The Ghost in the Machine - Castles & Crusades (and GT, BR, DL, 3E, etc)

[Mythmere1]

There are so many threads in which Castles & Crusades is being compared to one game or another - mainly 3E (fairly obviously) and now Blue Rose. These discussions have almost exclusively focused on game mechanics: Blue Rose has three archetypes, 3E has varied skills, Castles & Crusades has the SIEGE engine for skill resolution, etc.

I think these discussions miss the point almost entirely. I know they miss the point with Castles & Crusades, and I suspect they miss the point with Blue Rose and other alternate systems as well.

The point of an alternate rules system isn't to have an alternate rules system; it's to have a game that provides a different gaming feel from other games. I'm certain that the "Romantic Fantasy" tag on BR indicates that the designers were aiming for a different feel from normal d20. I'm sure that Wulf would point out that a "Grim Tale" is defined by the feel of play, not by the rules system. Deadlands' rule system (the original, not the d20) provided a wonky and unreliable feel, totally consonant with the setting.

What's important about Castles & Crusades isn't the minutiae of whether there are skills or whether characters can be optimized or balanced like in 3E. What's important to Castles & Crusades (and other alternate systems) is the overall feel of the game in play.

This is extraordinarily hard to convey over the net, and I wish I could adequately convey what it is that makes Castles & Crusades so remarkable. If I were to try and compare what's really important about Castles & Crusades vis a vis BR or GT, it's not so much the rules themselves, but their cumulative effect.

All these games have a ghost in the machine. We play them for the ghost, not for the machine.

When someone once described original Deadlands as "wonky," that single word really hit the nail on the head. I've heard Castles & Crusades described as "old school," and that approaches it but doesn't capture the game's essence. It's not a nostalgia game. In fact, most of the people I've seen on the boards describe the nostalgia component as the excitement of the old days, not the game of the old days. I focus more on the fact that BR is described as "Romantic Fantasy" than the fact that the three archetypes draw on d20 modern rather than on 3E. "Romantic Fantasy" tells me more. "Grim" in Grim Tales tells me more than the fact that it's a distillation of the "best" rules in d20.

Castles & Crusades hasn't yet gotten a good tag line that captures the ghost in its machine.

Anyone else feel this way?

 

[Henry]

When someone once described original Deadlands as "wonky," that single word really hit the nail on the head. I've heard Castles & Crusades described as "old school," and that approaches it but doesn't capture the game's essence. It's not a nostalgia game. In fact, most of the people I've seen on the boards describe the nostalgia component as the excitement of the old days, not the game of the old days. I focus more on the fact that BR is described as "Romantic Fantasy" than the fact that the three archetypes draw on d20 modern rather than on 3E. "Romantic Fantasy" tells me more. "Grim" in Grim Tales tells me more than the fact that it's a distillation of the "best" rules in d20.

Well, Blue Rose doesn't really draw on d20 Modern - if anything, it draws more on Mutants and Masterminds, interestingly enough, and even more on the "three archetypes" (warrior, adept, and skill-user) found in the Unearthed Arcana WotC sourcebook.

Pedantic point aside, I can see where you're going with it, but I think the reason for the comaprisons is that various poeple are looking for something different than what's in 3E, to play D&D with. This "disgruntled segment" (the best way I can describe it) like the flexibility that feats/classes/skills provides, but want it with less rigidity than the numerous spelled-out exceptions, clauses, and rules in 3E. They want a rulebook that's "bare-bones d20" they can hand out in their groups and say "here" and not have to worry about giving someone a 40-page house-rule document that they cut-and-pasted out of the SRD. I'm beginning to think that this is what Blue Rose is going to provide for this core of people, they just don't know it yet.

I like C&C because it's basically an "in-print" 1st edition AD&D, with the rougher edges filed off (like combat matrices, demi-human level limits, etc.) But it's more like "90% AD&D, and 10% 3E." Some people want about "70% 3E, with about 30% Feng Shui or Fuzion." These I think are the people who constantly compare the newer releases, hoping, just hoping, that one of these designers is going to have their finger on the pulse of what THEY want, without having to kludge it together themselves in some inelegant bundle-pak they hand out at their table.

 

[Mythmere1]

Well, Blue Rose doesn't really draw on d20 Modern - if anything, it draws more on Mutants and Masterminds, interestingly enough, and even more on the "three archetypes" (warrior, adept, and skill-user) found in the Unearthed Arcana WotC sourcebook.

d20 Modern was my best guess based on limited familiarity - I haven't read UA - in d20 modern the three classes are based on a similar model, and that's all I was familiar with. I defer, here.

They want a rulebook that's "bare-bones d20" they can hand out in their groups and say "here" and not have to worry about giving someone a 40-page house-rule document that they cut-and-pasted out of the SRD.

I hear you - that's where I started the search that led me to Castles & Crusades. My 10 year old is mildly autistic, and can't handle the full 3E ruleset even though he devours Monster Manuals and plays Baldur's Gate avidly. Castles & Crusades has such a quick learning curve that he picked it up right away, and so did my 8 year old. I owe TLG a real debt for designing a game I can play with my kids, because they love the fantasy genre. We tried 3E, but it was an attention-span disaster. Whether a game is rules light or not, though, is somewhat beside the point - as I said in the original post, I don't think this sort of analysis conveys what a game is really about. General rules-lightness has a qualitative as well as a quantitative effect - Castles & Crusades' faster pace changes the feel of the game (to my mind, into something more exciting and heroic) - and that's the important part.

I like C&C because it's basically an "in-print" 1st edition AD&D, with the rougher edges filed off (like combat matrices, demi-human level limits, etc.) But it's more like "90% AD&D, and 10% 3E." Some people want about "70% 3E, with about 30% Feng Shui or Fuzion." These I think are the people who constantly compare the newer releases, hoping, just hoping, that one of these designers is going to have their finger on the pulse of what THEY want, without having to kludge it together themselves in some inelegant bundle-pak they hand out at their table.

I like the idea of these percentages - they do convey at least a basic idea of the "ghost in the machine" for those familiar with the systems used as a reference point. I haven't played either feng shui or fusion. I'd differ slightly on the Castles & Crusades as 90% AD&D and 10% 3E. There's something else in that mix.

Maybe this, breaking out of the system model (and not entirely sensical):
40% AD&D as it actually is (was)
20% How you remember AD&D through rose-colored glasses
10% 3E
5% Freakin' easy to prepare adventures
5% Fun-to-read rulebooks with high-flown vocabulary and over-dramatic examples
10% That weird combo of Sword & Sorcery, Medieval grit, and Jack Vance
10% something else

The "something else" can probably be described using a game system I'm not familiar with. It's the streamlined skill system model that isn't 3E - bundled skills. I'm sure other games have done this before C&C.

 

[Akrasia]

I agree with your point, Mythmere.

Henry, IME C&C 'in play' feels a lot more like RC or B/X D&D than OAD&D.

I would say C&C is:

40 percent OAD&D (race and class options; class descriptions; 'style')
40 percent RC/B D&D (speed of play; consistent ability modifiers; simplified system)
10 percent 3e (the 'unified d20 mechanic' stuff)
10 percent New Stuff (the 'SIEGE' system)

DMing it is great -- it involves minimal prep time and reminds me of the best aspects of earlier editions.

And as a game, it does 'feel different than 3e. I would describe the 'feel of play' as: "the rules fade into the background". Questions about feats, attacks of opportunities, modifiers, etc. almost never come up. In contrast, when I DM'ed my 3e game, rules questions and calculations were ubiquitous.

 

[Wraith Form]

I fully understand that mechanics make not the sum total of the game...but the rules engine plays a factor in the grand scheme.

As one who started a C&C vs ___(insert game here)___ thread, all I can say is that sometimes different ghosts can reside in the same machine. Let's take the Blue Rose machine, but yank out it's default ghost.

I don't give a tinker's damn about 'romantic fantasy,' although the Blue Rose description of being "less about fighting and more about interaction" strongly appeals to me. I would use the rules engine to accomplish the types of games I like (which are going to be more about political intrigue/conspiracy/horror and less about fighting). If I can speed up combat to the point where it's 'cinematic,' and have streamlined rules and less questions, that's great--that's what I'm looking for. I like simple, I like social, and I like a unified set of rules.

If C&C offers the same, but I don't have to spend my $$ on a 'romantic fantasy' setting included with the book, then C&C's the game I'm looking for. That's what I'm trying to determine without spending $$ on both sets of books, and thus the point of my C&C vs. Blue Rose thread.

And, as Henry said, having a single handbook with a single rules engine that my players buy, where I just say across the board "this is it" without modding or houseruling, is a bonus.

If you consider that to be "missing the point," that's cool....and that's your opinion. I want a tool that works for the type of craftsmanship that I'm practicing--that'd be storytelling & refereeing, to make it clear--and the only way I can get that tool (without buying two books) is to ask questions about both, comparing & contrasting them, then buying the one that fits best.

(P.S. I felt the tone of your initial post in this thread was haughty, and it puzzles me why you'd take an 'superior' stance for something that doesn't effect you in any way. You have an obvious preference for C&C, and that's fine. Who cares if we want to compare different rules engines to C&C? If you don't want to, that's great--nobody's forcing you to, nor are we forcing you to read our threads. I'm not mad, I'm just put off by your tone.)

 

[MoogleEmpMog]

I can see where Mythmere is going with his idea of a "ghost in the machine" - I would use "vibe" - but I think he misrepresents both Grim Tales and Blue Rose.

Grim Tales doesn't have to be terribly grim. It's a toolkit with an emphasis on pulpy feel. It is intentionally lower-magic than D&D; so is Jeeves and Wooster, but I wouldn't call it grim. Indiana Jones is comparatively low magic, or at least rare magic, and it's also pulpy - but it's not grim. The words "grim tales," although they key in on the possibility of running a gritty game, tie as much into titles like "thrilling tales" or "terror stories" - pulpy.

Blue Rose's romantic fantasy flavor comes from its setting, not its rules per say. It's not a "vibe" or a "ghost in the machine," it's explicit in the flavor text. Yet I see no reason that the actual rules lend themselves to this vibe and Nisarg is apparently having a great time running it utterly bereft of romantic fanatsy. If there's an underlying vibe to Blue Rose, it's the emphasis on social skills and the lowered importance of combat.

 

[Wraith Form]

I can see where Mythmere is going with his idea of a "ghost in the machine" - I would use "vibe" - but I think he misrepresents both Grim Tales and Blue Rose.

Grim Tales doesn't have to be terribly grim. It's a toolkit with an emphasis on pulpy feel. It is intentionally lower-magic than D&D; so is Jeeves and Wooster, but I wouldn't call it grim. Indiana Jones is comparatively low magic, or at least rare magic, and it's also pulpy - but it's not grim. The words "grim tales," although they key in on the possibility of running a gritty game, tie as much into titles like "thrilling tales" or "terror stories" - pulpy.

Blue Rose's romantic fantasy flavor comes from its setting, not its rules per say. It's not a "vibe" or a "ghost in the machine," it's explicit in the flavor text. Yet I see no reason that the actual rules lend themselves to this vibe and Nisarg is apparently having a great time running it utterly bereft of romantic fanatsy. If there's an underlying vibe to Blue Rose, it's the emphasis on social skills and the lowered importance of combat.

Uh, thanks. That's essentailly what I was trying to say, but less elegantly.

 

[Dragonhelm]

Each game system has its own feel. What appeals to one player may not to another. I like to think that each game system has something good to offer.

I like C&C for the simplicity of it all, especially where combat is concerned. It's got a good old-school feel to it, and hearkens back to the heart of D&D.

I like the customization that comes along with d20. Multiclassing is better here, and I also like prestige classes.

I don't have Blue Rose yet, so I really can't comment on it.


For that "vibe" that you feel C&C needs, I would say it already has it. It's the spirit of old-school D&D with some new-school flair. You might say that it's the "missing link" of D&D editions.

What I'm finding is that I use different rules systems for different settings. I find this to be exceedingly funny, as I used to want one universal system. When I got it, I go for different systems per setting. lol

It seems like some settings do better in one rules system over another. For example, I'd probably use C&C for running some old AD&D modules, for C&C modules, maybe for Greyhawk, etc. I would use D&D for Dragonlance, though, since I feel that 3e is the best rules system for DL.

Why? Well, the feel. One of Dragonlance's themes is working up to join the ranks of the Wizards of High Sorcery or one of the knighthoods. I think 3e works very well for this with the prestige class system.

Let's take another example. L5R has been done in both the d10 system and the d20 system. Both systems are good systems, yet the d10 system seems to work better in many ways for L5R. That's largely due to the fact that the d10 system is built around L5R.

I think I'm going on a tangent here...

Whatever the case, go with the rules system that best fits the feel of the game, and which works best for you.

 

[Akrasia]

...
What I'm finding is that I use different rules systems for different settings. I find this to be exceedingly funny, as I used to want one universal system. When I got it, I go for different systems per setting. lol

It seems like some settings do better in one rules system over another. For example, I'd probably use C&C for running some old AD&D modules, for C&C modules, maybe for Greyhawk, etc. I would use D&D for Dragonlance, though, since I feel that 3e is the best rules system for DL.
...

I agree with this 100 percent.

I would especially say that C&C recreates the 'feel' of Vance, Howard, and Lieber better than any game now in the market.

Right now I am running a campaign in a very 'Lyonesse' (Jack Vance) setting -- and C&C is perfect for it!

3e might be better for DL (though I never liked DL, so I don't really care about that). But it just has not worked for the kinds of settings I like.

I would never use d20 Modern to run a Buffy/Angel game -- Eden's system captures the 'feel' of those shows far better.

Different systems for different genres, indeed.

 

[bolie]

My big problem with C&C is not the rules or the system per se, it's the execution. I have been pretty hard on the system probably because I do like the idea of a simplified system. Unfortunately, the C&C PHB is riddled with grammatical, spelling, and formatting errors as well as significant rules problems.

The rules in the PHB were obviously written from the 3e SRD and then modified. In many places, though, rules are still there from the SRD that don't make sense with the changes that have been made. In other cases, rules in the PHB were obviously written by someone who did not know (either because no one knew or someone didn't tell him) how monsters would be handled. This has led to no end of frustration for me as I try to figure out how the system should work.

Advocates of the system continually point out that the system is designed to be house ruled. I'm all for that and I'm all for the idea of modular subsystems in the CKG. I think that's a really cool idea. Here's a basic system. Want feats? Here's a feat subsystem. Want more detail on skills? Here's how. Etc.. .

However, being "designed to be house ruled" does not make up for inconsistencies in the rules as written.

Hopefully, the second printing will fix all of these problems and then I will most likely be very happy.

I still like 3.5e for it's tactical complexity, but that doesn't prevent me from liking C&C for it's simplicity. I eat and enjoy both McDonald's AND Pappasitos.

Bolie IV