TheRPGSite

I'm aware of the editing issues and inconsistent releases, but I'm more curious as to how the game plays at the table for those who have experience with older editions.  Personally, coming from d20/White-Wolf I've a limited view of how it actually works as a variation on (A)D&D, so I'm wondering about how it looks coming from a different angle.

If anyone here has any experiences, what did you like/not like about it in play?  Did it differ from AD&D substantially, or did it just feel like a more streamlined version?

We've been playing a C&C campaign for a year and a half, with a huge party, consisting of human fighter, human barbarian, human wizard, elf ranger and human assassin (plus a bunch of hirelings including a few fighters and barbarians, a bard, a thief and a cleric).

The core resolution system is the SIEGE Mechanic. A SIEGE check is roll 1d20 + attribute bonus + level (for class abilities and saving throws only), to match or exceed base difficulty (12 for Prime Attributes, 18 for others) + Challenge Level (CL for short).

For example, once you establish (as per Players Handbook) that finding traps is a Wisdom Check, this means that Eric the Cleric (1st level, 18 Wisdom, Prime) needs to roll a 9+CL to find a trap, against Keefe the Thief's (1st level, 11 Wisdom, non-Prime) 18+CL.

Since niche protection takes the form of a bonus equal to your class level when dealing with a class skill, the Thief will eventually surpass the Cleric, but (in the above example) only by 9th level.

So, the SIEGE Engine results does play havoc with niche protection (outside of combat and magic, anyway). The above specifically is not an issue, because as I've mentioned, there's no Thief PC, but it could be.

Other than that, though, C&C is awesome. The class line-up is excellent! The C&C Bard is not a singing rogue with crappy magic, but a rough and ready warrior-poet. The C&C Knight is a horseman and a war-leader. The Ranger is pretty much Aragorn. The rest are what you'd expect from AD&D 1e, as is the bestiary and magic item list (Monsters & Treasure).

I'm not familiar with the published adventures (our GM's been converting stuff from dozens of other systems), but the Guide to Arms & Armor (which I picked up in the Haiti bundle) is a decent, if workmanlike expansion.

All in all, a great game, with some minor flaws but nothing dealbreaking, and some solid, fun implementations of standard D&D fare. Not quite my favorite take on D&D (I'm partial to the D&D Rules Cyclopedia myself), but a good game nonetheless.

I've been thinking about my C&C stuff recently.  I only ran it twice.  

The only thing it really brings to the table is the generic skill mechanic.  I found it to be almost totally pointless.  Characters are always going to fail on checks against non-primes, and will likewise fail on any prime check involving a target level.  When and if a characters level applies to the check is poorly explained to say the least.  The examples seem to indicate the characters level never applies unless it explicitly lists so in the character class description.  There are just better and clearer mechanics than this.

The main goodness of the game came from the fact it was basically new and shiney classic D&D stuff.  It was nice having new books and modules.  It was also going to be the game system for Castle Zagyg!  But then...

1) The newness wore off.  I'd never use Castles & Crusades to run a old style D&D game when I can just as easily use Basic or AD&D2.  There was really no point in purchasing it.

2) The modules don't really do anything for me.  I purchased three and they're all pretty meh.  They're light on maps, so they don't really provide any salvagable bits for other D&D games.

3) Gygax's widow yanked Castle Zagyg away from the Troll Lord people.  The only Zagyg product which was the kind of thing I wanted out of the series was a box set produced in tiny numbers and sold direct only.  So, I wasn't able to acquire one, and I don't see myself paying the premium to acquire it.  The other Zagyg products are pretty much like the rest of the C&C modules and are bland things which don't do anything for me.

So, I have to say that C&C was interesting when it was shiney, but that's about it.  I already had older editions of D&D which were perfectly servicable.  It wasn't that the C&C modules couldn't be ported to older editions, it was simply that they couldn't compare to the true classics or even offerings from Dungeon Crawl Classics.

Oh, and then there's the Castle Keepers Guide.  That thing still isn't out yet.  Does it even have a release date?

None of this post is hatred towards C&C or Troll Lords Games.  It's just that I realized C&C wasn't for me.

Well, it isn't for everyone.  Either you're going to like the speed and simplicity the SEIGE Engine mechanic brings to play, or you're going to think it's way to simplistic and vague.

C&C is a compromise games, in a lot of ways.  It straddles the bridge between older D&D and d20 in a lot of ways.  It's a meeting ground.  

For us, it played fast, and had a definite classical feel to it, but some of our players felt it was a little unbalanced at earlier levels.  Really, as far as power curve at lower levels, I'd put it around where D&D 3e was.  I personally thought it felt a lot like every Rules Cyclopedia D&D session I ran between 1993-1999, mixed in with the race/class divisions of D&D 3e/d20.

All in all, it's been a good experience so far.  C&C isn't perfect, but it's really easy to run, and should have familiar concepts for those who started playing in 1983 or 2003.  Those are some of the biggest reasons I enjoy it.

EDIT: I personally very much like the guys who run Troll Lord Games, and the one time I had an order issue they made it right and then some, but their release schedule can drive you nuts.  And this is coming from a Palladium fan.

I'd like C&C a lot more if TLG wasn't running it.  No Offense, they seem like nice guys and all, but they also seem fairly inept.  The CKG has been in development for ever and the other support material (modules and source books) have been lame IMO.  The phb has had so many editing problems that it's like the poster boy for bad editing.  Compared to free rulesets like OSRIC, BFRPG, and LL, C&C looks weak in comparison.  I even like the art in the free games better.  

That said, it does play well.  It's fast and easy to run and I do like the character classes better than the originals.

So if it was a straight 3-way battle between C&C, DND Basic/Cyclopedia and Dark Dungeons, which would win?

I actually own all 3, but need to know which one to invest my time in learning properly.

Quote from: Lawbag;390349So if it was a straight 3-way battle between C&C, DND Basic/Cyclopedia and Dark Dungeons, which would win?

I actually own all 3, but need to know which one to invest my time in learning properly.

Well, that's the $64k, question, I suppose.

I consider Rules Cyclopedia the best single-volume rules compilation of all time, but C&C is a little more accessible to a larger pool of gamers, and it's easy to pull rules in from both 3e and 1e if I like.  It's been an easy game to houserule and homebrew.  So, for those reasons, I'd put C&C ahead of RC for my purposes, but I still think RC is a superior ruleset as written.

So if it was important that everyone in my group wanted access to the rules then it would be C&C. But seeing as I'm running the Chaosium version of RQ, I.e. My group don't care for copies of rulebooks, its going to be RC all the way. Plus I have access to the B series of modules too.

Quote from: Lawbag;390353So if it was important that everyone in my group wanted access to the rules then it would be C&C. But seeing as I'm running the Chaosium version of RQ, I.e. My group don't care for copies of rulebooks, its going to be RC all the way. Plus I have access to the B series of modules too.

Awesome!  Sounds like a good call!

Quote from: Gabriel2;3903363) Gygax's widow yanked Castle Zagyg away from the Troll Lord people.  The only Zagyg product which was the kind of thing I wanted out of the series was a box set produced in tiny numbers and sold direct only.

Actually, the CZ boxed set of the Upper Works wasn't sold exclusively on TLG. I got mine from Paizo, personally. Granted, they had a very limited number of those and I pre-ordered it months and months before it was published. It's just that its availability wasn't TLG-exclusive, is all. :)

As for my opinions about Castles & Crusades:

1. It's a fun rules set that basically strips d20 from all its intricacies (feats, skills, tactical combat etc) down to its bare bones and blends it with AD&D, adding a universal resolution system the SIEGE engine talked above, to the whole in the process.

2. One of the strengths of C&C is that it allows you to use pretty much anything d20 and any vintage D&D products for your C&C campaign with little to no prep work. It's a "D&D esperanto", if you will.

3. The SIEGE engine is used for pretty much everything in the game, and at times, that might seem counter-intuitive or problematic if you think that saving throws should work fundamentally differently than skill representations, for instance. For me, it sort of runs contrary to AD&D's spirit, in the sense that you have AD&D's dress, with this integrated mechanic running the show. It kinda rubs against my expectations of what AD&D is and isn't, since I actually like AD&D's "dirty bits".

4. Some design choices seem weird sometimes. They have this slick SIEGE thing going on, but keep the different EXP tracks for character classes. Just an example.

Overall really, it's pretty cool, if you don't get picky and don't start asking questions such as "why wouldn't I use [insert edition of choice] instead of this middle-of-the-road compromise?"

Quote from: Lawbag;390349So if it was a straight 3-way battle between C&C, DND Basic/Cyclopedia and Dark Dungeons, which would win?

Kinda weird to me to ask the questions using these particular examples. Dark Dungeons is a clone of Mentzer "Cyclopedia" D&D, so there's a redundance here, while C&C is a blend of AD&D and d20.

The battle, if there really is one, is happening on all sorts of levels between the original games and the clones, C&C and the originals, C&C and the clones (is C&C a clone itself? Some people will say yes, other will say no), C&C and OSRIC, C&C and any d20 variant of your choice, C&C and the current edition of D&D, whatever that is, etc etc.

The weakness and strength of C&C are one and the same, to me: the fact that this is a compromise product, for good and ill.

I've played several evening pickup games with C&C.  After a few games, we ended up dropping the siege engine mechanic altogether.  (The other players didn't really like it).  We just dealt with skills by roleplaying them, as we did with 1E AD&D back in the day.  After awhile we ended up dropping C&C altogether, and used AD&D or the Mentzer D&D basic or expert box set instead.

None of the C&C modules I recall stood out.  Largely unmemorable.

I don't have much to add to what others have already said.

C&C is a 'hybrid' of d20/3e and 1e AD&D.  Very roughly, it takes AD&D and 'streamlines' it in certain ways (standard ability score modifiers, a core d20 mechanic to cover everything except combat and magic, ascending ACs, etc.).

In favour of C&C, it is a snap to use pre-3e A/D&D material with C&C (3e material, at least if it is focused on levels 1-10, is also pretty easy to convert).  It is also easier to convince d20 fans to try it out than, say, 1e AD&D or OD&D (this was an issue with the group I was involved with around 2004-2005).

Also, the Castle Zagyg: Upper Works box set is pretty remarkable.  Definitely worth getting, if you can, in my opinion.  And one of the few products for C&C with decent (but not perfect) editing.  The Castle Zagyg: Yggsburgh book is a decent city and region gazetteer, with a number of adventures and lots of adventure hooks, but pretty awful editing (and way too much trivial detail).

I was a huge fan of C&C around 2004-2007, although I only managed to run two short campaigns with it (one was cut short due to moving across the Atlantic, the other was an online campaign).  It was fun, but I increasingly found the SEIGE mechanic problematic.  

And, after a while, the question became: why not just run TSR D&D?  So I eventually decided to go with classic D&D (Basic/Expert) and Swords & Wizardry (the 0e retro-clone) for my old school D&D gaming.

If one really likes certain aspects of d20/3e, but wants a simpler system, then I think that C&C is a very good choice.  However, if one wants an 'old school' game, I would recommend either simply picking up the originals on eBay, or using one of the retro-clones (Labyrinth Lord + Advanced Edition Companion would be a good option for someone who wanted a 'cleaned up' or 'streamlined' version of AD&D).

I'm still grateful to TLG and C&C, though, for getting me interested in the older games again.  C&C was a helpful 'bridge' for that.

I don't have much to add to what others have already said.

C&C is a 'hybrid' of d20/3e and 1e AD&D.  Very roughly, it takes AD&D and 'streamlines' it in certain ways (standard ability score modifiers, a core d20 mechanic to cover everything except combat and magic, ascending ACs, etc.).

In favour of C&C, it is a snap to use pre-3e A/D&D material with C&C (3e material, at least if it is focused on levels 1-10, is also pretty easy to convert).  It is also easier to convince d20 fans to try it out than, say, 1e AD&D or OD&D (this was an issue with the group I was involved with around 2004-2005).

Also, the Castle Zagyg: Upper Works box set is pretty remarkable.  Definitely worth getting, if you can, in my opinion.  And one of the few products for C&C with decent (but not perfect) editing.  The Castle Zagyg: Yggsburgh book is a decent city and region gazetteer, with a number of adventures and lots of adventure hooks, but pretty awful editing (and way too much trivial detail).

I was a huge fan of C&C around 2004-2007, although I only managed to run two short campaigns with it (one was cut short due to moving across the Atlantic, the other was an online campaign).  It was fun, but I increasingly found the SEIGE mechanic problematic.  

And, after a while, the question became: why not just run TSR D&D?  So I eventually decided to go with classic D&D (Basic/Expert) and Swords & Wizardry (the 0e retro-clone) for my old school D&D gaming.

If one really likes certain aspects of d20/3e, but wants a simpler system, then I think that C&C is a very good choice.  However, if one wants an 'old school' game, I would recommend either simply picking up the originals on eBay, or using one of the retro-clones (Labyrinth Lord + Advanced Edition Companion would be a good option for someone who wanted a 'cleaned up' or 'streamlined' version of AD&D).

I'm still grateful to TLG and C&C, though, for getting me interested in the older games again.  C&C was a helpful 'bridge' for that.

Quote from: Lawbag;390349So if it was a straight 3-way battle between C&C, DND Basic/Cyclopedia and Dark Dungeons, which would win?

Quote from: Lawbag;390353... its going to be RC all the way...

Well, you may want to keep a copy of Dark Dungeons nearby nonetheless.  It's essentially the same game as the RC, and addresses some of the inconsistent and vague rules in the RC.  Also, it has 36-level progressions for all classes, and thus avoids the weird 'attack rank' system for non-human classes in the RC.

Quote from: Akrasia;390375I was a huge fan of C&C around 2004-2007, although I only managed to run two short campaigns with it (one was cut short due to moving across the Atlantic, the other was an online campaign).  It was fun, but I increasingly found the SEIGE mechanic problematic.  

And, after a while, the question became: why not just run TSR D&D?  So I eventually decided to go with classic D&D (Basic/Expert) and Swords & Wizardry (the 0e retro-clone) for my old school D&D gaming.

My experience with C&C was more recent.  I sort of ignored C&C initially when it was first released.  The series of pickup games of C&C I played in recently, were with several friends who wanted to try it out.

The only reason why I bothered playing 3.5E D&D (and later 4E) in the first place over the last 5+ years or so, was due to my inability to find a stable local group to play 1E AD&D or the older Moldvay or Mentzer D&D box sets.  The few groups I did find locally that played 1E or 2E AD&D, were very dysfunctional.  I only lasted a few sessions in these dysfunctional groups, before telling them I was resigning from their game.

Quote from: Akrasia;390375If one really likes certain aspects of d20/3e, but wants a simpler system, then I think that C&C is a very good choice.

If I wanted a really simple version of d20/3E, I probably would have chosen something like Microlite20 or Microlite74.

Quote from: Peregrin;390326If anyone here has any experiences, what did you like/not like about it in play?  Did it differ from AD&D substantially, or did it just feel like a more streamlined version?

I like the SIEGE engine, but I make 15 the base TN and give +3 bonus for Primes.   I've yanked the idea of primes for my OD&D / S&W games.  

I am mostly happy with C&C and I would rather play it than AD&D, even though it keeps too much of AD&D's clunkiness that I throw out when I run OD&D.

Quote from: Lawbag;390349So if it was a straight 3-way battle between C&C, DND Basic/Cyclopedia and Dark Dungeons, which would win.

There is no Ten Commandments, just a Chinese Menu.  

Take what you like from anywhere, then toss the rest.

Thanks guys.  

I guess I'll be tweaking the system a bit if I do decide to use it.  Easy enough to modify.

Quote from: mhensley;390347Compared to free rulesets like OSRIC, BFRPG, and LL, C&C looks weak in comparison.

I have to take issue with this, just 'cause BFRPG uses a horrible version of Soutane as its main font. Absolutely childish looking. Might as well be Comic Sans.

My experience of the C&C modules is that they are woefully average. I've read more exciting MERP adventures than these.

Quote from: Spinachcat;390451There is no Ten Commandments, just a Chinese Menu.  

Take what you like from anywhere, then toss the rest.

The master spoke wisdom unto him...

Quote from: Peregrin;390466I guess I'll be tweaking the system a bit if I do decide to use it.  Easy enough to modify.

...and lo, he was Enlightened. :)

Myself, I'm currently partial to D&D RC with the class/race split from Basic Fantasy RPG, the spell list from S&W, and assorted bits and pieces from LL AEC.

Quote from: FASERIP;390478I have to take issue with this, just 'cause BFRPG uses a horrible version of Soutane as its main font. Absolutely childish looking. Might as well be Comic Sans.

I don't mind it. BFRPG is a decent game, which skirts the border between retro-clone and tribute game, with some good implementations of old ideas. It does deserve a lot more love than it gets, IMO.

Quote from: Lawbag;390479My experience of the C&C modules is that they are woefully average. I've read more exciting MERP adventures than these.

Yup. The ones by Casey Christopherson are pretty good, Dark Chateau by Rob Kuntz was decent, but the rest always had this "soooo, why did this need to be published?" vibe. Which is weird since there have been a lot of great old school modules in the last few years from other sources.

That said, this should not be a barrier before trying the game, since C&C makes it very easy to convert AD&D/OSRIC/whatever stats on the fly.

Short version:  I liked C&C a lot, at first, but after playing it for a while I ended up finding things I didn't like, which led to me ripping out the SIEGE engine and house-ruling it to be more and more like TSR D&D.  In the end, it made more sense for me to play the real deal.  

Long version: See this post on big purple (http://forum.rpg.net/showpost.php?p=11491340&postcount=97)

Quote from: Melan;390497Yup. The ones by Casey Christopherson are pretty good, Dark Chateau by Rob Kuntz was decent, but the rest always had this "soooo, why did this need to be published?" vibe. Which is weird since there have been a lot of great old school modules in the last few years from other sources.

Agreed, mostly.  I'd really like to see some old-fashioned quality crawls put out for it.  There aren't a lot of really bad adventures for C&C, but there aren't a lot of A+ ones, either.

DB4 and DB5, the Dro Mandras modules, were pretty good.  Those were by Christopherson.

Those are the ones I'd also recommend first. Dark Chateau is also a good take on the low level goblin module concept; it has all sorts of problems*, but it works and haz the crazy imaginative Kuntzian elements in the background. Otherwise... as you wrote, they are 'meh'.
____________
* The major thing, which affects all Kuntz modules, is invisible depth -- imaginative "holy shit this is so cool" details on locales and items the players will probable never, ever learn, since they would have to jump through several hoops backwards to get to them.

Quote from: Melan;390683* The major thing, which affects all Kuntz modules, is invisible depth -- imaginative "holy shit this is so cool" details on locales and items the players will probable never, ever learn, since they would have to jump through several hoops backwards to get to them.

Tinsel.

Well, I still like C&C alot.

It's easy to run games, both one-shot adventures and campaigns. It's a bit of work to pregen mid and high level characters, however designing adventures is a snap, and adjusting challenges and encounters for different sizes and types of parties requires only a bit of effort.

Most games I run are sandbox style adventures, with multiple possible outcomes, some of which depend on the actions of the players, and some of which depend on the actions of NPCs.

Quote from: Philotomy Jurament;390572Short version:  I liked C&C a lot, at first, but after playing it for a while I ended up finding things I didn't like, which led to me ripping out the SIEGE engine and house-ruling it to be more and more like TSR D&D.  In the end, it made more sense for me to play the real deal.  

Yep, I did the same.

I love C&C.

It's extremely compatible with all your pre 3e monster books, sourcebooks, adventures etc. which is a huge plus. To me it mixes the flavor of 1e with the smoothness of 2e and some of the modern elements of 3e. I especially like the takes on the various classes and their abilities - by far my favorite versions from any D&D game.

The siege mechanic is meh in my opinion. Works just as well as other systems but doesn't knock my socks off as being a big improvement. The game as a whole is very easy to houserule and create new material for, making it simple to tweak things to your taste and customize as needed.

People have mentioned a slow release of supplements but this is one game where I really don't see the need for anything outside of the main book and the monster book.

Quote from: GoOrange;390868People have mentioned a slow release of supplements but this is one game where I really don't see the need for anything outside of the main book and the monster book.

That is absolutely true.
I think that when people complain about C&C supplements they think about the Castle Keeper Guide (CKG) more than anything else.
Maybe how long Castle Zagyg took to unfold as well.

I think that's the biggest issue when dealing with us gamers. We are either left feeling we want more from the "one book" system the publisher intended or feeling overwhelmed with the incomplete rulebook that can only be serviced by a plethora of books.

If a game needs its supplements to be functional, explicitely so, then something's wrong with the design.

I found nothing remarkable about the Siege Engine Mechanic. I bought and read the books twice before selling them off. I don't see the appeal or agree with the rave reviews I've read online. YMMV

Quote from: GoOrange;390868... I especially like the takes on the various classes and their abilities - by far my favorite versions from any D&D game...

I do like the C&C versions of the assassin, bard, paladin, ranger, and knight.

I like the fact that there are no 'semi-spellusers' in C&C.  Only 'full' spellcasters have access to magic (wizards, illusionists, clerics, and druids).

Quote from: Zachary The First;390651DB4 and DB5, the Dro Mandras modules, were pretty good.  Those were by Christopherson.

The 'DB' series by Christopherson is the pretty good (if you can ignore the awful editing).  It has a nice mix of wilderness, urban, and dungeon adventures.

The Crater of Umsheti is a decent enough 'mega-dungeon', and could easily be expanded by CKs.

I like the 'divided city' concept used for Dro Mandros.  Lots of interesting possibilities with that.

If I were to ever run a 'true' C&C campaign again, I would use the Dro Mandras setting, and fit the ruins of Castle Zagyg somewhere in the northern marches.  (Actually, that doesn't sound too bad...)

The C&C Assassin is pretty cool, I'll agree to that.

The Fighter, however, makes no sense in C&C's context, to me. His iterative attacks against less than 1HD creatures, for instance, are an artefact from Chainmail and correspondances of Heroes and Superheroes into Men in the Original D&D of 1974, just like in AD&D's case. Problem is, if you don't have all the bells and whistles of AD&D combat and plug yourself to the Chainmail tactical mind frame where anything mundane is basically a level 0 something, or a less-than-1HD Goblin or somesuch, this ability doesn't make any sense.

And that's a biggy, to me. If the Fighter makes no sense, and I'm looking at a D&D remake, I'm like... "what's the point?"

Furthermore. The different XP tracks are kept, but the minimum ability scores to be able to select different classes are gone. When you generate characters with 3d6 ability scores, you'll find yourself with a slew of Clerics, Fighters, MUs and Thieves in AD&D, simply because their ability scores requirements are a 9 in something and that's it. Try shooting for a Paladin or Ranger and you'll need some lucky dice rolls. That's on purpose. That's why Paladin and Ranger are basically upgraded fighters. If you don't have minimum requirements, then you can be a Paladin or Ranger instead of a pure Fighter any time you want. Nobody in their right mind would choose a Fighter instead of those two. Sure, you can go for "role playing is what matters most, and I create a fighter on purpose", but really, though rules balance shouldn't be a pain in the ass or an obsession of the game design to me, there's still an issue there that I find rather glaring.

Quote from: Benoist;390930Furthermore. The different XP tracks are kept, but the minimum ability scores to be able to select different classes are gone. When you generate characters with 3d6 ability scores, you'll find yourself with a slew of Clerics, Fighters, MUs and Thieves in AD&D, simply because their ability scores requirements are a 9 in something and that's it. Try shooting for a Paladin or Ranger and you'll need some lucky dice rolls. That's on purpose. That's why Paladin and Ranger are basically upgraded fighters. If you don't have minimum requirements, then you can be a Paladin or Ranger instead of a pure Fighter any time you want. Nobody in their right mind would choose a Fighter instead of those two. Sure, you can go for "role playing is what matters most, and I create a fighter on purpose", but really, though rules balance shouldn't be a pain in the ass or an obsession of the game design to me, there's still an issue there that I find rather glaring.

I'm too lazy to look, but does the Ranger have any restrictions?  I'm assuming the Paladin does.  That would be the reason, IMHO, for not picking a Paladin: "I don't WANNA be a Lawful Good Holy Roller!"  If Rangers have similar restrictions, then I do see why someone would be a Fighter over them.  That said, I'm not saying I agree with the lack of minimums...just saying I could see why one would choose the "lesser" option when given the choice.

(After all, in AD&D 2e I saw at least a fighter or two who could have arranged their scores to meet a Paladin or Ranger but couldn't stand the idea of playing either).

Well, I don't mean to say that the game sucks, far from it. You can see my first post on the thread for that. I can understand how people might not find C&C fulfills their needs, however, considering my own issues with the game.

And you're right about the Paladin. The Ranger isn't nearly as restricted though. Even if you end up in an urban adventure, it still pays off IMO to play a ranger instead of the lame fighter. YMMV.

Quote from: Benoist;390935Well, I don't mean to say that the game sucks, far from it. You can see my first post on the thread for that. I can understand how people might not find C&C fulfills their needs, however, considering my own issues with the game.

And you're right about the Paladin. The Ranger isn't nearly as restricted though. Even if you end up in an urban adventure, it still pays off IMO to play a ranger instead of the lame fighter. YMMV.

Yeah, I bought the Player's Handbook and wasn't very wowed, so I have no idea if there's any reason as written to not be a Paladin or Ranger because I put it away about a day after I bought it (it was right before the new printing, so they were on sale at a convention)...didn't really impress me at the time.

Out of curiosity, though, for those who have played it...is it flexible enough to use AD&D2e Monster Manuals with minimal effort?  I may give it a second look if so...

Quote from: Tommy Brownell;390938Out of curiosity, though, for those who have played it...is it flexible enough to use AD&D2e Monster Manuals with minimal effort?  I may give it a second look if so...

I've played C&C recently, but haven't tried using any older AD&D stuff with it.

For 2E AD&D, I guess one easy way I can think of offhand for comparison purposes is to convert some of the stats and see how they match to the C&C equivalents.

AC_ascending = 20 - AC_descending

(base attack bonus)  BAB = 21 - THAC0

Quote from: Akrasia;390922I do like the C&C versions of the assassin, bard, paladin, ranger, and knight.

I like the fact that there are no 'semi-spellusers' in C&C.  Only 'full' spellcasters have access to magic (wizards, illusionists, clerics, and druids).

Agrred. These are my favorite thing about C&C, their take on the classes is great.

So great in fact that I've often considered converting it to RC/LL/whatever I'm playing at the time.

Quote from: Tommy Brownell;390938Out of curiosity, though, for those who have played it...is it flexible enough to use AD&D2e Monster Manuals with minimal effort?  I may give it a second look if so...

Yes. It is flexible enough.

Quote from: ggroy;390940I've played C&C recently, but haven't tried using any older AD&D stuff with it.

For 2E AD&D, I guess one easy way I can think of offhand for comparison purposes is to convert some of the stats and see how they match to the C&C equivalents.

AC_ascending = 20 - AC_descending

(base attack bonus)  BAB = 21 - THAC0

Thanks for the guidelines!

Btw, this thread inspired me to pull out the Player's Handbook and compare Fighters and Rangers.

Wow.

Yeah, unless you just GOTSTA have the heaviest armor possible, there is no reason whatsoever to play a Fighter.

Quote from: The Butcher;390946Agrred. These are my favorite thing about C&C, their take on the classes is great.

So great in fact that I've often considered converting it to RC/LL/whatever I'm playing at the time.

Hmmm.  I find the classes the LEAST thing I like - well, besides the idiotic Siege mechanic.  I replaced the classes pretty much verbatim from the 1e phb, tossed the siege engine, which ended up being 1e in all but name, so I tossed C&C as well.  I love the principal behind C&C, I just think it was implemented poorly.

I'll keep these considerations in mind when I go to start my Old Skool D&D campaign (whenever I find the time! le sighe...).

Currently looking at running LL with the AEC, so AD&D with some Basic mechanics.  Still deciding if I want to work more of AD&D's combat system in there (cherry pick a few ideas), but I'll definitely be scanning C&C over the next few weekends for bits and pieces.

You know, that is one of the really nice things about C&C, S&W, LL, the AEC, and all the rest--the fact that they are largely compatible or easy to convert.  That means I can run Castles & Crusades, you run Swords & Wizardry, your cousin runs Labyrinth Lord, and our buddy runs a homebrew mix utilizing bits from all of the and the Rules Cyclopedia, and we can still talk shop pretty easily.

A common language is good for a community, but not always good for business.

However, developers like Valve (and some MMO devs) are proving that -- for at least the video-game industry -- you can maintain the status quo while revising and expanding your content, and it works wonders with maintaining the interest of your longtime/hardcore fans and makes it easier for people to integrate with the community (since the state of flux is much more organic and paced).

It hasn't worked so well for the tabletop industry, but I'm not sure anyone has really employed the strategy correctly.

I do have a feeling, though, that a lot of people "jumped ship" before 3.5, since WotC decided to make the systemic changes significant enough to make it more work to convert material back and forth between 3.0 and 3.5.  If they had released the "revised" edition they were originally supposed to (overseen by Cook and some of the other original designers), who knows what would've happened.

Well, I helped my kids make characters again the other night and played a bit there's plenty of things I wish they'd done a little better but that's true of every D&D variant I'm aware of.

Personally the 0 HD / wargame basis is the core concept behind D&D and a big part of its long term success.  I wish they'd made the rules a bit more wargamey.  You see, the way I see it, D&D's success is a result of being all things to all people.  By being a wargame it gets some people but because mass battle combat is simplistic it also appeals to the rules lite crowd.  It's got elves and dwarves and dragons and wizards but it's grounded in a fairly classical medieval wargame approach and manages to be quite gritty while doing so.

The thing is that you really can play D&D (OD&D - C&C leaving out 3 and 4) as anything from a superior version of Milton Bradley's Heroquest to Warhammer Fantasy Battle to a virtually free form story game.  It can hit all the bases.  Unfortunately this has been neglected since 1e but as it was a fundamental aspect of the game, versions done by people who actually wanted to clean up D&D instead of publishing their heartbreaker under that title (and yes I'm firmly in that camp myself) tend to keep various obvious aspects without actually creating a game that functions well in big battles.

Anyhow, in C&C a fighter is +2 to hit with their specialized weapon at first level while barbarians, paladins, knights, and rangers are at +0.  Fighters are the only class that can get multiple attacks too.  The only thing that challenges their supremacy in combat is the ranger's + Level damage against humanoids and giants.

Quote from: Peregrin;390971Currently looking at running LL with the AEC, so AD&D with some Basic mechanics.

A similar approach that I think has a lot of merit is to use the 1e AD&D Players Handbook as the "core rules," with just about everything in the 1e DMG being subject to DM fiat on exactly how its handled.  Everything the players "need to know" is the in Players Handbook.  Then you can run the details of combat and such however you like (e.g. using the B/X or LL combat sequence, an OD&D-ish combat sequence (http://www.philotomy.com/combat_sequence.html), et cetera).

True.  However I feel that LL: AEC is a little more cleaned up and easily digestible, especially for people who have never played AD&D (spell acquisition/knowledge checks are made more clear, etc.).  Definitely not as interesting to read, but easier to use at the table.  A read-through of the AD&D DMG for the perspective and insights is probably warranted, though.

I'd also been considering the Gray Book (OD&D + supps + strategic review + selected material from elsewhere), but was told I may as well play AD&D at that point.  It would also need some minutiae imported from elsewhere (morale, some combat info, etc.).

C&C is a good bridge from 3e to older edition games, and I appreciate it for that sole reason. The only reason to stay with C&C instead of going full fledge retro-clone/AD&D is that you like the SIEGE engine system.

As for LL+AEC, it's the best thing ever!!!!

Quote from: David Johansen;391037You see, the way I see it, D&D's success is a result of being all things to all people.  By being a wargame it gets some people but because mass battle combat is simplistic it also appeals to the rules lite crowd.  It's got elves and dwarves and dragons and wizards but it's grounded in a fairly classical medieval wargame approach and manages to be quite gritty while doing so.

The thing is that you really can play D&D (OD&D - C&C leaving out 3 and 4) as anything from a superior version of Milton Bradley's Heroquest to Warhammer Fantasy Battle to a virtually free form story game.  It can hit all the bases.  Unfortunately this has been neglected since 1e but as it was a fundamental aspect of the game, versions done by people who actually wanted to clean up D&D instead of publishing their heartbreaker under that title (and yes I'm firmly in that camp myself) tend to keep various obvious aspects without actually creating a game that functions well in big battles.

Emphasis (bolded) mine. I say you're on to something here, and the bolded parts in particular are crucial to understand the history of D&D. Great post!

Well, the simple fact is that every time (four IRRC) I've set out to write a cleaned up D&D it has strayed very far from the original eventually.  I'm actually working on blending of one of them with my attempt at a Rolemaster heartbreaker right now, the D&D one had more skills.

Quote from: The Butcher;391273I say you're on to something here, and the bolded parts in particular are crucial to understand the history of D&D. Great post!

Maybe not the history of D&D but the success story of D&D?

Quote from: Dirk Remmecke;391871Maybe not the history of D&D but the success story of D&D?

Both!

Quote from: David Johansen;391037D&D's success is a result of being all things to all people.

The secret to D&D's initial popularity.

Quote from: David Johansen;391037Unfortunately this has been neglected since 1e but as it was a fundamental aspect of the game, versions done by people who actually wanted to clean up D&D instead of publishing their heartbreaker under that title (and yes I'm firmly in that camp myself) tend to keep various obvious aspects without actually creating a game that functions well in big battles.

The history of D&D's successive editions, in a nutshell.

Quote from: PaladinCA;390918I found nothing remarkable about the Siege Engine Mechanic. I bought and read the books twice before selling them off. I don't see the appeal or agree with the rave reviews I've read online. YMMV

Sorry to hear that. :( I think that the SIEGE mechanic is pretty neat because it has one simple roll to do almost everything. My goal when I DM a RPG is to hardly ever have to look up a rule, and SIEGE helps me out a lot there.

Quote from: areola;391139C&C is a good bridge from 3e to older edition games, and I appreciate it for that sole reason. The only reason to stay with C&C instead of going full fledge retro-clone/AD&D is that you like the SIEGE engine system.

I see this as another big advantage, that C&C captures the AD&D feel but uses 3E style rules. I have players from both ends of the spectrum and this is a great compromise for both factions.

When I don't run OD&D, I ususally run C&C.

Quote from: The Butcher;391874Both!

The secret to D&D's initial popularity.



The history of D&D's successive editions, in a nutshell.

Well, to the first, I think it might have been a barrier to greater mainstream penetration because many people walked away and filed it under "stupid adolescent stuff that makes no sense."  Now good DMs might have helped there but there's also some pretty counter intuitive stuff in AD&D that I've seen lead to really nasty arguements.

To the second I'd have to say that second edition was an attempt to clean up D&D by people who really didn't get the wargame aspect of it and were more concerned with narrative flow than balance.  It's a problem I have with Castles and Crusades too.

Honestly, all I really want is a Holmes basic set retro clone that puts in a proper stat bonus set and variable weapon damage and gives thieves a better starting chance on their skills.

Quote from: finarvyn;391882Sorry to hear that. :( I think that the SIEGE mechanic is pretty neat because it has one simple roll to do almost everything. My goal when I DM a RPG is to hardly ever have to look up a rule, and SIEGE helps me out a lot there.

I see this as another big advantage, that C&C captures the AD&D feel but uses 3E style rules. I have players from both ends of the spectrum and this is a great compromise for both factions.

When I don't run OD&D, I ususally run C&C.

Both positive points for me as well.

Quote from: David Johansen;391884Well, to the first, I think it might have been a barrier to greater mainstream penetration because many people walked away and filed it under "stupid adolescent stuff that makes no sense."

Possibly.

Quote from: David Johansen;391884To the second I'd have to say that second edition was an attempt to clean up D&D by people who really didn't get the wargame aspect of it and were more concerned with narrative flow than balance.  It's a problem I have with Castles and Crusades too.

Yeah, C&C does feel a lot like 2e at times. I attributed it to the "high fantasy" feel of the art, published adventures and setting; but your insight on mechanics, and their wargame roots, is intriguing.

Quote from: David Johansen;391884Honestly, all I really want is a Holmes basic set retro clone that puts in a proper stat bonus set and variable weapon damage and gives thieves a better starting chance on their skills.

I'm not really familiar with Holmes, but maybe a S&W Core or LL hack is the way to go?

I have all the 4th printed edition (Green backs) books, I like it, its different to say the least.  I haven't played it allot because we mainly play OSRIC or Labryinth Lord now, I just wasn't a big fan of the Siege engine, I'm too use to the old ways.  Besides 30 years of gaming characters is hard to deny and convert, so I stick with what I like and know, 3.x & 4e never got me, tried them oh and PF but just can't deal with all the skills and feats, just too much junk.