The Case For Castles & Crusades

[Deepfire]

The Castle Keepers Guide has different magic systems, I guess (have not read this section now) - though my most favourite magic system is HARPs - the amount of magic points you invest in a spell change it's effect

 

[Dragonhelm]

When C&C came out I bought it, I tried it, it was not for me.

Fair enough. At least you gave it a shot.

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.

Some of the C&C fans are very...passionate about their game. Not only for the reasons you mention, but also the idea that some folks may want to use it to formulate a rules-lite d20 system (which I wanted to do). I left the C&C boards at one point due to the excessive d20/WotC bashing.

That being said, there are people on the other side of the fence who criticize C&C when the opportunity arises. So it goes both ways. It's little different than the PF vs. 4e threads out there.

Personally, I don't get gaming fandom at times. I think we shouldn't be looking at what divides us, but rather at what we have in common. I think it's great that we have so many variations of RPGs, and in particular D&D. I enjoy 4e, C&C, and Pathfinder. I would play using any of those systems, or AD&D, or whatever so long as the premise of the game caught my attention.

My advice where C&C is concerned is to give it a chance and base your decision on the game's merits and your own preferences. If it's for you, great! If not, there are all sorts of other alternatives out there. When the day is done, we can all come from our respective games and talk about how much fun we had killing monsters and taking their stuff.

 

[Estlor]

The issue I had with C&C (and it's been a while since I looked at my books so forgive me if I get a few of the details wrong) was it tried too hard to be a retro, 1E style game that some changes were made just for the sake of changing. A great example were the saving throws. I seem to recall it going back to the archaic OD&D setup (Poison/Petrify/Paralysis, Rod/Staff/Wand, Death Magic, Breath Weapons, etc) when the Fort/Ref/Will model was in every regard easier to grasp, faster to apply, and generally better suited to a game that intended to be rules light than what they went with.

Ultimately, it's like the designers couldn't decide if they wanted to be a rules light 3e or an updated 1e and tried to do both to the detriment of the final product.

 

[Imaro]

The issue I had with C&C (and it's been a while since I looked at my books so forgive me if I get a few of the details wrong) was it tried too hard to be a retro, 1E style game that some changes were made just for the sake of changing. A great example were the saving throws. I seem to recall it going back to the archaic OD&D setup (Poison/Petrify/Paralysis, Rod/Staff/Wand, Death Magic, Breath Weapons, etc) when the Fort/Ref/Will model was in every regard easier to grasp, faster to apply, and generally better suited to a game that intended to be rules light than what they went with.

Ultimately, it's like the designers couldn't decide if they wanted to be a rules light 3e or an updated 1e and tried to do both to the detriment of the final product.

Well one of the advantages (dependent of course on ones own preferences) of the saving throws in CnC vs. the Fort/Ref/Will is that you don't have any real dump stats... it makes every stat matter at least somewhat because it is attached to a particular save.

 

[Treebore]

Well one of the advantages (dependent of course on ones own preferences) of the saving throws in CnC vs. the Fort/Ref/Will is that you don't have any real dump stats... it makes every stat matter at least somewhat because it is attached to a particular save.

Exactly. I didn't like "dump stats" and C&C fixed that by giving every attribute a reason to be important, and to make and having Primes important. Humans having that third Prime is very significant. When my players pick their demi humans to play, and they often do, they definitely give up something significant to have all those racial advantages.

 

[Treebore]

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.

The fact that you gave it a fair try is good with me, I know C&C is a big adjustment to make. Heck, my "try out game" was about 6th level before I started to fall in love with it. I had a lot of conceptions from 3E and other RPG's to get over in order to even be able to start appreciating how the SIEGE engine does things, but now I am definitely a rock solid fan.

Plus don't ever think I am a "one RPG" type of guy. Every week I play 2 games of C&C, 1 of Hackmaster Basic, 1 of Star Wars Saga, 1 of Legend of the 5 Rings 4E (SW SAGA and L5R alternate), I run Starblazer Adventures on Thursday, and I play Eclipse Phase on Fridays. The only evening I don't play an RPG for at least 3 hours is Monday. Except today I will be playing because I will be gone for up to 8 days starting tomorrow.

So I like and play a lot of RPG's.

 

[rogueattorney]

I find that C&C tries to be too many things to too many people, and doesn't do any of those things well.

There are better takes on "rules-lighter" 3e. There are better takes on "revised AD&D."

Many find that it hits their "AD&D spot." It doesn't for me, at all. It scraps all the little fiddly bits that were AD&D to me and replaces it with the SIEGE system. Maybe it's a 1e-2e thing. It feels a lot like 2e to me, completely vanilla, which is simply not what I'm looking for in AD&D. If I need an in-print AD&D, OSRIC or Labyrinth Lord with the AEC are both better bets.

It's not particularly rules light. Maybe by comparison to 3e it is. But by comparison to pretty much anything else, it's not. If I want rules light, I'll play Basic D&D. If I want rules light with a unified mechanic, I think both Tunnels & Trolls and the new Dragon Age RPG are superior games.

Of the half-dozen or so C&C adventures I have, I have found them to be between average and horrendous in quality. The cartography, in particular, is quite poor with keys and scale often missing and multiple occasions where the description in the text fails to match the map. In one adventure, U3 Verdant Rage, they forgot to include a map. They made it available as a download, but still it shows the lack of concern they seem to have for what I consider to be the single most important aspect of an adventure.

Of the C&C products I own, I find the original "Nostalgia" boxed set that came out back in 2004 or so to be by far their best product. If I were to recommend a C&C product to anyone, that would be it. Also, Gabor "Melan" Lux has made at least three fine free C&C adventures that I'd recommend people track down.

 

[fanboy2000]

Zack, you seem like a smart, well spoken individual. I've never played C&C, but I'm willing to try anything 3 times.

But really the only thing on my mind is "how have you managed to have 0 posts?" Seriously, is this the first time you've posted? I find it interesting that the guy with the highest post count is posting in a thread started buy a guy with the lowest possible post count.

 

[Treebore]

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.

If you don't like the Vancian memorization system you can always just use the SIEGE engine to have them make a check to successfully cast a spell, using the spell level as the CL. If you find the CL makes it to easy double it, experiment. See if you can find something that makes you happy. Heck, if you have a system you like I bet I can help you match it up to the SIEGE engine if your interested enough.

 

[Treebore]

I find that C&C tries to be too many things to too many people, and doesn't do any of those things well.

There are better takes on "rules-lighter" 3e. There are better takes on "revised AD&D."

Many find that it hits their "AD&D spot." It doesn't for me, at all. It scraps all the little fiddly bits that were AD&D to me and replaces it with the SIEGE system. Maybe it's a 1e-2e thing. It feels a lot like 2e to me, completely vanilla, which is simply not what I'm looking for in AD&D. If I need an in-print AD&D, OSRIC or Labyrinth Lord with the AEC are both better bets.

It's not particularly rules light. Maybe by comparison to 3e it is. But by comparison to pretty much anything else, it's not. If I want rules light, I'll play Basic D&D. If I want rules light with a unified mechanic, I think both Tunnels & Trolls and the new Dragon Age RPG are superior games.

Of the half-dozen or so C&C adventures I have, I have found them to be between average and horrendous in quality. The cartography, in particular, is quite poor with keys and scale often missing and multiple occasions where the description in the text fails to match the map. In one adventure, U3 Verdant Rage, they forgot to include a map. They made it available as a download, but still it shows the lack of concern they seem to have for what I consider to be the single most important aspect of an adventure.

Of the C&C products I own, I find the original "Nostalgia" boxed set that came out back in 2004 or so to be by far their best product. If I were to recommend a C&C product to anyone, that would be it. Also, Gabor "Melan" Lux has made at least three fine free C&C adventures that I'd recommend people track down.

I agree C&C is Vanilla, but the other reason I remain a fan is because I found it easy to spice up to be precisely what I like, once I became a fan of the SIEGE engine, which did take me some time. Like I didn't get rid of my skill system I mention back in the 2008 posts in this thread until last year, now I just use the pure SIEGE engine. Lots of people like granularity, I like simple and gets the job done, and for me the SIEGE engine does that better than any mechanic I am aware of.

So if you don't like house ruling, and want a system pretty much ready to go as is, I doubt C&C and its SIEGE engine will be liked.

See, to me, C&C is a lot like a cake. C&C is the basic cake mix, and then it was up to me to decorate it until I was perfectly happy with how it looks. It took me a while, in fact it took me several years to get to where I am now with it, but it paid of in giving me absolutely the best RPG cake I could ask for.

So C&C is definitely not for everyone. For a good while I doubted it was for me. Now I am darn glad I stuck with it because I could not ask for a better D&D style RPG. It gives me everything I want, largely because I added a lot of what I want.

I mean, look at my house rules, I certainly do not run it by the book. It is MY C&C, not TLG's C&C. Which is why I love it so much.

I agree their modules are very hit and miss. One module in particular really irritated me, but I fixed the problems, ran it, and we had a lot of fun. One thing I have found consistently weird, the modules I had to "fix" are the ones my players most frequently comment on as being among their favorite "events", and the events they refer to were the ones in the modules, not one of my fixes. So I guess its like finding a diamond within a lump of coal. I haven't ran into the map/description compatibility much, but I did in that module that ticked me off. Still glad I ran it, though.