-
NOW LIVE! Into the Woods--new character species, eerie monsters, and haunting villains to populate the woodlands of your D&D games.
I got to playtest Castles and Crusades!
- Thread starter shadow
- Start date
Henry
Autoexreginated
mmadsen said:
To Gray Mouser's reply I'll add a couple of thoughts:
Actually there ISN'T more than one could ever use; if a person has been playing 1E assiduously, and staying away from 3E and only picking the choicest parts of 2E, there IS a limited pool of material, and after 30 years of play the well would start to look pretty dry. In 3E territory, we're pretty spoiled by both WotC and 3rd party small publishers drowning us in product to pick and choose from, and even following Godwin's Law, 20% of nigh-infinity is still nigh-infinity.
There is a pool of people who want to see fresh material VERY close to the 1E ruleset, and count Hackmaster as good, but NOT close enough to 1E. Plus, Hackmaster is only publishable by Kenzerco; C&C will at its heart be OGL, meaning that many compatible things can be published with it. At the VERY least, C&C will be the choice ground through which Gary Gygax and Rob Kuntz can published the "official" Castle Greyhawk that many fans have been waiting for about 25 years for.
So, there is a pool of people wanting new 1E compatible material; and Troll Lords is gambling that this pool of disenfranchised gamers is large enough to stake a commercial game on. Time will tell.
cleaverthepit
First Post
Ouch
Our bad on the NDA. Before playtesting an NDA was supposed to be signed by every player. However, Todd did not receive the instructions folder.
As such, Steve, Mac and myself are furiously going over rules stuff now and developing a list of material/rules which can be publically discussed by the members of the Castle and Crusade Society who have signed the NDA.
More later, as I have a lot to do at the moment.
Davis
Our bad on the NDA. Before playtesting an NDA was supposed to be signed by every player. However, Todd did not receive the instructions folder.
As such, Steve, Mac and myself are furiously going over rules stuff now and developing a list of material/rules which can be publically discussed by the members of the Castle and Crusade Society who have signed the NDA.
More later, as I have a lot to do at the moment.
Davis
C&C
First, some seem to not understand something...
C&C is not d20 lite, and it is not AD&D lite.
It is a game derived from the OGL, in the attempt to emulate the playing style of 1E.
Does it have its own complexities? Yes. It has to.
3E and 1E have their own, as well.
C&C was designed, in an attempt, to remove as many of these as possible.
The saves are not complex. They are different, yes, but not so different. And... they do not have to work as mentioned. The DM has total control, which, lovingly enough, is one of the strongest aspects of C&C.
I am bound, not by an NDA (since I never signed one, technically), but by professionalism, to not tell you more, at least, until Davis or Steve say so.
First, some seem to not understand something...
C&C is not d20 lite, and it is not AD&D lite.
It is a game derived from the OGL, in the attempt to emulate the playing style of 1E.
Does it have its own complexities? Yes. It has to.
3E and 1E have their own, as well.
C&C was designed, in an attempt, to remove as many of these as possible.
The saves are not complex. They are different, yes, but not so different. And... they do not have to work as mentioned. The DM has total control, which, lovingly enough, is one of the strongest aspects of C&C.
I am bound, not by an NDA (since I never signed one, technically), but by professionalism, to not tell you more, at least, until Davis or Steve say so.
Joseph Elric Smith
First Post
Yep you have nailed it, though My NDA limits what I can say till we get a list of open topic, C&C hearkens back to a time when the rule book was not all inclusive, but when the rule book was the stepping Stone to a world of adventure.serleran said:
Ken
Earl
Arioch's minions
Well, I'd rather hear about these kind of design desicions now, rather than get interested in a product that is clearly going to be marketed to a different sort of player (than myself, anyway). These design decisions probably make a lot of sense if the intent is to pursue the market of unreconstructed 1st edition AD&D players. That's fine -- I'm certainly not making a value judgement on others' preferred flavor of fun.
I think some folks here at ENWorld were seeing C&C as possibly a stripped-down d20-lite system that tries to capture an OD&D feel through flavor, rather than literal simulation. Instead, it looks like C&C is an OGL end-run to simulate 1st edition AD&D in a very literal fashion. Even as I type this I see more responses coming in on this thread confirming that very thing.
Oh well.
I think some folks here at ENWorld were seeing C&C as possibly a stripped-down d20-lite system that tries to capture an OD&D feel through flavor, rather than literal simulation. Instead, it looks like C&C is an OGL end-run to simulate 1st edition AD&D in a very literal fashion. Even as I type this I see more responses coming in on this thread confirming that very thing.
Oh well.
gideon_thorne
First Post
*wry smile* Now this is why we had people sign NDA's and generally kept it to a closed forum till the design release date.
Even on the closed discussions we had disagrement with what all direction this idea would go in, or even be percieved as.
The one thing I constantly mentioned on the C&C boards and I will repeat here.
Don't jump to conclusions as to 'exactly what this game is all about.' Because, in the end, defining it specifically in one way, would be wrong.
The system is designed to be flexable so any group can fairly easily retool it to fit THEIR style as well as any other.
Everyone is in for a few suprises methinks. Give it a chance, look at the final product out this summer, before making any solid conclusions.
Peter B
C&C artist.
Even on the closed discussions we had disagrement with what all direction this idea would go in, or even be percieved as.
The one thing I constantly mentioned on the C&C boards and I will repeat here.
Don't jump to conclusions as to 'exactly what this game is all about.' Because, in the end, defining it specifically in one way, would be wrong.
The system is designed to be flexable so any group can fairly easily retool it to fit THEIR style as well as any other.
Everyone is in for a few suprises methinks. Give it a chance, look at the final product out this summer, before making any solid conclusions.
Peter B
C&C artist.
Serlan,
I think the biggest mis-conception was when C&C was first anounced it was marketed a bit as d20 or 3.xe lite. And I think this is the confusion lies. I know it was what brought me in to playtest. I was disapointed in what I say. I really want TLGs to succed in C&C. I think it would be a good step for the industry.
I think the biggest mis-conception was when C&C was first anounced it was marketed a bit as d20 or 3.xe lite. And I think this is the confusion lies. I know it was what brought me in to playtest. I was disapointed in what I say. I really want TLGs to succed in C&C. I think it would be a good step for the industry.
Fiffergrund
First Post
I just registered here - the C&C folks will recognize me, but many of you won't...anyway, I felt the impulse to chime in, as a C&C playtester.
C&C is *so* different from AD&D that I could easily spend the better part of an hour posting on its differences. It is *not* intended to be an end-run around copyright to emulate 1E, because if this were the case, it has already failed miserably at that intention. I can't emphasize enough how horribly inaccurate that supposition is.
If 1E materials should be "compatible" with C&C, and vice-versa, this is purely because C&C builds on tradition *and* modularity, and opens itself up to simple conversion from a lot of sources.
There are a lot of "nods" to the old school that manage to capture the proper feel while reinventing and improving the mechanics involved. The most it could be called is an "homage" to the old school. In reality, all it does is recognize that "old school" is just as valid a form of play as any other.
There are a lot of new concepts, and dare I say it, *better* methods of doing things, I feel, than in any other version of the game, OGL or not.
C&C isn't meant to be a D20-"lite" any more than it is meant to be a "AD&D-now". It's meant to be C&C, and it is its own approach to the game.
So, if anyone is looking for a brief description of what the game is about, it's this:
The idea is to put the game back into the hands of those who play it, and not in the hands of a bunch of detached game designers. The framework will be simple and easy to change, and the implied permission will be in place to change it to reflect any preferred playing style, whether by using other OGL features, or adding custom features. The game will be playable as-is, but it also recognizes that gamers like to tinker and mold, and rather than confine that creativity to a small, publisher-defined set of "interfaces", C&C kicks the door open and says "Do what you want - I'll get out of your way."
I hope this helps clear up misconceptions.
C&C is *so* different from AD&D that I could easily spend the better part of an hour posting on its differences. It is *not* intended to be an end-run around copyright to emulate 1E, because if this were the case, it has already failed miserably at that intention. I can't emphasize enough how horribly inaccurate that supposition is.
If 1E materials should be "compatible" with C&C, and vice-versa, this is purely because C&C builds on tradition *and* modularity, and opens itself up to simple conversion from a lot of sources.
There are a lot of "nods" to the old school that manage to capture the proper feel while reinventing and improving the mechanics involved. The most it could be called is an "homage" to the old school. In reality, all it does is recognize that "old school" is just as valid a form of play as any other.
There are a lot of new concepts, and dare I say it, *better* methods of doing things, I feel, than in any other version of the game, OGL or not.
C&C isn't meant to be a D20-"lite" any more than it is meant to be a "AD&D-now". It's meant to be C&C, and it is its own approach to the game.
So, if anyone is looking for a brief description of what the game is about, it's this:
The idea is to put the game back into the hands of those who play it, and not in the hands of a bunch of detached game designers. The framework will be simple and easy to change, and the implied permission will be in place to change it to reflect any preferred playing style, whether by using other OGL features, or adding custom features. The game will be playable as-is, but it also recognizes that gamers like to tinker and mold, and rather than confine that creativity to a small, publisher-defined set of "interfaces", C&C kicks the door open and says "Do what you want - I'll get out of your way."
I hope this helps clear up misconceptions.
DaveMage
Slumbering in Tsar
Personally, I just want to see Castle Zagyg in print.
And, then, of course, I'll be waiting for someone more talented than me to do a d20 conversion.
The only rule-based problem I have with d20 is the length of time it takes to resolve combats. I played in a game yesterday that had two combat sessions that took a total of 90+ minutes to resolve (total).
In 2E and 1E I could resolve at least a half-a-dozen in a similar amount of time.
That said, I actually do *like* d20 combat, I just hate the time it takes to resolve it.
And, then, of course, I'll be waiting for someone more talented than me to do a d20 conversion.
The only rule-based problem I have with d20 is the length of time it takes to resolve combats. I played in a game yesterday that had two combat sessions that took a total of 90+ minutes to resolve (total).
In 2E and 1E I could resolve at least a half-a-dozen in a similar amount of time.
That said, I actually do *like* d20 combat, I just hate the time it takes to resolve it.
Similar Threads
