Castles & Crusades (box set) playtest report

[Akrasia]

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

As I mentioned in my reply to Turanil, there will be optional rules for introducing skills (and different skill systems -- some very minimal, others like 3E), additional combat rules, and other things in the "full rules" for C&C, once they are released (I think that the "Castle Keepers Guide" will have plenty of optional rules and variants for people to use).

The design philosophy for C&C appears to be to present a "rules lite" framework, onto which additional things like skills and featscan be added, as players see fit, rather than start with a very complex system right away.

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.

Sure -- I did not mean to suggest that C&C was the perfect system for everyone!

There are trade-offs between a "rules lite" and "rules heavy" systems. My experience with C&C was that it hits the right balance for certain kinds of players.

 

[Andrew D. Gable]

So when the full set is released, will the C+C (no, not Music Factory ) classes be all the standard DnD classes?

Anyway, sounds fun, I'd like that kind of system... I know my players would, as they usually forget to spend skill points anyway... anything to make my life easier.

 

[Akrasia]

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.

I see that I was not quite as clear as I should have been in my original post. :\

The speed of the system was not simply due to the fact that we were not using the "full system"!

Rather, it is an intrinsic part of the game mechanics for C&C that it requires very little in the way of detail. The game is designed so that everything a player needs to know is readily ascertainable on her character sheet. Sure, she may have to write down a few abilities on her character sheet ahead of time (no more than a sentence per ability, though), but once that work is done, there is no need to flip through books in order to consult "the rules" on the details of a particular feat, combat maneuver, or whatever.

In short, the speed and simplicity of C&C is due to its game mechanics, not the fact that we were playing with only 4 classes.

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.

Again, I was not suggesting that C&C was a "superior system" across the board.

And, frankly, the idea that you need "complexity" in order to have "options" just does not wash with me. In fact, in a relatively rules lite system you can provide more options for players and DMs, because what you can do with the game has not been defined by endless rules (feats, prestige classes, etc.) ahead of time. At least that has been my experience -- I do not mean to suggest that it is universally true.

As for claiming that removing rules is "not difficult", I don't quite know what you are referring to here.

If you are suggesting that C&C is simply a version of 3.x that "removes a bunch of rules," then you are deeply mistaken, and I apologize if my post led you to form this impression. C&C is its own system -- though it has been designed to be compatible with all editions of D&D.

 

[Akrasia]

So when the full set is released, will the C+C (no, not Music Factory ) classes be all the standard DnD classes?

Anyway, sounds fun, I'd like that kind of system... I know my players would, as they usually forget to spend skill points anyway... anything to make my life easier.

The Player's Handbook (which wil contain all the rules you need to play -- including the basic monsters) is undergoing the final edit right now. At least that is what I have learned "through the grapevine" (I don't have any contact with the folks at TLG).

The 12 classes will be: fighter, ranger, paladin, knight, cleric, druid, wizard, illusionist, rogue, assassin, bard, and monk.

The knight will correspond roughly to the old "cavalier" class in 1E's Unearthed Arcana. The illusionist is inspired by the 1E illusionist class, and will have its own spell list and abilities, rather than being merely a "specialist". The bard class is closer to the Nordic "skald" than the 3E bard -- thus much tougher as a fighter, with his inspiring chants, but no spells.

Hope that helps.

 

[Turanil]

Thanks for the answers Akrasia. I keep asking question because my boxed set seems to don't want to be delivered, and maybe I will never get it.

Anyway, once I get it, I want to see if it would be feasible to create a sci-fi version of that game. Something that would remind clearly of Traveller d20, but that would be much more simple (IMO T20 is a little on the complex side...).

 

[Particle_Man]

13 classes. You forgot the Barbarian. Rarrr!

And the Ranger, Paladin and Bard do not cast spells.

And the Assassin can be Neutral or Evil.

Should be interesting. I like the Boxed Set. I wonder if I will pull a Diaglo and end up liking that better than the hardcovers.

 

[rounser]

I really don't think that removing rules from a system is difficult.

It is when the rules are tightly integrated, like they are in 3E - it can have a cascading effect. Say you remove AoOs. You must now address all feats and spells and monster abilities that address AoOs, and whatever else removing them affects. Then you discover that this or that class or monster has become a bit weaker for doing so, and archers and spellcasters get a free lunch, and so on and so forth.

That's another wish for 4E - that it be a bit more modular, so we can discard things from the game that the designers think are good for us but that we don't want to use anyway. Unfortunately, that's mutually exclusive with having tight integration...

Guess there's always compromise...

 

[Numion]

The speed of the system was not simply due to the fact that we were not using the "full system"!

Rather, it is an intrinsic part of the game mechanics for C&C that it requires very little in the way of detail. The game is designed so that everything a player needs to know is readily ascertainable on her character sheet.

Or was it fast because you played 1st level characters? Because at that level D&D itself is quite fast. What about spells for example? Do monsters have spells or similar abilities (SU or SP in 3e ) in C&C? Do characters have multiple kinds of spells? What makes these spells such that you don't have to look up them in rulebooks?

Because in 3e I think that the most time wasted on ruleschecking is due to spells and spell-like abilities .. whats the difference?

For me your point about 'intrinsic speed' wasn't that strong, because skills and feats are handled quite quickly in 3e in my experience. For others they are the speed-bump. For me the slowness comes from spells and spell-like abilities at, say, levels 10+.

 

[Akrasia]

Or was it fast because you played 1st level characters?

Sure, that might have helped, but I don't think that was the only reason. All three of us have a lot of experience with 3E, and we all agreed that even with 1st level 3E characters, the C&C game went a lot quicker (and thus seemed more 'dramatic').

Because in 3e I think that the most time wasted on ruleschecking is due to spells and spell-like abilities .. whats the difference?

The difference: the mechanics for handling spells and spell-like abilities are much simpler in C&C than they are in 3.x D&D.

I am not claiming that this will suit everyone's tastes, but it certainly appeals to me.

For me your point about 'intrinsic speed' wasn't that strong, because skills and feats are handled quite quickly in 3e in my experience. For others they are the speed-bump. For me the slowness comes from spells and spell-like abilities at, say, levels 10+.

I think players are often very good at handling their PCs' skills and feats quickly and efficiently, because they are very familiar with them. However, from the DM's perspective, it can slow things down -- or involve a LOT of prep time -- to keep track of many NPCs' skills and feats.

 

[Akrasia]

13 classes. You forgot the Barbarian. Rarrr!
...

D'oh! I keep doing this.