Castles & Crusades (box set) playtest report

[Akrasia]

everything? assume you are new to C&C and don't have many of the rules memorized, and you don't want to open the rulebook.

In my playtest, we were all new to C&C. I used statblocks like the one I listed, and did not have to open the rulebook once!

if the wizard wants to attack with his dagger, what is his attack roll? how much damage does the dagger do?

Okay, I guess I should have added the 1d4 for dagger.
If there were any modifiers to her attack roll, they would have been listed.

if he needs to make a Constitution save, what does he roll?

He needs an 18, or 12 if it his prime (the primes are indicated on the statblock). Since this is the core mechanic of the entire system, it hardly needs to be listed on the statblock (anymore than stating "roll d20 and add bonuses" needs to be listed on a d20 statblock).

if someone wants to arm-wrestle him, what is his Strength score / modifier?

Her strength is average -- no modifier. Thus it is not listed. Only ability scores with modifiers are listed!

Simply put, if something is not listed, assume that the NPC's ability with the relevant ability is "average".

how many spells per day can he cast?

Okay, missed that one (4/3 should have been listed).

a 3.x stat block is longer, but can answer all of those questions without recourse to opening a book. i agree with the previous poster that the C&C stat block looks very implicit.

Wrong! (Well, mostly.) The stat block is explicit. You can ascertain everything you need to know by looking at that statblock without having to look up the rules.

Sure, it requires some knowledge of how the statblock is organized (e.g. that it only lists ability scores that have modifiers; average ability scores are not listed; what a "prime" is; the fact that all ability score checks require 18, except for primes that require 12; etc.).

But the same is true for a 3.x statblock (e.g. you have to know that "W" means "will save" etc.).

Having played both systems, and having used both kinds of statblocks, all I can say is that the short statblock I listed (maybe with a few corrections) conveys the same amount of game-relevant information as a 3.x statblock for the same NPC.

More generally, nit-picks about the statblock I gave aside, surely it is obvious that a rules lite system like C&C will have shorter statblocks than a rules heavy system like 3.x?

You might not want a rules lite system -- fair enough! But one point in favour of a rules lite system (whether C&C, Unisystem, or whatever), is that the statblocks will be very short!

And short statblocks means less prep time for DMs -- which is very important for me.

 

[scadgrad]

I find this amusing in light of your sig.

"all the best
scadgrad

Interested in a 3.5 Campaign in Richmond, VA?"

Particle Man, I am so busted

Thanks for pointing out the hypocrisy

 

[Numion]

Wrong! (Well, mostly.) The stat block is explicit. You can ascertain everything you need to know by looking at that statblock without having to look up the rules.

The fundamental difference is that C&C stat block for an Elf would list Elf Fighter 2 etc .. shortly, while 3e would have the special qualities and such written out, correct? So C&C stat block wouldn't mention Elf's immunity to sleep? It's rather implied in the stat block because it's an elf, and elves get sleep immunity. 3e stat blocks explicitly state all those qualities. Thats the difference between implicit and explicit.

Buuuut I guess we're down to semantics at this point :\

 

[MeepoDM]

Particle Man, I am so busted

Thanks for pointing out the hypocrisy

Nah, it wasn't that hypocritical - running a 3.5 campaign and just playing in one are vastly different! Now that C&C is here, noing what kind of prepr work goes into it, I would never run another 3.5 campaign, but I'd gladly play in one!

Sheesh - I do sound quite the hypocrit after all!

 

[Akrasia]

The fundamental difference is that C&C stat block for an Elf would list Elf Fighter 2 etc .. shortly, while 3e would have the special qualities and such written out, correct? So C&C stat block wouldn't mention Elf's immunity to sleep? ...

*Sigh* :\

Look, my statblock is not necessarily what an "official" C&C statblock has to look like. There is no "standard method" yet.

My overall point is simple: even if you include absolutely everything relevant concerning the NPC/monster in question (damage of weapons, special abilities, etc.) in the statblock, the C&C statblock will always be much shorter than the equivalent 3.x statblock!

The reason is simple: C&C is a rules lite game, whereas 3.x is not.

So for a C&C NPC you designate which ability scores are primes. In contrast, for 3.x you need to list the NPCs feats, skills, prestige classes, etc.

It is that simple!

 

[Numion]

The reason is simple: C&C is a rules lite game, whereas 3.x is not.

This I can believe. But I do find it hard to believe that you went through a session in a new game without referencing the books once. In a game with races with special abilities, spells with variable effects, etc. .

Makes for a good soundbite, but I don't buy it :\

 

[Mordfane]

Well, I just received my C&C box set today. I have to say, I'm quite impressed. I rolled up a human fighter, with one of my players, then just for kicks, I rolled up another one, and didn't look in the book once, other than picking out equipment. Only took me about 5 minutes to do it too!

For me, I like the fact that I can create a high level ( 10+ ) game in half the time it would take me in 3.X, and maybe even faster than that.

Just my opinion

Great job Troll Lords!

 

[Akrasia]

... Makes for a good soundbite, but I don't buy it :\

Well we did consult the rules while making up the characters.

But that was it! I had a few notes pasted to my DM (er...CK) screen, and the players wrote down everything they needed to know on their character sheets.

The session was only two hours -- a basic dungeon crawl (well, a tower really). If the adventure had been more complicated, then perhaps some rules consultation would have been in order.

But we didn't have to consult the rules once -- honest! The mechanics were that simple.

Of course, as I stated in my summary of the session, all of us are pretty experienced players (probably 50 years between the three of us, give or take), so that obviously helped.

 

[DMScott]

The reason is simple: C&C is a rules lite game, whereas 3.x is not.

"Rules lite"? Are the rulebooks chock full of artwork and whitespace, then? It looks like there's around 40 or 50 pages of rules in the box set and the PHB is listed at 128 on TLG's site... all the systems on my shelf that I consider rules lite have fewer than 10 pages dedicated to rules. C&C seems like an interesting piece of nostalgia, but if they were seriously aiming for a rules-lite approach they dropped the ball.

 

[Akrasia]

"Rules lite"? Are the rulebooks chock full of artwork and whitespace, then? It looks like there's around 40 or 50 pages of rules in the box set and the PHB is listed at 128 on TLG's site... all the systems on my shelf that I consider rules lite have fewer than 10 pages dedicated to rules. C&C seems like an interesting piece of nostalgia, but if they were seriously aiming for a rules-lite approach they dropped the ball.

Well the "rules" in the box set -- the Players' Book -- is 32 pages long -- and the pages are "half-size" (5.5" x 8.5"). There is a book for monsters and treasure (also 32 pages), and an adventure. When the PHB is published it will have everything in it you need (including monsters, etc.).

Perhaps we just have different definitions of what constitutes a "rules lite" game. Having played Rolemaster and Runequest back in the day, and a fair bit of 3rd edition D&D over the past few years, I can say that, by comparison, C & C is very rules lite!

When I think of a "rules lite" system I think of Eden's "Unisystem" (e.g. Buffy and Angel) and the old "Tunnels and Trolls" game. I would say C&C is similar to the "Cinematic Unisystem" in terms of being "rules lite." In any case, as a game that is attempting to draw upon the D&D tradition, it makes most sense to understand the term "rules lite" relative to that tradition (i.e. relative to 1st/2nd ed. AD&D, or d20).

Make sense?