Seriously considering Castles & Crusades: How much does it differ from 3.X?

[Imaro]

My opinion on the subject:

-- C&C brings back the old school feel of AD&D with much more streamlined rules.
-- Fast and simple play. You can do more adventuring using C&C than D&D, especially at higher levels. The DM's work is also easier, but provided you are at ease with winding the game and adjudicating on the fly.
-- Lack of PC customization (despite the "prime abilities" system). However, for people who still want customization, it's not too difficult to add some feats (especially with stuff like the 3$ PDF "First Edition Feats" available on RPGnow - to which I am not affiliated however).

I just wanted to comment here, feats aren't necessary to customize your PC, your actions(along with the primes) will customize him. You can attempt any action, So there's no need for feats, you want a "signature" move or style then fight like that. You want to increase the power of your spells...then do it. Make a check to see if your action succeeded and keep going. Nothing in the book prevents or claims this is wrong.

 

[Jim Hague]

I just wanted to comment here, feats aren't necessary to customize your PC, your actions(along with the primes) will customize him. You can attempt any action, So there's no need for feats, you want a "signature" move or style then fight like that. You want to increase the power of your spells...then do it. Make a check to see if your action succeeded and keep going. Nothing in the book prevents or claims this is wrong.

But neither is it supported - which is fine for handwaving type campaigns, and more power to them. It relies a great deal on the GM to allow or disallow such things, which is a serious weakness in the system, IMO. Something I keep seeing is the comnstant restatement that you can add this or make up that or allow whatever...for me, that means it's not a fully-fuctional game. I can do that with any system; C&C does nothing special there. Claiming that needing to houserule the game to make things work isn't something that appeals.

 

[Dragonhelm]

But neither is it supported - which is fine for handwaving type campaigns, and more power to them. It relies a great deal on the GM to allow or disallow such things, which is a serious weakness in the system, IMO. Something I keep seeing is the comnstant restatement that you can add this or make up that or allow whatever...for me, that means it's not a fully-fuctional game. I can do that with any system; C&C does nothing special there. Claiming that needing to houserule the game to make things work isn't something that appeals.

C&C works fine without having to add anything. The beauty of it, IMO, is that it works fine as-is, or if you like some rule from some other system, it's easy to add. Sure, you can add a rule to just about any system, but some are easier than others to work with.

 

[Jim Hague]

C&C works fine without having to add anything. The beauty of it, IMO, is that it works fine as-is, or if you like some rule from some other system, it's easy to add. Sure, you can add a rule to just about any system, but some are easier than others to work with.

And that's great within its milieu - but the folks saying 'oh, you can add this' or 'just houserule that' are, I think, not doing a good job of selling the game. If it can't do x out of the box, that creates more work for the hardworking GM, hm? Understand that I'm not bagging on the game, though I readily admit it's not for me; simply pointing out that you can houserule/handwave with any game, to a greater or lesser extent, so C&C isn't unique in that way.

 

[Imaro]

But neither is it supported - which is fine for handwaving type campaigns, and more power to them. It relies a great deal on the GM to allow or disallow such things, which is a serious weakness in the system, IMO. Something I keep seeing is the comnstant restatement that you can add this or make up that or allow whatever...for me, that means it's not a fully-fuctional game. I can do that with any system; C&C does nothing special there. Claiming that needing to houserule the game to make things work isn't something that appeals.

Why is the fact that it's compatible with other d20/D&D make it "not a fully-functional" game? Are feats necessary for a "fully-functional" game? Are skill points? No. These are options that cater to certain playstyles and have no actual bearing on whether a game is functional or not. I would argue a game needs two things to be functional

1. some form of measurement between character abilities
2. a task resolution system

C&C has both these and more(classes, races, primes, saving throws,combat maneuvers, movement, etc.). I can understand favoring certain features over others but that's a prefrence. To say C&C is non-functional just isn't true. I find it's adaptibility a strength in that it can be many thing to many people. You want the complexity of feats, skill points, differing class abilities, AoO you can add them. You want something more streamlined it's there already. I just don't get your statement about it's functionality.

 

[Jim Hague]

Why is the fact that it's compatible with other d20/D&D make it "not a fully-functional" game? Are feats necessary for a "fully-functional" game? Are skill points? No. These are options that cater to certain playstyles and have no actual bearing on whether a game is functional or not. I would argue a game needs two things to be functional

1. some form of measurement between character abilities
2. a task resolution system

C&C has both these and more(classes, races, primes, saving throws,combat maneuvers, movement, etc.). I can understand favoring certain features over others but that's a prefrence. To say C&C is non-functional just isn't true. I find it's adaptibility a strength in that it can be many thing to many people. You want the complexity of feats, skill points, differing class abilities, AoO you can add them. You want something more streamlined it's there already. I just don't get your statement about it's functionality.

Except that its fundamental system assumptions - primes being a good example - make it only vaguely compatible with existing products. Likewise the power curve is a lot different. C&C is it's own game, and that's fine...but saying it's d20 compatible only after you add d20-style rules in isn't compatibility at all; it's houseruling, which can be done with any game.

C&C works great...as C&C. The lack of built-in character customization is a weakness ("but you can houserule that!" notwithstanding), and it lacks d20 features that I find appealing, like skills and Feats. And, if you're going to sell me a game that's fully d20-compatible, saying that it is only after you hack in actual d20 rules is a poor selling point. I could houserule in Feats or remove skills from GURPS...but why? Same goes for any system. When someone tells me that a system needs to be houseruled to work for something, then it's either a not fully-fuctional system or isn't going to suit my needs as a GM and player.

 

[Korgoth]

The lack of built-in character customization is a weakness

I consider it a virtue.

 

[Imaro]

Except that its fundamental system assumptions - primes being a good example - make it only vaguely compatible with existing products. Likewise the power curve is a lot different. C&C is it's own game, and that's fine...but saying it's d20 compatible only after you add d20-style rules in isn't compatibility at all; it's houseruling, which can be done with any game.

C&C works great...as C&C. The lack of built-in character customization is a weakness ("but you can houserule that!" notwithstanding), and it lacks d20 features that I find appealing, like skills and Feats. And, if you're going to sell me a game that's fully d20-compatible, saying that it is only after you hack in actual d20 rules is a poor selling point. I could houserule in Feats or remove skills from GURPS...but why? Same goes for any system. When someone tells me that a system needs to be houseruled to work for something, then it's either a not fully-fuctional system or isn't going to suit my needs as a GM and player.

Let me rephrase then, C&C is as compatible as majority of OGL game systems. Since it technically is one. I will leave this matter alone since this thread is asking for advice not a back and forth argument.

 

[Jim Hague]

I consider it a virtue.

And you're welcome to your opinion - but IMO a lack of options is as bad as too, too many options. YMMV.

 

[Imaro]

I consider it a virtue.

QFT