I am really struggling to decide what to run between Astonishing Swordsmen & Sorcerers of Hyperborea 2nd edition or Crypts & Things Remastered edition.  I really want to run a sword & sorcery campaign with a Robert E. Howard Conan-esque flair but without being tied to the Hyborian Age setting necessarily so that the player characters will not be overshadowed at all and will be the heroes of the setting clearly.  I do not mind some weird fantasy elements but most important to me is the sword & sorcery Howardian astethic.  I also honestly prefer a magic system with the sword & sorcery trope of magic being dangerous baked in.  I like some form of corruption mechanics for casters where there might be a price that has to be eventually paid for the power you are able to wield.  

Which game do you all prefer between the 2? Which have you played or ran and which do you prefer overall and why, rules and settings-wise?

I voted for AS&SH, having used it almost exclusively as my preferred version of D&D since the 1e came out: I don't see the S&S tropes the same way you do, but given your statements C&T would better fit (with its division of white-grey-black magic, corruption, etc.).

Both are better than anything from Wizards.  Buy both for yourself.  Take the books to a group's first session, and let your players choose the the one they would like to have a game. Everyone wins.

System-wise, maybe C&T works better for you because of your sorcery approach preference, but setting-wise, it sounds like you are leaning toward something like Hyperborea. The two PDFs don't cost that much ($28 combined?), so buy them both, see what you think and jam it all together the way you want. Decide later if you want any hard copies.

I run AS&SoH 2nd edition. It's the best setting I've played and will probably stick to it for a long time.

QuoteI do not mind some weird fantasy elements but most important to me is the sword & sorcery Howardian astethic.

A lot of that in AS&SoH. My players were captivated by the world from the start. But there are no corruption rules included. There is a notion of magic being corruptible and dangerous but I think it's left for the referee to decide on that. AS&SoH is 'rulings not rules' type of system which I prefer. Haven't played Crypts & Things, so can't compare.

I'm currently running two AS&SH games - one on Roll20 and one in person.  Agreed with kanePL that it's got the best S&S setting, but I also think the system is one of the best in the OSR.  I love all the interesting weapon details, advanced combat options, and the extensive use of the d12.  The magic system is standard D&D Vancian, but if you read the magic user class descriptions you can see the S&S influence there.  Magic is acquired through dealings with otherworldly beings, daemonic pacts, studying the rites of long dead cults, and so on.  No wizard schools or divine intervention here.  It requires more effort on the part of the GM to put it into context, but that's part of the fun for me.

I run AS&SH when I want a different aesthetic than AD&D.  It's a great game, and has lots of support.

If I were looking at the two, I'd run C&T in Hyperborea. On reading, I find AS&SH (1e) fiddly and seeming to exaggerate some of the things I didn't like in AD&D 1e as much as I like B/X / LL / ACKS, so it's never seen play at my table.

I've never played Crypts & Things but have read through the book a couple times, have played a few sessions of AS&SH and backed both recent Kickstarters. AS&SH is basically a more pulpy AD&D in feel, C&T looks to be a more pulpy B/X. I suppose which you choose is whether you prefer AD&D over B/X. I'll usually take AD&D 80% of the time over B/X, but sometimes B/X is preferred because I want a more straightforward game.

This is a mostly useless post, but the best I can do.

Quote from: Brad;1086798I've never played Crypts & Things but have read through the book a couple times, have played a few sessions of AS&SH and backed both recent Kickstarters. AS&SH is basically a more pulpy AD&D in feel, C&T looks to be a more pulpy B/X. I suppose which you choose is whether you prefer AD&D over B/X. I'll usually take AD&D 80% of the time over B/X, but sometimes B/X is preferred because I want a more straightforward game.

This is a mostly useless post, but the best I can do.

I think that's a pretty good assessment.

To add just a bit, AS&SH isn't shy about using classes to define the game world. That might be the easiest way to tailor a magic system.

Quote from: Naburimannu;1086796If I were looking at the two, I'd run C&T in Hyperborea. On reading, I find AS&SH (1e) fiddly and seeming to exaggerate some of the things I didn't like in AD&D 1e as much as I like B/X / LL / ACKS, so it's never seen play at my table.

This.

What are the main system differences between AS&SH and C&T?

Quote from: Spinachcat;1087758What are the main system differences between AS&SH and C&T?

Setting-wise, AS&SH has more of a Dying Earth feel to it. I'm not as familiar with C&T's setting other than it felt more REH, where AS&SH is more Clark Ashton Smith.


Mechanically, AS&SH is more in depth, like AD&D. Heavier emphasis on class systems and the magic system is more traditional D&D/Vancian.

Quote from: Chocolate Sauce;1087774Setting-wise, AS&SH has more of a Dying Earth feel to it. I'm not as familiar with C&T's setting other than it felt more REH, where AS&SH is more Clark Ashton Smith.

I can't really speak for C&T, because I haven't read it or played it, but AS&SH is pretty flexible because the setting's more "Weird Tales" (at least to me). Plus, the gazetteer has a way of presenting short, hooky information about the setting that makes it all feel very optional. So, in my games, I definitely tend toward a more Vancian-Eyes-of-the-Overworld / Smithian-Hyperborea-feel. I like to include lost technology and sorcery. I know guys though that leave out the technology stuff (it's basically just the occasional weapon) and minimize sorcery (no casting classes) and aim for a more Lankhmar/Hyboria-feel.

Quote from: Chocolate Sauce;1087774Mechanically, AS&SH is more in depth, like AD&D. Heavier emphasis on class systems and the magic system is more traditional D&D/Vancian.

Seems fair to me, but again, I can't contrast it with C&T because I haven't read or played it.

Quote from: Chainsaw;1087779I can't really speak for C&T, because I haven't read it or played it, but AS&SH is pretty flexible because the setting's more "Weird Tales" (at least to me). Plus, the gazetteer has a way of presenting short, hooky information about the setting that makes it all feel very optional. So, in my games, I definitely tend toward a more Vancian-Eyes-of-the-Overworld / Smithian-Hyperborea-feel. I like to include lost technology and sorcery. I know guys though that leave out the technology stuff (it's basically just the occasional weapon) and minimize sorcery (no casting classes) and aim for a more Lankhmar/Hyboria-feel.


Seems fair to me, but again, I can't contrast it with C&T because I haven't read or played it.

I've only flipped through C&T, haven't played it myself. I think the presentation of the first edition of the game was a little better than the second.

I do think adding a little sci-fi to AS&SH is appropriate, as long as it lends itself to the weird horror