Castles & Crusades (box set) playtest report

[Akrasia]

If this has been asked before, then my apologies, but what is the default setting or world for C&C? Does it even have one?

I think the folks at TLG will be adapting their fantasy setting "Erde" for C&C. But I am not certain, and don't really know anything about Erde.

There is also a campaign setting for the "Castle Zagyg" series by Gygax and Kuntz. IRRC it is not a complete "world", but rather a large area that can be inserted into other campaign worlds. (For obvious reasons, it should be pretty easy to insert into Greyhawk.)

More generally, I think it should be easy to use most D&D settings with it. Pre-3E settings (like the D&D Known World/Mystara setting, or some of the 2E AD&D classic settings like Al-Qadim or Planescape) should be almost ready to use "as it", as they will not be filled with the feats and prestige classes that are not used in C&C. The main modification, I think, would be translating the AC (C&C AC = 20 - orignal AC), and choosing which ability scores would be "primes" for the NPCs.

I would also imagine that adapting most 3E settings would be a cinch as well.

 

[BryonD]

No, I don't.

And unless you have trouble differentiating between what can be solved through roleplaying and what should be left to the rules, I don't see why you would.

I've yet to meet a person who was objectively capable of roleplaying the distinction between a 10 CHR fighter and a 20 CHR high level bard.
I've met PLENTY who claim to.
But the fighter always manages to be just charming or intimidating or clever enough to talk his way past the guard......

An objective system for establishing that one character is better than another at social interaction can only be obtained through the rules.

Now there is no claim here that there is anything wrong with wanting an objective combat system on the one had and a subjective social system one the other. It is all about having fun.

But this common more-roleplayer-than-thou idea that subjective socials is somehow automatically better than an objective system is silly. Even worse, the all to common delusion that role-playing socials is actually an objective method.

There is no such thing as a epic skilled diplomat bard getting the better of an ancient dragon in an exchange. But that won't stop you from role-playing it. However, I find it works very well to actually keep the "game" in my roleplaying game. And the only way to fairly resolve a fantastic scenario such as that within a game is through the rules.

In a fair game about being something you are not it is very easy for me to differentiate what should be handled under the rules. And overcoming major obstacles through social interaction is without question one of those things.

If you just RP it and had fun, then that is all that matters.

But if you just RP your way past the dragon, then in the end all that really happened is the DM let you.

 

[BryonD]

I'm not saying you're doing this, but merely relegating social encounters in D&D to a roll of the die would *to me* take away what makes a roleplaying game unique compared to all other types of games.

????

Why is it one or the other?

I've played in a lot of groups and there all fall more or less in to one of two camps.

A) Socials are RPed. In the end the DM's favorite players or the truly more skilled RP players get what they want and other players don't. Not claiming it was always a bad experience, but to me it always came down to DM whim so there was never any satisfaction to it. And I'm usually one of the ones able to come up with some perfect reason that I should get what I want. So it isn't sour grapes. It really is lack of fun in something that comes to easy.

B) Socials are RPed and the the rules are used to see just how well the CHARACTER did rather than a whim of the DM based on how well the PLAYER did. And, of course I've been in games where this sucked to. Because ultimately it is the DM and players that make or break it. But I find myself being the character much moreso in these games. Instead of knowing that it is up to me, Bryon the player, to weasel my way through a situation, I know that I have to solve it using only those skills that my character actually has. It actually helps define the character as a person in the game who is NOT me and make it that much more fun for me to be in THAT role.

Anyway, what I don't encounter is people saying "I try to bluff him. I rolled a 17. Did it work?"

I don't know. Perhaps these people are out there and I've just been extremely lucky. But I just haven't seen it.

So the "relegating" line seems to really miss the point as I see it.

It is a roleplaying game. If you relegate it to purely roleplaying or you relegate it to purely game, you are leaving out half either way.
RP + game together, that is what I find best.

 

[Grayhawk]

I've yet to meet a person who was objectively capable of roleplaying the distinction between a 10 CHR fighter and a 20 CHR high level bard.
I've met PLENTY who claim to.
But the fighter always manages to be just charming or intimidating or clever enough to talk his way past the guard.......

Really? You've never seen a player - who you knew to be capable of being charming and glib of tongue - play a low Chr character as an either shy, silent type or as an annoying, abrasive type?

An objective system for establishing that one character is better than another at social interaction can only be obtained through the rules.

An objective system? Yes. Does every type of game need an objective system? I don't believe so.

Now there is no claim here that there is anything wrong with wanting an objective combat system on the one had and a subjective social system one the other. It is all about having fun.

Exactly

But this common more-roleplayer-than-thou idea that subjective socials is somehow automatically better than an objective system is silly. Even worse, the all to common delusion that role-playing socials is actually an objective method.

I'm by no means saying that roleplaying social interactions is universally better than having a mechanic to govern such situations. I'm just saying that to some it's preferable.

There is no such thing as a epic skilled diplomat bard getting the better of an ancient dragon in an exchange. But that won't stop you from role-playing it. However, I find it works very well to actually keep the "game" in my roleplaying game. And the only way to fairly resolve a fantastic scenario such as that within a game is through the rules.

I disagree. In my experience most DM's I've played with have been perfectly capable of handling such situations in a 'realistic' and satisfying manner - without the need of rules on how this level of Diplomacy affects that DC.

In a fair game about being something you are not it is very easy for me to differentiate what should be handled under the rules. And overcoming major obstacles through social interaction is without question one of those things.

To you. As mentioned in my post above, I can certainly understand this side of the argument, and if having rules in place for social interactions makes the game better to you, that's great. Me, I've had my best roleplaying experiences in previous editions that didn't have rules in place for such things, and as such I convinced that such rules aren't necessary *for the style of play enjoyed by me and my group*.

If you just RP it and had fun, then that is all that matters.

But if you just RP your way past the dragon, then in the end all that really happened is the DM let you.

Which would be no fault of the 'subjective system' as much as just bad DM'ing, which I suspect can happen when using an 'objective' system as well.

 

[cleaverthepit]

The default setting will be Erde. Its campaign setting we've been selling for 3 years or more as a d20 book.

You can learn a little bit about it here. and some reviews here and here

The setting will be updated and re-release next year sometime for C&C.

NOW, importantly, Castle Zagyg (here ) is placed in Erde as a default setting BUT it is a campaign setting unto itself and need not be played in Erde.

Davis Chenault
troll monkey

 

[Turanil]

I've yet to meet a person who was objectively capable of roleplaying the distinction between a 10 CHR fighter and a 20 CHR high level bard.
I've met PLENTY who claim to.
But the fighter always manages to be just charming or intimidating or clever enough to talk his way past the guard......

<snip>

But if you just RP your way past the dragon, then in the end all that really happened is the DM let you.

<snip>

It is a roleplaying game. If you relegate it to purely roleplaying or you relegate it to purely game, you are leaving out half either way. RP + game together, that is what I find best.

I totally agree with you. You have worded it better than I would have been able to. Myself I don't understand how people can argue one method against the other. Obviously the roleplaying aspect keeps the game fun, while the roll-playing aspect keeps it consistent.

 

[Frostmarrow]

3.5E rules works wonderfully for a third person game. The kind of game where you start your sentences with "My character attempts to..." or "My character says..." A game where the DM says "The guard is indifferent to you" and the player replies "I try to improve his attitude with a diplomacy check. I want him to let me pass without papers".

My group is solidly in the first person type of game. In such a game bringing up game-mechanics in mid-sentence interrupts the mood. It is true however that without the rules a first person game can make the DM favor some players and the outcome will be based on the DM's whim. However, you get to take the bad with the good. For if you trust your DM to have the same objective as you do (i.e "all having a good time") then it might not be a problem at all.

I just like to add that having players go through a rigorous testing program of lifting stuff and go through IQ-tests in order to make the game fair, is not the same thing as allowing the social player to shine through his own ability. The game is not about lifting stuff - it's about talking. To me the social ability of the one player is offset by another player's superior tactical mind (-I'm with this group) or yet another player's ability to min/max a better character.

Some argue that rules and role-playing makes for a better game when mixed and that might be true. I just don't think that the skill system of 3.5E does the job very well. Vampire (the old Masquerade) did a much better job at this though. So, it's a perfectly valid argument with which I agree. -Provided the rules are good they can mix with RP and make for a better game.

Still, this is an old argument on these boards and I don't see the two camps agreeing any time soon.

PS. As I brought this up with my group they where not about to see it my way. Most of them thought the skill system worked fine. However, at yesterday's game some of the players begun refraining from doing things if it required them to make checks. This was further accentuated when we were being halted by highway robbers. Naturally we refused to hand over our gold and attacked in an attempt to pass them on the road. It resulted in all the horses bucking and refusing to move, and a few of us fell off (trying to dismount quickly). Once dismounted we scattered the robbers and mounted our horses and rode off. Hardly heroic. We felt like we were in a Mel Brooks movie. DS.

PPS. I don't think a first person game is "better" than a third person game. DDS.

 

[3catcircus]

Depending on where you are in NJ, we may have the just what the doctor ordered.

Sounds interesting - I'm in May's Landing.

 

[Anabstercorian]

Wait, does this have that stupid "low AC's are better" thing also?

 

[Akrasia]

Wait, does this have that stupid "low AC's are better" thing also?

Nope. No THAC0 either.

C&C uses the d20 mechanic of "higher-is-always-better".

C&C AC and 3E AC should be interchangeable (at least up to AC 30 or so; the C&C power scale beyond that tapers off more than the 3E scale).