Castles&Crusades: Is this "The One"?

[Jahydin]

I didn't get the new printings as I thought the changes would be minimal (plus, I was out of country at the time their kickstarter was going on for most of the time and was unable to even access that kickstarter if I had wanted to due to my location), so I wasn't too concerned about trying to find a way to pledge (which would have been a very difficult thing to accomplish at the time).

It sounds that it's more than that?

What has changed in the new printing?

For me, its been the last couple printings that have disappointed. This last one, C&C Reforged, was kind of just the last straw. Not because it's so incredibly different, but because every change that was made made the game worse than previous editions. Compounded with multiple disappointing purchases the last couple years ("A" Series Box Sets and Gods & Legends), I just burnt out.

Anyways, changes. The things that have bothered me:

• Core game goes from 12 to 20 now. C&C plays best at lower levels, so I found this material better suited for the CKG as Optional content.
• D&D Divorce. I play C&C specifically to replace AD&D. Changing and removing AD&D spells, items, creatures, etc. is nothing I'm thrilled about.
• New art. Not a fan. I felt the old art had a more cohesive AD&D tone. Now it's all over the place.
• Spell format change: I think everyone hates the new format (on right) compared to the old (left)...

• Assassin moved. No longer with the other classes. Moved to the Multi-class section to "hide him from parents pursuing the book?" (explanation given on Discord).
• Too many monsters. I preferred the slimmed down Monster & Treasure book with just the core AD&D creatures. They've since bloated it with all their own creations, and I'm just not a fan of any of it.

Besides the changes though, I think the fact this was marketed as "C&C Reforged!" expectations were high, especially since there are so much quality competition out there right now. I think most of us wish the Trolls well, but are quite happy with our old books.

 

[deganawida]

In many ways, Amazing Adventures appears to be their stealth 1.5 edition in that regard.

I concur, and I would argue that it's overall the better system for playing the fiction which so heavily influenced them (such as Burroughs).

 

[aramis erak]

Hackmaster 5e (d100 system that has nothing to do with D&D).

Wrong...
The origin of the game is a satire of AD&D1/2. Mostly just a string of hyperbole to make fun of the issues of AD&D players in the pages of the comic, Knights of the Dinner Table.
Then a licensed version of AD&D which added most of the hyperbole from the strip into an AD&D base. That's HM 4e
Then, in 2012, after expiry of the AD&D license, they rewrote the core to replace the core AD&D elements as closely as reasonable, and reduce the parody factor...
But the attributes, classes, and races are mostly direct from D&D. Even the slash-classes (fighter/thief, fighter/mage, etc) are the standards allowed in AD&D, but done in a BX kind of way...
Even Looks was in AD&D, but it was in the Unearthed Arcana expansion, as "Comliness".
Everything about it grows from a D&D baseline. It's intended to capture the tone of the game in the comic, and that game was a hyperbolic version of AD&D.

 

[Jd Smith1]

Wrong...
The origin of the game is a satire of AD&D1/2. Mostly just a string of hyperbole to make fun of the issues of AD&D players in the pages of the comic, Knights of the Dinner Table.
Then a licensed version of AD&D which added most of the hyperbole from the strip into an AD&D base. That's HM 4e
Then, in 2012, after expiry of the AD&D license, they rewrote the core to replace the core AD&D elements as closely as reasonable, and reduce the parody factor...
But the attributes, classes, and races are mostly direct from D&D. Even the slash-classes (fighter/thief, fighter/mage, etc) are the standards allowed in AD&D, but done in a BX kind of way...
Even Looks was in AD&D, but it was in the Unearthed Arcana expansion, as "Comliness".
Everything about it grows from a D&D baseline. It's intended to capture the tone of the game in the comic, and that game was a hyperbolic version of AD&D.

Wrong...

You're right about 4e, but 5e uses a d100 system skill-based build-point PC development process, and combat system that is based on their Aces & Eights system.

While HM 5e does include standard fantasy RPG tropes (class names, certain races etc), the system itself is utterly unlike D&D, being high-risk, low-magic, and low-power, with a radically different combat tracking system and combat resolution. If I were to make a direct comparison, HM 5e feels a lot more like Rolemaster than D&D.

It plays nothing at all like D&D. For one example, it is possible for a kobold to kill a 10th level PC with a single (very lucky) hit with a dagger.

Perma-death is strongly encouraged.

Armor makes you easier to hit (very RM).

Spell points (again, RM).

Very slow healing.

RM-like criticals, only expanded to multiple d10,000 lists.

Very multi-layered combat system, including reach and other RM details.

Monster/NPC system very much like RM, only with a better fast-card presentation.

 

[Jahydin]

@Jd Smith1
Yeah, we know. But to say Hackmaster "has nothing to do with D&D" when it's entire foundation is based off D&D is an odd thing to say.

"Crunchy spiritual successor to D&D" would be a better descriptor I think.

 

[Jd Smith1]

@Jd Smith1
Yeah, we know. But to say Hackmaster "has nothing to do with D&D" when it's entire foundation is based off D&D is an odd thing to say.

"Crunchy spiritual successor to D&D" would be a better descriptor I think.

Not at all. A successor to Rolemaster, yes.

But the cheesy 'superhero' vibe of D&D, the 'clay man' damage system (no effect until zero HP is reached), the endless river of senseless and unexplained talents and feats, the sheer volume of spells, the 'no death' combat system, all are absent.

Both do share the same Tolkien roots, but then, so does nearly every fantasy RPG.

 

[Jahydin]

Not at all. A successor to Rolemaster, yes.

But the cheesy 'superhero' vibe of D&D, the 'clay man' damage system (no effect until zero HP is reached), the endless river of senseless and unexplained talents and feats, the sheer volume of spells, the 'no death' combat system, all are absent.

Both do share the same Tolkien roots, but then, so does nearly every fantasy RPG.

I understand it's different from 5E, but none of these comparisons make sense when compared to AD&D, the game we're saying it's related to.

If I described Hackmaster as fresh take of AD&D with aspects of Rolemaster rolled in (isn't that how Rolemaster started anyways?), how would you disagree with that?

 

[Jd Smith1]

If I described Hackmaster as fresh take of AD&D with aspects of Rolemaster rolled in (isn't that how Rolemaster started anyways?), how would you disagree with that?

Because you would be very wrong.

And no, that's not how Rolemaster started. I was around in the start of the hobby. D&D was not the only RPG in the 70s. It went on to be the most successful because it appealed to the lowest common denominator, but it is not the basis of everything.

When Arms Law and Claw Law (the start of RM) came out, it was more akin to Runequest than D&D, with a dose of T&T thrown in.

 

[aramis erak]

Because you would be very wrong.

And no, that's not how Rolemaster started. I was around in the start of the hobby. D&D was not the only RPG in the 70s. It went on to be the most successful because it appealed to the lowest common denominator, but it is not the basis of everything.

When Arms Law and Claw Law (the start of RM) came out, it was more akin to Runequest than D&D, with a dose of T&T thrown in.

You're contradicting statements made by David Kenzer himself in the old K&Co forums. And Jolly Blackburn.
There's no direct connection to Rolemaster outside your head.
All the elements you tout as Rolmasterish are parallel development; the percentiles even: RM is 1d100+skill ≥ 100, while HM is 1d100 ≤ skill. (pm p.155). Roll under is the D&D mode... for thief/ranger/assassin skills, and (albeit on 1d20) Non-weapon proficiencies.
The D&D linkage is even called out graphically in the HM Player's manual.. on the «bleep»ing cover - the cover art is a tribute to D&D.

 

[Thondor]

I can't go as far as @Jd Smith1 but I do think he is making an interesting point. Hackmaster 5e is very different from early D&D (and current D&D). It does keep a lot of the D&Disms: like the core 4 classes being primary, similar races, 6 attributes plus looks, levels.
It changes a lot too. The biggest element for me is how combat is changed. Per second combat, opposed d20p, different weapon properties that impact things (die penetration, reach, variable shield damage, possible jab speed), spells are lower powered but you get one for each level etc.
The above and Knockbacks, threshold of pain checks, shield breakage and maneuvers all make combat a lot more dynamic and more complicated compared to any OSR game.
I can't see myself throwing 20 goblins at a party in Hackmaster, but I probably would at a mid-level group in OSRIC/AD&D or similar.

Still while very different, I do concede that it can be seen as an evolution of AD&D because they are playing with a lot of the same vibes.
--
I never did pick up Castles & Crusades. Almost did many times. But back around 2009 I ended up just diving into OSRIC and picking up old AD&D books.
I'm got a copy of DCC a couple months ago, and I am looking at DragonSlayer (Greg was at Phantasm and we spoke at some length - HighFell is a very interesting megadungeon).

Reading DCC mostly just made me want to run Hackmaster, which I didn't really expect.