The Case For Castles & Crusades

[Darrin Drader]

C&C makes a freaking fantastic lingua franca for all other D&D variants. I could easily see using CX with 3e, Labyrinth Lord, Osric, or Pathfinder. (4e looks like it would be a lot tougher, though MerricB seems to be getting along just fine.)

That is exactly what I find so appealing about it.

So while I wouldn't play C&C on its own, I do think it makes great edition neutral material.

I've decided to give it a go for a limited game if I can get my players on board.

 

[rkwoodard]

my take

Hello,

I have tried C&C and liked it, but finally decided on 3.5. The reason is, I like the skills and feats and when I built it onto C&C it was really close to 3.5. So, that is what I went with.

But, I have taken alot away with me from reading and playing a little C&C. I am re-vamped my DMing philosophy.

The main one is,

1) You roll when there is a significant chance of failure. If it is all but certain to work, or will work given enough time (and the characters have time) BAM it works no roll needed.

2) Simplified Checks. I like the skill list in D&D, but I like having a set target number that then gets modified. So, I use that and don't worry about all the possible variables.

While for right now I am running a 3.5 game, I would run or play C&C in a heartbeat.

RK

 

[The Highway Man]

it seems like the actual system is pretty tight, and adding extraneous rules (like a skill system, or actual save-categories, or feats, or a sorcerer class) would break the system quite easily.

It's true, but then again, nobody asks you to make such modifications but yourself. The SIEGE engine runs well as written. Any modification that would add more to the plate is just icing, something you would choose to add deliberately while paying the price of less versatility for it.

In the end? It's for you to decide whether such modifications are necessary for the table to enjoy the game. I would advise against it, as it would run against C&C's design intents, but it has to depend on the particular players you have playing the game and what they expect out of the game's mechanics.

 

[Brutorz Bill]

Hello,


While for right now I am running a 3.5 game, I would run or play C&C in a heartbeat.

RK

We are currently playing 3.5 for some similar reasons, but I too would run or play C&C again. It's a fun game. Although Fallout 3 is so cool it's got me wanting to run a P.A. Campaign of some sort.
Too bad your in Mid. Tennessee, I'm in West Tn.
Later,
Bill

 

[daddystabz]

I completely agree with the OP. C&C is fantastic and I wish more gamers knew about it and would give it a chance.

 

[Crothian]

I completely agree with the OP. C&C is fantastic and I wish more gamers knew about it and would give it a chance.

Why? There are dozens and dozens RPGs out there few gamers can give each one a chance. Fantasy games seem to be the most numerous and with established games like the editions of D&D and Pathfinder that people enjoy gaming with each week why should they stop spend money on something else and devote time away from their campaign to it in the hopes they like it?

When C&C came out I bought it, I tried it, it was not for me. There are plenty of gamers who did that and went back to whatever game they play. But for some reason the C&C crowd (not unlike the Savage World people) can't seem to accept that people might not like the game. That doesn't mean they hate the Troll guys, or that they just don't get it.

I probably would have given C&C a second chance if not for the fans who get so defensive and react to ever little slight (real and imagined) against C&C. As I said there are dozens and dozens of games out there and I look for whatever reason to spend my money elsewhere. People who talk about their favorite game do so in the hopes of influencing others. And you've successful done that with me. I've been influenced to not play the game.

 

[daddystabz]

Well, Crothian, I would hope more gamers would give it a chance because I and many others find C&C to be a fantastic game that harkens back to the glorious early days of D&D while still maintaining modern game design principles. I never said it was for everyone or that people that do not like C&C are somehow stupid, as you seem to imply.

I'd assume anyone that enjoys a particular game would hope that others would enjoy it too and give it a chance.

As for your tastes, you always have 3.5/Pathfinder/4e or whatever else may float your boat.

 

[thedungeondelver]

I found myself putting so much AD&D back in that I just stuck with AD&D (descending armor class, saves vs. siege, etc. etc.).

Still, TROLL LORD GAMES do love their work and I wish them all the best.

 

[Votan]

Why? There are dozens and dozens RPGs out there few gamers can give each one a chance. Fantasy games seem to be the most numerous and with established games like the editions of D&D and Pathfinder that people enjoy gaming with each week why should they stop spend money on something else and devote time away from their campaign to it in the hopes they like it?
[\QUOTE]

I think it is worth recomemnding for people looking for a very specific niche. It is rules light (in the good sense) and fairly easy on DM preparation. There are alternative (good!) systems out there with Pathfinder and 4th edition Dungeons and Dragons being the most prominent. I currently referee Pathfinder so I am hardly adverse to using that system.

What I liked about Castles and Crusades was that it managed complexity fairly well. It doesn't feel like a perfect system but, in fact, some of it's more glaring imperfections tend to be charming (like in the AD&D sense). It is a system built by hobbyists, so far as I can tell (or professionals who are really good at mimicing that feel).

What I liked about 4th edition Dungeoons and Dragons is that it is really easy for a Dungeon Master. Encounters are easy to build, easy to plan and the combat system means that no encounter will be over in a heartbeat. That can be a huge preparation advantage for the DM.

What I liked about Pathfinder was amazing production quality and a thoughtful revision of a character centered game. In no other modern RPG is lovingly crafting a character jsut so much darn fun. Tons of options and many ways to get to the same outcome.

So I think there is a lot of room to like many systems, each for their own excellent merits.

 

[Zinovia]

It sounds like a great system for old school feel and using your first edition adventures. The thing I most disliked about older editions of D&D is Vancian spellcasting. Treebore's addition of an at-will magical blast would help, but it sounds like you'd still have to memorize spells. I always hated knowing that you had the perfect spell for a situation, if only you had chosen to prepare it that morning.

Thanks for the thread, it's good to hear what people like about different systems.