Castles & Crusades: Player's Handbook

[der_kluge]

I got the monster and the Players book. I think the lack of skill system is what kinda bugs me about the C&C system.

Mike

Actually, I was very leery of the lack of skill system in C&C, but in the end, I found it liberating.

To play C&C effectively, you basically have to distance yourself from customization at a mechanical level. I think C&C's attempt is to replace mechanical customization with fluff customization.

So, instead of saying, "I'm a fighter with 4 cross-class ranks in herbology" you would say "I'm a fighter who grew up on a farm, and spent time studying under a druid in the woods" or some such like that. It requires quite a bit of DM fiat, and a liberal dose of common-sense realism, I suppose.

Bottom line - some people really like it, and others find it abhorrent.

YMMV

 

[der_kluge]

I see my C&C review continues to generate controversy.

That's good.

Yes, I have played C&C, and I understand both camps. As Henry pointed out, there are people who hate it, and people who love it. I think it's a personality thing.

As a game, I think it's important to note that C&C effectively breaks no new ground. There is nothing revolutionary in C&C. I think the designers will even admit that it's an attempt to create an OGL version of 1st edition AD&D.

I think a very easy, very streamlined, yet balanced, cohesive game can be created. I don't necessarily think that C&C is that game. The classes are black boxes - no one except the designers understand why an assassin has such a fast progression, but a wizard advances very slowly. So, if I wanted to customize an assassin to give them some spellcasting abilities, or to remove something from another class, I have no easy way of knowing how to adjust that XP table.

I would have preferred more character customization, and a more flexible character creation mechanic. I don't think those things are incompatible with a rules light, streamlined game play.


That's why I gave it 3 out of 5 stars. It's a good game, and people really love, but ultimately I think it could have done much more. The designers should have aimed higher, IMHO.

 

[Turanil]

I would have preferred more character customization, and a more flexible character creation mechanic. I don't think those things are incompatible with a rules light, streamlined game play.

<...> It's a good game, and people really love, but ultimately I think it could have done much more. The designers should have aimed higher, IMHO.

I agree 100% with that.

 

[Akrasia]

Buying a $40 setting/adventure sourcebook for a skill system might not sit too well with some.

Sheesh, I was just mentioning it, in case people were curious. (I certainly would not buy CZ for the skill system alone.)

 

[Akrasia]

... Well, to think of it another way, just think of it as "core skills." Your strength is the same no matter what, but if the strength-related task is a "core skill", you get a +6 bonus. Makes it ten times easier for players to rationalize and remember.

Right. Your ability scores are your 'natural abiilties', whereas the primes represent 'training'. So two PCs with 18 INT are both 'geniuses', but the PC with INT as a prime is also well educated.

 

[Akrasia]

I'm familiar with SIEGE, I own the box set. I was just curious if the old secondary skill system was implemented in any form. That is the d100 roll to determine if you are a cobbler or tanner or what. Really, I'm not fond of skill systems in the first place but it's nice to have a CV for a character's past.
...

I used the 1e DMG 'secondary skill chart' for my (short) C&C campaign earlier this year. It worked just fine!

 

[JoeGKushner]

Sheesh, I was just mentioning it, in case people were curious. (I certainly would not buy CZ for the skill system alone.)

Yet that's pretty much what your post indicated was the course of action no? Sheesh.

 

[jcfiala]

I'm looking forward to the second printing. I'm planning on picking it up then, and then quite possibly M&T afterwards, we'll see. Thanks to whoever put the link in for the two pages featuring the 'Ranger' - that's a nice compromise from 70's barebones and modern day full-color layout styles. (If anything, it reminds me positively of the classic GURPS, only perhaps a little better looking.)

 

[Akrasia]

Yet that's pretty much what your post indicated was the course of action no? Sheesh.

No. (That's your incorrect interpretation.)

 

[The Shaman]

Yet that's pretty much what your post indicated was the course of action no? Sheesh.

No, you're reading into it and being snarky at the same time.