Castles & Crusades: Player's Handbook

[ghul]

I'm definitely looking forward to the second printing of the PHB.

I've had no trouble converting from either past or present editions of (A)D&D into C&C. One of the big selling points of C&C was that it made it much easier to use all those previous edition products.

So far I'm finding that 1e is the easisest to convert. 2e isn't hard, either, as long as you don't get inot the Skills & Powers/ Combat & Tactics stuff. But it's a hoot to crack open the old 1e modules and have them playable again. 3e gets a little tricky. It's the feats and prestige classes that present the greatest difficulties.

--Ghul

 

[JoeGKushner]

I'm looking forward to the second printing just to see what the fuss is about.

It'll be interesting to see how that campaign works out too. Gyagax and another old master. The fans of old style play must be having a field day.

Works out better for everyone too. Gygax and Kuntz 3.0/3.5 books were bad in terms of mechanics.

 

[Henry]

Moved to d20 Systems Forum.

I've used C&C for some AD&D game modules, and it played amazingly fast on start-up, and during rules play. However, players felt a bit constrained in abilities (versus their usual d20 counterparts), so we only play it when we want D&D, but don't have a lot of prep time.

 

[ghul]

Moved to d20 Systems Forum.

I've used C&C for some AD&D game modules, and it played amazingly fast on start-up, and during rules play. However, players felt a bit constrained in abilities (versus their usual d20 counterparts), so we only play it when we want D&D, but don't have a lot of prep time.

Customization of the C&C system is one of the aspects that has attracted me. Henry, your players don't have to feel limited by the lack of options in abilities. You could introduce feats. Feats may be used as replacements for character class abilities per the CK's approval. Or, you could introduce feats as something purchasable (is that a word?) using experience points. You could use the skill system as presnted in Castle Zagyg: Yggsburgh, or you can make up one of your own.

C&C is indeed a streamlined system. But its quite easy to add aspects of any D&D system from 1e to 3.5e as you choose. A few examples of my customizations: In C&C, inititiative is determined by a d10 roll. I have house-ruled that your DEX bonus may be applied to this roll. In C&C a fighter begins with specialization in a single weapon of choice. I have expanded this to the fighter having broad group specialization (axes, swords, polearms, bows, crossbows, etc) for greater versatility. I have many more. My point is, you can bridge the gap between C&C and 3.5e with a few well-chosen house rules that you and your players will enjoy. Customize it, baby!

--Ghul

 

[Henry]

Customization of the C&C system is one of the aspects that has attracted me. Henry, your players don't have to feel limited by the lack of options in abilities. You could introduce [feats, skills, etc.]...

Oh, I know, but then I take away from it, chunk by chunk, its greatest strength, which is its streamlined nature. Besides which, 3E satisfies all our needs as players as-is for our more regular marathon pre-planned sessions, and when I DM I wing monster and NPC abilities to the point that I don't write down full stats, but am familair enough with the system to get pretty close to proper power level. By the time I've added in feats, skills, multiclassing rules, crits, etc. I've turned it back into 3E, but without the benefit of one book to point to and say, "use that."

So, for more casual, "I want to PLAY instead of dicker a lot" games, I will persuade them to jump into C&C as-is, which is almost brilliantly simple enough mechanically to be a board game; for games where they want to customize the
out of the characters, I give them their 3E and let 'em roll. For me, it's a "right tool for the job" scenario. Some others might like C&C customized to their taste, and that's great; for me, I try to use a game as-is where possible, because it cuts down on confusion on what's available and what's not.

Truth be told, these days if I were introducing a group of people whole-hog to role-playing, I'd start with Castles & Crusades for the ease of introduction; I'd only move to D&D when and if they clamored for something more.

Now, the only thing missing from C&C is an "endorsed by Dungeons & Dragons" logo, and it'd be the perfect introductory gaming tool...

 

[der_kluge]

For an in-depth look at C&C, I'd suggest reading the reviews, especially my long-ass review.


http://www.enworld.org/reviews.php?do=product&productid=119800

What you have to understand is that C&C is as-of-yet, unfinished. The PHB alone is good enough to run a game, but it implies that the GM is going to add in a lot of other stuff to flesh out some of the rules. The DMG will be out soon, I think, and it's slated to be quite large.


That said, C&C is good for fast-paced games, and works when the players aren't terribly interested in spending a lot of time dealing with skills and feats, and all that number crunching. You can make a character lickaty-split with C&C, and get right into the action.

Where I feel C&C kind of breaks down is in its lack of cohesive multi-class and/or dual class rules, and the "black box" nature of the experience point system. The classes aren't balanced, which is why some advance faster than others. Some character concepts are also hard to create using the rigid archetype system that C&C has.

 

[Akrasia]

I discuss the strengths and weaknesses of C&C, as well as how it relates to pre-3e D&D and 3e D&D, in my review:

RPGnet review: http://www.rpg.net/reviews/archive/11/11008.phtml

 

[Akrasia]

... Where I feel C&C kind of breaks down is in its lack of cohesive multi-class and/or dual class rules ...

There is a system in Castle Zagyg, and there will be a few systems in the CKG.

For people not interested in those products, the 1e/2e AD&D system for multiclass PCs works just fine.

 

[ghul]

For an in-depth look at C&C, I'd suggest reading the reviews, especially my long-ass review.


http://www.enworld.org/reviews.php?do=product&productid=119800

This review was terrible, IMO. While it is clear that the reviewer had a copy of the C&C Players Handbook in hand, it is even more abundantly clear that the reviewer has never played the game. The criticisms are often ill-founded, erroneous assumptions are sprinkled throughout, quotes are taken out of context, and the overall loquasiousness of the piece is downright exhausting. I would look elsewhere for an *informed* review of this product, folks. Just because it is posted on the net does not make it credible. And I'm not saying the first printing of the C&C PHB is without fault or error. I just find this sort of armchair criticism to be trite and, frankly, annoying.

--Ghul

 

[JoeGKushner]

This review was terrible, IMO. While it is clear that the reviewer had a copy of the C&C Players Handbook in hand, it is even more abundantly clear that the reviewer has never played the game. The criticisms are often ill-founded, erroneous assumptions are sprinkled throughout, quotes are taken out of context, and the overall loquasiousness of the piece is downright exhausting. I would look elsewhere for an *informed* review of this product, folks. Just because it is posted on the net does not make it credible. And I'm not saying the first printing of the C&C PHB is without fault or error. I just find this sort of armchair criticism to be trite and, frankly, annoying.

--Ghul

Do you have a link to your review? I find it's easy to critizie what is in essence a critic but a lot of people do it from their own "armchair" and never put up their own reviews. Love to see you're take of it.