Tell me about Castles and Crusades

[blizack]

As far as I know, there are two reviews of the C&C Players Handbook here on EN World's D20 Product Review section (one by Mythmere and the other written by myself). When you take those two reviews into consideration alongside the RPG.net review (link posted earlier in this thread) you should be able to form a fairly good idea of what the game is like.

To put it another way, Mythmere loves it, the RPG.net guy hates it, and I think it's good but very flawed. The book was not a particularly pleasant reading experience for me but I'd be happy to play the game if there was a good, dedicated CK running it. Still, that goes for almost any game.

I prefer other games to C&C. The Players Handbook definitely isn't a complete game, and to run C&C immediately, a lot of things will need to be imported from D&D books, at least at this point. But like everybody else said, if you're looking for something along the lines of updated and streamlined 1st Ed. D&D and you don't have a problem with running games on the fly you might enjoy it.

 

[RFisher]

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

It's almost impossible for me not to tweak any system I play.

It makes more sense, though, to start with the game that is closest to your goal. I could turn the d20 system into something a lot closer to GURPS. (Which I've done before.) But--depending upon my specific goals--it might be easier to tweak GURPS into something more like the d20 system. (Which I've done before.)

If 3.5 is closer to your goal, start with it & tweak. If C&C is closer to your goal, start with it & tweak.

 

[der_kluge]

Ok, that's it. That's the second time I've seen this "CK" acronym. What does this stand for?

 

[Akrasia]

... the RPG.net guy hates it ....

There are actually two reviews over at RPG.net. My positive review was posted a few weeks ago (5000+ reads so far! woot!).

http://www.rpg.net/reviews/archive/11/11008.phtml

 

[Django]

Sure the Siege Engine and the existing classes offer some variety, but not in as overt a fashion as the feats, skills, etc.. in 3.x.

One player wanted to play a dagger expert. With a small selection of feats in 3.x, he could achieve that in a qualitative and quantitative fashion. Not so much so in C&C.

And for the player who wanted to play a cleric with an overt elemental bent? He was just another cleric in C&C. Similar spells, similar tactics.

The player who wanted to play a duelist? Again, the lack of feats disappointed him.

It felt somehow wrong to pigeon-hole the characters into one of 13 fairly rigid classes. Creative selection of primes just didn't do enough to soften that blow.

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

I read the negative review. Ouch. That's very bad.

Especially the monk. It seems like only D20 Modern can do it right.

And someone explain why the bard gets so many hit points?

 

[Akrasia]

Ok, that's it. That's the second time I've seen this "CK" acronym. What does this stand for?

Castle Keeper (i.e. DM).

 

[Akrasia]

I read the negative review. Ouch. That's very bad.

Yeah, but it is only ONE review.

And someone explain why the bard gets so many hit points?

The C&C bard is modeled on the Nordic skald.

 

[National Acrobat]

I read the negative review. Ouch. That's very bad.

Especially the monk. It seems like only D20 Modern can do it right.

And someone explain why the bard gets so many hit points?

The Bard is based on the Nordic Skald, i.e. a Warrior who is talented at reciting epic poetry and singing battle hymns while in combat, to increase the morale of his comrades. They don't have spells like they do in DnD.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

But they do have more hit points than God, apparently ...