Kickin' it Old-School - C&C Rocks

[Erekose]

I don't know . . . I recently purchased the boxed set as well . . . it is "exactly as advertsied" in that it is a d20lite system . . . my problem is that I really can't see why I'd play C&C over OD&D?

 

[Krieg]

. . . it is "exactly as advertsied" in that it is a d20lite system . . .

That is an interesting comment since C&C's designers have gone out of their way to specifically mention that it is not meant to be a "lite" version of d20, rather it is intended to be a d20 interpretation of AD&D.

 

[Akrasia]

. . . my problem is that I really can't see why I'd play C&C over OD&D?

I don't know what you mean by "OD&D" (the 1974 rules, the 1974 rules + all the supplements, the Moldvay/Cook B/X rules, the Mentzer B/X/M/C/I rules, or the RC).

As a long-time fan of RC D&D, though, I can give you a few reasons why I am going to play C&C instead of RC D&D.

1. A unified mechanic for resolving tasks (no separate charts for thief abilities, cleric turning, saving throws, combat vs. noncombat tasks, etc.). This is the 'one big thing' that C&C imported from 3E.

2. A comprehensive mechanic for resolving tasks. The system of 'Primes' and 'Secondaries' handles all those noncombat situations that RC D&D was somewhat silent about.

3. More options. The range of classes available to PCs is much wider than it is in RC D&D (barbarian, fighter, knight, ranger, paladin, rogue, assassin, bard, monk, wizard, illusionist, cleric, and druid).

4. No level limits. Humans are balanced with nonhumans, so there is no need to restrict halflings to 8th level.

5. Modularity. It should be easy to add options to C&C without unbalancing the game. (This was possible to some extent with RC D&D, but it is easier with C&C.)

 

[Treebore]

Good! I am definitely getting this now. I was anyway, but I had doubts until now. Thanks!

 

[Doc_Klueless]

If the CKG (CastleKeeper Guide) comes with a spell-point variant, I'll definitely pick up a copy for those days when I need something rules-lite. Might work better for my On-Line games, too.

 

[Doc_Klueless]

Just read a crap load of posts on Dragonsfoot.org's Castle's and Crusades Q&A thread . Sounds like a pretty cool game for one-offs. Looks like it would be trivial to patch in many of the optional rules from D&D3.5e UA that I love.

:::Sigh:::

There goes some of my gaming dollars. heh.

 

[Ry]

Thanks to Akrasia for pointing out those 5 benefits, and Doc Klueless for linking the Q&A thread. I missed a lot of this on the first time around, and now I'm really curious. Could somebody comment on how difficult it would be to add other d20 material to this system (I'm talking big variants, like Monte Cook's Runethane or Chaositech, rather than little ones, like new spells).

 

[Erekose]

Originally Posted by Krieg
That is an interesting comment since C&C's designers have gone out of their way to specifically mention that it is not meant to be a "lite" version of d20, rather it is intended to be a d20 interpretation of AD&D.

I know but having read the collectors edition . . . is there an easier way to describe it?

Originally Posted by Akrasia
I don't know what you mean by "OD&D" (the 1974 rules, the 1974 rules + all the supplements, the Moldvay/Cook B/X rules, the Mentzer B/X/M/C/I rules, or the RC) . . . etc.

All of your reasons are completely valid . . . and my opinion is purely a reflection of personal taste . . . for me C&C is too "d20 lite" to coin a phrase - it doesn't really have enough of the "d20 system" to satisfy me compared to 3.5E and doesn't have enough flavour of OD&D to satisfy me in that context.

Originally Posted by Rycanada
Thanks to Akrasia for pointing out those 5 benefits, and Doc Klueless for linking the Q&A thread. I missed a lot of this on the first time around, and now I'm really curious. Could somebody comment on how difficult it would be to add other d20 material to this system (I'm talking big variants, like Monte Cook's Runethane or Chaositech, rather than little ones, like new spells).

I don't know the Runethane class you mention but my feeling would be that it would be quite hard as the classes are simplified to the "nth" degree. The four main classes are intended to be broad enough in scope to cover all of the archetypes. So simplifying the class you mention enough to match the core classes might leave you with very little left. At the end of the day it all depends on how much you need to differentiate a class.

 

[J_A_Garlock]

This game looks like it would be a lot of fun. I'll have to put it on hold however, seeing as how I'm running an OAD&D campaign, starting an Eberron one, and playing in a Lejendary Adventure game. Maybe I can convince someone in my group to though.

 

[Akrasia]

"I know but having read the collectors edition . . . is there an easier way to describe it?"

While C&C does use the d20 mechanic, I have a very hard time seeing how one could view it as 'd20 lite'. There are just too many things essential to d20 that C&C lacks (for good or ill) IMO. In particular:

(a.) No feats or skills. (Optional rules may be added later, but they are not part of the core.)

(b.) No easy multiclassing. (The collectors' editition does not include rules for multiclassing, but the full rules will resemble 1/2E AD&D more than the 'easy' multiclassing rules of 3E.) Consequenty no 'prestige classes'.

(c.) No 3E/d20 combat rules. (There are no AoOs, 5-foot steps, etc. in C&C. In short, it lacks completely the 'tactical combat system' of d20.)

(d.) Lower overall power level. (Both characters and monsters tend to be somewhat weaker at any given level than their 3E equivalents. The power level in C&C resembles pre-3E D&D. Characters do not gain HD indefinitely. Unlike d20, power gain per level diminishes after a certain point.)

(e.) All kinds of 'details'. (There are a number of minor things -- e.g. circumstance modifiers, etc. -- that are different.)

I see C&C as an attempt to revise the 'essentials' of OAD&D or RC D&D by means of the d20 mechanic. Someone looking to C&C for a 'rules lite' version of d20 will be sorely disappointed IMO.

All of your reasons are completely valid . . . and my opinion is purely a reflection of personal taste . . . for me C&C is too "d20 lite" to coin a phrase - it doesn't really have enough of the "d20 system" to satisfy me compared to 3.5E and doesn't have enough flavour of OD&D to satisfy me in that context.

Fair enough (though you may want to wait until the full rules are released before making a final judgement).

I would like to point out, though, that many longtime fans of OAD&D (people who have enjoyed that game since the 70's) contributed heavily to C&C, and maintain that it does have a very strong "old school" character. Moreover, the system is apparently close enough to OD&D for Gary Gygax to agree to produce his original campaign setting -- Castle Greyhawk (renamed "Castle Zagyg" for copyright reasons) -- for C&C.

The four main classes are intended to be broad enough in scope to cover all of the archetypes. So simplifying the class you mention enough to match the core classes might leave you with very little left. At the end of the day it all depends on how much you need to differentiate a class.

This is simply incorrect. The four main classes in C&C are not broad enough to 'cover all the archetypes'. If they were, why would nine additional classes be included in the full PHB?

The complete list of classes will include: fighter, ranger, paladin, barbarian, knight, rogue, assassin, bard, monk, wizard, illusionist, cleric, and druid.

As for converting various (nonstandard) 3E classes to C&C, I think that might be possible (depending on what you want from the class), but will say more about that at another time.