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

[Jim Hague]

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'.

And I do - I participated in several demos, read through the book thouroughly and stand by my assertions. C&C is not a fully-compatible game with d20. It works great on its own, the behavior of its fans aside. But every single claim of compatibility has also come with the caveat of 'well, you need to houserule this', so...no, not fully functional as a d20-compatible game.

So, to be perfectly, utterly crystal clear - claims of compatibility are, I think, false in the light of the work needed to make 3.x/d20 products compatible. In the realm of being a compatible game (which I don't think was the designers' intent), no it doesn't function. But neither does Mutants and Masterminds, the Conan RPG from Mongoose...etc. There's differences that require conversion out of the box, which can be a lot of work - enough so that IMO claims of it being some sort of semi-universal system are patently false, and worse go against designer intent.

C&C is a fine game. No, it's not granular enough for me and my group, but that doesn't make it a bad game. It has system assumptions that I do consider weaknesses, like the handwaving/houseruling nature of characters, for an example. YMMV.

When fans come on and treat dissenting voices as they have here, I consider that an un-selling point. Fan support is the soul of a game as much as mechanics are its heart. I stopped playing GW wargames because of its community, and I'll be looking elsewhere for a system when I choose to pick up a fantasy game.

 

[Philotomy Jurament]

But every single claim of compatibility has also come with the caveat of 'well, you need to houserule this', so...no, not fully functional as a d20-compatible game.

It's obviously not 100% d20 compatible, since it doesn't have d20's explicit rule subsystems with detailed lists of skills and feats (not to mention other differences, like level progression, et cetera). Nevertheless, that doesn't mean it can't handle the actions covered by such things. And it doesn't mean that you need to house-rule anything or "add to the system" (although some do). That's part of the point of the SIEGE engine: it handles the same kinds of actions that granular feat and skill systems do without all the overhead. GMs don't have to add rules to do this, they just need to make rulings ("you want do to X, okay make a Dex check with such-and-such difficulty to see if you can pull it off).

Does that require more GM judgment than the d20 approach? Maybe so; it's certainly a looser framework, with much more flexibility built in. Personally, I find that a good thing, not a drawback. Others like more structure and detailed rules to fall back on. Whatever floats your boat.

Lastly, even though C&C is not a d20 game (i.e. d20 System) and is not 100% d20 compatible (I wouldn't be playing it if it were -- there'd be no reason to), it *is* easy to use d20 material with the game. Using B/X or AD&D material is easier, but using d20 material isn't much more trouble. That's another thing I really like about it: I'm using ALL the D&D materials I've collected over the years.

 

[Jupp]

And I do - I participated in several demos, read through the book thoroughly and stand by my assertions. C&C is not a fully-compatible game with d20. It works great on its own, the behavior of its fans aside. But every single claim of compatibility has also come with the caveat of 'well, you need to house rule this', so...no, not fully functional as a d20-compatible game.

You are right with that, C&C is not fully compatible to d20. But it is compatible enough so that you can take an adventure out of Dungeon mag and run it without too many problems. And if you have to "house rule" certain special monster feats or not should not be an issue IMO. What is much more important to me is the nice backward compatibility towards older editions of D&D. So if you look at C&C from both ways, older editions and d20, then I think C&C gives you enough compatibility to play all D&D rules editions that exist around you without creating too much pain on the DM side. If C&C would be fully d20 compatible (feats, skills, et al) it wouldn't be as easy to use the rule set with older editions of the game. It's a trade off and I think it serves its purpose.

 

[S'mon]

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.

C&C doesn't work well at an adversarial table where the players dispute the GM's authority to make discretionary rulings - "handwave". 3e can handle an adversarial player-GM relation much better. If you like an adversarial game, then C&C is definitely not the right rules set.

 

[Treebore]

And I do - I participated in several demos, read through the book thouroughly and stand by my assertions. C&C is not a fully-compatible game with d20. It works great on its own, the behavior of its fans aside. But every single claim of compatibility has also come with the caveat of 'well, you need to houserule this', so...no, not fully functional as a d20-compatible game.

So, to be perfectly, utterly crystal clear - claims of compatibility are, I think, false in the light of the work needed to make 3.x/d20 products compatible. In the realm of being a compatible game (which I don't think was the designers' intent), no it doesn't function. But neither does Mutants and Masterminds, the Conan RPG from Mongoose...etc. There's differences that require conversion out of the box, which can be a lot of work - enough so that IMO claims of it being some sort of semi-universal system are patently false, and worse go against designer intent.

C&C is a fine game. No, it's not granular enough for me and my group, but that doesn't make it a bad game. It has system assumptions that I do consider weaknesses, like the handwaving/houseruling nature of characters, for an example. YMMV.

When fans come on and treat dissenting voices as they have here, I consider that an un-selling point. Fan support is the soul of a game as much as mechanics are its heart. I stopped playing GW wargames because of its community, and I'll be looking elsewhere for a system when I choose to pick up a fantasy game.

Its fully compatible enough, which running it using stuff from every edition of D&D for the last 20 months has proven to me. I use spells from every edition with a couple of minor alteratons, such as maybe CT (casting time), Duration, and sometimes the effects, and once or twice I even changed the component requirement.

I've used monsters from every edition too. I have found I prefer the 2E versions most often, but even when I use 3E versions I have found its mostly a case of deciding what I want to take away from the 3E version to fit what I want for my C&C game.


I can even use feats in C&C. The most direct way I use them is when I decide to let a monster I am pulling from 3E keep it as a special ability. So instead of having to make a SIEGE check to attempt such an action I just let it automaticallly be able to do it, or go straight to the to hit roll to see about success.

I have used classes straight from 1E and 2E in my games. I could even do the same with 3E characters. I just haven't had a need to do so. I have only converted a couple of PrC's.

So you can claim that C&C isn't "compatible" with other editions of D&D, but I have 20 months of regular games to prove to myself that your wrong.

So I will keep using this "incompatible" game called C&C to use anything I want from all the editions of D&D that I own in what appears to be an easily compatible manner.

 

[S'mon]

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.

In practice so far, running a 3e adventure (Siege of Durgam's Folly) for C&C, I have not found conversion from 3e to C&C to be as difficult as I would have expected. The balance of play is a little different; melee PCs are tougher vs melee monsters and are no longer overshadowed by the spellcasters the way I find they are in 3e. But 3e Dificulty Class numbers do not seem all that different from C&C Challenge Class numbers; the 3e ones are maybe lower at the low end, but C&C's 18-30 spread fits most actual 3e scenario DCs. Converting 3e monsters seems very easy - much easier than I expected - you use the listed AC (maybe minus a point or two), use damage minus STR bonus (maybe add a point or two), use the listed hit dice total minus STR bonuses to hit & CON bonuses to hp; special abilities can be used as written. Treasure totals rarely need changing, NPC stats can be used pretty much as written, or edited to fit C&C's slightly different stat bonii.

 

[Treebore]

You are right with that, C&C is not fully compatible to d20. But it is compatible enough so that you can take an adventure out of Dungeon mag and run it without too many problems. And if you have to "house rule" certain special monster feats or not should not be an issue IMO. What is much more important to me is the nice backward compatibility towards older editions of D&D. So if you look at C&C from both ways, older editions and d20, then I think C&C gives you enough compatibility to play all D&D rules editions that exist around you without creating too much pain on the DM side. If C&C would be fully d20 compatible (feats, skills, et al) it wouldn't be as easy to use the rule set with older editions of the game. It's a trade off and I think it serves its purpose.

Apparently he will only consider it "fully compatible" if he didn't have to do anything to make it fit together. Apparently easy alterations are too much of a difference to still be called "fully compatible".

Plus he thinks I insult people in a seriously condescending way when I simply point out that for people who do not understand what it takes to play a "unique character" can use 3E as a great way to be taught how.

I even went on to say how it taught me many more ways to allow for it in my games.

But I guess its condescending to tell people how they can go about learnign something, and that even with over 15 years of experience playing D&D before 3E that I still learned a lot.

So his reading comprehension is apparently somewhat limited. As well as his ability to apologize for misunderstanding something I posted.

 

[Treebore]

In practice so far, running a 3e adventure (Siege of Durgam's Folly) for C&C, I have not found conversion from 3e to C&C to be as difficult as I would have expected. The balance of play is a little different; melee PCs are tougher vs melee monsters and are no longer overshadowed by the spellcasters the way I find they are in 3e. But 3e Dificulty Class numbers do not seem all that different from C&C Challenge Class numbers; the 3e ones are maybe lower at the low end, but C&C's 18-30 spread fits most actual 3e scenario DCs. Converting 3e monsters seems very easy - much easier than I expected - you use the listed AC (maybe minus a point or two), use damage minus STR bonus (maybe add a point or two), use the listed hit dice total minus STR bonuses to hit & CON bonuses to hp; special abilities can be used as written. Treasure totals rarely need changing, NPC stats can be used pretty much as written, or edited to fit C&C's slightly different stat bonii.

Yeah, the few times I looked at a DC to TN comparison I did feel that if I needed to I could use the 3E DC modifiers as a guideline. Usually only needing to adjust it up or down by a couple of points to be closer to what I thought was appropriate for the base TN's of the SIEGe in comparison to the base DC 10 of 3E.

 

[S'mon]

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.

I've had the same experience - running C&C I think I'm a far better GM for having run 3e, than if I'd gone straight from 1e/2e to C&C.

 

[jdrakeh]

Apparently he will only consider it "fully compatible" if he didn't have to do anything to make it fit together. Apparently easy alterations are too much of a difference to still be called "fully compatible".

To be fair, if one has to add anything not present by design in order to make one system dovetail with another, the two systems in question aren't "fully compatible" by virtue of basic English language definitions. Fully compatible products don't require alteration to work together at 100% mechanical efficiency.

Plus he thinks I insult people in a seriously condescending way when I simply point out that for people who do not understand what it takes to play a "unique character" can use 3E as a great way to be taught how.

Also to be fair, that does sound pretty condescending -- the fact is that just because people don't do things your preferred way doesn't mean that they don't understand something. It just means that they do it different than you prefer. To suggest that they're uneducated because they don't do things your way is a textbook example of condescension.