"Castles and Crusades" is a new fantasy role-playing game produced by Troll Lord Games. This is a review of their recently released "nostalgia" box set of "basic rules" for C&C. The complete rules should be released in late November or early December.
These rules include only the four classic classes -- fighter; cleric; magic-user ... er, I mean "wizard"; and thief ... um, er, "rogue" -- and only go up to level 10. In addition, only a limited number of spells, monsters, etc. are included. There is enough to play an entire campaign (at least up to level 10) in this box set, but you will be restricted to "the essentials" in terms of classes, magic, monsters, and so forth. The game is run by a Dungeon Mast... er, um .. a "Castle Keeper". The box set is designed in a style reminiscent of the original 1974 D&D rules, and includes some very sharp dice that can also be used as caltrops. The art by Peter Bradley is generally very good, especially the illustration on the cover of the box (although there is one real clunker in my view, namely, the cover to the "Monsters and Treasures" book, which features the backsides of a few vile humanoids).
The game draws on all versions of Dungeons and Dragons, and with some adjustment, can easily be used with materials from all editions. It uses the "d20" mechanic to resolve all tasks (combat, etc.), and like 3E D&D, "high is always good" (e.g. C&C armour class numbers and 3E armour class numbers are equivalent). It is a "rules lite" system, at least relative to the various editions of D&D, but aspires to be as flexible as possible given its rules lite nature. In these respects, it succeeds to an admirable degree.
In terms of mechanics, here are some of the key points:
(1.) The game plays as quickly and easily as OD&D/AD&D. In fact, it is faster, as everything is based on the same d20 + Attribute Modifiers + whatever bonus/penalty, rule.
(2.) It is not a tactical game. No need for battlemats and figures (unless you want them!). No Attacks of Opportunity (and this is IMO a huge, huge plus).
(3.) Although as simple and as fast as OD&D, it presents you with the same options in terms of race and class as 3E D&D. Whether a dwarf can be a magic-user ... er, um, "wizard" ... is entirely up to the DM, and the nature of her campaign world. There are no silly level limits.
(4.) Each Ability Score or Attribute has its own value for saving throws. This is probably the only point where C&C is "more complex" than 3E D&D. However, the advantage of this approach is that each attribute (including Charisma) can be used as the basis for saves against different types of spell/attack. Hence all Attributes are equally valuable. There are no obvious "dump stats" in C&C.
(5.) Primes. A given character has a couple of Primary Attributes, and the rest are Secondary.
Since it is so essential to the system, it may be worth saying a few things about the "Prime" system. Roughly speaking, a "prime" is an ability score (e.g. strength) with respect to which your character is especially trained or skilled. For example, two characters with 18 intelligence are both geniuses, but the character who chooses intelligence as her prime is also well educated and capable of using her "genius" ability with precision, whereas the character with 18 intelligence who does not choose intelligence as her prime is an "untrained" genius. It may be convenient to think of primes as "skill bundles" -- characters who choose dexterity as their prime are trained in "dexterity-related" tasks. At least this is how I understand the system of "primes". (It is not the only way, but it is probably best not to confuse things for the purposes of this review. And in terms of mechanics, how one interprets the system of primes is not important.)
One prime is determined by the character's class. A second prime is chosen by the character (to represent, on my view, the "preadventuring" interests and training of the character in question). Humans get to choose a third prime -- this is the mechanism to balance humans with the various special abilities of nonhuman characters in C&C.
Here are the class primes for the classes discussed in the box set: Fighter (Str); Rogue (Dex); Wizard (Int); Cleric (Wis).
The base target number for any Attribute check or Save involving a Primary is 12.
The base target number for any Attribute check or Save involving a Secondary is 18.
Those are the numbers you must beat to succeed, so you roll:
d20 + Attribute Modifier + Class Level - any penalty assigned by the CK due to task difficulty. Beat the number required by your Attribute's status, and you succeed. The Class Level is added only to tasks involving a class-related ability. So a rogue would add her class level to her attempt to climb, whereas a fighter would not..
So that is the core mechanic for C&C -- the "SIEGE engine", as the folks at TLG call it (for mysterious reasons).
Despite being compatible with all editions of D&D, and while clearly attempting to recapture some of that "old school" Weltanschuung, I would say that -- in terms of "overall feel and character" -- it is most similar to Rules Cyclopedia D&D. 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 C&C can accommodate both groups who feel that social interactions should be resolved by "rolls" (e.g. one should roll to see if the PC can convince the bartender to serve the party another round of ale), and groups who feel that social interactions should be resolved by "role-playing" (e.g. the DM should decide, based on the player's attempt to convince her based on role-playing -- and/or willingness to purchase a RL round for the players at the table -- whether or not the character succeeds at the attempt).
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 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. Nonetheless, 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.
Overview aside, here is a summary of my playtest.
The two available players for the playtest have been involved with D&D for over 15 years (at 34 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 have 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 3E combat. Player A's main reason for liking 3E 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 3E. 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 3E 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.
A strong point of the game, in my view, was that we did not need to consult the rules once during our session. Okay, we did consult the rules while making up the characters. And 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. But that was it! Of course, 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 tiresome caveats aside, we didn't have to consult the rules once. The C&C mechanics are 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. (Damn -- I just added another "tiresome caveat"!)
Afterwards, I was surprised at how positive Player B was. She commented that she was pretty "50/50" between 3E 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 3E (and would have been more dramatic in 3E). 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 3E. Overall, her judgement was that C&C was just as good as 3E -- there were advantages and disadvantages to both systems.
Player A (unsurprisingly) was a bit more positive. Although he regretted the loss of skills (which 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 3E. 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". 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. These are great virtues of the game, in my view.
However, just to be clear, I do NOT think that C&C is the perfect system, or the system for everyone. It is not a good game for people who like detailed combat, or fine-tuned skill/feat systems. While it definitely allows for much greater customization of characters than OOP D&D or 1E/2E AD&D (largely through the 'prime' system), you are not going to be able to fine-tune your Thief ... um, "Rogue" ... character's ability to pick locks versus climb down to the 5 percent (+1) margin. But it is a good game for people who want a fun, fast-paced, but 'structured' D&D game. And as someone who has a full time job at a university, it is a very fast system to prep for! Being able to get ready for a 2 hour session in only 1 hour is a very important thing, IMO. It is also a system that lends itself to "house rules" far more than 3E D&D.
In terms of "character", I think the system has a great "pulp" and "fast paced" feel to it. Playing C&C reminds me of reading a classic Conan story like "The Tower of the Elephant", or the Fafhrd and the Gray Mouser tales in "Swords Against Death". It has a great dramatic pace that, ironically, makes it a far more appropriate system to use with a setting like "Eberron" or "Hyboria" than the d20 rules, in my opinion. Just as Howard "kept his eye on the action" in his Conan novels, C&C does the same thing.
My overall verdict: C&C (boxed set) gets an "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 (especially regarding combat), some unexplained rules (e.g. those regarding "head AC"), and a few too many typos (including a +11 AC bonus for a shield!). It is also worth mentioning that, for most potential players, it may be worth waiting for the complete rules to be released before checking out C&C -- that is, unless you, like myself, are both rather impatient and like the "nostalgic value" of the box set. In this review I have tried to cover both the C&C rules in general, as well as the specific contents of the box set. With respect to the latter, I should also mention that the adventure that is included in the set -- "The Rising Knight" -- is quite good, and very useful for giving C&C a "trial run" (although I did not use it for my own playtest).
In short: the next time I DM my campaign "Ilmahal", I will definitely be using C&C! I look forward to the release of the full rules (and pray that TLG runs it past a real editor).
FINAL NOTE: I WOULD GIVE THIS SET A GRADE OF A (9/10). BECAUSE OF THE 1-5 RANKING SYSTEM AT ENWORLD, I HAVE ROUNDED THIS UP TO 5.
). I did buy it only for that reason, and it's not worth anything else. Where only the game (the rules) is concerned you should rather buy the books and leave the boxed set away (especially when book is 20$ and boxed set 35$).
