Castles and Crusades (NDA is lifted - ask questions, get answers)

[ecliptic]

I plan to use Primary type system for 3.5.

I still plan to let the player choose any 2 instead of being railroaded into one. As I see it as natural ability and not part of the life he has chosen.

But I still wonder how I will incorperate it into D&D. As a +4 bonus to rolls for primaries seems a bit drastic.

 

[Akrasia]

I plan to use Primary type system for 3.5.

I still plan to let the player choose any 2 instead of being railroaded into one. As I see it as natural ability and not part of the life he has chosen.

But I still wonder how I will incorperate it into D&D. As a +4 bonus to rolls for primaries seems a bit drastic.

Well, I'm not sure what the point of that would be, since my impression is that the whole "Prime Ability" system is meant to mimic, roughly, what skills and feats accomplish in 3.5.

 

[Von Ether]

One thing to keep in mind about C&C is that it is extremely modular.

Hence if you want to use the 3.x system for saving throws, you should be able to do so with little problem.

With respect to classes, it should be easy, I think, to substitute existing class abilities for roughly equivalent ones.

While there seems to be a lot of nostalgia in C&C (a plus for me), my impression is that there are NO "sacred cows" -- or at least no more than what *you* want for your campaign (e.g. there is nothing stopping you from treating dwarves as a race of wizards).

Yeah, I thought that save would be fairly modular and that's been a plus.

But you see, I use d20 for more than just fantasy. I'm a big fan of the Horizon line, mostly mini-games that add new genres to the game, like old west, v.r. and grim fairy tales. If I could get C&C to mesh with those games, I'd be golden.

I started thinking that other classes could be "C&C"ed by just turning specialty class feats into class abilities ... until I heard about the different XP charts.

I hear everyone saying that conversion will be easy, but has anyone really tried to put that to stress test like using Dragonstar, Redline, d20 Modern, Adventure or Farscape for a game?

On the other hand, there are games I think C&C won't mix with, SG-1 and Mutants and Masterminds come to mind.

 

[nicodaudel]

Re: Conversions

*SNIP*

I hear everyone saying that conversion will be easy, but has anyone really tried to put that to stress test like using Dragonstar, Redline, d20 Modern, Adventure or Farscape for a game?

On the other hand, there are games I think C&C won't mix with, SG-1 and Mutants and Masterminds come to mind.

As I recall, references to easy conversion have centered on this or that iteration of D&D. While some other conversions can, and will, be done by gamers, C&C is not a multi-genre system. Many conversions, therefore, will likely require more work than they're worth.

On the other hand, if this or that aspect of C&C suits a referee, there's no reason he can't house-rule it into his game/campaign, whatever genre it might be . . .

-Dion

 

[Acid_crash]

A game system is just a game system whatever the core books implementation is...if we strip out the fantasy elements of C&C, all we have is a dice mechanic with six abilities, and characters with two/three Prime abilities and the rest secondary abilities...this is a game that uses a d20 + ability score mods + CK mods vs. 12/18 + CK mods.

Take that core element, create whatever races and classes you want around it. So, you want to play Stargate, but you don't want to use Spycraft engine to play it (Spycraft is much more intense than even D&D as far as rules go). What to add? Races - Human primarily. Classes - Scientist, Soldier, Scout, Guard, Explorer, Pointman. Experience Point chart - since we want a game where everything progresses equally, they all get the same chart. Multiclassing/Dualclassing - works as standard C&C. Create new weapons and combat rules for using guns, and bam, your done.

Just port over some action point rules and your good to go.

Who says you can ONLY play fantasy with C&C? That kind of thinking only limits the imagination of what true potential can do. That's why those people who say d20 can ONLY do fantasy must have something blocking their imagination because they obviously can't see outside the d20/fantasy only box that they put themselves in.

Does anybody think that it would be that hard to really convert the C&C system over to a different genre?

 

[nicodaudel]

Re: C&C Conversions

I didn't intend to spark a debate on design philosophy. Indeed, I generally agree with everything you've said, Acid_crash. My point was merely that, *as written*, C&C is meant to ease conversion to/from various iterations of D&D. Other types of conversions are, in other words, not a part of the designers' primary calculus.

Moreover, I did not say that the core mechanics, whether in part or in whole, were unusable in other genres. I wanted only to emphasize that C&C is a fantasy game and that conversions to other genres may require more work than some gamers would prefer.

I apologize if my previous post seemed too strident or narrow minded. I'm not here to attack anyone or anything, just to talk about what C&C is and is not as best I'm able. Of course, if my comments don't seem helpful, then you're free to ignore them.

-Dion

 

[ecliptic]

Well, I'm not sure what the point of that would be, since my impression is that the whole "Prime Ability" system is meant to mimic, roughly, what skills and feats accomplish in 3.5.

Well i want to change the skill system some. As I was describing above.

 

[Acid_crash]

I didn't intend to spark a debate on design philosophy. Indeed, I generally agree with everything you've said, Acid_crash. My point was merely that, *as written*, C&C is meant to ease conversion to/from various iterations of D&D. Other types of conversions are, in other words, not a part of the designers' primary calculus.

Moreover, I did not say that the core mechanics, whether in part or in whole, were unusable in other genres. I wanted only to emphasize that C&C is a fantasy game and that conversions to other genres may require more work than some gamers would prefer.

I apologize if my previous post seemed too strident or narrow minded. I'm not here to attack anyone or anything, just to talk about what C&C is and is not as best I'm able. Of course, if my comments don't seem helpful, then you're free to ignore them.

-Dion

Hey, just call me AC or A_C

no need to apologize for anything, I was just giving an example, and I don't want to argue about anything. I like what I'm seeing in C&C and I plan on using it for A LOT of my future gaming...once the game comes out. I definately agree on how easy it would be to convert over anything D&D to C&C, and I plan to.

I'm just tired of some gamers who don't think outside the box and always play these games as intended by the rulesbook they read...and complain when others who do think outside the box and use their imagination to come up with something pretty darn cool (like C&C ) and say that it's against the rules.

I really want to know whats going to be OGL in this product, and how other guidelines there will be to using it so we can write our own books for the game/system.

 

[nicodaudel]

C&C is all about outside-the-box thinking, which is why so few things other than the core mechanics are spelled out. Most of us who support C&C are on board for precisely that reason. We may not agree with every single jot and tittle, but I think nearly everyone of us underwrites the Trolls' commitment to (a) the system-as-framework, not constraint, and (b) on-the-fly rulings that account for the dynamics of actual play.

Now that GenCon's over, the Trolls should be around to talk about the OGL. From what I've seen/read, however, I'm confident they'll open up everything they're able. As far as I'm concerned, the best way to keep a game like C&C active and growing is to get as many people as possible involved, and the OGL is definitely the best way to do so. The Trolls have already shown that commitment with their approach to design, development and playtesting, so I don't expect to see any change on that count.

-Dion

P.S. If you haven't already, you might check out The Forge for serious (and sustained) explorations of design philosophy, game mechanics, and the like.

 

[Jackal42]

Multiclassing and dual classing restrictions were almost non-existant in the last playtest version so we're not quite sure what (if any) changes will be made as of yet. And we may not be until, like everyone else, we read it while buying the book.

For my part, I have no real problem with the "primes must match each class" for multiclassing but I'm still not sure if it will be there or not.

As for dual classing I don't think your prime should have to match. The idea behind dual classing is changing your focus in life. Sometimes you change to something you're naturally good at and sometimes you don't. I see no reason to use anything (attributes or primes) to restrict the second choice a player makes. If a player starts a rogue who later wants to become an assassin for roleplaying reasons I don't see any reason to block that by default.

But, so far as what will be default, we don't know as of yet either.