-to-10th-level style games. That's been the default style of play that I've seen for 20 years. I realize that it's incredibly popular (Warhammer Fantasy Roleplaying game certainly has its fans), but I'm done with it.

And it seems like that's all that C&C is about.

When I buy a game, I'm not just buying rule and fluff. I'm also "buying" people to play with and hangout with. A community. Sure, there's nobody stopping me from doing something different... but there's certainly no real support for it either. I don't mean publisher support, the folks at TLG seem pretty groovy.

The lack of a system for creating new classes was a problem for me as well. I did up my own version based on Buy the Numbers, but it just meant I was another step further away from the community. I didn't really agree with the cost assumptions that the original classes were built on, and I didn't plan on waiting around to get the version offered in the CKG just to ignore it.

In the end I had to decide, did I want to be a fringe element of the C&C community, or the d20 community? So I packed away my C&C books.

I'm gearing up for a game right now that uses a modified version of the BESMd20 rules (see? fringe d20) called Everstone. C&C, the group was all "Well...it's ok." Everstone, the group was all "Hell yeah!!!" and that's really the most important thing for me. A game I'm going to be able to run/play and have player buy-in.

 

[pawsplay]

I paged through it. I would take Cyclopedia D&D with house rules over it any day.

 

[Jackelope King]

So, which system did the people who ruled out D&D AND C&C go to?

True20 for a more rules-lite game, Mutants & Masterminds for 90% of my gaming. Flexible character creation, archetypes which are literally just suggestions, combat simplified in most of the right places, hit points sent the way of the dodo, increased player input during gameplay on rules-decisions, and mechanics that actively encourage you to play an interesting, well-developed character and do so well?... yes please! I'm basing my own custom system heavily on these two systems, as well as other d20 gems.

Does 1e do the job better?

Considering that what I want out of a game is comprehensive and flexible character creation unhindered by someone's preconcieved notions of archetypes and the other things I mentioned above, I'd have to answer this with a resounding "no". 1E is largely antithetical to most of the above points so far as I'm concerned.

 

[Mythmere1]

I'm one of the 1979 players who burned out on 3/3.5 after 4 years of it - mainly based on prep time and length of combat, with other (less important) quibbles with the rules themselves. SO, I found C&C just as the first printing PHB came out.

I got it, and my players reluctantly agreed that if I'm the DM, I choose the system, and I was just never going to DM 3e again (though I'll play). The attempt lasted several sessions. From session 1, my players were appalled with the editing of the book itself, and it became such a joke that they gave the rules no slack. They read out their favorite typos and misspellings, made jokes about how they'd rather play a game designed for 12 year olds (3.5) than written by 12 year olds, etc.

I think C&C is a decent game as a very bare-bones engine for fantasy role playing. There's no innovation (the Siege engine is more a substitute that resolves several 1e mechanisms than an improvement on these) - but innovation wasn't really the point.

My players having finally absolutely rebelled against C&C, we began playing 1e. I found that a bit difficult to "re-learn," but after a couple of sessions I was working 1e pretty well (I recommend OSRIC for a 1e re-learner before proceeding to the old books). Then I basically took OSRIC, changed it up to use advancing AC, added a house rules specialist mage system, a tailored thief skills build-out, and a simplified initiative system. It's this house-ruled version of 1e that we play now. I used the base of the OSRIC document to actually integrate the house rules into a rule book.

 

[scruffygrognard]

I'm currently working on my own project that gives me the level of mechanical definition that seemed lacking in C&C with same said reduced prep time. So far it seems to have been received fairly well. I'm making the third editing pass currently and incorporating player feedback.

I've done something similar to your project... please check it out and feel free to throw constructive criticism my way.

http://homepages.nyu.edu/~dp58/AD&D3.pdf

 

[Particle_Man]

Well I like it but getting others to try it is like pulling hen's teeth, so aside from waving the flag occasionally, I have pretty much given up on a chance to play it. when I get time, I may run it, but again this is dependant on getting interested players.

 

[jdrakeh]

I've done something similar to your project... please check it out and feel free to throw constructive criticism my way.

http://homepages.nyu.edu/~dp58/AD&D3.pdf

I will happily give this a look when I get home from the office tonight (normally I'd just download it here but I left my palmtop at home today).

 

[National Acrobat]

Tried it, ran a campaign with it and in the end my players and I decided that we really just wanted to go back to 1E ADnD, which we did. C and C simply reinforced that we did enjoy that version of the game.

 

[RFisher]

I'm just genuinely curious if people have been exposed to C&C and later decided it wasn't for them.

Raises hand

What were your reasons?

C&C just doesn't feel like a complete game to me the way the classic Basic & Expert booklets do. (& B/X did it in fewer pages.) It spends too many pages on things that don't seem important to me & too few pages on things that are important to me. & I end up using another edition of D&D to complete it, so I'd just rather play the other edition instead.

Please note the "to me" there. I don't take issue with someone else finding it complete.

But this is being very nitpicky. I'll gladly play the game the moment someone offers to run it, & if pressed, I'd run it again as well. I'm more than happy to borrow from it & its supplements for my D&D games.