who else loves the C&C...?

[Philotomy Jurament]

I'm running two C&C campaigns at the moment, and like the system a lot. I like the C&C attitude towards the game, and I like the way actions are handled (i.e. the SIEGE engine). I like the ease with which you can use other editions' material with C&C (especially B/X, 1E, and 2E stuff, although you can use 3E, too). I love the ease with which it's house-ruled.

I have a few criticisms, but nothing major. I think the SIEGE engine is a great thing, but that it isn't the best fit for every situation (e.g. surprise/perception). I also house-ruled movement-in-combat to be more like B/X (or 3E, for that matter).

I've heard the "can't find players" complaint several times. That's really too bad, because C&C is definitely a fun system. I'm glad I haven't had that problem.

 

[Henry]

I use it for one-shots and real "low maintenance" fantasy anytime I want D&D, but without all the bells and whistles of either 1E or 3E. It's such a dirt-simple design that I can build up a quick and fun game in no time. I still mainly use 3.5e for most of our gaming group's efforts, but it's a welcome alternate.

 

[Deuce Traveler]

I really do like it, but I'm not a big fan of how it handles encumberance and the carrying capacity of containers.

 

[Flexor the Mighty!]

I prefer its "feel" to that of 3.x myself.

 

[Upper_Krust]

Hey all!

I am just wondering (and I am talking from a position of ignorance in this matter because I haven't seen it yet) does Castles & Crusades appear a more attractive prospect for DMs than Players specifically?

 

[Turanil]

does Castles & Crusades appear a more attractive prospect for DMs than Players specifically?

Myself, I prefer it much more as a DM than as a player, for it lacks customization options (except for primes). However, when I ran an adventure with it, my players loved its simplicity of use, and didn't mind the lack of customization.

 

[Korgoth]

I haven't had a chance to try it out yet, but I'm very happy I bought it. I would probably rather run Mentzer or Moldvay, or maybe even 1e (not sure about that one), but it is a very nice system that seems to be set up perfectly to transition people from 3e to old school gaming. It incorporates some of 3e's design philosophy while staying with the simplicity of yore.

I definitely suggest buying their stuff. And no, I'm not affiliated.

 

[Melan]

I really do like it, but I'm not a big fan of how it handles encumberance and the carrying capacity of containers.

Is there any D&D version that handles encumberance well, though? I certainly haven't seen one!

 

[Henry]

Hey all!

I am just wondering (and I am talking from a position of ignorance in this matter because I haven't seen it yet) does Castles & Crusades appear a more attractive prospect for DMs than Players specifically?

For me, yes, because stat-tracking is obscenely easy. For players, it might not be as fun if said players enjoy lots of "fiddly bits" on their character sheets. The abilities are largely set at first level, and most saving throws and skill attempts are basically d20 + ability bonus (+6 if it's a core ability for the PC) (+level if the skill is a class skill for the character) vs. a target number of 18 + level or other difficulties set by the DM. attacks, AC, damage, hit points, etc. are all pretty much just like other d20 games. No feats, skill point distributions, skill tricks, spontaneous casters, etc.

 

[Philotomy Jurament]

Hey all!

I am just wondering (and I am talking from a position of ignorance in this matter because I haven't seen it yet) does Castles & Crusades appear a more attractive prospect for DMs than Players specifically?

DMs seem to take to it pretty quickly, in most cases. Players may or may not, depending on their point of view. C&C does take a different approach, so viewing it with a "d20 mindset" may give a wrong impression.

C&C's is less granular than d20, so at first glance it looks like PC options are limited. Instead of customizing a PC by purchasing various skills and feats, C&C characters are customized by selecting one or two additional prime stats. For example, you make a "dexterous fighter" by selecting Dex as prime, rather than by choosing Tumble, Dodge, Weapon Finesse, etc. Your PC will be good at anything Dex-based. Skill and feat-like manuevers are all handled with ability checks, with prime ability checks being much easier. The end result comes out to be pretty much the same.

Obviously, there's a tradeoff between detail and simplicity. I think C&C gains more in simplicity and flexibility than it loses in detail. YMMV.