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

[Campbell]

Why is the fact that it's compatible with other d20/D&D make it "not a fully-functional" game?

While I don't dispute that Castles and Crusades maintains a high degree of compatibility with previous versions of D&D, it most certainly is not any more compatible with the current edition than 3e is with previous versions. The ebb and flow of the games, Monsters, Classes, Races, and the power curves of the games are all substantially different to the point that conversion between the systems is a significant undertaking. For a game to maintain a high degree of compatibility with 3e, it would have to be far more like 3e than Castles and Crusades is, and far less like older versions of D&D.

 

[Philotomy Jurament]

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

Personally, I don't find that C&C's SIEGE engine approach offers significantly fewer options for customization, just a different level of granulatiry. Customization is mainly done with skills and feats, in 3E; C&C doesn't have specific mechanics for skills and feats, but the SIEGE engine does let you handle "skill-like actions" and "feat-like actions."

In 3E, if you're making a Dex-based fighter, you buy Dex skills, you get feats in the Dex-based feat tree, et cetera. In C&C, you make him Dex prime. Both fighters are going to be good at all the same types of actions. Actually, the C&C fighter will have just as many (or more) options in actual play, as he he can attempt just about any "feat-like action" he wants (although he'll be better at the Str and Dex stuff). You can argue that the loss of granularity is a loss of customization, and that may be true. But I find that you can cover the majority of your customization desires with C&C's simple approach, and that the gain in simplicity is well worth the loss of granularity. I gain a lot, and don't lose much, so it's a good tradeoff. YMMV.

 

[Lhorgrim]

I just received my C&C rulebooks yesterday, so I am not trying to post as someone who is very familiar with the ins and outs of the system.

That said, I chose the game because it didn't have rigidly defined rules rules for things like feats and skills. I totally understand what Jim Hague is saying. I can see where some folks prefer the rules for feats/skills to be chiseled in stone and behave the same way for PC and NPC alike. There is nothing wrong with that playstyle, but I think many people have grown weary of just those sorts of things and are seeking a more "flexible" system for their games. I have had plenty of opportunity to play game systems that have specific rules for most every action your character could take, and I'm ready to try something different. I grew tired of the players that calculated rules like a billiards player lines up a combo. "If I power attack with my 2 handed weapon while raging and I'm within 5 feet of two enemies on a Tuesday after 2pm..." I'm just joking around about the example obviously, but I did get tired of the "tactical application of the rules" as opposed to applying tactics to the combat encounter. Am I making sense with that? It's hard for me to put into words without being able to use voice inflection.

I guess at the end of the day, I feel like it's easier for me to add rules in if I want them than to remove the rules I don't want from a more complex system. From what I've read so far, I'm not really in any hurry to add anything to C&C. It seems to be able to stand on it's own without any additions.

 

[Treebore]

I consider it a virtue.

The only time it is a weakness is when the players and DM need a system to tell them how thier character is unique. Then they can go learn that from 3E. When they are ready to do it without a system telling them how then they can give games like C&C a try.

Like before I played/DMed 3E for almost 5 years I used to be very cautious about doing things in my games to individualize a players character. 3E showed me how I was way too cautious about it. So now I feel a lot more relaxed about helping players play and earn "unique" characters over the course of the campaign.

So 3E did help me be a lot more relaxed about a lot of things, and I still reference the 3E books when I am trying to figure out a rules structure for a new idea.

So even though I knew what it took to play a "unique" character long before 3E, using 3E still helped me expand my horizons/repertoire a great deal more, which in turn helped me have a much more relaxed attitude about how to go about it in older editions of D&D or C&C, etc...

So even though I came to really dislike the rules minutiae of 3E it still taught me a lot of new ways to play and DM even better than I had durring the 15 or so years I gamed before 3E came along. So despite all the dislikes I have with 3E, there are still a lot of good things I can say about it.

It definitely contributed to helping C&C making me the happiest I have ever been with gaming.

 

[jdrakeh]

Honestly, it (C&C) is quite a bit different than D&D 3.5. . .

C&C is a far less tactical game, with no discernable focus on tabletop tactics (i.e., things aren't measured in inches or squares, making minis totally optional as opposed to an integral element of the game), there are no skills or feats (i.e., by and large, character individualization comes from backstory and other fluff, rather than mechanics), and there's a great deal less math involved (due largely to the omission of feats and skills).

This can be good or bad, depending upon what you like out of a game -- if you want a tight focus on tactical combat or meaningful mechanical differentiation between characters, C&C provides neither out of the box (i.e., you'll need to make up your own rules for such things, or port in the rules from a different game system, in which case you might as well be playing that game system). If you consider those things to be bugs rather than features, C&C is probably right up your alley.

C&C is much more about thematic support than mechanical support, in short. It's what Basic D&D was to AD&D with all of the supplements.

 

[Jim Hague]

The only time it is a weakness is when the players and DM need a system to tell them how thier character is unique. Then they can go learn that from 3E. When they are ready to do it without a system telling them how then they can give games like C&C a try.

Wow. That's...really condescending, actually. As a GM and player of almost 30 years now, I don't think I've seen a lot of One True Wayism to this extent. So, by your reasoning, people who don't use non-granular systems like C&C are somehow immature?

I really did take pains to not bag on C&C, because it's a fine system, even if it doesn't suit my personal tastes. But after this particularly fannish statement, I think I can safely say that I and my group will be staying far, far away. Since, y'know, while we don't consider ourselves slaved to a system that defines how our characters are unique, apparently some people find it necessary to define us by the tiny window in their fan box.

Wow. Just...wow.

 

[Imaro]

I really did take pains to not bag on C&C, because it's a fine system, even if it doesn't suit my personal tastes.

Riiight, sure you did...No you just called out how it's design philosophy(because it differed from what you enjoy) was a weakness and then claimed it didn't function as a game(Blatantly false).

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.

Emphasis mine. That sure sounds like you we're saying "fine system" to me...not

 

[Treebore]

Wow. That's...really condescending, actually. As a GM and player of almost 30 years now, I don't think I've seen a lot of One True Wayism to this extent. So, by your reasoning, people who don't use non-granular systems like C&C are somehow immature?

I really did take pains to not bag on C&C, because it's a fine system, even if it doesn't suit my personal tastes. But after this particularly fannish statement, I think I can safely say that I and my group will be staying far, far away. Since, y'know, while we don't consider ourselves slaved to a system that defines how our characters are unique, apparently some people find it necessary to define us by the tiny window in their fan box.

Wow. Just...wow.

I suggest your read the rest of the post.

 

[Wraith Form]

Honestly, it (C&C) is quite a bit different than D&D 3.5. . .

C&C is a far less tactical game, with no discernable focus on tabletop tactics (i.e., things aren't measured in inches or squares, making minis totally optional as opposed to an integral element of the game), there are no skills or feats (i.e., by and large, character individualization comes from backstory and other fluff, rather than mechanics), and there's a great deal less math involved (due largely to the omission of feats and skills).

This can be good or bad, depending upon what you like out of a game -- if you want a tight focus on tactical combat or meaningful mechanical differentiation between characters, C&C provides neither out of the box (i.e., you'll need to make up your own rules for such things, or port in the rules from a different game system, in which case you might as well be playing that game system). If you consider those things to be bugs rather than features, C&C is probably right up your alley.

C&C is much more about thematic support than mechanical support, in short. It's what Basic D&D was to AD&D with all of the supplements.

I'm still waiting for my 2nd printing books, but I have the 1st printing. Every thing jdrakeh says succinctly explains the differences bewteen the two systems, from what I can tell.

 

[Wraith Form]

Riiight, sure you did...No you just called out how it's design philosophy(because it differed from what you enjoy) was a weakness and then claimed it didn't function as a game(Blatantly false).

Emphasis mine. That sure sounds like you we're saying "fine system" to me...not

Jim Hague, Imaro's sarcasm ^ aside, it really does sound like you started posting with your mind made up--that you didn't like C&C--ahead of time. It beggars the question why you even posted in the first place, when the OP was looking for the similarities and differences between the two game engines, not ways in which C&C is 'broken'.

If you don't want to play just because you feel like Treebore stepped on your toes, that's fine. But you came into this thread with teeth bared and fists swingin'...and now you're surprised when people want to defend the game they like from someone who is blatantly hostile towards it. (Tree, you're not helping if you buy into the taunt.)

I think many previous posters have attempted to try to explain why C&C is different from 3.5. Some are more....passionate....about it than others, but that is the topic of the thread, not how 3.5 is vastly more superior to C&C--or vice versa.

Keep to the topic and this won't be hostile.