Castles & Crusades standing the test

[Mythmere1]

So far, my introduction of Castles & Crusades as a substitute for D&D 3E in my group has held on - six months in one campaign is a decent test of time, I think.

I'm looking forward to the release of Monsters & Treasures - it's been kind of a long time to be using the 1E Monster Manual or converting 3E monsters. The biggest bonus, though, has been that the rules are simple enough to play with my kids over the summer. We've been having a high old time.

I realized how into it they were after I set out the Hirst Arts (Dwarven-forge-like) walls, showing a door to the south and a long corridor with a couple of doors to the north (it's part of Rising Knight). I didn't really describe it, because it was just a corridor. Suddenly my eight year old asked, "okay, should we try the door, or go up the long, creepy corridor?"

"long, creepy?" I never said that - it was his imagination.

Another priceless quote. "I'm a coward. Every party needs a coward."

 

[Maliki]

I agree 22 weeks and counting. All, but one, of my group had only played 3E, and were a bit reluctant to switch, but to a man they are glad they did. The speed of the game allows us to get so much more done, and a few house rules brings in everything we liked about 3E, and leaves out all the excess that slowed the game down,

 

[Breakdaddy]

Nice run Mythmere! I, too, am waiting patiently (?) for my copy of M&T!

 

[Henry]

I recently ran three sessions of Castles and Crusades for 3 to 4 of my players, because no one else wanted to DM and I offered them something quick and easy. They enjoyed the "back to basics" play more than I thought they would, and I don't find them averse to trying it again -- and there have been some games they've played where that's happened!

It has enough to it for long-term play, but does require a very creative DM to keep 3E-loving players happy.

 

[der_kluge]

I can appreciate the simplicity of, but I think C&C RAW leave a few things to be desired. The "boiler-plate" classes for one, and the illusionist oddity is another (is a specialist wizard such a horrible concept?). The DM for our C&C game utilizes several houses rules, including the addition of most feats, and he always allows us to swap out class abilities for feats where the class ability doesn't make any sense. I find that there are some archetypes which can't be easily created in the C&C mechanic without quite a bit of tweaking. 3e does a better job of this, but it still has problems, too.

 

[Omote]

I CK (DM) a "off and on" game of CASTLES & CRUSADES right now (mainly because I've got so many other v3.5 games going on at the moment).

I can tell you this much, as it's been said numerous time before but when you want to play and RPG fast with slick, easy to understnad rules, C&C is my game. IMO it's too hard to play a pick up game of v3.5, and I've actually converted a few players that like v3.5, but want to play a more basic game (RCD&D). I convinced them that instead of playing out of the Rules Cyclopedia, give C&C a try. Both of them seemed to like the intuitive level of the C&C mechanic when it combines "basic" level D&D, with the more popular d20 mechanics.

I'm going to be kicking off a true C&C campaign rather soon. I honestly thought that I would only get 2-4 players at most. I can say that I'm pleasently surprised that as of today I have 7 people who are interested in playing! To me that says somthing about the "closeness" many D&Ders feel to a more classical style of play. ~ Don't get me wrong, I still love v3.5, and am currently playing/running in 3 weekly games, but there is something about C&C that seems to call out to more and more players.

To ease the transition, I;ve incorporated a simply Skill and Feat system into my C&C game. Honestly I can say that both these systems only took a few sessions of play-testing and a few hours of work to prepare and works very well. I think most players will like the ease of adaptibity to C&C.

I say, Crusade on!

............................................Omote
FPQ

 

[Mythmere1]

I gave my players feats, too, to ease the transition from 3.5. One point about that - if you do it, think about making cleave a fighter-only feat. It works out in practice to be pretty powerful compared to the fighter's class abilities, as der kluge points out.

I think specialist wizards are cool, too. I think the concept with the illusionist was that specialist wizards should, like the illusionist, have a distinctive spell selection (the same concept that's at work with druids as a specialist cleric). I would have liked to see them worked out and included in the PHB, but I also respect the desire to have a 128 page book for $20.

 

[VorpalBunny]

I'm also running an "off and on" game of C&C using The Keep on the Borderlands when my usual Eberron game is off a week.

My players love the 1st edition feel, and the quickness of the game. Like der_kluge though, some of the designers choices had us scratching our heads (the encumbrance system, d12 HD for monks, etc.) but we're in the process of houseruling out the "undesirable" aspects of the game so that when Eberron has run it's course we'll play C&C "full-time".

 

[Xzuatl]

I just finished the 6th session of my C&C campaign last night and it was the best yet.
I have two long time D&D players as well as two 3e only players. The 3e players were really amazed at the amount of game play we are able to get in during our 4-5 hour sessions. They just reached 2nd level and nobody seemed to miss having to choose skills and feats. But I guess we'll see what happens in the mid levels.

I have DM'd from Basic to 3e and had decided to switch my 3e campaign to C&C after leafing through the PHB and I have no regrets so far. All in all, a great system.

Xzuatl

 

[scadgrad]

.. The 3e players were really amazed at the amount of game play we are able to get in during our 4-5 hour sessions. They just reached 2nd level and nobody seemed to miss having to choose skills and feats...

Man is that ever true, we get so much more accomplished than in the past. Currently I'm running Tomb of Absythor for the second time and combats take about 1/2-1/3 of the time that they did back when I ran it in 3.X. Not only that, we've only the rare "To The Books" moment per session as compared to the drag of what does and doesn't cause an AoO searches in the past (just an example). We incorporate feats, but that doesn't take much time at all for PCs to pick out. Hell, they've usually been thinking about which one they're going to get next for a number of weeks anyways. We've not missed skills in the least since we just replace them w/ logical extensions of the PCs background.

Der Kluge makes a good point that some players will not like the archetypal approach of the basic classes. Having the ability to pick a prime or two does help define the difference (albeit in very broad terms) between one fighter (for example) and another, but those who want more of a Gurps/Hero System sort of game should probably stick to something classless. The real beauty of C&C is that if you want more PC archetypes, than just port 'em on in from whatever version of D&D you like really. For those who can "handle" an archetypal approach to a fantasy RPG this should provide enough flexibility.

I've found that the biggest strength of the game is the way that C&C serves as a bridge between all other versions of D&D. Combine that with how much it reduces the DM's workload and you've got a pretty good thing AFAIC.