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

[Philotomy Jurament]

By that logic, C&C is no simpler to play than D&D; after all, D&D (or Midnight, or Conan, or Iron Heroes, or Black Company) all use the "roll d20, apply modifiers, and see if you hit the target" mechanic. Are we now saying that D&D only has one rule to cover everything and that those hundreds of things indexed in the PHB, DMG, splatbooks, et cetera are not rules (plural)?

No; I'm saying that your statement about C&C having a bunch of parallel subsystems is misleading.

The description of the ranger class rather clearly contradicts that. C&C has prime requisite rules to cover hiding and climbing, which are separate from the way class abilities do it. That's two separate sets of rules right there where D&D has one (the Hide/Climb skill).

I think I know what you're getting at, but they're not really separate systems. Rangers (and Rogues) use an ability check (and thus primes) just like anyone else. The significant difference is that Rangers and Rogues have climbing and hiding as class abilities, so they can add their level to the ability check. A cleric can try to climb that cliff, too, getting the same situational modifiers and using the same mechanic as the Ranger, but he doesn't get to add his level (and if he doesn't have the right stat prime, his chances will be much lower, in any case).

Some class abilities really *are* or should be exclusive. But some class abilities (e.g. climbing, hiding) can be attempted by other classes, using the same SIEGE engine/ability check mechanic that a class with that ability would use. The GM just needs to apply some common sense.

Here's what the Players Handbook has to say:

There will be times when a player will want a character to attempt an action that intrudes in the realm of the class ability of another character class. For example, a fighter might wish to open a lock, or a wizard might attempt to track. It is up to the Castle Keeper to decide if such an action is even possible. In general, it is recommended that a Castle Keeper should disallow a character a chance of success in attempting a non-class ability.

If a Castle Keeper, for whatever reason, does allow a character to attempt a non-class ability, then the SIEGE engine attribute mechanic changes in one significant way. The character does not add his level to the attribute check roll.

...

It is important to note that the abilities of each class have the best results when used by only that class. A rogue can move silently, with an absolute absence of sound. A fighter, therefore, should only be able to move very quietly, even with a successful roll.

A rogue moving silently in order to sneak up on the guard would not alert that guard with a successful check. However, a fighter moving quietly, even with a successful roll, should still stand a chance of being noticed by the guard. Thus, the Castle Keeper might allow the guard a wisdom check to notice the fighter moving quietly up behind him.

That last part about the thief is what I think you're getting at. A success by the thief has a better result than a success by the fighter, so one could say they're operating under "different rules." The thief can be absolutely silent where the fighter can just be really quiet. Same thing with climbing. Everyone can climb, but a thief has a chance to climb surfaces that no one else would be able to. So I agree that there's something to what you're arguing. However, I don't think that merits labelling as a parallel subsystem. It's the same mechanic, it's just that C&C emphasizes the archetype by allowing classes to have "extraordinary successes" with their class abilities.

Incidentally, this discussion reminds of Robert Fisher's page on classic D&D (specifically the one about thief skills). Now, Classic D&D is a system that had parallel subsystems! On the other hand, Robert tends to think that isn't such a big deal. (Yeah, completely different discussion, there...)

Yeah, I was totally off on flanking; I didn't read the C&C book right (the 1e text on this is not so good; the second edition [printing?] is better).

Yeah, 2nd printing. The rules are the same, so it's not really a 2nd edition the way we typically think of editions.

 

[Philotomy Jurament]

$30? Sentry Box is selling it for $80. I'm not sure the Deluxe Box and Collector's Box is the same thing...

Edit: Okay I found it. And whether or not I play it, I think I want it...

Yeah, big difference, there!

Castle Zagyg: Yggsburgh is an excellent book, by the way. I'm using it. It's not a huge setting like Greyhawk or FR, but rather a relatively small area that is large enough to give plenty of room to adventure, but small enough that you get a lot of detail. The books is PACKED with adventure hooks and detailed sites. Gary really outdid himself with this one. The area map was done by Darlene, so it'll look really familiar to anyone who used the old Greyhawk boxed set. The only complaint I have is some editing snafus, but they're not showstoppers, especially considering the quality of the material, itself. I mentioned a BUNCH of forthcoming modules earlier in the thread; many of those modules are for the CZ:Yggsburgh setting.

Monsters & Treasure is a good book, too. If you have 1E or 2E monster books and DMG, you can get by with those, but you'll probably want to pick up M&T at some point, even then.

 

[Maggan]

I can't believe I have to make this point yet again: your anecdotal evidence is just that -- anecdotal. This should be obvious.

Well, yes. But I would like to point out that as long as no hard numbers as to how many players are actually playing C&C, or sales numbers or what have you are presented, the evidence brought forth to prove the success is also very much anecdotal, of the "I heard from someone" variation.

Except for the number of printings thing, but that is meaningless without comparing it to print runs.

So we have some people who have a feeling that it's not as popular as some claim, and some people who have a feeling it's more popular than some claim.

But no one has any more evidence than the other, at this point in time.

So anecdotal evidence galore, on both sides.

/M

 

[Jimmy Invictus]

Castle Zagyg: Yggsburgh is an excellent book, by the way. I'm using it. It's not a huge setting like Greyhawk or FR, but rather a relatively small area that is large enough to give plenty of room to adventure, but small enough that you get a lot of detail. The books is PACKED with adventure hooks and detailed sites. Gary really outdid himself with this one. The area map was done by Darlene, so it'll look really familiar to anyone who used the old Greyhawk boxed set. The only complaint I have is some editing snafus, but they're not showstoppers, especially considering the quality of the material, itself. I mentioned a BUNCH of forthcoming modules earlier in the thread; many of those modules are for the CZ:Yggsburgh setting.
.

If the Castle Zagyg series' bar is being set by Castle Zagyg: Yggsburgh, then its going to be a very enjoyable ride. There is more adventure hooks and campaign starters in Yggsburgh than I could cram into gaming sessions for a LONG time. Good stuff.

 

[Akrasia]

... the evidence brought forth to prove the success is also very much anecdotal, of the "I heard from someone" variation...

I already mentioned James Mishler's claim that C&C is doing well. That's not a "I heard from someone" rumour, since his job involves tracking game sales.

Plus, the market for C&C is growing, while the market for d20 is shrinking... sure, there may be more players of d20 than of C&C, and there may ALWAYS be more, but, there are more people buying C&C every day, while more and more people have stopped buying d20 products. I track these numbers as my day job, and right now, the only d20 products that outsell Castles & Crusades in the hobby market are the Dungeon Crawl Classics. And C&C has not hit its stride by a long shot...

From: http://www.freeyabb.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?p=7596&mforum=trolllordgames#7596

So, on the side of people who think that C&C is doing quite well (for a third-party RPG product), we have the fact that the first printing sold out quickly (well before the publisher expected), and a claim by someone who actually tracks sales.

On the side of people who think that C&C is not doing well, we have people who know a few other gamers in their hometown.

 

[wingsandsword]

Why is it so difficult for you to accept the fact that the 36 gamers you know in Lexington may not be an accurate representation of the worldwide RPG community?

I can't believe I have to make this point yet again: your anecdotal evidence is just that -- anecdotal. This should be obvious.

Obviously C&C is not comparable to 3e D&D, NWoD, or WFRP in terms of market share. But in contrast to other games out there, it seems to be quite a success.

Despite what 36 gamers in Lexington might think.

Well, I trust my anecdotal evidence a whole lot more than I trust some guy in the internet I've never met who is telling me everything I am seeing is somehow completely wrong.

Those "36 gamers in Lexington" are from a wide variety of backgrounds and groups. Everything from a 55 year old grandmother who has been playing since OD&D, to a 33 year old PhD candidate who has been gaming since he was 8 and has many bookcases filled with gaming books of all sorts and buys games almost obsessively, to casual gamers who have little more than a PHB, a housewife who casually plays because her husband does, to die hard WoD players who won't touch a d20 to save their life. I think I know a pretty decent cross-section of gamers in terms of interest, age and background, and when none of them have ever talked about C&C, I think I'll trust them over you, sorry, but you're a fan of an obscure niche product who wants to hype it up and make it look a lot bigger than it really is.

Your own evidence isn't exactly better than anecdotal yourself. You say it's big, your only proof is that it's gone through multiple print runs, without knowing the size of those runs.

So, I don't believe you, because you haven't provided any evidence that I'd consider reliable or any better than what I see. I'll trust my own eyes and ears a lot more than I'll trust the post of somebody on the internet, and that tells me that Castles and Crusades is a small niche product with a small but devoted fanbase, that has a negligible impact on the overall roleplaying community.

It just irks me when people claim, based on their own personal experiences in Circleville Ohio or Lexington Kentuky (or wherever), that because nobody they personally know is playing the game it is not a successful game, or is not being played by lots of gamers elsewhere. Such conclusions are just plain ridiculous.

No more 'ridiculous" than for me to conclude that it's a big, popular game because a small number of people on an internet message board insist that it is, despite having never met a person who plays it in real life, despite having never seen any signs of it being popular, or even selling, at an FLGS, having never heard it discussed among members of the numerous gaming groups and clubs I know. In fact, when other people get on here and say pretty much the same thing, it makes me feel a lot stronger about my opinion, because it's not just here where apparently nobody has heard of it.

The original point of this thread was that it's hard to get people to try to play C&C. That's because it's not as big as you might think from reading ENWorld. ENWorld is not a typical cross-section of the gaming public, it's a lot more interested in small-press niche products, esoteric variants published by tiny companies, .pdf's, and other small-time products. Something that they might consider a big hit might be an insignificant drop in the bucket to the rest of the gaming world. C&C may well be modestly profitable for Troll Lord Games, but it's not a "big success" in that it's making a big impact on the overall gaming community and is getting a sizable following and making TLG a big player in the industry.

C&C is a niche product, that will only appeal to a niche of gaming, most gamers will be perfectly happy with D&D for their fantasy d20 needs, and C&C fans need to realize it is a very uphill battle to get new players. I'm not saying that it's a bad product, or even an unsuccessful one, but it's not big.

 

[Maggan]

I already mentioned James Mishler's claim that C&C is doing well. That's not a "I heard from someone" rumour, since his job involves tracking game sales.

Well, as you said earlier, we'll just hope the mr Mischler drops by this thread so that we all can have first hand information.

... we have the fact that the first printing sold out quickly (well before the publisher expected), and a claim by someone who actually tracks sales.

And again, the print run was how large?

It is my belief that people are hammering C&C more vigorously than other niche games when it comes to claims about its popularity, simply because a some of the more vocal pro C&C people are/were using a lot of anecdotal evidence to support the theory that masses and masses of people were tired of 3e and that C&C was the saviour and the future.

Hence a backlash.

My personal theory is that C&C has sold about 3000 copies. That's a really good number for a small publisher, and indication of a smashing success for them. If the numbers are even higher, great for Troll Lords. I suspect I'm not that many thousand copies off, though.

If anyone has any hard numbers, it'll be easy enough to refute my theory.

/M

 

[Akrasia]

Well, I trust my anecdotal evidence a whole lot more than I trust some guy in the internet I've never met who is telling me everything I am seeing is somehow completely wrong.

Those "36 gamers in Lexington" are from a wide variety of backgrounds and groups...

Sorry, but this is getting to be rather sad. The fact of the matter is that it doesn't matter if you know people from all walks of life in the metropolis that is Lexington. Your evidence remains anecdotal, and should be treated as such by yourself and everyone else.

...
Your own evidence isn't exactly better than anecdotal yourself. You say it's big, your only proof is that it's gone through multiple print runs...

No, my 'proof' also includes claims made by someone whose job involves tracking sales (see my previous point).

I would suggest that you recognise your anecdotal evidence for what it is.

 

[Akrasia]

Well, as you said earlier, we'll just hope the mr Mischler drops by this thread so that we all can have first hand information....

I doubt very much that it would be professionally acceptable for Mr. Mishler to reveal precise data on a public forum like this one. Any claim he makes will probably be no more informative than the one I linked to (viz., that after Goodman Games' DCCs, the C&C products are selling best).

And again, the print run was how large? ...

Game companies never make public this kind of information. Suffice to say, many third-party RPG companies would love to have their entire first printing sell out. In the current market, C&C is doing quite well.

 

[Akrasia]

... It is my belief that people are hammering C&C more vigorously than other niche games when it comes to claims about its popularity, simply because a some of the more vocal pro C&C people are/were using a lot of anecdotal evidence to support the theory that masses and masses of people were tired of 3e and that C&C was the saviour and the future.

Hence a backlash. ...

Well, whatever. We all have our own pet theories about the behaviour of people.

I certainly never denied that C&C was a 'niche' product! I'm just annoyed at the weak anecdotal evidence that people are appealing to in order to support their perception that nobody is playing C&C.