Smackdown: Castles & Crusades vs. Blue Rose

[Wraith Form]

Both Blue Rose and C&C have been touted as "d20 rules lite" systems. (Blue Rose has a campaign setting attached to it as well, but we'll try to look beyond that for now, since it's a bit silly.) Both have been described as providing faster combat. Strong selling point for C&C: it can easily "port" previous editions of D&D; strong selling point for Blue Rose: it's emphasis is on social interaction vs. "battles 'n' tactics"-minded players.

I, personally, really like the idea of rules that are streamlined, combat that is faster (cinematic), and a push away from number-crunching and a drift towards the "playing a role" part of RPGs. This is mostly because I'm 1) lazy, 2) an inexperienced DM, and 3) prefer the drama and action over the dice-rolling and math. Both C&C and Blue Rose look appealing, given my tastes.

Have any of you used the Blue Rose fast play rules? How does it compare to C&C? That's the crux of my question: compare & contrast the two game systems.

As always, any comments are welcome! Thanks.

 

[Treebore]

I haven't played Blue Rose, only read the fast play and read some of the threads about it. C&C, however, I have used, and like a lot.

The main reason I am not interested in Blue Rose, is that even though it is "rules lite" it is still very recognizeable as D20. C&C has the Siege Engine and leaves a lot more as "optional", so that is why I go with C&C over Blue Rose. However, many would probably prefer Blue Rose because it is still very much a 3E d20 game. It reads more to me like a heavily house ruled 3E d20. Again I haven't read the product, but that is my impression from what I have read and "heard" in this forum.

 

[MoogleEmpMog]

I haven't had the chance to play either yet, but I've read a goodly amount of the materials.

C&C essentially converts d20 into AD&D - that's an oversimplification, but conceptually it covers it. Different XPs charts for classes, monsters without full stat blocks, no feats or skills, etc. Since I consider 3e D&D, Basic D&D and several other roleplaying systems vastly superior to AD&D in almost every way, I strongly dislike it.

Blue Rose is a streamlined d20 with an emphasis on social skills. It uses some existing Green Ronin material, crops down to 3 core classes, and has a unique skill system. Essentially, it's a very new system with a very new vibe - arguably closer to a d20/SilCore hybrid, which I can't praise enough.

C&C is the past, Blue Rose (or at least the True20 system it runs off of) is the future.

 

[Crothian]

I can't say I've used the fast play rules of Blue Rose, I've used the actually rules those. Blue Rose does a better job of creating characters since it doesn't have the classes that are rigidly defined. Its skill and feat system allows for a wide variety of characters.

 

[Breakdaddy]

C&C is the past, Blue Rose (or at least the True20 system it runs off of) is the future.

Cute, but innacurate. You really do oversimplify the C&C ruleset. It uses the newer D20 mechanic for combat resolution as far as higher number=better and higher AC=better. It uses an arguably better saving throw system. Why (possibly) better? Well, for one because it makes ALL of the attributes important. My favorite part is the MUCH improved turn undead system which is far more intuitive IMO than the current 3.x system. I own Blue Rose but have not had a lot of time to peruse it unfortunately. I will do so when feasible and if the thread is still around I will try to report accurately on the differences.

 

[Maliki]

I've only read what others say about Blue Rose, the mechanics sound very interesting(but I would be afraid to bring anything that says romantic fantasy on the cover to my group). I do have C&C PHB and the boxed set and love them, the play is fast and after character creation we seldom even reference the book.

My guess is that one of the main differences would be in the characters. C&C classes are strong archtypes. Fighters are fighters, wizards are wizards.The wizard doesn't pick up a sword, the fighter doesn't track the orcs back to thier lair, Each class has its own set of abilities. In Blue Rose(d20) through skills and feats, the line between classes blurs.

If you played older editions of the game, C&C has the same feel but with much smoother mechanics. Blue Rose keeps many of the ideas of 3rd edition and streamlines them.

My suggestion is that if your looking for a rules lite d20 game give Blue Rose a try, If your looking for an modern version of AD&D/BD&D go with C&C.

 

[MoogleEmpMog]

My favorite part is the MUCH improved turn undead system which is far more intuitive IMO than the current 3.x system.

In all fairness, isn't EVERYTHING more intuitive than the current 3.x system?

 

[Crothian]

In all fairness, isn't EVERYTHING more intuitive than the current 3.x system?

Even Blue Rose's way is better: no turn undead ability.

 

[Akrasia]

Since I consider 3e D&D, Basic D&D and several other roleplaying systems vastly superior to AD&D in almost every way, I strongly dislike it.

If by "Basic D&D" you are referring to the Basic/Expert game -- and eventually 'Rules Cylcopedia' D&D game -- from 1980-1994, then C&C in fact far more resembles that system than it does OAD&D. The main difference is that there are no 'race classes' or 'level limits' in C&C. Otherwise, C&C reminds me a lot more of RC D&D than OAD&D (single system of attribute modifiers, simple unified rules, etc.).

C&C is the past, Blue Rose (or at least the True20 system it runs off of) is the future.

Well, C&C is the future of my campaign.

Sometimes there is wisdom to be gained from the past.