Castles & Crusades standing the test
- Thread starter Mythmere1
- Start date
Brutorz Bill
First Post
Turanil said:
I agree as well. I just don't have the spare time to devote to NPC stat block generation.
I'd rather put that time into Campaign development! I've played D&D for... well let's just say I remember the chainmail rules. I've run many a Campaign over the years, and frankly while 3.5 offers alot, it's just too much of a hassle for me to DM it at high levels. C&C offers me exactly what I need at this time. + I LOVE being able to easily use stuff from my massive Old D&D library. I pulled out some ancient White Dwarf's the other day (from back when they supported D&D and not just minis), Gonna unleash a Demonist on the party first chance I get, or maybe I'll rework that Illrigger Class (evil alternative Paladin) from an old Dragon of mine.
Heh heh heh.
Later,
Brutorz Bill
Breakdaddy
First Post
der_kluge said:
Im always calm, hoss. Im just telling you that your soapbox has holes in it.
bolie
First Post
I am one of Mythmere's players and we are currently in the process of trying to convince him to keep running his game. None of us like C&C very much but we all like playing in his game. Unfortunately for us, he prefers to make up his stuff in C&C for the same reason that many of you like to use C&C as DM.
We've run into two main problems:
1. The rules are internally inconsistent. You can move and attack someone within 30' and charge someone more than 60' away, but can't do anything if they are 45' away. Many of the spell descriptions are obviously copied from the SRD and not edited or were partially edited. Polymorph and ray of enfeeblement are two obvious problem spells.
2. The rules are too simple. We all wanted to customize our characters. We come up with interesting backgrounds and personalities, but we like to back them up with stats. We added feats to help with that, but I keep looking at prestige classes and trying to figure out how my character's extreme bookishness will affect the game. We find ourselves making up rules to cover situations that have rules in D&D. While we can do that and do it quickl, it makes the game feel more arbitrary. It's hard to predict what you can do when just about anything out of the ordinary becomes a negotiation between you and the DM rather than a looking up of a rule to apply.
While we can hopefully get Mythmere to keep running his game, I'll probably be running a 3.5 game along with his game so we can alternate. I will try to reign in my mild OCD and make up stat blocks and not worry about detailing everything to death. There's really nothing wrong with just making stuff up for NPCs. Of course, too much of that and it becomes arbitrary again.
We'll see how it goes. Maybe we can reconvert Mythmere to 3.5.
If not, hopefully we can keep playing in his game and use my game to satisfy our detail oriented obsessive sides.
Bolie IV
We've run into two main problems:
1. The rules are internally inconsistent. You can move and attack someone within 30' and charge someone more than 60' away, but can't do anything if they are 45' away. Many of the spell descriptions are obviously copied from the SRD and not edited or were partially edited. Polymorph and ray of enfeeblement are two obvious problem spells.
2. The rules are too simple. We all wanted to customize our characters. We come up with interesting backgrounds and personalities, but we like to back them up with stats. We added feats to help with that, but I keep looking at prestige classes and trying to figure out how my character's extreme bookishness will affect the game. We find ourselves making up rules to cover situations that have rules in D&D. While we can do that and do it quickl, it makes the game feel more arbitrary. It's hard to predict what you can do when just about anything out of the ordinary becomes a negotiation between you and the DM rather than a looking up of a rule to apply.
While we can hopefully get Mythmere to keep running his game, I'll probably be running a 3.5 game along with his game so we can alternate. I will try to reign in my mild OCD and make up stat blocks and not worry about detailing everything to death. There's really nothing wrong with just making stuff up for NPCs. Of course, too much of that and it becomes arbitrary again.
We'll see how it goes. Maybe we can reconvert Mythmere to 3.5.
If not, hopefully we can keep playing in his game and use my game to satisfy our detail oriented obsessive sides.Bolie IV
The Shaman
First Post
This is one of the premier attractions for me as well. I spend more time on NPCs than I do on PCs most of the time, not to mention the fact that I create far more NPCs than PCs in any given year.Turanil said:
MoogleEmpMog
First Post
The Shaman said:
Last 3.5 session I ran, I literally ran - out of time and into the car, with nothing whatsoever prepared except the basic concept for the session.
Didn't have a single stat block.
Joked about not having a single stat block.
Ended the session with the players STILL not believing I didn't have a single stat block.
Best session of the campaign to date.
Take as much time as you like making NPCs in 3.x D&D; it's neither necessary nor necessarily beneficial. I suspected as much before, after years of only partial stat blocks, but this last session convinced me beyond any shred of doubt.
der_kluge
Adventurer
bolie said:
What my GM does (Scadgrad) is he has added in feats, but reworked them a bit for C&C. For example, there aren't any +2/+2 skill feats, for obvious reasons. He's added in other things like flanking, critical hits and fumbles, and masterwork weapons. Well, flanking might be in the rules, I don't know, but I doubt it. The feats have also been slightly modified to remove attribute requirements, and replaced with requirements like "fighter-type only" or similar.
He's also added in backgrounds which customize the character further. You could think of it like a template, but only with fluff. It's sort of like a training package if you're familiar with HARP. It adds a nice touch.
One of the things that drives me crazy are the imbalances in the weapons. Like, I could get a rapier that does d6 damage, or a long sword that does d8. In 3rd edition, a rapier crits more often, so there's actually a reason to take a rapier in 3rd edition. There's no such reason in C&C, so some weapons are clearly more superior to other weapons.
Dragonhelm
Knight of Solamnia
der_kluge said:
I like some things about D&D and other things about C&C, so I'm trying to find a good middle ground between the two. I've already revised feats to make them simpler. I might revise skills next to be simpler and to retain a bit more "old school" flavor.
This is one point of 3e that I really disagree with. People don't pick out weapons solely on how much damage they do or for game mechanics reasons.
A swashbuckler isn't likely to wield a longsword or a greatsword because it's mechanically better. A swashbuckler is going to grab that rapier because it fits the swashbuckler style.
Likewise, I don't feel that we should have small and medium size categories for weapons. Let's face it, a small longsword (there's an oxymoron) is essentially a shortsword. It makes more sense to me to say that smaller characters wield smaller weapons.
I can't say I'm too big of a fan of the critical threat system in general. I know that it's there to provide game balance, but to me, it takes away from the joy of a natural 20. Now every game has a different critical hit system, but the way I've always done it, a natural 20 equals double damage (or a roll on the Good Hits and Bad Misses chart). Likewise, a natural 1 is always a fumble. If you roll a natural 20, but it has a chance of only doing regular damage, that takes away from the fun.
That's not to say that the 3e system is a bad one. It just isn't for me.
I didn't quit GMing C&C because I have any problems with C&C. I quit GMing C&C because my players (with one exception) fundamentally don't get the fact that C&C has a different gaming objective than 3E, and the effort to focus on that objective as a GM is wasted if the players aren't going to pick up on it.
3E focuses on the creation of a game piece, the character: all aspects of the PC have numbers associated with them. As bolie says, the personality is represented with numbers and modifiers. However much role playing you tack onto it, the game is a tactical dungeoneering wargame. This trend exists from very earliest D&D - I'm not saying it isn't valid, just that it's not my style or the basic C&C style.
My approach, I guess, is the 2E approach (although 2E rules are, to my mind, inferior to 1e, 3e, and C&C). The interaction with the fantasy world is primary, the wargame secondary (but vital). In this approach, comprehensive rules can be a straitjacket. I had a player tell me in 3E that because he rolled a high diplomacy roll (I forget the exact skill) that he was entitled to have a particular NPC react well to him. That's not the game I'm playing, but it is a reasonable complaint in 3E - after all, he chose that skill at the expense of allocating the points elsewhere. Bolie notes that the rules are inconsistent - to my mind, examples like charging are simply a matter for situational resolution: ask the GM, "can I charge?" The idea that players are entitled to know in advance what exactly they can do (the "playing piece" concept) is appropriate to a wargame, but when it isn't there, that's not a sign of poor game design, it's a sign that the game is literally different from a pure wargame.
My players (again, one exception, to be fair) aren't grasping the fact that C&C is quite different from the wargame-with-roleplaying. It is roleplaying-with-wargaming; this is the reason for a new set of rules - not just to make them lighter. My players are locked into the idea that they are still playing 3E, just with fewer rules. If I can't (and I have given up at this point) get them to understand that C&C is deliberately not 3E, then I'm just banging my head against a wall. I've had a player ask me "since we keep using 3e rules to resolve the ambiguities, why not just play 3e?" That's a total "don't get it."
It's a matter of having a fundamentally different approach to the game than my players do, not because I'm dissatisfied with C&C. For all they complain about the rules, they never learned to play the game.
3E focuses on the creation of a game piece, the character: all aspects of the PC have numbers associated with them. As bolie says, the personality is represented with numbers and modifiers. However much role playing you tack onto it, the game is a tactical dungeoneering wargame. This trend exists from very earliest D&D - I'm not saying it isn't valid, just that it's not my style or the basic C&C style.
My approach, I guess, is the 2E approach (although 2E rules are, to my mind, inferior to 1e, 3e, and C&C). The interaction with the fantasy world is primary, the wargame secondary (but vital). In this approach, comprehensive rules can be a straitjacket. I had a player tell me in 3E that because he rolled a high diplomacy roll (I forget the exact skill) that he was entitled to have a particular NPC react well to him. That's not the game I'm playing, but it is a reasonable complaint in 3E - after all, he chose that skill at the expense of allocating the points elsewhere. Bolie notes that the rules are inconsistent - to my mind, examples like charging are simply a matter for situational resolution: ask the GM, "can I charge?" The idea that players are entitled to know in advance what exactly they can do (the "playing piece" concept) is appropriate to a wargame, but when it isn't there, that's not a sign of poor game design, it's a sign that the game is literally different from a pure wargame.
My players (again, one exception, to be fair) aren't grasping the fact that C&C is quite different from the wargame-with-roleplaying. It is roleplaying-with-wargaming; this is the reason for a new set of rules - not just to make them lighter. My players are locked into the idea that they are still playing 3E, just with fewer rules. If I can't (and I have given up at this point) get them to understand that C&C is deliberately not 3E, then I'm just banging my head against a wall. I've had a player ask me "since we keep using 3e rules to resolve the ambiguities, why not just play 3e?" That's a total "don't get it."
It's a matter of having a fundamentally different approach to the game than my players do, not because I'm dissatisfied with C&C. For all they complain about the rules, they never learned to play the game.
Similar Threads
