Tell me about Castles and Crusades

[gideon_thorne]

But rules that are internally inconsistent and incomplete don't get out of my way.

The rules are actually neither inconsistent or incomplete. They might seem that way to those used to more complex systems, but C&C as it stands, especially the boxed set, can be played as is with no modification. There are plenty of classes and races to work with for the beginner.

Its all these 'extras' that break away from the baseline of the classes require modification.

The desire to play classes that stretch away from the baseline classes does not translate into a flaw in the C&C game. These non baseline classes certainly are for more experienced gamers. For a newbie, learning the system, they have no place as part of a 'baseline core game' and therefore in no way constitute an 'incompleteness' or inconsistency about the game itself.

Most of what is talked about as 'incomplete' or 'missing' is from the perspective of experienced gamers who know how to ask the questions, back in the day, the newbie didn't really know the difference.

So..the system may be incomplete for YOU but not for most everyone else playing it.

Monsters do not use a different system. They use the SEIGE engine for saving throws and checks, just like players. They even get their HD where players get their level. The only difference is that all monsters effectively have attributes in the 9-12 range. It's very easy to determine this based on the fact that all of the rolls they make are identical to the rolls players make and the bonuses correspond. HD -> level, 12/18 based on primes, etc...

As for the polymorph spell Fiff summs it up here:

I wrote the original draft of polymorph. It changed a bit from what I submitted (my version was much more harsh, lest anyone think the Trolls aren't sympathetic to the plight of the players).

However, one thing I can comment on here is that PCs are different in C&C from everything else. Things that apply to PCs don't necessarily apply to NPCs, and most definitely don't apply to monsters.

One thing that has to be understood is that Not Everything Has To Play By The Same Rules.

This means monsters don't have to have attributes, and NPCs don't have to follow the same character rules as PCs, as long as the CK is reasonable about it.

Now, back to polymorph. It's assumed that if a monstrous shape is assumed, the character in essence *becomes* that monster.

Forget your character sheet. It's worthless except to know what equipment you're carrying.

If you're polymorphed into a giant, it's futile to figure out what your character's stats as a giant will be. Just use the Giant's stats. Adjust AC and base attack for any armor or special equipment, and voila - you're done.

Ability scores aren't necessary - they are assumed as part of the Giant's stats already. For saving throws, the PC would no longer use PC saving throws, but monster saving throws - Physical and Mental. If the character loses his mind, then a Giant would represent Physical saves, while a character with a Wis or Int prime that retains his consciousness would have both Physical and Mental saves in the new form.

Other than that, your character sheet is basically a Giant's statblock until you are transformed back.


Some of the problem here is the "square peg in round hole" syndrome, where folks try to put the structure of a PC onto a monster's form. That's where the fallacy occurs. Once it's realized and absorbed that not everything has to have the same structure as a PC, things get a LOT easier.

Fiffergrund, Margrave of Shotwick

 

[gideon_thorne]

All you posters seem to really be proving is that 3E is by no means the end all be all game sytem for everyone, and neither is C&C.

.

*chuckles* I, for one, am not trying to push this as a 'better' system. I'm just trying to splain how it works, and the underlaying philosophy, to those who dont seem to grasp it. "Telling folks about C&C" in other words.

 

[maddman75]

I believe what we have here is an asymmetrical rule system, where the rules for PCs and the rules for NPCs are different.

On the subject of polymorph, its like in AD&D. Polymorphing into a tough creature, sucks. Always did in the old days. Best use for a polymorph spell is to turn your enemy into a slug or something, or use it to grant you a useful ability such as flight or swimming.

I understand the drive to have an asymmetrical ruleset. It keeps lots of options open for the players while not drowning the DM in details. I think a superior approach would be for some kind of mook rules, where extras or guys that just Don't Matter have a minimum of detail. For instance, I don't need to know every last kobold's spot check. He's just there to let the fighter show off his cleave feat. I love systems that let you have the 3e level detail if you need it, or just cut them down to C&C level when you don't. Cinematic UNisystem and Exalted both have such mechanics.

 

[bolie]

For the record, I have not argued that C&C or d20 is better. I have been pointing what I consider flaws in C&C in answer to the question "Tell me about C&C." Others have pointed out its strengths. I've even pointed out some strengths...

I responded to that comment on polymorph and giants on the Troll Lords message board. To sum up, he's wrong. Monsters don't use different mechanics. They use exactly the same mechanics (d20 rolls to hit, AC, hit points, SEIGE engine for skills/saves).

Having said that, if polymorph is intended to give the subject the monster's exact stats, nothing more and nothing less (with a couple of exceptions like spells if the new form has the appropriate parts), then that's fine. That's not at all what the spell says. So the spell description should be changed in the reprint and the errata.

I've pointed out several specific ways in which the C&C rules are internally inconsistent and haven't seen any explanation of how I'm wrong other than "Uh uh, they are not!" or in the case of polymorph the answers haven't really addressed my comments.

The "extras" that I've been talking about consist of one basic spell, spellcasting in general, charging in combat, and overbearing. If these are intended to be extras or optional, they should be labeled as such. But either way, the rules given should be more clear. As written, they have errors or inconsistencies or are incomplete.

I'm not out to insult anyone or denigrate anyone. If people like C&C, that's fine. I know (obviously from these threads) that there are people who don't really care how well the rules hang together, they don't care to follow them anyway. There's nothing wrong with that. Those people won't be interested in my comments because they will be moot to how they play. People who do try to follow the rules or who like messing with the system will find the same things I'm finding. Some will fix them and move on without a problem. Others won't want to or will be annoyed like me.

This thread is about C&C and sharing experiences. I've discussed my experiences with C&C. I'll freely admit that having a good DM has made a big difference. Not everyone has a good DM (you can't always be choosy).

Bolie IV

 

[cleaverthepit]

charging, polymorph and spellcasting.

Ok uhh what are issues?

and I will get back with you tonight.

davis

 

[gideon_thorne]

I responded to that comment on polymorph and giants on the Troll Lords message board. To sum up, he's wrong. Monsters don't use different mechanics. They use exactly the same mechanics (d20 rolls to hit, AC, hit points, SEIGE engine for skills/saves). [/QUOTE}

Ah, but they dont use, or need, attributes for the base system to work as it is.

I've pointed out several specific ways in which the C&C rules are internally inconsistent and haven't seen any explanation of how I'm wrong other than "Uh uh, they are not!" or in the case of polymorph the answers haven't really addressed my comments.

People have tried to address your comments. But your operating on a different philosophical paradigm than C&C 's. So the answers are going to seem unsatisfying. Most of it basicly comes from what 'people are used too'. When comming from a system that provides all the answers to a system that functions on a 'fill in the blank' philosophy, the contrast is going to cause much misscommunication of fundamental principles.

I know (obviously from these threads) that there are people who don't really care how well the rules hang together, they don't care to follow them anyway.

Its not that people dont care, its that many of them don't have a problem with the way the system works. For them, save for a few typo ommissions, the base system works, but they just want to add a bit of detail to suit their own preferences. Its not 'vital' to the core C&C system. Many just like to tinker.

Don't get me wrong, I really am trying to understand these concerns. I have been wending my way through the vast pile of information that is 3rd edition (and this is just the 3.5 phb) and trying to understand why it all seems so neccessary. But again I also operate on a 'just enough' information needed philosophy and my mind wants to shunt away near 3/4ths of the 3rd ed books since its overload. So I have a hard time wanting to deal with the newest edition as a whole. I've played it, but I've played it as I always have, just enough info on the sheet which I then proceed to practically ignore from then on, untill the gamemaster tells me I have xp.

 

[gideon_thorne]

I understand the drive to have an asymmetrical ruleset. It keeps lots of options open for the players while not drowning the DM in details. I think a superior approach would be for some kind of mook rules, where extras or guys that just Don't Matter have a minimum of detail. For instance, I don't need to know every last kobold's spot check. He's just there to let the fighter show off his cleave feat. I love systems that let you have the 3e level detail if you need it, or just cut them down to C&C level when you don't. Cinematic UNisystem and Exalted both have such mechanics.

Something of this nature is slated to be addressed in the CKG book, so the CK (DM if you prefer) can decide what level of this sort of detail he or she wants in their game.

 

[Akrasia]

I believe what we have here is an asymmetrical rule system, where the rules for PCs and the rules for NPCs are different.

Yes indeed. And IIRC Mike Mearls has suggested that something similar is needed for 3E D&D (or maybe 4E). If something like this is included in the DMG2, I certainly will look at it.

That aside, I like the fact that I can fine tune C&C to give my players good options, while not worrying about statting up my high level NPCs.

I understand the drive to have an asymmetrical ruleset. It keeps lots of options open for the players while not drowning the DM in details. I think a superior approach would be for some kind of mook rules, where extras or guys that just Don't Matter have a minimum of detail. For instance, I don't need to know every last kobold's spot check. He's just there to let the fighter show off his cleave feat. I love systems that let you have the 3e level detail if you need it, or just cut them down to C&C level when you don't. Cinematic UNisystem and Exalted both have such mechanics.

My favourite system right now is Angel/Buffy. (Yes, I do like that system better than even C&C -- but I love the genre of D&D better than the genre of Angel/Buffy, so I play more C&C.) It is amazing the extent to which I port that 'approach' over to C&C. It is very easy to tweak a few rules to make PCs and NPCs unique in C&C, while at the same time keeping things simple with respect to 99 percent of the encounters.

 

[maddman75]

My favourite system right now is Angel/Buffy. (Yes, I do like that system better than even C&C -- but I love the genre of D&D better than the genre of Angel/Buffy, so I play more C&C.) It is amazing the extent to which I port that 'approach' over to C&C. It is very easy to tweak a few rules to make PCs and NPCs unique in C&C, while at the same time keeping things simple with respect to 99 percent of the encounters.

You do know there's fantasy Unisystem out there, right? All Flesh Must Be Eaten + Dungeons & Zombies. And then I believe there's a conversion guide on Eden's website for going classic->cinematic Unisystem. Even if not, its not like its all that hard.

I'm tempted to do the same thing myself, as I too consider Buffy/Angel to be one of the best game systems on the market. Unisystem just might be the one true system. Oddly, I've seen d20 players, White Wolf players, and GURPS players all perfectly comfortable with it.

 

[Akrasia]

You do know there's fantasy Unisystem out there, right? All Flesh Must Be Eaten + Dungeons & Zombies. And then I believe there's a conversion guide on Eden's website for going classic->cinematic Unisystem. Even if not, its not like its all that hard.

Yeah, I know about D&Z. As much as I like Unisystem, though, I still think that the classic "class and level" approach works best for D&D-style games. Hence my preference for C&C for fantasy campaigns. I can tweak C&C with very little work to give my players lots of interesting options. Also, D&Z is not a full game yet. If Eden came out will a full-blown cinematic Unisystem FRPG, I would certainly check it out.

Finally, one big consideration for me at any rate, is that converting all my OD&D and OAD&D (and even 3e) stuff to C&C is a snap.