I GM'ed Castles and Crusades for the first time this weekend

[Akrasia]

... 2) C&C beter than d20/3e? No, I don't think so. C&C is faster and easier (especially for the GM) at the expense of detail, ability to customize, etc. that is the mark of d20/3e. As a player it's probably much more fun to play d20/3e, that allows you to create any type of character you want. Yet, this is true mostly for experienced players, as newbies may like how easy it is to create a character and understand the rules.

I think you're being a bit unfair to C&C here, Turanil. After all, many players IME don't care to 'sweat the details', and just want to 'get on with the game'. To such players, determining that their PC is a 'charismatic knight from Manzburg' is enough for a fun game. Fiddling with skill points here and there, or trying to determine which combination of feats is optimal, is not everyone's cup of tea.

In short, lots of players like C&C's 'face pace' over 3e's 'details and customization'. Which game is 'better' or more fun depends on what both the players and GMs want from their sessions.

 

[Akrasia]

One thing in favour of C&C that has not been mentioned is the system of 'Primes' (which is part of the SIEGE system, but deserves special mention).

The system of 'Primes' is a very simply way to give your character some (rules-based) customization. While all fighters have strength as one of their primes, they can choose one additional prime, and two if they are human.

There is quite a bit of difference between a human fighter who chooses dexterity and constitution as her extra primes, and a human fighter who chooses intelligence and charisma.

Sure it is not as much customization as 3e, but it is more than RC D&D or OAD&D.

 

[Turanil]

I think you're being a bit unfair to C&C here, Turanil. After all, many players IME don't care to 'sweat the details', and just want to 'get on with the game'. To such players, determining that their PC is a 'charismatic knight from Manzburg' is enough for a fun game. Fiddling with skill points here and there, or trying to determine which combination of feats is optimal, is not everyone's cup of tea.

In short, lots of players like C&C's 'face pace' over 3e's 'details and customization'. Which game is 'better' or more fun depends on what both the players and GMs want from their sessions.

My point was to say that C&C is not better than d20/3e (which doesn't mean that it is worse!), while I think it's better than the precedent versions of AD&D. I think that C&C is just different from D&D 3e, no better nor worse, it's a matter of taste. And I prefer C&C, although I am currently heavily houseruling it to include some D20 3e aspects.

 

[Akrasia]

My point was to say that C&C is not better than d20/3e (which doesn't mean that it is worse!), while I think it's better than the precedent versions of AD&D. I think that C&C is just different from D&D 3e, no better nor worse, it's a matter of taste. And I prefer C&C, although I am currently heavily houseruling it to include some D20 3e aspects.

I think I understood your overall point; I was just disagreeing with this claim:

... As a player it's probably much more fun to play d20/3e...

And yeah, I know you prefer C&C, Turanil, and am impressed with your many ideas for house rules.