Once you go C&C, you never go back

[gideon_thorne]

C&C suffers from a lack of true identity. It isn't old school, isn't 3E, and isn't unique enough on its own to make a splash.

Incorrect on all counts.

And now with PPP and OSRIC there's no reason to publish modules using C&Cs platform either. As Melan mentioned, just what is the point in publishing the game?

Oh.. a little thing like a 'core book'. It actually helps drive sales beyond the hundred mark. Which is exactly why the C&C game is doing rather well indeed.

Gideon, besides the C&Cs usual marketing squad (most of them involved in its creation somehow), I have yet to see anyone whos ever played the game. The few copies our local gaming store did have sat in a sales rack for well over a year and then disappeared (I don't think they sold, though I didn't ask).

Perhaps you need to get out more?

Anyhow, who's saying people should care if a game is "old school" or not to play it? No one on this thread has suggested that.

Actually, several have with the oft repeated mantra of 'if its not old school, its not worth playing. ^_~`

Are you suggesting that every poster here who has played the game and supports it to one degree or another is on Troll Lords marketing staff?

*snickers* That would be nice if we could afford all those thousands of people.

 

[Dragonhelm]

Also, C&C has many annoying 3E similarities, for instance the Illusionist (WTF) and too many open doors to import 3E. That sort of adaptability isn't a strength, its a weakness, it comes off as wishy washy and unfocused (thats why I say its really 3E light, because thats where its most useful (something the Trolls are well aware of)...3Eers wanting something faster).

Wishy washy and unfocused? I'm not sure I get that.

C&C suffers from a lack of true identity. It isn't old school, isn't 3E, and isn't unique enough on its own to make a splash. And now with PPP and OSRIC there's no reason to publish modules using C&Cs platform either. As Melan mentioned, just what is the point in publishing the game?

To have a middle ground. A system that is simultaneously old school and new school. Or more importantly, to have a system the Trolls think is fun and they hope others will enjoy too.

 

[Aus_Snow]

I hear quite a bit different I guess. I know of a few hundred folks, personally, that play within a 6 hour area of where I live. 50 of those live about 45 minutes from me.

Cool. I'm glad it's working well for you guys, and others. Different part of the world and stuff - maybe that's it.

I can see how it would appeal to some gamers, anyway: 'streamlined 1e' is how I like to think of it, if at all. I don't quite get the hat of it. But hey, it's a messageboard.

 

[gideon_thorne]

Cool. I'm glad it's working well for you guys, and others. Different part of the world and stuff - maybe that's it.

I can see how it would appeal to some gamers, anyway: 'streamlined 1e' is how I like to think of it, if at all. I don't quite get the hate of it. But hey, it's a message board.

Honestly, mate. Neither do I. I don't get the 'hate' for any game system. I think its rather disturbing myself the obsessive behavior and idolatry that some hobbies seem to generate. Games are meant to be played and have fun with. If people are getting that hot and bothered over a hobby I don't think its a problem with the hobby.

Fandom of most anything, I think, is a useful way to draw disparate people together. Consider popular culture, there isn't a place in the world people can't go where, chances are, they wont find someone that is into Star Trek, Star Wars, Gaming, or some kind of fantasy or sci fi fiction. Already, there is a subject in common to talk about between two or more chance met strangers, and who knows what other common interests one might find?

So in that same inclusive spirit, why not create a system that has room for people to develop in whatever direction best suits them. Even if I might go in another direction, there still remains this common groundwork to build from.

 

[Treebore]

Castles and Crusades does have an identity, the one the individual CK gives it when they make the game their own.


C&C is "my" C&C, because it has my house rules added on to it, so that is its identity.


Why not 3E? True20? Because they don't go far enough for me. C&C is basic enough that I have added what I wanted to it, and it all works together.

To make 3E or True20 work for me the way C&C does I would have to strip out about 80% of the books, and totally rewrite everything else.

For C&C I just had to come up with two pages of house rules, a 1/3 of which I had for 3E and True 20, to explain how the SIEGE engine does the jobs of feats, and that everyone can attempt feats, and how to go about rolling them. How you may even eventually earn the feat/SIEGE action as a "character power", rather than a class power.

I wrote a paragraph or so about skills, how you can have 10 of them + INT bonus, etc...


All much easier than tearing apart 3E or True 20 and rebuilding it.

Plus C&C allowed, and continues to allow, me to use modules from any edition of D&D. Once I "got" how to do it I don't even write out conversions, I can do them all in my head as I run the module or run it out of a MM. Nothing I was able to do with 3E or True20, I had to rewrite thsoe to make them workable.


So my C&C has mages making SIEGE checks to maximize spells, or to even effect two targets instead of one, to change their fireball from fire to electricity, fighters cleave, power attack, even whirlwind (usually against groups of much lower HD than they are), clerics and Paladins Use SIEGE checks to ask their god to turn the divine powers of their turning ability into temporary bonuses in combat.


My players have skill lists, they don't have to worry about cross class, they don't have to worry about what is or is not on their class list, their character can do any 10 things they want their character to do.

They can even learn more skills during the course of play. They can also train to increase stats.

So my players are not listed to "X" numbers of feats/actions, or skills. With time, effort, and experience my players characters will become exactly the character they want, and I get to do it with one of the easiest, most flexible, most adaptable systems around.

Its easier than 3E, its easier than GURPS, its easier than OD&D, 1E, and 2E, its easier than Paladium, its easier than True 20, and not only is it the easiest its so versatile I use whatever pieces and parts from every game and game edition I own that I want.


This makes the perfect game for me. Now if one fo the other games is already designed perfectly to give you exactly the kind of rules system you want, great. I've played everything extensively that I have mentioned. So I can see why many are happy with them. Heck, I even want to do a True20 game of Excalibur, simply because the way True20 does things in conjunction with the True 20 Arthurian product I reviewed, will give me the perfect flavoring I want for such a campaign.

I even DMed a couple of 3E games on international game day.

So its not like I am some system elitist. I'm just saying, and have always been saying, if your not happy with what your using right now, and are looking for a system that is very easy to build into EXACTLY what you want, then C&C is very worth giving a try.

Thats the biggest message most fo us on the TLG boards tell you, try it out, see if you can make it into what you want. IF not, fine. WE still have people on our boards who don't play C&C. They play Savage Worlds, or OD&D, or 1E, and even 3E.

Most of us don't care what you play or end up playing, because if nothing else we are all gamers, and we all have ideas, and we don't mind talking about all of it, because we C&C users may just end up stealing your idea for our C&C game, even though you may be talking about ti for Savage Worlds or 3E.

We even talk about adapting 3E classes and PrC's. I adapted two PrC's for my own game, we are even discussing the Hexblade and turning it into a character class for C&C.

So we don't care what you play and prefer, all we want is for you to give C&C a fair effort attempt at trying it out. If your even looking for a change. You don't like it, thats fine. Its not like it makes us C&Cers dislike you.

 

[Valiant]

Drag - "Wishy washy and unfocused? I'm not sure I get that."

As much as I dislike 3E it is a very well developed game, its complete. AD&D also feels very complete, and has a strong identity (great flavor, many rules systems etc.). C&C (with few rules (very D20 thus not destinct), advice to heavily adapt to your liking) it just doesn't have the same unity. For instance, If I played C&C at someones house that favored AD&D it would likely feel very different then if I were at someones house who's coming from 3E. That wouldn't be the case for 3E or 1E. Both have rules systems so complete and interdependent (esp. 3E) that they couldn't become un-identifiable (ie. the guy who favors 1E running 3E couldn't remove feats for instance, there too key to the game).

Some see this as a strength, I see it as a weakness (whats it got over any other generic D20). Its just not a powerful reason to go out and buy a game.

Damn Melan, been too long since I read teh 3E PH I guess. I remember thinking the C&C illusionist had a 3E flavor anyhow.

 

[Philotomy Jurament]

As much as I dislike 3E it is a very well developed game, its complete. AD&D also feels very complete...C&C...it just doesn't have the same unity...Some see this as a strength, I see it as a weakness...

Wow, I'm definitely not with you on this one; I see system adaptability and room for interpretation as strengths...and even part of an "old school approach." OD&D[1974] is perhaps the quintessential example of an "incomplete" game tends to be a little bit different at every gaming table. That "make the game your own" aspect is a huge draw, for me.

Also, I don't agree that C&C falls into the "incomplete and demands house rules" category. I think it is a complete and standalone system; it doesn't require house-rules. It's very *easy* to house-rule and adapt, and many people do, but it isn't incomplete, as written.

 

[Dristram]

C&C (with few rules (very D20 thus not destinct), advice to heavily adapt to your liking)

I wouldn't say, advice to heavily adapt to your liking. I would say that it can be easily adapted as you like, for the most part. I ran AD&D pretty much BTB. I run C&C pretty much BTB. C&C is to me as complete a system as AD&D is, if you just include the three core books. C&C is new and growing, but fortunately will not grow too big. Variant rules will be printed in the Crusader Magazine and in the upcoming variant rules book affectionately known as the Castle Keeper's Guide (CKG).
And what these variant rules will show more than anything else is how to adapt the system if you like. I think that is awesome! But not everyone will, nor do I expect everyone to.

What this all really boils down to is opinions differ. Some players of OD&D and AD&D like C&C and see it as an old-school system with d20ish mechanics. Others don't. It really comes down to ones definition of old-school. We can go round and round and at this point, no one is going to change anyone elses mind.

 

[Valiant]

Wow, I'm definitely not with you on this one; I see system adaptability and room for interpretation as strengths...and even part of an "old school approach." OD&D[1974] is perhaps the quintessential example of an "incomplete" game tends to be a little bit different at every gaming table. That "make the game your own" aspect is a huge draw, for me.

Also, I don't agree that C&C falls into the "incomplete and demands house rules" category. I think it is a complete and standalone system; it doesn't require house-rules. It's very *easy* to house-rule and adapt, and many people do, but it isn't incomplete, as written.

I was never one to buy into the concept that AD&D or OD&D was incomplete, certainly not "broken" or having to be improved threw house rules, as you pointed out these variations between DMs were minimal (more a reflection of the ownership aspect of the DMs world then anything else), infact, so little difference occurs between tables that you can easily tell OD&D from other systems (regardless of DM house rules) when watched (its core mechanics require that).

OD&D is a complete and destinct game, the number of rules you have (ie. not covering every situation) has nothing to do with that (as I'm sure you know, there is alot more to determining if a game is complete then the number of rules or situations covered. All thats needed to play D&D or any FRPG is a way to determine who goes first, who hits who, who saves and how you advance. Keep those things core and your set. C&C doesn't do that, it allows for (and encourages) importing core rules from other systems. It essentially allows for each table to invent its own game, so much so that its no longer C&C.

Anyhow, I never argued that C&C is incomplete (if you play BTB its a complete system) once again, my points: 1. its not different enough from generic D20 to stand out and 2. its suggestion to heavily house rule the game to your liking (ie. play it as 3E if you like, or as 1E) makes it even less identifiable when viewed. Its intended purpose as being the "adaptable alternative" made it so flexible that the core game can easily be lost (where one table is not even playing the same game as the next, the way 3E or 1E are played with only slight differences in house rules). Now, that doesn't mean its not the perfect system for guys like Treebore (as a tool to make his own house game work) it only means the core system is intentionally secondary.

Phil -Also, I don't agree that C&C falls into the "incomplete and demands house rules" category. I think it is a complete and standalone system; it doesn't require house-rules. -

To repeat, its not incomplete if you only consider the rule book, what I said was that it lacks a strong identity of its own (mostly generic D20 light) with its core system being secondary to house imports (ie 3E players bringing in feats etc.).

Treebore said it best: "Castles and Crusades does have an identity, the one the individual CK gives it when they make the game their own".

The game is generic D20 given identity, flesh and uniqueness by the individual CK (not by the game itself as we see in 3E or AD&D), its identity isn't based on the presentation of the game itself, but rather whats made of it.

Essentially what you have with C&C are games so different (from imports and house rules) from table to table they can't be considered the same game anymore (and this is by design). I call C&C 3E light because I think thats the market the trolls were going after (the biggest for sure), and who its core rules were most useful to for that adaptation....a system that allows for taking skills and feats and what ever other bloat you like from 3E and making it work fast. Remember, to many 3E/3.5 is unplayable due to its complexity, for those C&C is the perfect fit). I see nothing particularly "old school" (Gygaxian D&D) about it. Infact you'd have to completely dump its D20 core system (its core mechanic).

 

[gideon_thorne]

Essentially what you have with C&C are games so different (from imports and house rules) from table to table they can't be considered the same game anymore (and this is by design). I call C&C 3E light because I think thats the market the trolls were going after (the biggest for sure),

This, despite being told many times, that this assessment is incorrect. Read a couple pages back and you'll find the actual market that TLG is going for. One without which no hobby survives.

Even with OD&D, the original creators expected people to house rule the game. Once again, the oft held criticism holds no merit. These same original creators will also tell folks, and have repeatedly, that AD&D was written for the sole purpose of having a common set of rules to be used at conventions and tournaments. And thats it.