I got to playtest Castles and Crusades!

[Henry]

I just registered here - the C&C folks will recognize me, but many of you won't...

I ain't "C&C Folk", but I do recognize you. Thanks for chiming in, Fiffergrund.

C&C is *so* different from AD&D that I could easily spend the better part of an hour posting on its differences...

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."

If I'm understanding correctly, one goal of the game is to be within striking distance of the OGL rules, but to detach the various interrelated systems of d20 from one another. Does this sound accurate?

What we've seen, albeit leaked, seem to pay homage more to Basic D&D than anything. I doubt you can comment on that, but I'll still be curious to see what the end result is. I'm just hoping what has been revealed about saving throws is not what the end result uses; An old five-throw chart does not seem as versatile as the three-throw d20 method.

 

[Joseph Elric Smith]

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.

Man there goes the Neighborhood.
Ken

 

[MerricB]

An old five-throw chart does not seem as versatile as the three-throw d20 method.

To be accurate, the original posted was SIX saving-throws. I merely pointed out that this was one more than AD&D.

Perhaps they have a save tied to each attribute?

Cheers!

 

[MerricB]

Man there goes the Neighborhood.
Ken

I'm far happier seeing Fiffergrund and yourself over here than I was beforehand.

Cheers!

 

[Joseph Elric Smith]

I'm far happier seeing Fiffergrund and yourself over here than I was beforehand.

Cheers!

Well at least some one is glad to see me bedsides my cat Well keep an eye out on the LA boards, as it looks like I am going to get my wish and get that as our second system for my group, been slowly working on them every chance I get to run it in addition to C&C.
Ken

 

[RFisher]

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.

from here

The C&C Rules from Troll Lord Games being used for the material, that should pretty well duplicate OAD&D play.

from here

Yes, the C&C rules are aimed at being as close to OAD&D as possible using the OGL from Wizards.

I hope this helps clear up misconceptions.

Nope. Nothing is very clear.

 

[shadow]

Sorry!

Sorry, I didn't even think about anything before blabbing! Since, there was never any mention of a NDA, the thought never crossed my mind until later.
Still, I'll mention one thing. The game was fun! I don't know much about the rules, other than what I already mentioned. However, the scenario which we played was run really well and had some interesting role-playing moments.
Anyway, I hope I didn't accidentally "leak" anything!

 

[RFisher]

C&C will at its heart be OGL, meaning that many compatible things can be published with it.

While C&C will take advantage of the OGL in order to use OGC from the SRD, I haven't seen any statements that C&C will make any of its own non-SRD bits OGC under the OGL.

(Aren't abbreviations fun!)

If anything keeps me from jumping on the C&C bandwagon, this'll be it. I've already got too many games for which I have to send new players to ebay to get their own copy of the rules.

If C&C is going to be yet another "closed" game that eventually goes out of print, I'm less inclined to buy. If its going to be a OAD&D-in-spirit OGC (or otherwise "open") game, I'm almost definately in.

 

[Fiffergrund]

With due deference to Gary, those comments have to be taken in context:

1) How Gary plays the game may be very different than how AD&D is written.

2) With the version of the C&C rules he was using when he made those comments, and the rules have changed over time. I'm not sure which rules he was referring to when he made those statements.

3) The "feel" of play is very much AD&D/OD&D, even as the mechanics are very different. I've seen this comment quite a bit from the playtesters. It's possible that this is the reference point Gary is using here.

 

[rogueattorney]

Some observations:
1. The attribute table was somewhat modified. It went from -3 to +3. Attributes falling in 9-12 were "dead scores" that didn't grant any bonus or penalty. As a consequence, most races had a +1/-1 racial modifier (as opposed to the +2/-2 of 3e)

Identical to the Moldvay/Cook version of D&D. It was based on the assumption that people were rolling unmodified 3d6 for each ability score. I wonder if C&C is the same. 1e used different ability score rolling methods, and hence upped the requirements for bonuses, usually kicking in around 15 instead of 13. One of the things I've always found odd about 3e is that they use the 4d6 method, and yet used the "bell-curve" bonus distribution giving bonuses for average ability scores.

2. The old six saving throw system is back. This is probably to emulate 1e AD&D.

Cool. I personally never understood some people's problems with it.

3. Classes included Fighter, Knight, Paladin, Barbarian, Monk, Wizard, Cleric, Thief, and Rogue(?) (Apparently, thieves and rogues will be seperate classes, with rogues being more of a Jack-of-all-trades, and thieves being more "thief oriented")

Wonder to what extent Knights = Cavaliers and Rogues = Bards? Also wonder whether there will be rules in place to emulate Rangers, Druids, Assassins and Illusionists?

4. There are no skill ranks or feats to worry about. Instead each class gets special skills on certain levels. Skills seem to be handled with simple ability check.

All praises! Abilities hardwired to classes! Archetypes live!. Now, I've got nothing against skill-based systems. It's just that if I want to play a skill based system, they're all over the place. I'll grab a game that's a skill based system and have fun. Dungeons & Dragons (prior to 1985 or so) was not a skilled based system. To me, that's the defining characteristic of D&D. Heck, all the skill based systems out there were designed that way to be different from D&D in the first place. So the evolution toward a more skill based system never made any sense to me. As it is, in-print class based systems are few and far between.

At first I was a little skeptical with such a rules lite, retro gaming system. However, we had a blast.

Awesome! I'm jealous.

Character creation took only about 15 minutes, and then we jumped right into playing.

This is how to game!!! Two-hour character creation sessions be damned!!! Roll em' up and roll em' out. If they die, who cares, it only takes minutes to roll a new one.

R.A.