# The Case For Castles & Crusades



## zacharythefirst (Oct 15, 2008)

Hey all,

This is a little something I posted to my blog, explaining why I've chosen C&C. I thought it might be helpful to those on the fence about C&C, so I'm reposting it here (here's the original link, for those interested):

*The Case For Castles & Crusades*

(Zack comes clean about his new game of choice).

I'm a vagabond, a wanderer of tabletop gaming. From my early forays in Palladium Fantasy and hideously houseruled 1st Edition Advanced Dungeons & Dragons games to my appreciation of Risus, Two-Fisted Tales, Epic Roleplaying, Rolemaster, Traveller, Rifts, and everything in-between, I have played and ran a tremendously large number of roleplaying games.

I've tried Troll Lord Games' Castles & Crusades before, had my Castle Keeper Screen signed by Gary Gygax himself in 2007. And though the sessions and demos I ran were fun, there was always something else to try. And being an ENnies judge for 2008 also ensured my free time to dedicate to any single game was severely lacking.

But in now coming back to it, and in loving both the exciting modern products out there and the original and homages to an earlier time in gaming, I have found Castles & Crusades to be so much of what I've been looking for. Very few times (I can count them on one hand) has a game purely "clicked" for me. As in I got it--I got the feel, the system, the direction. And that's what happened when I took my C&C Players Handbook in hand (and screen) once more. What did it? I don't know--a desired refinement of how I run my games, an re-examination for what I want out of my hobby, whatever. But I did want to share just a little of why I am so absolutely, genuinely, enthusiastically pleased with Castles & Crusades:

*Bridging A Gap:* I have friends who were weaned on the older editions of D&D, and those who have played nothing but 3rd Edition. Castles & Crusades allows me to sell elements of both those experiences, giving us a common meeting ground and a larger player base from which to draw. Its familiar to veterans, and easily picked up by novices.

*Time:* Plain and simple. Look, I have a wife, 2 kids and 1 on the way, and a lot more responsibility than Young Zack ever did. C&C's system, the SIEGE Engine, is so simple that it usually takes all of 3-5 minutes for gamers to get the gist of it. I want to be able to use all the resources I've built up over the years, run a game that encourages active, fast, inspiring GM (CK) rulings, not pace-killing rules lookup. I want low prep time, employing notes and material I already have. I'm ready to get back to the basics, and get down to gaming in a faster and leaner fashion.

*A Place To Build Upon:* Castles & Crusades is a framework. It isn't a toolbox so much as a sturdy workbench. This is seriously one of the most easily-houseruled games I have ever seen. You want skills, feats, some new magic system? Want to use THAC0? Have some insane d20 rule you plug into every game you play? Castles & Crusades not only allows you to plug those items in, its modularity will make it easy to do so. We are talking compatibility not only with the various prior editions and the d20 crowd, but efforts like Basic Fantasy, Labyrinth Lord, Mazes & Minotaurs, Fight On!, True 20, Paizo's and Adventure Games Publishing's docket of releases, and more. Hey, I have something from Iron Gauntlets I might throw in there. Or I can do nothing, and be just fine that way. There's just too much goodness out there that I may wish to look to for inspiration, and Castles & Crusades promises the integration of that goodness, easy-like. It's a baseline for it all.

*A Style I Want:* I don't want hours spent on hair-splitting character builds. I don't want reams of special powers for each player. I don't want skills and rigid, mutiple modifiers to get in the way of player initiative and creativity. I want me as a GM (CK) and my players to remember when we made rulings, not remained bogged down in rules. This ties into time constraints, but I want a fast-play, unified mechanic. I want the standard tropes and hallmarks of our shared hobby heritage there, unwarped. I want strong character archetypes. I want player backgrounds to matter in the course of play. I want so much of what has made the Old School Renaissance of gaming so inspiring to me and others. Of course, many of these lie at the feet of each Game Master/Castle Keeper, and can happen in any game. But its still good to have an RPG that's on your side about it.

*A Company I Can Support:* Troll Lord Games has never been anything but fantastic in our business dealings. The books are affordable. Their fan support online has been helpful and inspiring. When I was still in the military, Troll Lord contributed to a care package that was sent to a buddy of mine, and he was absolutely thrilled. It meant a lot to him, and by extension, to me. Their support of my friends and I in a tough, sometimes unpopular, unfashionable conflict will not be easily forgotten.

There is also the fact that Troll Lord Games was the last company Gary Gygax himself chose to be involved with. People can knock me for being overly sentimental and say that shouldn't matter for what game I'm playing, but that does carry some water with me. More importantly, I feel like Troll Lord is run by people who understand the innate and unique appeal of Gygaxian fantasy. They have the enthusiasm and heart I look for in a gaming company.

I've never been a one-game, one-system guy. There are too many great games out there I want to run--Epic, Rifts, Traveller, we aren't through yet. One day, I will again get to run In Harm's Way. And Castles & Crusades is ok with that. I know its there, willing to undertake any sort of tweaks or mods I might find in my travels. But I do know what game I'm coming home to. Castles & Crusades is my choice going forward to take advantage of the Old School Renaissance (heck, its my staging area for it), to keep that link going to a wider pool of players, and to maximize the time I have for quality, generation-spanning fun. That's why I'm on board with Castles & Crusades as my fantasy D&D cousin of choice. And together I see us, my friends, and eventually perhaps our kids having great adventures...


----------



## Gallo22 (Oct 17, 2008)

Very well said.  I wish more gamers were open for trying C&C.


----------



## Brutorz Bill (Oct 17, 2008)

C&C is alot of fun.  I ran two different campaigns over a two year period.
We had a blast!  Not currently playing it, but I'm sure it is only a matter of time before I play it again.  I think my favorite thing about it is that it makes everything in my library readily useful.
Thanks for posting,
 Brutorz Bill


----------



## Darrin Drader (Oct 18, 2008)

I'm currrently running a Pathfinder game, but I've been considering a stripped down version of the game to play with the older of my kids, and some curious noobs I know, so I picked up the PDF for the PHB and the monster book. It looks extremely playable.

One question though. I remember reading somewhere that old school modules plug right into it. As I said, I've only glanced through it and haven't really given it the time I need to fully digest it. Is it true that I can pull out my 1st/2nd/basic edition modules and run them with C&C?


----------



## Treebore (Oct 18, 2008)

Darrin Drader said:


> I'm currrently running a Pathfinder game, but I've been considering a stripped down version of the game to play with the older of my kids, and some curious noobs I know, so I picked up the PDF for the PHB and the monster book. It looks extremely playable.
> 
> One question though. I remember reading somewhere that old school modules plug right into it. As I said, I've only glanced through it and haven't really given it the time I need to fully digest it. Is it true that I can pull out my 1st/2nd/basic edition modules and run them with C&C?




Yes, its very true. I have ran "Against the Giants" twice now, and am going to do the rest of "Queen of the SPiders" using it. Very easy conversions, just invert the AC's to positive values, HD= their new to hit, and their save values. Pretty easy to convert everything else too. Spells, magic items, etc... Anything you want to use, from any edition of D&D, is easy to use.


----------



## Brutorz Bill (Oct 18, 2008)

Darrin Drader said:


> I'm currrently running a Pathfinder game, but I've been considering a stripped down version of the game to play with the older of my kids, and some curious noobs I know, so I picked up the PDF for the PHB and the monster book. It looks extremely playable.
> 
> One question though. I remember reading somewhere that old school modules plug right into it. As I said, I've only glanced through it and haven't really given it the time I need to fully digest it. Is it true that I can pull out my 1st/2nd/basic edition modules and run them with C&C?





  Darrin I had no problems using my old stuff.  Ran Keep on the Borderlands, In Search of the Unknown, and several old Dungeon mag Dungeons (a la 2nd ed), as well as, some DCC's for one of my Campaigns.  Little to no effort on Conversions.


----------



## FATDRAGONGAMES (Oct 20, 2008)

Thanks for posting this, I don't think I've ever seen it put better!


----------



## Remathilis (Oct 20, 2008)

zacharythefirst said:


> *A Place To Build Upon:* Castles & Crusades is a framework. It isn't a toolbox so much as a sturdy workbench. This is seriously one of the most easily-houseruled games I have ever seen. You want skills, feats, some new magic system? Want to use THAC0? Have some insane d20 rule you plug into every game you play? Castles & Crusades not only allows you to plug those items in, its modularity will make it easy to do so. We are talking compatibility not only with the various prior editions and the d20 crowd, but efforts like Basic Fantasy, Labyrinth Lord, Mazes & Minotaurs, Fight On!, True 20, Paizo's and Adventure Games Publishing's docket of releases, and more. Hey, I have something from Iron Gauntlets I might throw in there. Or I can do nothing, and be just fine that way. There's just too much goodness out there that I may wish to look to for inspiration, and Castles & Crusades promises the integration of that goodness, easy-like. It's a baseline for it all.




I'm curious about this...

Lets say I want to use C&C, but I want 3e's 3-save system and Saga/4e's Trained/Untrained Skill System. It seems this would throw a giant monkey wrench in the SIEGE/Primes system as written. My concern is that it would make using monsters harder to use as written (and lets be honest, if I'm dropping money on a monster book, I don't want to have to re-write every single monster). 

I am also concerned about how using a 4e skill set would break skill-dependent classes like ranger or rogue. 

While it might be easy to wing something like converting a 1e module or converting a 3e spell, it seems like the actual system is pretty tight, and adding extraneous rules (like a skill system, or actual save-categories, or feats, or a sorcerer class) would break the system quite easily.

I'm interested to hear how others have modified C&C to actually incorporate some other D&D/d20 rules...


----------



## zacharythefirst (Oct 21, 2008)

Remathilis said:


> I'm curious about this...
> 
> Lets say I want to use C&C, but I want 3e's 3-save system and Saga/4e's Trained/Untrained Skill System. It seems this would throw a giant monkey wrench in the SIEGE/Primes system as written. My concern is that it would make using monsters harder to use as written (and lets be honest, if I'm dropping money on a monster book, I don't want to have to re-write every single monster).
> 
> ...




Goodness!  Sorry it took me a bit to respond!

I've seen some interesting houserules.  While I stick mainly with some feat and combat bonus add-ons (I'm tweaking some classes), just as an example, I've seen two different skill systems that seem to work pretty well with C&C.  There's the Castles Zagyg Skills & Options PDF, Jason Vey did a super-simple background system pdf.  A friend of mine did an Untrained/Trained/Expert system, which was a simple 0/+2/+4.  There's a couple of other examples out there, including this one, a personal fave.

Feats are fairly easy, most of them just granting a mechanical bonus in some sense or another.  For example, were I to use a feat like Investigator, any time they had an opportunity that I felt was relating to searching or gather info, I'd allow them a +2 to their roll (or reduce their CR by two).  One thing to remember for combat feats is that if you're doing things like Whirlwind attack, that's not something many CKs would insist you have as a specialty to do.  Depending on your class and the like, it may be harder for an untrained character to do, but many CKs would give you a shot.  In my game, if it was a special fighting technique you'd worked at and earned, you'd likely end up with some sort of bonus when using it (or at least no penalty).

Sorcerer is also easy enough to tack on.  The Wizards memorize, the Sorcerers don't, and you lessen their spells a bit to compensate.  You could actually port the class pretty completely from 3.5.

In the end, its possible to break anything.  But C&C seems pretty easy to me to tack those things on--even though by and large, I choose not to.

Actually, I've never changed up the saving throws much.  It seems like you could do it, but I'd love to hear from someone who has.


----------



## Dragonhelm (Oct 24, 2008)

Loved the blog.  I'd like to comment further when I have time.

Now, we've said all along that C&C works with any edition of D&D.  Is that still true with 4th edition?


----------



## tenkar (Oct 25, 2008)

Dragonhelm said:


> Loved the blog.  I'd like to comment further when I have time.
> 
> Now, we've said all along that C&C works with any edition of D&D.  Is that still true with 4th edition?




I'm not so sure about that.  4e doesn't play well with 3.5e.  My gut tells me little will port over easy, but I've been surprised by C&C in the past.  With the possible exception of healing surges I'm not sure which parts of 4e I'd have an interest in porting over.


----------



## Dragonhelm (Oct 25, 2008)

tenkar said:


> I'm not so sure about that.  4e doesn't play well with 3.5e.  My gut tells me little will port over easy, but I've been surprised by C&C in the past.  With the possible exception of healing surges I'm not sure which parts of 4e I'd have an interest in porting over.




Then let me also pose the counter-question.  Can materials from C&C be used with 4e?  Can 4e be run kind of like how C&C is run?


----------



## Dragonhelm (Oct 25, 2008)

Remathilis said:


> Lets say I want to use C&C, but I want 3e's 3-save system and Saga/4e's Trained/Untrained Skill System. It seems this would throw a giant monkey wrench in the SIEGE/Primes system as written.




First, let me say that this sounds like a nifty set of house rules you have.  I don't think it would throw as big of a monkey wrench in as you think.  As it stands now, the 3 saves are already built into C&C as six saves tied to the ability scores.  So it's there already, even if not in the same exact form.  If you want to use the 3e saves, then you just run it using the SIEGE engine rules - d20 + ability score modifier + Level.   




> I am also concerned about how using a 4e skill set would break skill-dependent classes like ranger or rogue.




How so?




> I'm interested to hear how others have modified C&C to actually incorporate some other D&D/d20 rules...




I used a skill system based on the d20 system where I had level replacing ranks.  I think I would revamp that some these days with the release of 4e.  I've also seen several people implement feats in one way or another.


----------



## zacharythefirst (Oct 26, 2008)

Dragonhelm said:


> Loved the blog.  I'd like to comment further when I have time.
> 
> Now, we've said all along that C&C works with any edition of D&D.  Is that still true with 4th edition?




Thanks very much!

In response to this one, I'm going to have to give a definite "jury is still out".  I think some of the at-will powers of 4e are sort of at odds with how C&C defines combat and how you work what happens in there, but I don't know that you couldn't add those sorts of things on as per day or at-will powers.  It might take the game in some interesting (unintended?) places.

I do think of all the editions of D&D, 4e might be the toughest to bring elements to C&C, but I'm thinking you could.  I'd love to hear of someone who's had success with it.  A lot of my experience comes using C&C with 1e modules, 3e sourcebooks, and a small smattering of 2e stuff.


----------



## Treebore (Oct 26, 2008)

Anything can work with C&C, just depends on how you want to do it.

Like how I do feats from 3E. I don't do feats, per se, I just allow anyone to do a SIEGE check to attempt any Feat like action they can think of.

Skills, I went with a "Everyone has 10 skills, but if you take a class skill you treat it as TN 18, then add level and modifiers." I too got rid of ranks and just went by level and attributes. The +6 from being Prime versus non Prime was plenty of variation for skills.

As for 4E, I liked the mages ability to cast spells all day long, so the way I am adapting it to C&C is as follows:


SPELL CASTERS:
A new class ability for ALL spell casters, except Paladins.

Divine/Arcane blasts. These are a pure energy attack that any spell caster can use every other round as long as they do not cast any spells on the round in between. Yes, this means all day long. This is because that round is a recharge/gather the power round. This attack requires a "To hit" roll versus the targets AC, but the casters BtH for purposes of this attack is equal to their level and its modified by their DEX. Damage is 1d4 per level of the caster and requires a "item" as the component for this ability. It costs 20 GP per dice of damage. Typically a cleric uses their Holy Symbol and Arcane Casters most frequently make a wand.

As usual, I do allow a SIEGE check to cast this every round, it will be CON based, and failed checks will cost a temporary loss of one CON point to simulate the exhaustive nature of wasting the energy as well as gathering it so quickly. The CL will equal the amount of dice you want to do for damage, and the base TN will always be 12, since this is now a "Class Ability" for all spell casters. 

So C&C can have anything used with it, but I am enjoying turning it into the SIEGE system rather than porting the whole idea over as is.


----------



## danbuter1 (Nov 2, 2008)

Treebore,

That's a pretty cool houserule.


----------



## zacharythefirst (Nov 3, 2008)

I find Treebore is chock full of awesome ideas.


----------



## Deuce Traveler (Nov 8, 2008)

I like that Judge's Guild and Goodman Games have tied some of their projects to the CnC system.  I find Wilderlands of High Fantasy works well with CnC.


----------



## zacharythefirst (Nov 12, 2008)

Deuce Traveler said:


> I like that Judge's Guild and Goodman Games have tied some of their projects to the CnC system.  I find Wilderlands of High Fantasy works well with CnC.




Adventure Games Publishing has done some really nice work that ties into C&C as well, to be sure!


----------



## Garnfellow (Nov 12, 2008)

I've never been a huge fan of C&C. Executive summary: it takes out too many of the things I liked about 3e and adds in too many things I didn't like about earlier editions, as well as a couple of new things that don't float my boat.

But that said, after reading through Castle Zagyg: Upper Works, I'm finding that C&C makes a freaking fantastic _lingua franca_ for all other D&D variants. I could easily see using CZ with 3e, Labyrinth Lord, Osric, or Pathfinder. (4e looks like it would be a lot tougher, though MerricB seems to be getting along just fine.) 

So while I wouldn't play C&C on its own, I do think it makes great edition neutral material.


----------



## Darrin Drader (Nov 12, 2008)

Garnfellow said:


> C&C makes a freaking fantastic _lingua franca_ for all other D&D variants. I could easily see using CX with 3e, Labyrinth Lord, Osric, or Pathfinder. (4e looks like it would be a lot tougher, though MerricB seems to be getting along just fine.)




That is exactly what I find so appealing about it. 



> So while I wouldn't play C&C on its own, I do think it makes great edition neutral material.




I've decided to give it a go for a limited game if I can get my players on board.


----------



## rkwoodard (Nov 12, 2008)

*my take*

Hello,

I have tried C&C and liked it, but finally decided on 3.5.  The reason is, I like the skills and feats and when I built it onto C&C it was really close to 3.5.  So, that is what I went with.

But, I have taken alot away with me from reading and playing a little C&C.  I am re-vamped my DMing philosophy.  

The main one is, 

1) You roll when there is a significant chance of failure. If it is all but certain to work, or will work given enough time (and the characters have time) BAM it works no roll needed.

2) Simplified Checks.  I like the skill list in D&D, but I like having a set target number that then gets modified. So, I use that and don't worry about all the possible variables. 

While for right now I am running a 3.5 game, I would run or play C&C in a heartbeat.

RK


----------



## The Highway Man (Nov 12, 2008)

Remathilis said:


> it seems like the actual system is pretty tight, and adding extraneous rules (like a skill system, or actual save-categories, or feats, or a sorcerer class) would break the system quite easily.




It's true, but then again, nobody asks you to make such modifications but yourself. The SIEGE engine runs well as written. Any modification that would add more to the plate is just icing, something you would choose to add deliberately while paying the price of less versatility for it. 

In the end? It's for you to decide whether such modifications are necessary for the table to enjoy the game. I would advise against it, as it would run against C&C's design intents, but it has to depend on the particular players you have playing the game and what they expect out of the game's mechanics.


----------



## Brutorz Bill (Nov 13, 2008)

rkwoodard said:


> Hello,
> 
> 
> While for right now I am running a 3.5 game, I would run or play C&C in a heartbeat.
> ...





  We are currently playing 3.5 for some similar reasons, but I too would run or play C&C again.  It's a fun game.  Although Fallout 3 is so cool it's got me wanting to run a P.A. Campaign of some sort.
Too bad your in Mid. Tennessee, I'm in West Tn.  
Later,
 Bill


----------



## daddystabz (Feb 28, 2011)

I completely agree with the OP.  C&C is fantastic and I wish more gamers knew about it and would give it a chance.


----------



## Crothian (Feb 28, 2011)

daddystabz said:


> I completely agree with the OP.  C&C is fantastic and I wish more gamers knew about it and would give it a chance.




Why?  There are dozens and dozens RPGs out there few gamers can give each one a chance.  Fantasy games seem to be the most numerous and with established games like the editions of D&D and Pathfinder that people enjoy gaming with each week why should they stop spend money on something else and devote time away from their campaign to it in the hopes they like it?  

When C&C came out I bought it, I tried it, it was not for me.  There are plenty of gamers who did that and went back to whatever game they play.  But for some reason the C&C crowd (not unlike the Savage World people) can't seem to accept that people might not like the game.  That doesn't mean they hate the Troll guys, or that they just don't get it.  

I probably would have given C&C a second chance if not for the fans who get so defensive and react to ever little slight (real and imagined) against C&C.  As I said there are dozens and dozens of games out there and I look for whatever reason to spend my money elsewhere.  People who talk about their favorite game do so in the hopes of influencing others.  And you've successful done that with me.  I've been influenced to not play the game.


----------



## daddystabz (Feb 28, 2011)

Well, Crothian, I would hope more gamers would give it a chance because I and many others find C&C to be a fantastic game that harkens back to the glorious early days of D&D while still maintaining modern game design principles.  I never said it was for everyone or that people that do not like C&C are somehow stupid, as you seem to imply.

I'd assume anyone that enjoys a particular game would hope that others would enjoy it too and give it a chance.

As for your tastes, you always have 3.5/Pathfinder/4e or whatever else may float your boat.


----------



## thedungeondelver (Feb 28, 2011)

I found myself putting so much *AD&D* back in that I just stuck with *AD&D* (descending armor class, saves vs. siege, etc. etc.).

Still, *TROLL LORD GAMES* do love their work and I wish them all the best.


----------



## Votan (Feb 28, 2011)

Crothian said:


> Why?  There are dozens and dozens RPGs out there few gamers can give each one a chance.  Fantasy games seem to be the most numerous and with established games like the editions of D&D and Pathfinder that people enjoy gaming with each week why should they stop spend money on something else and devote time away from their campaign to it in the hopes they like it?
> [\QUOTE]
> 
> I think it is worth recomemnding for people looking for a very specific niche.  It is rules light (in the good sense) and fairly easy on DM preparation.  There are alternative (good!) systems out there with Pathfinder and 4th edition Dungeons and Dragons being the most prominent.  I currently referee Pathfinder so I am hardly adverse to using that system.
> ...


----------



## Zinovia (Feb 28, 2011)

It sounds like a great system for old school feel and using your first edition adventures.  The thing I most disliked about older editions of D&D is Vancian spellcasting.  Treebore's addition of an at-will magical blast would help, but it sounds like you'd still have to memorize spells.  I always hated knowing that you had the perfect spell for a situation, if only you had chosen to prepare it that morning.  

Thanks for the thread, it's good to hear what people like about different systems.


----------



## Deepfire (Feb 28, 2011)

The Castle Keepers Guide has different magic systems, I guess (have not read this section now) - though my most favourite magic system is HARPs - the amount of magic points you invest in a spell change it's effect


----------



## Dragonhelm (Feb 28, 2011)

Crothian said:


> When C&C came out I bought it, I tried it, it was not for me.




Fair enough.  At least you gave it a shot.



> But for some reason the C&C crowd (not unlike the Savage World people) can't seem to accept that people might not like the game.  That doesn't mean they hate the Troll guys, or that they just don't get it.
> 
> I probably would have given C&C a second chance if not for the fans who get so defensive and react to ever little slight (real and imagined) against C&C.  As I said there are dozens and dozens of games out there and I look for whatever reason to spend my money elsewhere.  People who talk about their favorite game do so in the hopes of influencing others.  And you've successful done that with me.  I've been influenced to not play the game.




Some of the C&C fans are very...passionate about their game.  Not only for the reasons you mention, but also the idea that some folks may want to use it to formulate a rules-lite d20 system (which I wanted to do).  I left the C&C boards at one point due to the excessive d20/WotC bashing.

That being said, there are people on the other side of the fence who criticize C&C when the opportunity arises.  So it goes both ways.  It's little different than the PF vs. 4e threads out there.

Personally, I don't get gaming fandom at times.  I think we shouldn't be looking at what divides us, but rather at what we have in common.  I think it's great that we have so many variations of RPGs, and in particular D&D.  I enjoy 4e, C&C, and Pathfinder.  I would play using any of those systems, or AD&D, or whatever so long as the premise of the game caught my attention.

My advice where C&C is concerned is to give it a chance and base your decision on the game's merits and your own preferences.  If it's for you, great!  If not, there are all sorts of other alternatives out there.  When the day is done, we can all come from our respective games and talk about how much fun we had killing monsters and taking their stuff.


----------



## Estlor (Feb 28, 2011)

The issue I had with C&C (and it's been a while since I looked at my books so forgive me if I get a few of the details wrong) was it tried too hard to be a retro, 1E style game that some changes were made just for the sake of changing.  A great example were the saving throws.  I seem to recall it going back to the archaic OD&D setup (Poison/Petrify/Paralysis, Rod/Staff/Wand, Death Magic, Breath Weapons, etc) when the Fort/Ref/Will model was in every regard easier to grasp, faster to apply, and generally better suited to a game that intended to be rules light than what they went with.

Ultimately, it's like the designers couldn't decide if they wanted to be a rules light 3e or an updated 1e and tried to do both to the detriment of the final product.


----------



## Imaro (Feb 28, 2011)

Estlor said:


> The issue I had with C&C (and it's been a while since I looked at my books so forgive me if I get a few of the details wrong) was it tried too hard to be a retro, 1E style game that some changes were made just for the sake of changing.  A great example were the saving throws.  I seem to recall it going back to the archaic OD&D setup (Poison/Petrify/Paralysis, Rod/Staff/Wand, Death Magic, Breath Weapons, etc) when the Fort/Ref/Will model was in every regard easier to grasp, faster to apply, and generally better suited to a game that intended to be rules light than what they went with.
> 
> Ultimately, it's like the designers couldn't decide if they wanted to be a rules light 3e or an updated 1e and tried to do both to the detriment of the final product.




Well one of the advantages (dependent of course on ones own preferences) of the saving throws in CnC vs. the Fort/Ref/Will is that you don't have any real dump stats... it makes every stat matter at least somewhat because it is attached to a particular save.


----------



## Treebore (Feb 28, 2011)

Imaro said:


> Well one of the advantages (dependent of course on ones own preferences) of the saving throws in CnC vs. the Fort/Ref/Will is that you don't have any real dump stats... it makes every stat matter at least somewhat because it is attached to a particular save.





Exactly. I didn't like "dump stats" and C&C fixed that by giving every attribute a reason to be important, and to make and having Primes important. Humans having that third Prime is very significant. When my players pick their demi humans to play, and they often do, they definitely give up something significant to have all those racial advantages.


----------



## Treebore (Feb 28, 2011)

Crothian said:


> Why?  There are dozens and dozens RPGs out there few gamers can give each one a chance.  Fantasy games seem to be the most numerous and with established games like the editions of D&D and Pathfinder that people enjoy gaming with each week why should they stop spend money on something else and devote time away from their campaign to it in the hopes they like it?
> 
> When C&C came out I bought it, I tried it, it was not for me.  There are plenty of gamers who did that and went back to whatever game they play.  But for some reason the C&C crowd (not unlike the Savage World people) can't seem to accept that people might not like the game.  That doesn't mean they hate the Troll guys, or that they just don't get it.
> 
> I probably would have given C&C a second chance if not for the fans who get so defensive and react to ever little slight (real and imagined) against C&C.  As I said there are dozens and dozens of games out there and I look for whatever reason to spend my money elsewhere.  People who talk about their favorite game do so in the hopes of influencing others.  And you've successful done that with me.  I've been influenced to not play the game.




The fact that you gave it a fair try is good with me, I know C&C is a big adjustment to make. Heck, my "try out game" was about 6th level before I started to fall in love with it. I had a lot of conceptions from 3E and other RPG's to get over in order to even be able to start appreciating how the SIEGE engine does things, but now I am definitely a rock solid fan.

Plus don't ever think I am a "one RPG" type of guy. Every week I play 2 games of C&C, 1 of Hackmaster Basic, 1 of Star Wars Saga, 1 of Legend of the 5 Rings 4E (SW SAGA and L5R alternate), I run Starblazer Adventures on Thursday, and I play Eclipse Phase on Fridays. The only evening I don't play an RPG for at least 3 hours is Monday. Except today I will be playing because I will be gone for up to 8 days starting tomorrow.

So I like and play a lot of RPG's.


----------



## rogueattorney (Feb 28, 2011)

I find that C&C tries to be too many things to too many people, and doesn't do any of those things well.

There are better takes on "rules-lighter" 3e.  There are better takes on "revised AD&D."

Many find that it hits their "AD&D spot."  It doesn't for me, at all.  It scraps all the little fiddly bits that were AD&D to me and replaces it with the SIEGE system.  Maybe it's a 1e-2e thing.  It feels a lot like 2e to me, completely vanilla, which is simply not what I'm looking for in AD&D.  If I need an in-print AD&D, OSRIC or Labyrinth Lord with the AEC are both better bets.

It's not particularly rules light.  Maybe by comparison to 3e it is.  But by comparison to pretty much anything else, it's not.  If I want rules light, I'll play Basic D&D.  If I want rules light with a unified mechanic, I think both Tunnels & Trolls and the new Dragon Age RPG are superior games.

Of the half-dozen or so C&C adventures I have, I have found them to be between average and horrendous in quality.  The cartography, in particular, is quite poor with keys and scale often missing and multiple occasions where the description in the text fails to match the map.  In one adventure, U3 Verdant Rage, they forgot to include a map.  They made it available as a download, but still it shows the lack of concern they seem to have for what I consider to be the single most important aspect of an adventure.

Of the C&C products I own, I find the original "Nostalgia" boxed set that came out back in 2004 or so to be by far their best product.  If I were to recommend a C&C product to anyone, that would be it.  Also, Gabor "Melan" Lux has made at least three fine free C&C adventures that I'd recommend people track down.


----------



## fanboy2000 (Feb 28, 2011)

Zack, you seem like a smart, well spoken individual. I've never played C&C, but I'm willing to try anything 3 times.

But really the only thing on my mind is "how have you managed to have 0 posts?" Seriously, is this the first time you've posted? I find it interesting that the guy with the highest post count is posting in a thread started buy a guy with the lowest possible post count.


----------



## Treebore (Feb 28, 2011)

Zinovia said:


> It sounds like a great system for old school feel and using your first edition adventures.  The thing I most disliked about older editions of D&D is Vancian spellcasting.  Treebore's addition of an at-will magical blast would help, but it sounds like you'd still have to memorize spells.  I always hated knowing that you had the perfect spell for a situation, if only you had chosen to prepare it that morning.
> 
> Thanks for the thread, it's good to hear what people like about different systems.




If you don't like the Vancian memorization system you can always just use the SIEGE engine to have them make a check to successfully cast a spell, using the spell level as the CL. If you find the CL makes it to easy double it, experiment. See if you can find something that makes you happy. Heck, if you have a system you like I bet I can help you match it up to the SIEGE engine if your interested enough.


----------



## Treebore (Feb 28, 2011)

rogueattorney said:


> I find that C&C tries to be too many things to too many people, and doesn't do any of those things well.
> 
> There are better takes on "rules-lighter" 3e.  There are better takes on "revised AD&D."
> 
> ...




I agree C&C is Vanilla, but the other reason I remain a fan is because I found it easy to spice up to be precisely what I like, once I became a fan of the SIEGE engine, which did take me some time. Like I didn't get rid of my skill system I mention back in the 2008 posts in this thread until last year, now I just use the pure SIEGE engine. Lots of people like granularity, I like simple and gets the job done, and for me the SIEGE engine does that better than any mechanic I am aware of.

So if you don't like house ruling, and want a system pretty much ready to go as is, I doubt C&C and its SIEGE engine will be liked.

See, to me, C&C is a lot like a cake. C&C is the basic cake mix, and then it was up to me to decorate it until I was perfectly happy with how it looks. It took me a while, in fact it took me several years to get to where I am now with it, but it paid of in giving me absolutely the best RPG cake I could ask for.

So C&C is definitely not for everyone. For a good while I doubted it was for me. Now I am darn glad I stuck with it because I could not ask for a better D&D style RPG. It gives me everything I want, largely because I added a lot of what I want.

I mean, look at my house rules, I certainly do not run it by the book. It is MY C&C, not TLG's C&C. Which is why I love it so much.

I agree their modules are very hit and miss. One module in particular really irritated me, but I fixed the problems, ran it, and we had a lot of fun. One thing I have found consistently weird, the modules I had to "fix" are the ones my players most frequently comment on as being among their favorite "events", and the events they refer to were the ones in the modules, not one of my fixes. So I guess its like finding a diamond within a lump of coal. I haven't ran into the map/description compatibility much, but I did in that module that ticked me off. Still glad I ran it, though.


----------



## Votan (Feb 28, 2011)

Treebore said:


> Exactly. I didn't like "dump stats" and C&C fixed that by giving every attribute a reason to be important, and to make and having Primes important. Humans having that third Prime is very significant. When my players pick their demi humans to play, and they often do, they definitely give up something significant to have all those racial advantages.




Yes, Charisma being the save to resist death magic was a really cool innovation.

It also, very nicely, pulls the adventuring party towards being a bunch of humans (not that demi-humans are not viable but that three Primes is really, really nice).  This is an elegant solution to the exotic races problem that can plague 3.X D&D.


----------



## Jack Daniel (Feb 28, 2011)

I bought C&C when it first came out.  It reminded me of AD&D but looked much simpler, so I thought, hey, this could be my go-to game.  

When I tried it out, though, it didn't quite feel the same.  It was 50% AD&D, 50% something else.  All it really did was make me miss the genuine article.  I came to feel incurable nostalgia for AD&D2 and CD&D.

And sure enough, when I went back to those games, they scratched the itch.  So, at least I can thank C&C for reminding me about ye auld school and pointing me in the right direction.

At present, I'd play in a C&C or AD&D campaign if it were ever offered, but I'll only DM Classic D&D.


----------



## Treebore (Feb 28, 2011)

Jack Daniel said:


> I bought C&C when it first came out.  It reminded me of AD&D but looked much simpler, so I thought, hey, this could be my go-to game.
> 
> When I tried it out, though, it didn't quite feel the same.  It was 50% AD&D, 50% something else.  All it really did was make me miss the genuine article.  I came to feel incurable nostalgia for AD&D2 and CD&D.
> 
> ...





Yeah, C&C reawakened my interest in the older editions as well, and is why I have been buying into the OSR movement too. So I have been playing 1eAD&D, Swords and Wizardry, and other "old school" games again because of their compatibility with C&C and my still owning all my old books.

So I can definitely understand how it led you back to them.


----------



## daddystabz (Feb 28, 2011)

Well, personally I find C&C vastly superior to OSRIC, Labyrinth Lord, and Wizards & Sorcery, but whatever floats your boat.  C&C hits that sweet spot for me of having a an AD&D 2e feel mixed with modern game design principles, and that is EXACTLY what I was looking for when I began playing it.


I wish more people played MERP 2e also because it is a fantastic game and I'm having a blast playing it online.


----------



## mach1.9pants (Feb 28, 2011)

[tangent]My dump stat stopper in 3E/4E? Make it the lowest modifier of the 4E stats : STR/CON for Fort, INT/DEX for Ref, WIS/CHA for Wil... end of excessive stat dumping[/tangent]

I have never played CnC but it is a core system I like the look of so I brought the 5 main digest books, a good deal and an interesting read.


----------



## daddystabz (Feb 28, 2011)

That's another thing I love about Troll Lord Games.  They keep the costs low because they are gamers too and care about the hobby.


----------



## Treebore (Mar 1, 2011)

daddystabz said:


> That's another thing I love about Troll Lord Games.  They keep the costs low because they are gamers too and care about the hobby.





Yeah, how many companies do you know who would hold of on price increases even when they give up a profit margin by doing so?

Plus now that they do their own printing, perfect bound and hard cover, they can keep their prices low and still make a good profit. So they may not have the best editing and make mistakes, but they are a darn good company owned by gamers, done for gamers. Plus I also like the fact that Steve and Davis are veterans, like me. Also, make sure to check out their active duty prices. Active duty military always get the core, and I think everything, at 50% off. Always. So anytime your talking to an Active duty US military ( I think they do US allies too) tell them to give the Trolls a call, and they will get hooked up.

Check this out:

Troll Lord Games

How cool is that? Plus I have now discovered that I have to have my wife buy everything, because they now give the discount to Veterans of the Iraq/Afghanistan War. Which she is.


----------



## daddystabz (Mar 1, 2011)

That is awesome, Treebore.  It makes me want to support them even more.  What a company!

Treebore is very wise indeed.


----------



## Treebore (Mar 1, 2011)

daddystabz said:


> Treebore is very wise indeed.






Please! I wish I was very wise!


----------



## Marx420 (Mar 1, 2011)

I love the system as well, nice and rules light, yet marinated in enough D&D flavor to serve as the main dish in the veritable smorgasbord of systems out there. I like to use it both as a training tool (after starting with something even lighter, like savage worlds) and to put the fear into players (yes, I will brutally murder your painstakingly crafted pc in but a single round if you let me) due to the fast roll up times. Also great for running classic modules (Tomb of Horrors, White Plume Mountain, Expedition to the Barrier Peaks, Ravenloft, and the Giants /Drow series being among the notables I've plowed through).


----------



## Deuce Traveler (Mar 1, 2011)

I also like the fact that there is a lot of fan support for CnC and attempts to create other character classes and other such experiments.  I know 3.5 can make the same claim in spades, but I also prefer the simpler system of CnC.


----------



## mach1.9pants (Mar 1, 2011)

Treebore said:


> Check this out:
> 
> Troll Lord Games
> 
> How cool is that? Plus I have now discovered that I have to have my wife buy everything, because they now give the discount to Veterans of the Iraq/Afghanistan War. Which she is.




Wow that IS great, wish I'd known when I ordered the digest books, obviously only if it applies to Her Majesties Royal Air Force vets of Iraq


----------



## kitsune9 (Mar 1, 2011)

zacharythefirst said:


> *The Case For Castles & Crusades*
> 
> *Time:* Plain and simple. Look, I have a wife, 2 kids and 1 on the way, and a lot more responsibility than Young Zack ever did. C&C's system, the SIEGE Engine, is so simple that it usually takes all of 3-5 minutes for gamers to get the gist of it. I want to be able to use all the resources I've built up over the years, run a game that encourages active, fast, inspiring GM (CK) rulings, not pace-killing rules lookup. I want low prep time, employing notes and material I already have. I'm ready to get back to the basics, and get down to gaming in a faster and leaner fashion.




This is why I like it.


----------



## Estlor (Mar 1, 2011)

Imaro said:


> Well one of the advantages (dependent of course on ones own preferences) of the saving throws in CnC vs. the Fort/Ref/Will is that you don't have any real dump stats... it makes every stat matter at least somewhat because it is attached to a particular save.




I can see the value in that.  Then again, I think the 4e approach - turn the saves into defenses so you have to attack with spells/effects, then simply _don't key every attack off of Strength and Dexterity_ - solves the problem without sacrificing elegance.  But if retro D&D is your cup of tea, then I guess C&C does it well within the constraints of the system.

*shrugs* Dump stats in 2e/3e never bothered me all that much.  Adventurers, by their very nature, are already a strange and intimidating bunch.  An entire party with low Charisma wouldn't entirely be out of place.


----------



## Imaro (Mar 1, 2011)

Estlor said:


> I can see the value in that. Then again, I think the 4e approach - turn the saves into defenses so you have to attack with spells/effects, then simply _don't key every attack off of Strength and Dexterity_ - solves the problem without sacrificing elegance. But if retro D&D is your cup of tea, then I guess C&C does it well within the constraints of the system.
> 
> *shrugs* Dump stats in 2e/3e never bothered me all that much. Adventurers, by their very nature, are already a strange and intimidating bunch. An entire party with low Charisma wouldn't entirely be out of place.




Uhm... 4e doesn't really solve the problem of dump stats... in fact it basically says... "Hey, half your stats can be dump stats and for the majority of classes it won't matter." 

This is because you usually have one stat as attack stat that also works as one of your save stats... and then your next two highest you use as your other two save stats. So instead of solving the problem, you now have three dump stats.  As I said upthread, CnC actually makes every stat important to your character.


----------



## Votan (Mar 2, 2011)

Marx420 said:


> I like to use it both as a training tool (after starting with something even lighter, like savage worlds) and to put the fear into players (yes, I will brutally murder your painstakingly crafted pc in but a single round if you let me) due to the fast roll up times.




The faster time to develop a character really does make killing a character more viable during a standard session.  The number of design choices in 3.0/3.5 D&D makes it difficult to introduce a new character on short notice.


----------



## TarionzCousin (Mar 2, 2011)

I own "Castles and Crusades Condensed." It's 114 pages. How much more is in the non-condensed rule book(s)?


----------



## Ilvarin (Mar 3, 2011)

As for alternatives to Vancian magic, I like the look of the system in Spellcraft & Swordplay. Essentially it has a roll to cast, with three outcomes: Success wherein the mage retains use of the spell, Success, but the mage"forgets" the spell, and Failure which is forgetting and, well, failing. I like the fact that it retains certain aspects, like spell books (which I love the idea of because DM-crafted spell books make neat treasure finds). So, I plan to incorporate this system, which shouldn't be difficult at all.


----------



## DM Howard (Mar 3, 2011)

I'm planning on picking up the Handbook after reading this review.  Sounds like exactly what I'm looking for.


----------



## daddystabz (Mar 4, 2011)

Good luck with it, Dndungeoneer! Make sure you pop back into here and let us know what you think of it.


----------



## Knightfall (Mar 5, 2011)

Deuce Traveler said:


> I also like the fact that there is a lot of fan support for CnC and attempts to create other character classes and other such experiments.  I know 3.5 can make the same claim in spades, but I also prefer the simpler system of CnC.



*Cough*

http://www.enworld.org/forum/genera...8-dark-world-good-vs-evil-campaign-world.html

Erm, excuse me.


----------



## GreyLord (Mar 5, 2011)

TarionzCousin said:


> I own "Castles and Crusades Condensed." It's 114 pages. How much more is in the non-condensed rule book(s)?




I think you're doing great with the Condensed version.  Most of what you would gain is more information on running the game itself, more character classes, and more monsters.


----------

