"Try Castles & Crusades", they say. But no one's playing it!

[trancejeremy]

What I don't understand, is why play C&C, when you can play real AD&D 1st edition?

C&C is basically trying to emulate AD&D, but carries over a lot of stuff from 3e, and the result is IMHO, a mess.

 

[Flexor the Mighty!]

What I don't understand, is why play C&C, when you can play real AD&D 1st edition?

C&C is basically trying to emulate AD&D, but carries over a lot of stuff from 3e, and the result is IMHO, a mess.

How so? I haven't found that to be true in play but maybe we aren't seeing what you are seeing. It is a simple version of D20 IMO more than a version of 1e.

 

[Akrasia]

In my last group I was the DM, and after running a 3.5 campaign for about a year (which had a satisfying conclusion), I insisted that we switch to C&C for the next campaign -- if I was going to continue to DM. (There were various reasons for this, viz. certain frustrations I had with the 3.5 rules, and an increasingly busy RL schedule which made prepping for 3.5 not feasible.)

Since the players wanted me to keep DM'ing, we all agreed that the person doing most of the 'work' should pick the system, and so we switched to C&C. One player was quite unhappy with the switch, but went along with it. Everyone else seemed perfectly fine with it.

The point of my story is that if you're the DM, and your players want you to continue being the DM, you can appeal to their sense of fairness, and explain that while you're no longer willing to DM 3.5, you are willing to DM C&C. You might express a willingness to compromise by introducing some houserules into your game to appease some of the players' demands. But ultimately, if you're going to do all the work necessary as a DM, it seems unreasonable for your players not to try to accommodate your needs. And if they are that unreasonable, let someone else DM!

I've been to four FLGS in the past four weeks, as well as some larger chain bookstores that have a lot of RPGs (relatively speaking), and I have never seen a C&C rulebook.

Yeah, well anecdotal evidence is hardly a good indicator of the overall success of a product.

While I agree that C&C's market presence could be better, the game has done well enough to warrant a second printing of the PHB, and a third printing looks likely. In addition, other companies like Goodman Games have produced material for C&C. So the game does have some presence in the market.

 

[Akrasia]

How so? I haven't found that to be true in play but maybe we aren't seeing what you are seeing. It is a simple version of D20 IMO more than a version of 1e.

Flexor, my advice: Just ignore trancejeremy. He often seems to make trolling statements like the one above, and never bothers to back them up.

 

[ruleslawyer]

Now now. Play nice, kids.

As to the original statement: I can't agree that "it's not the game, it's the players" is an inapplicable stock response. It's actually, IMHO, the right answer here. IMX, if you have REALLY casual players, they won't care what game system you run; I have one friend who's prejudiced against AD&D (3e seems to have taken care of most of his concerns), but otherwise, I've never had a problem getting my friends roped in to a game, whether it's Shadowrun, D&D, Ars Magica, Marvel Superheroes, or whatever. You do seem to have a particular group of players: Specifically, you have some serious powergamers, and you have some people who know every little 3.5 rules option out there. (My guess is that those people may be the same thing, although there are certainly enough counter-examples out there.)

The problem is twofold, I take it:

1) your rules-master types have spent time and effort achieving rules mastery, and they're going to be threatened by the prospect of abandoning their cherished familiarity and skill with the rules and having to build it up again in another system.

2) Your more casual players may feel like knowing a little about D&D should be plenty; they don't want to spend the cash or the time to know a little about a second ruleset.

So here's what I suggest. I do *not* recommend C&C because I actually think that it's more complicated than it should be. While C&C has fewer rules than 3e, they share the 1e/2e problem of lacking unified mechanics. Thus, by dropping skills and feats, C&C has instead embedded some of those mechanics into randomly-located class features. The fact is that the ranger's climbing or hiding abilities create just as many rules to look up as the CLimb or Hide skills do; it's just that those abilities are confined to one class... and, to be perfectly honest, aren't as straightforward as in D&D. Then there are the different XP tables, et cetera.

What I'd recommend is a stripped-down D&D game. Ditch the optional rules; stick to the core three and nothing else. No PrCs, no splatbook feats, and so on. Remove attacks of opportunity and related feats; just state that any action other than an attack performed in a threatened square provokes an immediate melee attack from the opponent. You really can unplug lots of elements from D&D before you skew it irretrievably.

 

[DungeonmasterCal]

Troll Lords is based here in Little Rock, and I knew some of those guys in college. One of their playtesters/editors plays in my sporadic D&D 3.5 game. He's offered to run C&C for us, but only myself and one other person showed any interest. Plus, we just don't have time for more than one on again/off again game. I like the system, just can't squeeze it in.

 

[JohnSnow]

Since the players wanted me to keep DM'ing, we all agreed that the person doing most of the 'work' should pick the system, and so we switched to C&C. One player was quite unhappy with the switch, but went along with it. Everyone else seemed perfectly fine with it.

I'd say more "skeptical" than "unhappy."

When we had more experience with the system, I found myself enjoying it. However, there's something I feel could have been added to it that would have enhanced my enjoyment of the game. Iron Heroes adds skill challenges, attack challenges and stunts where you pull off cool moves in exchange for bonuses, or take penalties to one thing in exchange for a benefit elsewhere. Like a "wild swing" where you take a penalty to your chance to hit, in exchange for a bonus to damage (like Power Attack, just not as good). Think of them as feat-like things anyone can do.

That would have gone a LONG way toward assuaging my big issue with C&C, which is the point where combat becomes a series of "I whack A" or "I shoot B" because it lacks meaningful tactical options for everyone but the spellcaster. But, that's a detail. And one I think the system above would have fixed. Without making things any more complicated to run or prep. Basically, just codified rules for "trying to do something cool."

So Akrasia, are you still playing C&C, or have you shifted to True 20?

The DM determining the system is definitely the best trade-off. I think had we kept things going, we would have gotten some very cool campaigns out of it, without burning anyone out. Unfortunately, real life intervened, and the group kinda dissolved last Xmas. We keep threatening to get back together, but it hasn't happened yet.

 

[Akrasia]

Hi John!

I'd say more "skeptical" than "unhappy." ...

Fair enough! I didn't mean to misrepresent your position.

... However, there's something I feel could have been added to it that would have enhanced my enjoyment of the game. Iron Heroes adds skill challenges, attack challenges and stunts where you pull off cool moves in exchange for bonuses, or take penalties to one thing in exchange for a benefit elsewhere. Like a "wild swing" where you take a penalty to your chance to hit, in exchange for a bonus to damage (like Power Attack, just not as good). Think of them as feat-like things anyone can do.

That would have gone a LONG way toward assuaging my big issue with C&C ...

That's an interesting idea. I would definitely consider it (or something like it) for any future C&C campaign.

There are also some rules for 'constructing classes' (breaking down the various class abilities into experience costs, and allowing GMs and players to 'build' their own classes, if they wish) that I would probably use in the future as well.

... So Akrasia, are you still playing C&C, or have you shifted to True 20? ...

I am in the process of wrapping up a 'play-by-post' C&C campaign over at RPG.net (essentially, a Conan-ish 'swords-and-sorcery' game with lots of house rules). I took over for the GM who quit last October after starting up the game (I was a player). After almost 11 months we managed to complete one adventure (albeit a pretty big one). While a fun experience, I see now that PBP games are way too slow for my tastes.

As for 'real life' games, I joined a group here in Dublin last spring. The DM (an ENworlder who goes by 'Rydac') started a 3.5 campaign using the 'Age of Worms' adventure path. The players were a mix of experienced gamers (myself and one other guy) and newbies (the other three players). Unfortunately, the campaign died out in late June, as the DM could no longer continue because of other commitments and some personal issues (although he seems keen to continue with the group as a player).

So it looks like I will be running a game again soon (hopefully starting later this month). It will either be 3.5 D&D or C&C. I feel a slight obligation to run something for 3.5, given the expectations of the players at this stage, although I may see what they think about C&C (which obviously would be my preference!). If I do go with 3.5, I'll have to think about some house rules to make the game run more smoothly (for me). In addition, while I'll be using my 'Ilmahal' setting, I will probably rely on premade adventures (most likely some DCCs from Goodman Games) instead of trying to do most of the prep work myself (like I did for our campaign), and limit the campaign to the lower levels (since I shudder at the prospect of running 3.5 for levels 10+, although that obviously did not become an issue for us).

As for True20, I would really like to try it out, but just haven't had the opportunity yet.

... the group kinda dissolved last Xmas. We keep threatening to get back together, but it hasn't happened yet.

That's really too bad, as it was a good group. Hopefully you will get something going again.


[Apologies to the rest of the ENworld community for this rather specific correspondence. ]

 

[Akrasia]

Now now. Play nice, kids.

Ummm ... I'm not a 'kid', and was merely conveying my past experience with trancejeremy in the hope of sparing Flexor some grief.

If you think that my post violated the forum rules, then by all means feel free to report it to the mods. Otherwise, spare me the patronising attitude.

... So here's what I suggest. I do *not* recommend C&C because I actually think that it's more complicated than it should be. While C&C has fewer rules than 3e, they share the 1e/2e problem of lacking unified mechanics...

*sigh*. This is false. C&C has precisely the same 'unified mechanic' as 3e, viz., the 'roll-d20-higher-is-always-better' mechanic. It uses that mechanic for pretty much everything that 3e does (combat, class abilities, saving throws, etc.). And I fail to see why 'class abilities' in C&C are any more complicated than 'class abilities' in 3e.

...
What I'd recommend is a stripped-down D&D game. Ditch the optional rules; stick to the core three and nothing else. No PrCs, no splatbook feats, and so on. Remove attacks of opportunity and related feats; just state that any action other than an attack performed in a threatened square provokes an immediate melee attack from the opponent. You really can unplug lots of elements from D&D before you skew it irretrievably.

Well, this is a constructive suggestion. I'd be curious to see how it worked in practice.

 

[Ulrick]

I bought C&C, tried it, didn't like it, sold the books.

Yes, it is a stripped down version of D&D 3.5/3.0.

Yes, you can use 1st Edition Modules with it with little effort.

Yes, combat is simplified and goes a little faster.

The thing that annoyed me was that it wasn't very compatible with d20 (and all the frickin' spelling and grammatical errors in the Player's Guide!!!).

How I feel about C&C is best summed up by der_kluge is his review of the Player's Guide:

But you’re saying to yourself, “Damnit, der_kluge, what the hell is your point?!” And that’s fair enough. My point is this – you’re either going to love C&C, or you’re going to dislike it a lot. Reviewing it from an unbiased viewpoint is next to impossible. This certainly is rules light, but to paraphrase Star Wars “these aren’t the rules-light rules you’re looking for”. I think they could have done much better. To be clear, I’m no 3rd edition whore, either. I think 3rd edition has some horrible problems. The system I truly want doesn’t exist yet. Maybe it will someday, but it’s not out there yet.

I think the bottom line is this: if you’re looking for a system that will enable you to easily run a game of D&D, without thinking too hard about it, and you could care less about the frustrations of your player trying to make a social rogue, or a dex-based fighter, than C&C is for you. But, if you’re looking for a system that truly is bounded only by your imagination, then I have to believe this isn’t it.

http://www.enworld.org/reviews.php?do=review&reviewid=2402441