Tell me about Castles and Crusades

[bolie]

To clarify:

Monsters do not have ability scores (Str, Dex, Con, Int, Wis, Cha). They have an AC, attack bonus, damage, etc... but these values are not derived from HD and ability scores as they are in 3e.

From looking at monster stats, they do not use bonuses the same way player characters do. For example, to hit bonus is equal to hit dice. But damage rolls sometimes have a bonus. So there is no consistent Str bonus to hit and damage.

I don't have my book with me, so I'll have to go look at p. 82 when I get home.

Bolie IV

 

[Ourph]

I looked it over at the bookstore. First impression (after perusing for ~20 minutes) was that it was a somewhat inelegant fusion of AD&D and 3e. The SIEGE engine has some good points, but didn't impress me as much as it seems to have impressed some of the reviewers. I'm sure it's exactly what some people are looking for in terms of a less rules-intense game, but it's certainly not what I imagined it would be when I started hearing about Castles & Crusades a year or so ago. It's definitely a "look before you buy" purchase IMO.

 

[Django]

I bought the book, made an adventure and ran some friends through it. We've given the game two sessions (about 14 hours of total play) and have decided that it didn't meet our requirements.

It -was- quick and easy but that came with a cost that we weren't willing to pay. Without feats, skills, PrC's, etc... there just wasn't enough opportunity for the players to customize their characters to their liking. When making the characters there was an awful lot of compromising and "oh well, I guess I'll just have to play a ..." going on. I take that sort of complaint seriously. If my players aren't able to play the characters they want to play - if they have to make too many compromises - then I feel that something is awry.

I don't mind doing a bit of prep for a game (I'm the GM most of the time) and the amount of time I saved wasn't nearly as significant as I thought it would be.

 

[Mythmere1]

I have it, have used it, wrote the 5 star review on ENworld, and am bolie's GM.

I recommend it, especially at $20. Be prepared - the editing really sucks. If you can get around that, you're basically reading a streamlined version of 1E, with d20 rules incorporated to fix a lot of the clunkiness of 1E.

The SIEGE engine for saving throws and skills doesn't sound simple when you describe it, and I can sort of see why someone might think it's inelegant. In play, however, I guarantee you that it's elegant and slick. Horrible if you're a huge fan of very specific skills, but it has incredible benefits. It speeds play very much (not a big point for everyone, but many people think 3E plays too slowly). It hacks DM prep time into literally about one-tenth the time.

It's certainly not for everyone. Bolie likes to play monster characters, and monsters are treated as cardboard cutouts in C&C - subject to simplified rules. This works very well for the DM, but it can restrict players.

I think the biggest benefit to players comes from WHAT the GM can do with the extra prep time.

For GMs, it's a literal godsend.

 

[Sir ThornCrest]

why would you chose to tweak one and not the other?

I have seen this several times, where my fellow gamers knock d&d and hype up some other roll playing game. They usually start out by saying something is easier with the other and then they quote several, what they perceive as problems with D&D. And when I question them almost universal is "it's just easier to tweak the rules"...

My question is if your willing to tweak another game why are you not willing to tweak D&D?
I find the 3.0/3.5 sytem awesome. Feats, skills, easy quick save rolls, to hit damage easy quick...it allows the dm many options to tweak your own game....A great example is the unarmored variant rule....sure your harder to hit because your able to move around quickly but the guy in armor is sure hard to bring down his armor absorbs some of the damage,,,,this rule is implemented in all our games now. Makes since a guy in armor isnt harder to hit hes harder to damage...

I find D&D easy to manipulate/tweak/play/DM....this is a combined opinion of 3 game groups that I know of in Pasadena. About 16 gamers, and they all play several games.

Thorncrest

 

[Akrasia]

... It -was- quick and easy but that came with a cost that we weren't willing to pay. Without feats, skills, PrC's, etc... there just wasn't enough opportunity for the players to customize their characters to their liking. ...

Regarding 'customization', while there are no skills and feats in C&C, the system of primes does allow for a fair degree of customization in characters, if used properly.

The following is a point that Particle Man made over at Dragonsfoot:

"Some silly math: Humans can choose one of 13 classes, and one of five abilities as a 2nd prime, and one of four abilities as a third prime. 13 times 4 times 5 equals 260.

there are 6 other races, one of which has 2 flavours, so 7 racial choices. They can choose one of fiave abilities as a 2nd prime, and have freedom of class choice, technically. 13 times 7 times 5 equals 455.

455+ 260 = 715.

Thus there are 715 different types of character you could play, independent of your actual ability scores, equipment, and background. There is more variety when you factor in the Fighter's choice of weapon to specialize in and the Cleric's choice of God, which affects choice of bonus weapon to be proficient in."

 

[RFisher]

I think the best succinct description of C&C that I've read is this, posted by trollwad on the TLG's ezboard.

IMHO the game is much simpler than 3.5e, much clearer than 1e, and provides many more options than Basic without significantly slowing things down.

The things that would make me run C&C instead of my preferred edition (B/X D&D c.1981) are:

• Being in-print--so that players don't have to go to secondary markets to try to get their own copy of the rules--matters enough to me.
• The players insist that they want more class options & race separate from class.

 

[der_kluge]

My current GM bought not one, not two, but three of this book. Its appeal to him was the ease by which he could integrate 1e modules into it. I think they even reversed the AC (low is better) to mimic 1e. It has all the 1e classes (including illusionist), and attempts to have a very 1e feel.


You know, I can understand nostalgia, but let's face it, first edition had horrible balance issues, and lacked a ton of rules that forced people into creating and adopting a myriad amount of house rules. My own opinion is that if you're not happy with 3rd edition, and you think 1st edition is going to solve your problems, then I have some swamp land to sell you. Folks, there are other systems out there in the world.


That said, I perused his C&C books, and I can't comment on the interior that much. It seemed well laid out, and the amount of text was appropriate, i.e., it wasn't padded out, or they didn't bloat the font size or anything like that. The art was generally very good, and the cover art was magnificent. According to my friend, it's 1st edition, with some of the balance problems (read: monks) fixed.

 

[Akrasia]

I have seen this several times, where my fellow gamers knock d&d and hype up some other roll playing game. They usually start out by saying something is easier with the other and then they quote several, what they perceive as problems with D&D. And when I question them almost universal is "it's just easier to tweak the rules"...

My question is if your willing to tweak another game why are you not willing to tweak D&D?

I tried it. A lot. I have run two 3E campaigns with plenty of house rules.

It is just plain easier to do this with C&C.

Anyway, nobody is 'knocking' 3E D&D here IMO. Some of us are just explaining what we like about C&C. (Really, 3E hardly needs to be defended, now does it, given how ubiquitous it is?)

 

[National Acrobat]

I love it. I find that combats go exceedingly fast, the game flows better and everyone has a better time playing each week. Since we can only muster about 3-3.5 hours a week to play on a week night, this is extrememly important to us. I DM on the fly, my campaign is an outline, with minimal information on bad guys, plot lines and directions the players can go.
Everything is pretty much wide open when my campaign is running. C&C has fit that very well, 3E doesn't fit my DMing style in that regard, well at all.

Now, I don't mind playing 3E, but I absolutely will not run it.

And since no one else in my group has or will step up to the plate to DM, we play C&C.