Tell me about Castles and Crusades

[Akrasia]

Oh, good lord. Here comes Akrasia again on the one true way bus.

Wow -- you're still that bitter about losing the last argument?

I fail to see what is so horrible about pointing out that people are making unwarranted generalizations.

Rules light means I have to come up with more rules in order for ME*to be satisfied with its performance.

Fine. This is different from asserting that the rules are 'incomplete' (which you and others have claimed in the past).

... in a fashion that cuts corners that I* am not happy to cut, and requiring inconsistant ad hoc GM calls.

I fail completely to see why a relatively 'rules light' system necessarily involves 'cutting corners'. Or 'inconsistent ad hoc GM calls'.

I can assure you that I cut no corners, my GM calls are based on the rules and the requirements of the game, and they are quite consistent.

* - And those who share my particular values in gaming.

Nobody claimed that C&C is for everyone, anymore than HERO or GURPs is.

But going around claiming that a 'rules light' game requires 'cutting corners' and other rubbish is completely unjustified.

Now that this silly matter has been taken care of, back to the subject matter in question: the C&C game.

 

[nsruf]

My impression is that most concerns regarding character customization would be adressed by proper rules for multiclassing (= customize during chargen) and dual-classing (= change your focus later). This should satisfy people (like me) who want characters with different abilities to be mechanically different. Seriously: if the only difference between a dagger specialist and a greatsword specialist is that the former has wasted his one weapon specialization on an inferior weapon, that sucks, no?

It would be nice if the Trolls provided such rules as a download for those who haven't fully bought into C&C and are unsure whether to get the CKG. After all, this is character stuff and could well have gone into the PHB.

 

[Geron Raveneye]

Heh...now I know why I usually click to page 2 or 3 of any C&C thread to check...they usually lose their original topic after the second page, and turn into a sniper training range.

 

[jblittlefield]

Many people say things like this. They are incorrect.

(By this logic, HERO is vastly superior to 3E, because it has far more rules, and thus requires its GMS to 'come up' with fewer ones.)

Hardly ... most of the HERO book is filled with power descriptions, not rules. HERO is a simple and elegant system if you take the time to read it. All the "hard stuff" is front-loaded into the character creation process. Actually playing the game is a breeze. The complex characater generation (which is my favorite part of the game) is what scares most people off (interestingly enough, I've found very few people who have actually read and understood HERO and walked away not liking it).

And btw... HERO IS VASTLY SUPERIOR TO D20 FANTASY 3.X

 

[Akrasia]

Heh...now I know why I usually click to page 2 or 3 of any C&C thread to check...they usually lose their original topic after the second page, and turn into a sniper training range.

Well this is because some people view C&C as somehow 'threatening' 3E, and/or C&C people feel the need to define the game's virtues in terms of 3E's perceived difficulties, etc ... And people reply ...

And thus a trivial matter of a difference in taste becomes wrapped up in ego-related issues (which are stupid in any case, since this is the internet)...

... But people like myself can't let them go, because, well, we like to argue ... (and I just can't let an invalid argument escape my wrath) ...

And so forth.

But honestly, if you want some good 'sniper training', go to a thread that bashes Eberron, Forgotten Realms, or Greyhawk.

The C&C threads are 'little leagues' in contrast ...

 

[Numion]

I remember back when the way you roleplayed the character had no mechanical effect of the game, provided you didn't roleplay the default character archetype you were given.

It's the difference between being able to paint racing stripes on one of your cars and actually having a custom-tweaked engine on one of your cars. Either way it's individualized, but I'd only call the latter customized.

Exactly. I suppose you can play a swashbuckling fighter in C&C, but you'll just be playing a a fighter whose AC sucks :\

 

[Numion]

I do have a question though. In 3e the most time consuming part for our newbie DM is looking up spells (for spells or spelllike abilities). Hows this handled? Is there a separate description for each spell and its effects?

 

[Breakdaddy]

Exactly. I suppose you can play a swashbuckling fighter in C&C, but you'll just be playing a a fighter whose AC sucks :\

Wrong. What you mean is "if you want a fighter with a bunch of modifiers to skills and a scad of feats to make him seem like a swashbuckler on paper" then 3.x is inherently better. In my game, we have a fighter type (Ranger actually) that performs all kinds of cool feats of derring do. This is a C&C game. Sadly, since Im pretty sure you havent played, you will probably continue to come in and snipe away at a game which you havent experienced. If you can find a game, you should try it. Discuss with your GM what your vision is for your PC, and then come back and report your experiences. Of course, if its more fun to come in here and occasionally take a swat at the game, be my guest.

 

[Davelozzi]

I do have a question though. In 3e the most time consuming part for our newbie DM is looking up spells (for spells or spelllike abilities). Hows this handled? Is there a separate description for each spell and its effects?

Yes, but overall, they seem to be a bit simpler than the spell descriptions in 3e/3.5.

 

[Henry]

And people ask me why I move these threads to the appropriate forums...

Actually, (meta-pontificating a moment) the C&C threads of late have entered a second tier, distinct from the C&C threads on ENWorld from a few months ago... and the difference is that the game's been RELEASED.

Previously, we saw threads lightly peppered with hostile snipes against various aspects of AD&D and 3E, because the only thing we had to compare it to up till about three months ago was AD&D. We of course had the well-reasoned "we're not threatening anybody" responses from Cleaver and Gideon, and we had the lovers of earlier editions chiming in very general statements of why AD&D, and hence C&C, was better than the newer editions in their opinion, and we had some chiming in of the defenders of new editions who saw all that as untrue and therefore a challenge. The playtesters, hands tied, had to describe the indescribeable and human nature what it is it consistently devolved into edition wars.

Over the past month, the C&C threads have included people who now can say something about the rules, and who more importantly have intimate knowledge of BOTH old and new, or more correctly knowledge of C&C and 3E. Even those who don't like C&C have been respectful at least. At worst, people have gotten heated, but stopped short of being insulting. It's a definitely different "gentlemen's agreement" tone in these recent threads, which I thank the fellow posters for.

The main reason I've left this and the previous posts in general a while before moving them to their correct forum has been to expose more people to C&C, because there is a curiousity about it.

I'm not moving this one because the consistent theme so far has been not discussion of C&C, but discussion of comparison to 3E in general. The more people who try it out, may wind up discussing it in more detail, and one thing I like encouraging is discussion of new games, and reminding those who dislike the detail of 3E but like the core precepts to have plenty of other options to explore. I think Blue Rose, as it becomes more widespread, will be another good choice for this.