Castles & Crusades (box set) playtest report

[Akrasia]

So I ran my first session of C&C tonight, and it went really well!

I used the box set rules, which are not the complete rules. (Among other things, they only include the "classic" four classes, whereas the final rules will have 12 classes, and they only cover character development up to level 10.)

My chance to try C&C emerged because two of our regular players were away this week, so we would not have our regular (3.x D&D) session. I am the DM for that campaign (in my homebrew "Ilmahal" setting), and so proposed that we try a C&C adventure (also set in Ilmahal) rather than cancelling our session.

The two available players have been involved with D&D for over 15 years (at 33 I am the oldest and most experienced, having played since 1979, but the other two people are 28 and 30, and very experienced themselves). They had played every edition.

However, they also have a few differences between them:

Player A prefers the role-playing and plot-based aspects of D&D, and dislikes the slowness of 3.x combat. Player A's main reason for liking 3.x is its abilty to 'customize' characters to a greater degree than was available in earlier editions (mainly through skills, but also more flexible multiclassing), and to reflect the 'growth' and 'changes' through which a character might go over time (e.g. an originally crude fighter might pick up skill ranks in diplomacy and thereby become quite charming at a later point). So player A is the 'role-player' of the two.

Player B likes the combats and feats of 3.x. Although a pretty good role-player (and much better than many losers I have had to deal with in the past), and not a "min-maxer" or "power gamer", she does appreciate the "wargamey" aspects of 3.x more than myself or Player A. So I thought C&C might be a hard sell for Player B. She is the 'roll-player' of the two.

Anyway, we started by creating the characters. This took less than 30 minutes -- a huge surprise to both A and B! We ended up with 4 characters (two for each player):

1. "Klarico" the LN dwarf cleric. (A)
2. "Ragu" the CG human rogue. (A)
3. "Bamm" the LG dwarf wizard. (B)
4. "Cork" the NG human fighter. (B)

Klarico and Bamm are brothers; Ragu and Cork are orphans raised by the benevolent former adventurers, "The Silver Blade Triumvirate" (3 former werewolf hunters). This all makes vague sense in my campaign.

Er ... I digress ... :\

Anyway, the adventure took us 2 hours to get through. I was not surprised that we managed to finish in 2 hours, but the other two players sure were! Both players commented that the same adventure would have taken 4-6 hours in 3.x D&D.

The adventure was great "old school" fun! I was surprised at how much the players immersed themselves in it, given that this was a distraction from the rather "crucial plot point" of the main campaign that we are at now.

Afterwards, I was surprised at how positive Player B was. She commented that she was pretty "50/50" between 3.x and C&C, based on our session. She liked the fast pace and simplicity of C&C -- especially the fact that she did not have to look things up, and could find everything she needed to know by looking at her character sheet. On the other hand, she thought that the most important combat of the session would have been handled better by 3.x (and would have been more dramatic in 3.x). While she didn't have a problem with handling the "lesser combats" in the C&C style, the drama and importance of the "big conflict", in her opinion at least, lent itself better to the tactics, etc., of 3.x. Overall, her judgement was that C&C was just as good as 3.x -- there were advantages and disadvantages to both systems.

Player A (unsurprisingly) was a bit more positive. Although he regretted the loss of skills (which -- unlike myself -- he thinks help to significantly individualize a character), he appreciated, massively, the much faster combats and the focus on the plot of the session (rather than attacks of opportunity, etc.). Although he remains uncertain, he did entertain thoughts of using C&C for his FR campaign (when he takes over as DM and starts his own campaign for our group in 1-2 months). At the very least, he spent several minutes thinking about a C&C/3E hybrid.

As for myself, as DM (er ... "Castle Keeper" ... er ... "screen monkey"), there is no contest: C&C is awesome! Running this session was so much more fun for me (selfish person that I am ) than running 3.x. Nobody had to look at the rules once during the session (and this was our virgin session!). Combat was quick and dramatic, and the question "If I do x, will I provoke an attack of opportunity?" was not asked once. I am sure that some players will think that the absence of skills and a nuanced combat system are distinct disadvantages, but from the perspective of a DM who likes to keep the "story moving" -- but in a structured way -- C&C really does hit Aristotle's "golden mean" IMO.

My overall verdict: C&C (boxed set) gets and "A." It accomplishes everything I want a FRPG to, and gives me plenty of room to improvise and house rule as well. (What prevents this set from getting an A+ is its occasional lack of rules coherence (esp. regarding combat).)

The next time I DM my campaign "Ilmahal" with my current group, I will definitely be using C&C.

 

[Turanil]

Thanks for the playetest report. I only hope that the boxed set I ordered will be eventually delivered...

Nonetheless, a question: what about adventures where lots of skills checks would be required (such as bluffing people, appraising things, open-locking doors,, etc.), but very few combat or magic-use would be involved?

 

[ecliptic]

I don't know about getting rid of skills and feats, just takes away alot of the customization.

I don't know if its even worth buying a boxset. I don't have the nostalgia to make me buy it. I want to wait for the PHB.

Which btw, when does the actual hardback books come out?

 

[rounser]

I don't know about getting rid of skills and feats, just takes away alot of the customization.

It's the flip side of the coin, and the bargain with Asmodeus that 3E made.

If there comes to be a 4th edition of the game, I think that the designers should consider a complementary dual set of rules, because the needs of players and DMs are very different....e.g. 3E-esque set of rules for PCs so that players can knock themselves out with customisation, and a very highly abbreviated/faked version of those rules for DM use with NPCs and monsters.

This is the way a lot of DMs run the game anyway, and is the weakness in 3E that the first post in this thread points out - why not make the rules support it?

 

[mhensley]

I don't know about getting rid of skills and feats, just takes away alot of the customization.

The customization comes in how you roleplay your character. The game is so much simpler, skills and feats are just not necessary.

Which btw, when does the actual hardback books come out?

Probably sometime in November.

 

[Particle_Man]

a question: what about adventures where lots of skills checks would be required (such as bluffing people, appraising things, open-locking doors,, etc.), but very few combat or magic-use would be involved?

Well, two points:

1) the person running the game will determine if skill checks are needed or not. Sometimes it is better to just roleplay a bluffing attempt, for example.

2) When skill rolls are needed, the person running the game should 1) Determine which of the 6 attributes it falls under, 2) Decide if the player gets to add their level or not to the roll (usually the player does, but exceptions include when the non-rogue tries to move silently, for example), 3) Figure out the Challenge level of the thing the player is trying to do (a simple default is to make it equal to the player level). 4) Add any other relevant modifiers, as she sees fit. Then the player rolls, adds his attribute modifier, maybe adds her level, and tells the person running the game whether the attribute is prime or not. The person running the game then tells the player whether she succeeded or not.

That sounded complex. The shorter version is, that players can try out any and all skills (except perhaps for some exclusive abilities of certain classes -- I wouldn't let a non-rogue try to pick a lock). They are just treated as attribute rolls (with various modifiers).

 

[Saeviomagy]

My point:
The big thing you had here was "noone had to look up rules".

You're talking about a cut down version of the rules. 4 classes and, I daresay, less spells, weapons and armour. At a guess, less options all round.

Of course it's going to be quick and simple. If I write up a 1st level module with pregens, it's going to be quick and simple. I know all the pregens, I know what they can do, and I know the module. It's even better if I run AoOs by the seat of my pants (awarding AoOs on the basis of whether someone is paying attention to a threat).

In short - reduced options = reduced complexity.

I really don't think that removing rules from a system is difficult. To that end, I don't see how C&C can qualify as a superior system.

 

[ecliptic]

The customization comes in how you roleplay your character. The game is so much simpler, skills and feats are just not necessary.

Um no.

When you are railroaded into a specific sterotype, you are seriously limited to your roles.

 

[Crothian]

Um no.

When you are railroaded into a specific sterotype, you are seriously limited to your roles.

Who's doing the railroading? Rules don't railroad, railroading has to be done by a person and more then likely with character genreation its the DM.

 

[Akrasia]

...

Nonetheless, a question: what about adventures where lots of skills checks would be required (such as bluffing people, appraising things, open-locking doors,, etc.), but very few combat or magic-use would be involved?

Such adventures could easily be handled by C&C IMO. Many of the skills you mention will be "class abilities" -- e.g. rogues get "open locks", "traps", etc. The rules allow for non-rogues to attempt some rogue tasks (e.g. hiding), but without the class level bonus that rogues get.

As for bluffing, appraising, etc., some of those will also be class abilities (e.g. I am pretty sure that the Bard class will get a number of special social abilities), but the others would be handled through "attribute checks" -- e.g. using Charisma for bluffing, Intelligence for appraising, etc.

Characters can designate two ability scores as their "Primes" (humans get to designate three). One "Prime" is determined by the character's class (e.g. fighters automatically get strength, etc.). The other is chosen by the player. The "Primes" reflect the abilities with which the character is especially well trained (e.g. two characters with 18 intelligence are both geniuses, but the one who chose INT as her "Prime" is also very well educated).

It is much easier for characters to succeed at tasks that involve one of their "Primes" than it is for them to succeed at other tasks. So "Primes" are, roughly, a "rules lite" way to hand skills and feats.

Finally, it is also worth mentioning that there will be optional rules for introducing skills, additional combat rules, and other things in the "full rules" for C&C, once they are released. The design philosophy for C&C appears to be to present a "rules lite" framework, onto which additional things can be added, as players see fit, rather than start with a very complex system right away.

Sorry for taking so long to answer your question!