Tell me about Castles and Crusades

[Narfellus]

The reviews i've read about this are generally positive, although nearly all cite a need of re-editing. That aside, who has this, and how does it compare to 3.x of the game? I already don't use a lot of AoO because it bogged my game down, and other reviewers say they have house-ruled feats back into the C&C . What's the best thing this system as to offer, and what are the shortcomings?

 

[Berandor]

Here's a not-so-positive review, just to give you both sides of the issue.

http://www.rpg.net/reviews/archive/11/11036.phtml

But in general, it seems fairly well received.

 

[Akrasia]

I have C&C, and very much prefer to GM it over 3.x D&D. (Still happy to play 3.x, with a good DM willing to do all the prep work, etc.)

My reasons for switching to C&C are simple:

1. Less prep time for adventures.
2. Faster pace of play during sessions.
3. Easier to 'tweak' the rules for my campaign (because the rules are simpler).
4. The rules 'fade into the background' during play (no endless adding and subtracting of modifiers, checking rules in particular situations, bringing out battleboards, etc.).

Anyway, here is my (generally very positive) review:
http://www.rpg.net/reviews/archive/11/11008.phtml
(You may have already read it, but I mention it just in case.)

Some house rules and variants can be found here:
http://castlesandcrusades.editme.com/

Lots of info -- including some house rules from players -- can be found over at the TLG forums:
http://pub83.ezboard.com/btrolllordgames

The most active forum for C&C folks is probably over at Dragonsfoot:
http://www.dragonsfoot.org/forums/viewforum.php?f=37

Hope that helps!

 

[MonsterMash]

There are another couple of reviews on the ENWorld reviews sections as well.

 

[Breakdaddy]

C&C is a fun and easy to learn game. If you dont mind tinkering with a system and feel comfortable as a GM with on-the-fly decision making (almost always common sense) then this is a great game for you (as it is for me!). However, if you want every little detail spelled out for you and want a system that has a huge amount of tactical detail built in, then C&C may not be for you. I like both games (3.x and C&C) very much, but I loathe GMing 3.x because of the straight jacket it puts me in as a GM (rules lawyers being what they are). People go on and on about how a "good GM" can fix and house rule these things, but some of us dont have the time (having a life is a bitch) and really dont have the inclination to argue about rules minutiae with players. This doesnt make C&C superior or D&D inferior, it just makes C&C my system of choice to GM. They both have strengths and weaknesses. C&C gives me the customization that I really want in a game without leaving me reeling from the prospects of imbalancing the game when I DO customize. YMMV, of course.

 

[Treebore]

If you are looking for a less complex and easily modifiable system give C&C a look. It will only cost you $20.00 and some reading time. It isn't perfect, but neither is any other RPG game, but it may be what you have been looking for. It can't hurt, and won't be any worse than that pile of worthless books you already wasted money on (whatever they may be). It may well be that breathe of fresh air you didn't know you needed for your gaming experience.

 

[Maliki]

C&C is a lot less rule intense than D&D. It give the DM enough rules to make decisions but not so many that they feel like a straightjacket. In 5 sessions that I have run, we've only had to look at the book twice(both times for spell info). The games have flowed smoothly and have been fun(as a DM all the fun had left with 3rd edition it became more like work). It is very easy to add anything you like from 3.0/3.5(or any other rpg for that matter). To me the best feature is the simplicity of the rules and the ease of which it can be tailored to the DMs own tastes.

 

[bolie]

I'm playing C&C right now and I'm okay with it, but I find that the rules are simple but feel incomplete. As a player, my tactical options are determined more by what I can convince the DM I can do than what the rules spell out. My DM is reasonable, so it's not a big deal, but the rules as written are pretty sparse.

One thing, as a DM, I would NOT like, is the fact that monsters are completely ad hoc with no stats. It makes customizing monsters harder (or at least more abritrary). In addition, I polymorphed one of our group into a Hill Giant. The rules give no help in figuring out how that affects his hit rolls or damage. Do his hit points change? What about his saves?

Bolie IV

 

[Akrasia]

One thing, as a DM, I would NOT like, is the fact that monsters are completely ad hoc with no stats.

What are you talking about? This is not true.

The rules give no help in figuring out how that affects his hit rolls or damage. Do his hit points change? What about his saves?

See p. 82.

 

[S'mon]

After buying & reading C&C I decided to just run my new 3.5e campaign _as if it were C&C_. That way the players benefit from 3e's player-oriented ruleset while I as GM can ignore the burden, because... (see sig)