Castles & Crusades standing the test

[Breakdaddy]

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.

Sorry to hear you quit the game, but I do understand your reasons. If you are ever in the area, you are welcome to join ours!

 

[Breakdaddy]

One thing I am going to be doing in my C&C campaign is adding Non Weapon Proficiencies for the players to customize their characters. Each rank gives the PC a +2 when the NWP applies to a situation. I think that helps out with the customization quite a bit.

Jason

You using a 2e style list or making one up from scratch?

 

[Mythmere1]

Sorry to hear you quit the game, but I do understand your reasons. If you are ever in the area, you are welcome to join ours!

I haven't quit the game - I'm still playing with the wife and kids. I'll play as a player with my group, 3.5. I just won't DM 3.5, but I'll play. We'll see how it works - 3.5 might seem VERY VERY slow to the same players after C&C.

 

[Breakdaddy]

I haven't quit the game - I'm still playing with the wife and kids. I'll play as a player with my group, 3.5. I just won't DM 3.5, but I'll play. We'll see how it works - 3.5 might seem VERY VERY slow to the same players after C&C.

I can personally attest to that. We switched from a C&C game directly to a SWRPG D20 game and the rules-lookup meter went through the roof. Combats take roughly 6 times the amount of time in a D20 game as they do in C&C, and I found that it is taking some time for the players to get used to having skills and feats again, they are trying to roleplay through situations more frequently and have not been going to the skills list and feats list as much.

 

[Von Ether]

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.

It boils down to the group you have. Players tend to use what advantages they can get to get their goal accomplished and downplay their disadvantages. I'm sure players who pick Charisma as a Prime could make the same argument. He still made the investment on focusing his character into someone that would be naturally more likeable. It may not matter if you suddenly give a commoner a 30 in Diplomacy or just flat out say "Nope, this guy hates you anyway." A great result off a high roll that delivers mediocre results will disappoint a player.

I played in another "lite" system, M&M, with a bunch of "tatical dungoneering" fellows. It was a constant battle of wills as the players all adopted a "if the rules don't say yes or no, it must be 'yes' when it's in our favor." I was getting majorly turned off on DM at all.

On the other hand, I'm now running Eberron with 3.5 with less than five pages photocopied out of SG-1 and another 5 pages of new feats photocopied out of d20 A! So far, we've had no rule squabbles and some sessions have no combat at all. We could probably use something like C&C or something even quicker, Savage Worlds, but the players prefer 3.5 despite most playing the game in a fairly rules free fashion. The best "advantage" I have with 3.5 right now is we have one player who's very combat intensive and the AoOs and such give him a thrill. Luckly, he makes decisons quickly and he's a fun guy so his turns go no slower than those who say "I want to swing off the rope and land on the table."

 

[der_kluge]

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.

Good lord, of course they do. Why on earth would I, as an adventurer who places my life on the line on a routine basis *not* want the weapon that dealt the most amount of damage?

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.

And the swashbuckler style isn't about the namebrand of his cloak, or how groomed his hair is. It's about speed. Since there is no weapon speed in this system, there's no reason for a swashbuckler to choose a rapier. It's like, he walks into a blacksmith and says "give me the fastest blade that you have", and the guy hands him a long sword, and while the guy is looking over his blade, another guy comes in and wants the deadliest weapon the guy has, and the blacksmith hands him a longsword. In fact, everyone gets a longsword that comes into the blacksmith shop. There are *mechanical* reasons in RL why people choose certain weapons over others. C&C doesn't reflect that.

 

[Dragonhelm]

Good lord, of course they do. Why on earth would I, as an adventurer who places my life on the line on a routine basis *not* want the weapon that dealt the most amount of damage?

Why would any adventurer choose a weapon other than a greatsword, then?

And the swashbuckler style isn't about the namebrand of his cloak, or how groomed his hair is. It's about speed. Since there is no weapon speed in this system, there's no reason for a swashbuckler to choose a rapier.

Sure there is. He's a swashbuckler. The swashbuckler is every bit as much about the look and style as it is the mechanics behind it. Throw in weapon finesse, and you have your speed.

It's like, he walks into a blacksmith and says "give me the fastest blade that you have", and the guy hands him a long sword, and while the guy is looking over his blade, another guy comes in and wants the deadliest weapon the guy has, and the blacksmith hands him a longsword. In fact, everyone gets a longsword that comes into the blacksmith shop. There are *mechanical* reasons in RL why people choose certain weapons over others. C&C doesn't reflect that.

You're right, C&C doesn't reflect that. And if that's not your thing, that's fine. Feel free to use any weapon speed or critical threat rules you want. I'm not saying they're wrong, just that they don't work for me.

You and I appear to have two different styles. If I'm reading your style right, you want mechanical reasons based on weapon choice as well as in-world reasons.

From my point of view, I'm more interested in characters and roles. I don't necessarily feel that one has to stick to archetypes as much as C&C does, but I do feel that some archetypal concepts should remain in place. Wizards don't carry greatswords. Swashbucklers use weapons like rapiers. Halflings don't need small longswords, they use shortswords because that's the blade that fits them best.

I pick weapons based on my character concept, or because the weapon seems cool. If I don't do as much damage, so be it. I know it isn't as logical of an approach or as balanced in the eyes of some, but it's the approach I take.

In other words, there's more than one way to approach the situation. I think we'll just have to agree to disagree on this one.

 

[Breakdaddy]

I pick weapons based on my character concept, or because the weapon seems cool. If I don't do as much damage, so be it. I know it isn't as logical of an approach or as balanced in the eyes of some, but it's the approach I take.

I have 6 players in the group that I GM. For the sake of argument I will discuss this in context of our 3.5e game, but it works the same for us in C&C. 5 of these players will pick weapons and equipment based on perceived needs and the right fit for their character concept. The 6th guy is wondering when Im going to allow him to use a fullblade from A&EG because of the massive damage it deals out. The point is, both styles are valid and can be fun to play; but I definitely prefer the former to the latter. It breaks down the verisimilitude in the campaign if every fighter in sight is wielding one of three top-damage weapons in the game because its the one that a number cruncher would bet on with high damage output. I have a feeling that the latter attitude/style is the reason that mythmere got fed up with running his C&C game. If I had 4 other guys like my 6th guy, min/maxing and number crunching their way to fame and fortune, I would quit too. This isnt a dig on the other style, this is a mere statement of fact because it clashes with my style.

 

[scadgrad]

... There are *mechanical* reasons in RL why people choose certain weapons over others. C&C doesn't reflect that.

Oh yes it does as I stated earlier in our conversation about the same. C&C reflects the fact that the battleaxe, bastard sword, and long sword are the superior weapons in melee given the assumption of a medieval battlefield.

The rapier is an inferior weapon because everyone is wearing armor, or at least for the most part. If C&C was set in a Renaissance tech level, I'm sure the rapier would be the superior choice. The only reason to take a rapier is for the fluff of it. And as Mythmere stated above, that's the primary point of C&C: Story over War Gaming.

Still, the difference between a d6 and a d8 against C&C critters isn't really all that important. It's far more important to be able to connect every round. YMMV.

 

[scadgrad]

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.

Damn, that's some kind of strong post. I couldn't have put it better myself. I really hope your players buy in, but man it sounds dubious. Maybe try to find another group to run C&C w/ and just participate as a player in their 3.X campaign <shudders>.