Castles & Crusades (box set) playtest report

[Frostmarrow]

Except that some people aren't playing RPGs to "better" themselves. They are playing to have fun. Why should they be penalized if they want to imagine that they are brilliant speakers and can be the center of attention with their glib tongue? I don't know of any DM who makes their players act out their combats (LARPers aside). Why should social situations be different?

I'm not advocating throwing out the role-playing part all together. I'm just saying that a player should be able to roll dice to help simulate his social skill just as he does in combat.

Starman

In a role-playing game it is feasible to act out social situations. It's not feasible to act out combats - that's why. Why mix those two up? Besides there are better ways to make sure you get to be center stage than having you roll a d20 and say "16".

To each his own I guess.

 

[Voadam]

Except that some people aren't playing RPGs to "better" themselves. They are playing to have fun. Why should they be penalized if they want to imagine that they are brilliant speakers and can be the center of attention with their glib tongue? I don't know of any DM who makes their players act out their combats (LARPers aside). Why should social situations be different?

I'm not advocating throwing out the role-playing part all together. I'm just saying that a player should be able to roll dice to help simulate his social skill just as he does in combat.

Starman

Combat and roleplay interactions are different. Physical aspects of the game must be represented by mechanics or DM Fiat. Social interactions can be done without any mechanics, solely by mechanics, a mix of roleplay and mechanics, or by DM fiat.

 

[Akrasia]

Well I am not going to get into this debate over the appropriateness of "social skills" in FRPGs.

EXCEPT to note that, IMO, Castles and Crusades can handle both styles equally well.

If you don't like to "roll" for social interations, don't! Nothing in C&C requires that you take ranks in social skills (as there are none), so if your style of play does not make use of diplomacy skill checks, etc., there is no need to do so in C&C. On the other hand, if you like rolling to determine the outcome of (some or all) social interactions, the use of Primes and Ability Score rolls in C&C gives you a mechanic to play this way as well.

 

[Vindicator]

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

Agreed. In AD&D 2e we made heavy use of ability checks if we need to reflect a skill. If you wanted to bluff, you rolled against Charisma. DM would add bonus or penalty based on circumstance. Worked like a charm.

Skills? Feats? Bah.

AD&D 2e rules.

[Looks around, ducks for cover...]

 

[Mallus]

I'm not advocating throwing out the role-playing part all together. I'm just saying that a player should be able to roll dice to help simulate his social skill just as he does in combat.

For starters, I like the fact a social skill resolution mechanic exists, however...

...at some level players have to play. What would the game look like if it became common practice for DM's to allow tactics rolls so characters defined as tactical geniuses don't make mistakes in combat, an/or always chose the optimal tactics? Should a rogue conceived of by his/her player as cunning be allowed to devise a winning plan/con/frame-up job simply by rolling a skill check?

If the rules can make you Conan, why not Hannibal? What if a player with awful deductive reasoning skills wants to play Lt. Columbo or Sherlock Holmes? I want eveyone in my games to have fun, but what about the actual play? Carried to -an admittedly-- silly extreme, the game becomes nothing but die rolls.

I think the presence of a social skills system make a good DM even more important, someone who can balance the roll vs. the actual player input and find a happy medium.

 

[Vindicator]

There's a guy in my group who is definitely not graced with great social skills. He has trouble communicating effectively at times. He uses the wrong words or says the wrong thing. When he wants to roleplay a character that is very effective speaker or liar, he would be screwed if the DM did not allow him to make a roll. Generally, he roleplays what he says (or tries to say) and the DM has him roll his appropriate social skill to see how well he does.

The point is that if he was not allowed to roll the die to see how well he does, he would never succeed. He tries, but he is just not effective with words. How do other people handle this kind of situation?

I would tend to argue that a guy who doesn't communicate well probably shouldn't be playing an RPG in the first place, just like a guy who doesn't skate well probably shouldn't play ice hockey.

 

[Vindicator]

For starters, I like the fact a social skill resolution mechanic exists, however...

...at some level players have to play. What would the game look like if it became common practice for DM's to allow tactics rolls so characters defined as tactical geniuses don't make mistakes in combat, an/or always chose the optimal tactics? Should a rogue conceived of by his/her player as cunning be allowed to devise a winning plan/con/frame-up job simply by rolling a skill check?

If the rules can make you Conan, why not Hannibal? What if a player with awful deductive reasoning skills wants to play Lt. Columbo or Sherlock Holmes? I want eveyone in my games to have fun, but what about the actual play? Carried to -an admittedly-- silly extreme, the game becomes nothing but die rolls.

I think the presence of a social skills system make a good DM even more important, someone who can balance the roll vs. the actual player input and find a happy medium.

Exactly. People who argue that social interaction should be die-rolled merely because combat is handed this way miss the point:

Combat and social interaction are NOT comparable.

The very *premise* of RPGs is social interaction. Buddies sitting around a table talking about what they're doing. Because combat cannot be handled around the table, dice are used. When dice aren't needed, they should be put away.

If you want to play a character who is diplomatic, then take a high score in Charisma and friggin' ACT IT OUT. It's a ROLE-PLAYING game.

Sheeeeesh.

 

[Voadam]

I would tend to argue that a guy who doesn't communicate well probably shouldn't be playing an RPG in the first place, just like a guy who doesn't skate well probably shouldn't play ice hockey.

I'd disagree with you here.

I would only say that a player who doesn't want to interact with NPCs by roleplaying talking to them should not expect to play an effective face character in my game as that role involves a lot of in-character talking and interaction in my game.

 

[Henry]

Alright, to steer this back toward Castles and Crusades:

If comparing C&C in terms of look and character capabilities, would you (Akrasia) compare it to Original D&D more, Basic D&D (Moldvay, et al), or AD&D? In other words, are the class abilities etc. fleshed out as they are in AD&D, or does it give you VERY broadly described abilities as in simpler versions? It would seem to be more like Basic or Original D&D in this respect, based on players' examples so far.

 

[Akrasia]

Alright, to steer this back toward Castles and Crusades:

If comparing C&C in terms of look and character capabilities, would you (Akrasia) compare it to Original D&D more, Basic D&D (Moldvay, et al), or AD&D? In other words, are the class abilities etc. fleshed out as they are in AD&D, or does it give you VERY broadly described abilities as in simpler versions? It would seem to be more like Basic or Original D&D in this respect, based on players' examples so far.

That is a good question. I would say that it is most similar to Rules Cyclopedia D&D (though I am a bit biased here, as I am very fond of the RC ). Like the RC, C&C gives you a basic, very flexible system (though C&C is much more flexible than the RC), and a system that is quite "DM-friendly" (in the sense that it is comparatively easy to prep and run adventures), but with plenty of options for expanding or changing the core rules (e.g. just like skills were optional in RC, there will be optional skill systems for C&C, etc.).

Some class abilities are pretty specific (e.g. the rogue's "back attack" ability), but many are not, and open to plenty of interpretaton and DM (er... CK) adjudication. This is even more true for the "Prime" system of ability score checks -- while ability score checks are used for saving throws, the extent to which they will be used as a de facto skill system, or used to determine the success/failure of various tasks in general, is really up to the group in question.

So I would say that the mechanics, in terms of "feel" and "ease-of-use" (and especially the lack of a need to refer to the books on a regular basis), C&C bears a strong "family resemblance" to the RC.

Of course it has elements of 1E/2E AD&D as well -- e.g. the assassin, illusionist, and knight (cavalier) classes. And unlike RC D&D, there are no "race classes," no level limits, options for any race to play any class (and multiclass), etc.

But I would say that, overall, C&C feels like what the RC would be if it were rewritten to include the "d20" mechanic for all task resolutions, versions of some 1E classes, and various other bits from 1st, 2nd, and 3rd edition (A)D&D.

The system is rules lite (like RC or B/X D&D, but even more so). But it is very easy to add things to it (just as the Gazeteers added optional skills, classes, background options, abilities, etc. to the B/X rules during the 1980s).

I hope that makes sense!