Castles & Crusades standing the test

[MoogleEmpMog]

I enjoy both light (SilCore, True20) and heavy (HERO, d20) systems, and I think Mythmere may be missing his players' problem with C&C.

D&D was based on a wargame. All of its rules, all of its (not-really-archetypical) archetypes, all of its complexities and oddities owe their origins to that basic fact. D&D was wargaming-with-roleplaying - and it shows.

AD&D 2e tried to remake D&D, wargaming-with-roleplaying, into the inverse. It largely failed. A level-based, combat-oriented system of rules based on killing things and taking their stuff just doesn't work very well for roleplaying-with-wargaming.

C&C is trying to do the same thing as 2e, and to my mind what it's doing is doomed to fail.

My guess is that your players want tactical complexity, want options, because the level of detail C&C and D&D operate on is not that different.

C&C characters don't have feats, skills or PrCs, but they have more base classes than core 3e D&D, and those base classes really aren't that simple. Few of them are as simple as D&D's barbarian. Some have unique rules all to themselves. Others have spellcasting. C&C is still based on D&D. It still hasn't escaped its roots.

True20 is, IMO, a much superior system because, though it shares some basic rules with C&C and even more with d20, it really isn't based on D&D. Any more than SilCore is based on HERO just because they're both point buy systems that use d6s.

I can play True20 and happily ignore the detailed bits in combat; in SilCore I can't help but be cinematic and descriptive, considering the massive (relative) bonuses offered. C&C doesn't give the same feel - it feels like d20 with something missing, not a system unto itself.

Or, I could be completely wrong and your players just want to play rules-heavy. Beats me.

 

[der_kluge]

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

Because they might want to use a shield, or a second weapon?

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.

No such thing as weapon finesse in C&C RAW last I checked. So, there's no way to truly represent a dex-based fighter, or one that favors speed over strength.

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.

I want the rules to make sense, and I want the rules to represent that some weapons are faster than other weapons, or more graceful. Like I said, even 2e had weapon speed, so there was a tactical advantage to using certain weapons over others. All things equal, players are simply going to pick weapons based on damage alone, since that's the only attribute of a weapon in C&C.

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.

My current C&C character sheet is 4 pages long. I like characters and roles, too. I don't like "boiler-plate" concepts, and there is no swashbuckler in the C&C rules. Imagine my struggle when I created a female dex-based fighter who duel wields a rapier and main-gauche. Well, I could have created it easily enough, but I also wanted one that didn't suck, and that was not easy.

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 decided early on that my character would use a rapier, since it made sense. I wanted the speed of that weapon over the d8 damage that the long sword did. Imagine my frustration when I found out that there were no bonuses for speed, or even any mechanical reflection of that fact in the rules. In C&C, a rapier is simpy a dull long sword.

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.

Perhaps, but not without a fight.

 

[der_kluge]

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.

Well, I suppose I can understand that, but it seems kind of backwards to me. That is, using that as a model, armor would absorb damage, instead of weapons doing less damage.

That is, if I'm attacking a naked peasant, a rapier should theoretically do as much damage as a long sword, since armor is taken out of the equation.

I still think there should be some way to differentiate a fast, light weapon against a long sword.

Yes, perhaps I am trying to overanalyze the system. But not everyone is going to want to use C&C to represent medieval Europe.

Someone in another thread had an interesting idea of just assigning weapon damage based on character class, and ignoring damage at the weapon level.

 

[der_kluge]

With regards to Mythmere's thread...

I would argue that C&C isn't really a role-playing over wargame. I think it's essentially a rules light wargame. Let's face it, there are still monsters and treasures, and the general ideas is to kill stuff, and loot the corpse.

I'm playing in Scadgrad's game currently, and if he wasn't such an excellent GM (truly) and thought outside the box with regards to the C&C rules, I'd probably be pulling my hair out if I had to play C&C as written. But because Scadgrad has given m the flexibility to pick and choose some of my class abilities and because we use feats, I feel like I can better create the kind of character I want.

That's what I do like about 3rd edition, the fact that with feats and skills you can customize a character how you perceive him, not by how the class dictates him.

Having played C&C for a few weeks now I was hesitant at first to give up skills, but I don't miss them at all. Scadgrad uses a background template concept that sort of defines my background, and who I am, and that pretty much encompasses what I do and don't know. And it makes sense from a logical perspective. Arguably, in 3rd edition I could create a bumpkin wizard from a rural community with maxed out ranks in knowledge (outer planes) and ranks in craft (alchemy). Perfectly viable from a rules perspective, but completely idiotic from a role-playing perspective.

I can understand why C&C -as written- would be a tough sale for a group of 3rd edition players. C&C, by default takes away too much flexibility from the player. I understand the reasoning behind this, but I don't think adding in a concept like feats would add that much complexity to the game. Scadgrad has done it with minimal impact to the rules.

In Scadgrad's game, I hardly even notice that I'm playing C&C. We use miniatures, there are flanking rules, feats, and even criticals (albeit slightly different). The players still have flexibility in how they build their characters, and Scadgrad has the rules simplicity of C&C, so he can make up monsters quickly, and resolve combat relatively painlessly.

Hell, I think we may have found the holy grail of gaming.

 

[Mythmere1]

I enjoy both light (SilCore, True20) and heavy (HERO, d20) systems, and I think Mythmere may be missing his players' problem with C&C.

D&D was based on a wargame. All of its rules, all of its (not-really-archetypical) archetypes, all of its complexities and oddities owe their origins to that basic fact. D&D was wargaming-with-roleplaying - and it shows.

AD&D 2e tried to remake D&D, wargaming-with-roleplaying, into the inverse. It largely failed. A level-based, combat-oriented system of rules based on killing things and taking their stuff just doesn't work very well for roleplaying-with-wargaming.

C&C is trying to do the same thing as 2e, and to my mind what it's doing is doomed to fail.

My guess is that your players want tactical complexity, want options, because the level of detail C&C and D&D operate on is not that different.

C&C characters don't have feats, skills or PrCs, but they have more base classes than core 3e D&D, and those base classes really aren't that simple. Few of them are as simple as D&D's barbarian. Some have unique rules all to themselves. Others have spellcasting. C&C is still based on D&D. It still hasn't escaped its roots.

(snip)

Or, I could be completely wrong and your players just want to play rules-heavy. Beats me.

Hey, Moogle. I always read your posts carefully, because you've gamed in a lot of systems and thought about them pretty carefully, even though you and I tend to differ over C&C pretty much across the board.

In this case, though, I think you didn't catch everything in my post. I wouldn't at all say that either C&C or 3E has escaped its roots - I think each is the current pinnacle of two different trends (WwR and RwW) that existed side by side from the inception of D&D. I mentioned in my post that early D&D is more WwR than RwW. 2e inverted the emphasis, I agree, but I also said that in my post.

Is the class/level system inherently unsuitable for the roleplaying-with-wargaming style? I completely disagree that it's unsuitable. In fact I think that C&C basically hits the mark for that style, just as 3E hits it for WwR.

 

[Henry]

A nitpick first: A shortsword is not a cut-down longsword, for the same reason that a repier is not a greatword - very different styles of use. But it's a minor nitpick.

Second: Posts like Bolie's and Kluge's emphasize what I hope happens with 4E or beyond for D&D. Due to complaints from former DM's the world over, It needs a system that gives players their desire for micromanagement versus the DM's desire for rules simplicuty, and interacts well between the two.

To use a networking metaphor, the DM needs the Thin-Client, and the players need the Host Suite.

Kluge, if you and Scadgrad have found that Holy Grail, I'd love to see it on paper or on screen sometime. C&C forums are glad to take house rules variants.

 

[Mythmere1]

With regards to Mythmere's thread...

I would argue that C&C isn't really a role-playing over wargame. I think it's essentially a rules light wargame. Let's face it, there are still monsters and treasures, and the general ideas is to kill stuff, and loot the corpse.

I'm playing in Scadgrad's game currently, and if he wasn't such an excellent GM (truly) and thought outside the box with regards to the C&C rules, I'd probably be pulling my hair out if I had to play C&C as written. But because Scadgrad has given m the flexibility to pick and choose some of my class abilities and because we use feats, I feel like I can better create the kind of character I want.

That's what I do like about 3rd edition, the fact that with feats and skills you can customize a character how you perceive him, not by how the class dictates him.

Having played C&C for a few weeks now I was hesitant at first to give up skills, but I don't miss them at all. Scadgrad uses a background template concept that sort of defines my background, and who I am, and that pretty much encompasses what I do and don't know. And it makes sense from a logical perspective. Arguably, in 3rd edition I could create a bumpkin wizard from a rural community with maxed out ranks in knowledge (outer planes) and ranks in craft (alchemy). Perfectly viable from a rules perspective, but completely idiotic from a role-playing perspective.

I can understand why C&C -as written- would be a tough sale for a group of 3rd edition players. C&C, by default takes away too much flexibility from the player. I understand the reasoning behind this, but I don't think adding in a concept like feats would add that much complexity to the game. Scadgrad has done it with minimal impact to the rules.

In Scadgrad's game, I hardly even notice that I'm playing C&C. We use miniatures, there are flanking rules, feats, and even criticals (albeit slightly different). The players still have flexibility in how they build their characters, and Scadgrad has the rules simplicity of C&C, so he can make up monsters quickly, and resolve combat relatively painlessly.

Hell, I think we may have found the holy grail of gaming.

Yeah, we also used minis, feats, flanking rules and criticals. I don't think C&C is meant to be played RAW, frankly - house rules are assumed, just not mandated.

Any D&D style game has a wargaming component. No question. The C&C version is rules-light on the wargame part because it takes less prep time for the GM, and allows more description of cinematic combat by the GM without slowing the pace. It also means that you either have more time for more combats or more time for roleplaying. This is why I say that C&C shifts the emphasis from the wargame side to the RP side.

But when you're playing a rules lite wargame, you have to realize that rules-lite means more arbitration by the referee, as an inherent matter. Rules lite means a different game, one that is a game of arbitration and discussion, not of looking up the rule. That's what my players never quite understood. There is a game value (and game negatives) to situational rulings, but if you think you can improve a rules-lite game by adding rules to it, you have missed the point.

 

[teitan]

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

Second Edition with some additions. The players will get more NWPS than 2e, they just didn't give out enough and characters were limited but I am also ading in things like Weapon Proficiency which will allow a character who can't use a sword to learn how to use a sword without a penalty to attack. There won't be any specialization proficiencies and the ilk, just basic skills and some special things to help with character customization a bit but not so much it loses the spirit of the game.

Mythmere... that totally sux. My old group of players had a similar mindset and that transition into a Vampire game and the next thing I know the Storyteller is integrating some of Third Editions combat rules like Attacks of Oppurtunity and such into an already slow and hampered system. Sucked ballz.

Jason

 

[der_kluge]

Kluge, if you and Scadgrad have found that Holy Grail, I'd love to see it on paper or on screen sometime. C&C forums are glad to take house rules variants.

Oh, I can't take credit for them. Scadgrad developed them on his own. Maybe he can be persuaded to share them.

 

[scadgrad]

That is, if I'm attacking a naked peasant, a rapier should theoretically do as much damage as a long sword, since armor is taken out of the equation.

Well, yes and no since the rapier is primarily a stabbing weapon and it will not typically produce the kind of grievous wounds that a broad sword, long sword, or battle axe would. But hey, the point is that if Cari/Thomas decides to attack the unarmed peasent it's not going to be able to take the hit at all.

Unarmed Peasant in C&C
AC 10
HPs 2 or 3 maybe 4 tops

...Yes, perhaps I am trying to overanalyze the system. But not everyone is going to want to use C&C to represent medieval Europe.

A damn good point there and if that's the case, then you just morph it into something else by easily porting in whatever D&D rules from whatever edition you like and therein lies the beauty of the system; you're SUPPOSED to houserule it to suit the needs of your players and campaign.

...Someone in another thread had an interesting idea of just assigning weapon damage based on character class, and ignoring damage at the weapon level.

I love that idea, but I'm a rules lite kind of guy so of course I would like it. I'm strongly considering it for Braxus.