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

[bento]

Not wanting to hijack away from C&C, but I was able to get my players to switch from D&D 3.5 to True20 by first showing them in a one-shot how it works, then converting over a well-remembered campaign from last year using the rules.

My reasons for switching are similar - rules bloat and problems with combat becoming too drawn out.

After the one-shot I had several players keen on the new rules and the flexibility of the system. One player who was skeptical I worked with to create a new character race from scratch and he's even happier now because he's playing a race that hasn't been statted out for play in 3.5

Big storm coming through - gotta go!

 

[Philotomy Jurament]

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.

Huh? The SIEGE engine is a unified mechanic, and it's used for ability checks, saving throws, skill-like abilities, and feat-like maneuvers. Attacks aren't resolved under the SIEGE engine, but use the same basic mechanic (i.e. roll a d20, with modifiers, to hit the target number).

Skills and feats weren't "dropped" so much as "rolled into the SIEGE engine." Class abilities aren't terribly different from 3E class abilities, it's just that skills and feats are simplified. Also abilities aren't confined to one class, necessarily. However, if you're attempting something that's the bailiwick of a different class you don't get to add your PC level to the check. (Obviously, some class abilities are truly exclusive -- like spells, for example).

Then there are the different XP tables, et cetera.

Indeed. The 3E approach is to use a single XP table and then attempt to balance every class at every level; that's a difficult proposition, especially with PrCs, etc. The approach of all the other editions of D&D, and of C&C, is to allow (or recognize) some classes as being more potent, and balance the whole by changing the XP needed depending on how powerful the class is. IMO, C&C's approach to balancing classes works as well, or better, than the "balance every class at every level" approach.

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.

That's not a bad approach. I've done something similar, and it does make things better, but there was a constant pull (mostly by the players) to add the excluded material back into the mix. I found that making a clean break with a different system worked better.

My $.02, FWIW.

 

[Philotomy Jurament]

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!!!).

The second printing reorganized and cleaned up the Players Handbook. It's much better, now.

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

Hmm. If you want a social rogue, make Cha one of your primes, and you'll have a rogue that's good at all the Cha-based stuff. If you want a Dex-based fighter, make Dex a prime. Just that step right there (appropriate ability as Prime) would be a damn good start, since a Prime stat is basically equivalent to a +6 bonus on ability/skill checks.

I tend to see the more open rules as more freedom and fewer bounds. Ah well, different tastes -- that's why it's good that there is more than one system out there.

 

[wingsandsword]

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

Neither is the presence by a handful of dedicated fans on the internet. The internet is remarkably good at making a small number of people look like they are a big number of people.

When I only ever see one copy of the C&C players handbook on the shelf at the largest FLGS I know among piles of other d20 games, and it never moves, and I've never seen it at any other FLGS or bookstore, and of the dozens of gamers I know IRL I've never heard them talk about running it, or buying it, or even discussing it, I've never seen any ads for C&C games forming on the bulletin boards at any FLGS I visit (I see WoD, D&D, Arcana Evolved & d20 Modern in droves, along with local larps).

Compare all that to a small number of highly dedicated fans who I read posts on a message board on the internet who swear that it's a high selling popular game, and I'll use my eyes and conclude that C&C is a small-time niche product with a small and highly dedicated fanbase, but it is not widespread nor very popular in the overall roleplaying community.

This is not to pass judgment on the quality of the game, for those who want what it offers, C&C may be a fine game, but for those who like it, it will be hard to spread the game in real life since many gamers will never have heard of it, may well not be interested in the niche it offers, and are happy with what they already have, and it may be hard to find at local gaming stores.

 

[Akrasia]

... and I'll use my eyes and conclude that C&C is a small-time niche product with a small and highly dedicated fanbase, but it is not widespread nor very popular in the overall roleplaying community. ...

Look, the fact of the matter is that the first printing of the C&C PHB sold out, and the second printing of the PHB is selling well enough that a third printing is very likely.

In the current RPG market, that's a huge success, your anecdotal evidence notwithstanding.

And according to James Mishler, whose job involves following games sales at brick-and-mortar shops, C&C products move second only to Goodman Games' DCCs among third-party d20 products.

So sorry, wingsandsword, your personal observations fail to refute the actual success of C&C.

(However, I do wish that C&C products were more widely available.)

 

[Remathilis]

While I never played C&C, I did read the PH practically cover to cover and it didn't impress me. I'd sooner play Rule's Cyclopedia D&D (warts and all) and call it nostalgia than play a hybrid system with none of the charm and memory of Old D&D and none of the option and consistancy of 3.5.

To your problem though.

A page of houserules can fix your problem. Begin with...

1.) Nothing from beyond the Core. As the DM, you should stick with this too.
2.) Races can only multiclass into there favorite class (humans and half-elves can pick one)
3.) Limit PrCs to Mystic Theurge, Eldrich Knight, and Arcane Trickster (patch PrCs)
4.) Dump any rules you don't like (suggestions: grapple, AoOs, material components)

You'll find the game runs smoother, but it a bit bland. Make sure you add the needed spice via RPing rewards.

 

[Crothian]

Look, the fact of the matter is that the first printing of the C&C PHB sold out, and the second printing of the PHB is selling well enough that a third printing is very likely.

How big are the print runs? Also, I wonder how many of the people that got the first printing also got the second printing since there were changes made.

 

[Hussar]

Selling out a print run doesn't mean much if you don't know how many books were printed. Not trying to start anything, just saying.

 

[Aus_Snow]

The only place I've even heard C&C (Castles & Crusades) mentioned is on this forum.

I know A LOT of gamers in the local (and extended) area 'round these parts.

I occasionally post at other forums.

Add these things together. . . and yeah, I know what you mean, Chainsaw Mage. Well, other than the fact that I can't stand what I've seen of C&C. It doesn't appeal to me, to the extent that I would rather play almost any other system you'd care to name.

Almost.

 

[GeorgeFields]

All of the "try Castles and Crusades" advice is predicated on one understanding:

1) YOU buy it, and familairize yourself with it.
2) YOU convince your players it's worth trying.
3) YOU either pre-gen or help them pre-gen characters, step by step, using the one copy of your book.
4) YOU Gamemaster the game, to demo to them.

GREAT advice. I like it. I'm having a similar problem in that I'm getting burned out on D&D 3.x. I'm really interested in trying True20 or Dungeons & Zombies. C&C has peaked interest, but I haven't seen anything on it other than it's similar to 1e. Reading some of these posts makes me think twice on that.
Can somebody link me to something detailed about C&C?

I used to be a D&D-only player. I was convinced to try a different game for a change of pace and LOVED it. The more I've been trying other games, the less I want to play D&D, but it isn't because D&D is a bad game. It's my own personal tastes changing. I have a hard time even looking through my D&D books these days.

One of my player's "doesn't want to shell out money for a BUNCH OF NEW BOOKS!". I understood that at the time. My opinion on that has changed because I play two different games now for which I own NO books. The person running the game is the only one that has the books. Whenever players want to improved by spending XP, he meets with them on an off-game night so no game time is lost.