I don't know C&C, but I keep hearing negative things about it that I'd at least like to understand what people are talking about.
From what I've read, the two keywords that come in for the most complains are: Primes (IIRC), and the SIEGE system. So what are they, and what's the argument against them?
EDIT: should have been "What are the main criticisms?"
and what is it C&C stands for... it's one of the abbreviations I can't suss without google... is it Castles and Crusades/Crusaders?
Quote from: Elliot Wilen;503663I don't know C&C, but I keep hearing negative things about it that I'd at least like to understand what people are talking about.
From what I've read, the two keywords that come in for the most complains are: Primes (IIRC), and the SIEGE system. So what are they, and what's the argument against them?
EDIT: should have been "What are the main criticisms?"
The SIEGE system and the Primes thing never took with me.
Plus art, editing, and layout, the fact that the CKG took forever...lotsa things.
Reposting the stuff from another thread (Part of C&C's problems included).
Here's what I basically answered to someone who clearly expressed the hope that "D&D Next"'s nod towards AD&D wouldn't look like C&C... because well, there's AD&D for that (personal opinions on said C&C follow, but that's not really my point here):
I don't think 5e will replace AD&D in ANY case. You'd just have to clone AD&D, and we have that. Twice. It's the Original + OSRIC.
AND YET, I think it *is* possible to have a game that is based on a d20 premise and basically builds its own thing based on AD&D's vibe and premise, rather than cloning it in a sort of pastiche way like C&C did. The way Swords & Wizardry reproduces OD&D from a d20 frame in its own way. Now take Swords & Wizardry Complete Rules (i.e. clone of late OD&D, almost AD&D). Imagine that AC is Ascending by default (you have the choice in S&W Complete). You basically have a d20 game in substance, but the logic sustaining it, the way it plays, the things it's focused on... is actually pretty much AD&D. You see what I mean?
Basically, I'm saying that creating a game on a d20 frame that is in the tradition of First Ed IS possible. C&C just did it *wrong*, like a Sprague de Camp pastiche of the real thing and bits and pieces glued onto the system like different XP charts and shit, and that awful SIEGE engine that just has NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with AD&D in the first place.
It's not the only way to do it. Far from it.
I was initially very enthusiastic about C&C. Over time, though, I noticed a few things that I wasn't keen on.
Namely:
Quote from: thedungeondelver;503671The SIEGE system and the Primes thing never took with me.
Eventually I decided that S&W did everything for me that C&C did (ascending AC, simplified saving throws, etc.) without the cruft (SIEGE system).
Regarding:
Quote from: thedungeondelver;503671Plus art, editing, and layout, the fact that the CKG took forever...lotsa things.
The poor editing did grate.
Also, Peter Bradley is perhaps the single most annoying person affiliated with a RPG company to post on any RPG forum anywhere.
That said, I do like C&C, and would be happy to play in a game with a decent CK. :)
Quote from: Akrasia;503678Also, Peter Bradley is perhaps the single most annoying person affiliated with a RPG company to post on any RPG forum anywhere.
At least he isn't some non-gaming, Jew-hating OSR groupie like Stefan Poag.
Quote from: Akrasia;503678I was initially very enthusiastic about C&C. Over time, though, I noticed a few things that I wasn't keen on.
That was my experience, as well. I went from running a 3e game to running a C&C game, and loved it, at first. However, after playing C&C for a while I found that some things just didn't work as well as I thought they would, and other things worked completely differently than I wanted them to. I started house-ruling, and my house rules almost always took C&C closer and closer to TSR D&D. Eventually I realized that I should save myself some trouble and just run TSR D&D.
EDIT:
Here's an old rpg.net thread where I went into specific criticisms in more detail (http://forum.rpg.net/showthread.php?491674-castles-and-crusades-props-for-4th-printing&p=11491340#post11491340).
I like C&C. The classes are well done. Its a solid AD&D 2.5e and its well supported with adventures.
I like the Primes because they allow very quick ways to customize characters.
The big argument about the SIEGE system is how Clerics can spot traps better than Thieves. This can be an issue, but it never bothered me and its easily houseruled.
However, like Akrasia, I defected to S&W:WB. For me, it was the ruleset closest to my own 0e homebrew and I really like how S&W does saves.
I have recently been considering adding Primes to my 0e games.
The
SIEGE engine™ (yes, it is indeed trademarked) is essentially an ability-based task resolution/saving throw system. You roll
1d20 + ability score bonus + experience level vs. a target number, which is the sum of two variables:
- 12/18. For ability scores the character has training in (primes), the base is 12. For other scores, it is 18.
- a GM-determined modifier.
A character has two or three primes:
- one is set by the character's class (Strength for Fighters, Dexterity for Rogues and Assassins, Wisdom for Clerics, and so on);
- humans can assign two more as they'd like, while other characters can assign one more.
Saving throws, as well as non-combat tasks, are tied to these ability checks.
This system has been criticised as a
"de facto skill system" by people who are against skills in their level-based games, and as sloppy or badly explained by others. I think the main issue was not really this bit of the rules, but rather that C&C was neither a lighter form of d20 nor an OGL-based recreation of Gygaxian AD&D. It is probably closest in tone to post-Unearthed Arcana 1e; lots of different classes, a pronounced high fantasy feel, seriously fluffed-up prose and so on.
[EDIT]
QuoteAlso, Peter Bradley is perhaps the single most annoying person affiliated with a RPG company to post on any RPG forum anywhere.
Yeah, that guy.
Quote from: Philotomy Jurament;503688I went from running a 3e game to running a C&C game, and loved it, at first. However, after playing C&C for a while I found that some things just didn't work as well as I thought they would, and other things worked completely differently than I wanted them to. I started house-ruling, and my house rules almost always took C&C closer and closer to TSR D&D. Eventually I realized that I should save myself some trouble and just run TSR D&D.
Ironically, I also went from 3e into C&C and started with it as a base (the playtest documents and the initial discussions), but ended up going the other way, towards a compact, old-schoolish d20 variant we have been happily using ever since (and which now has a small but active community around it). I am still grateful for the ideas, even if I ended up, well, not really playing proper C&C.
My greatest letdown came from the modules, though. So promising, so unfulfilling. We could have had Castle Zagyg, and instead we got Yggsburgh and, well, I can't even remember what the rest were about. Goblins and orcs, I think?
Quote from: Akrasia;503678I was initially very enthusiastic about C&C. Over time, though, I noticed a few things that I wasn't keen on.
I should add that I was enthusiastic, too, and played early versions (a couple of sessions with Gary at Milwaukee Gamefest)!
QuoteEventually I decided that S&W did everything for me that C&C did (ascending AC, simplified saving throws, etc.) without the cruft (SIEGE system).
Once I (you punk kids and your ascending AC! Get off my lawn!) started saying "OK I'll do this like AD&D. I'll do this like AD&D." it became...AD&D. Ergo quod sum, I stuck with AD&D.
QuoteThe poor editing did grate.
What bothered me the
most about the editing was it damaged C&Cs reputation out of the gate, and it marred really well done stuff by their staff of writers (of which I was one for the Yggsburgh project, sadly Gary's passing meant none of that got out...maybe someday, somehow).
QuoteAlso, Peter Bradley is perhaps the single most annoying person affiliated with a RPG company to post on any RPG forum anywhere.
Brother, you ain't just whistlin' dixie and this is a world that Sean K. Reynolds, Bruce BAWWWGH and Ryan Dancey inhabit.
QuoteThat said, I do like C&C, and would be happy to play in a game with a decent CK. :)
If my buddy Don MacVittie (who was also a C&C writer - there's a story there about how we came to be friends, but for another time) ever shows up in FL again and deigns to run some C&C, I'd play in a heartbeat.
Quote from: thedungeondelver;503671The SIEGE system and the Primes thing never took with me.
Plus art, editing, and layout, the fact that the CKG took forever...lotsa things.
+1
Every single amateur osr effort has featured superior art, editing, and layout. Why pay for C&C when better can be had for free?
The few times I played C&C, the SIEGE system seemed extraneous. In the middle of the game, we ended up going back to the popular 1E AD&D houserule of rolling a d20 less than a particular character stat for a success, when called for by the DM. This made C&C and the SIEGE system kinda pointless, for our games.
Thanks, especially to Melan & Philotomy, who went into some detail to explain how the system work.
It sounds like there were/are multiple problems with C&C, but the SIEGE system sounds like it just plain wasn't designed well at all.
The notion of having seperate target numbers for Primes is just stupid and unnecessary. Why would you even do that, and not just give them a bonus to rolls? It's the same effect, but one requires less tracking.
That's just a facepalm worthy mechanic.
Isn't the SIEGE Engine just the D20 skill system using D20 + attribute modifier + level vs difficulty number instead of D20 + attribute modifier + skill ranks vs difficulty number (since C&C has no skills)? And with class abilities taking the place of feats?
Putting it that way, it sounds like it is, except you also get a +6 on checks against certain abilities, and level only counts if the check is something that's related to your class.
And it's expressed in a convoluted fashion, as JA says.
And it's used for saves and surprise, and the math doesn't work very well for those.
Quote from: Elliot Wilen;503740Putting it that way, it sounds like it is, except you also get a +6 on checks against certain abilities, and level only counts if the check is something that's related to your class.
And it's expressed in a convoluted fashion, as JA says.
And it's used for saves and surprise, and the math doesn't work very well for those.
Actually, level always counts unless it is a class ability of another class (and it's up to the CK whether you are even allowed to attempt an ability of another class).
I agree, it would have been better for them to describe Primes as +6 bonus rather than the 12/18 thing, but it's six of one half dozen of the other.
- It has an insane, overly complicated, incredibly punitive encumbrance system; and I like complicated, punitive encumbrance systems.
- As others have mentioned, the plastic happy fey protruding-butt-fetish artwork is atrocious.
- And as others have mentioned, the SIEGE system could be way less complicated w/o changing the odds (i.e. the 12/18 business instead of just using +6); I do think that primes are a fine way of doing a rules-light skill system, however.
- Symptomatic of it's particular malaise, it's the only retro-clone I own that I don't cherry pick from or use as an ancillary reference.
I would have preferred a real skill system instead of the Siege mechanic. Keep it simple like 2e, though.
If you are going to use something like the Siege system, have a good explanation of it in the book. Include examples for multiple things, too.
I liked the art, but that is subjective.
The editing was really bad.
Quote from: danbuter;503762I liked the art, but that is subjective.
I think that if they had used multiple artists with variation in style it probably wouldn't have been so cloying/grating to some folks.
I does really capture some sort of vaguely Disney vibe.
I like his humanoids in general, though they do have a kind of "fey" quality to them that is different from the O/AD&D-B/X medievalist-monster period. The chicks however totally have a cute Disney pinup vibe I'm not a big fan of. And I agree: that perception comes in part from the fact that the guy does ALL the art for the game, so in effect, his art IS the game. That rubs some people the wrong way, especially when they are searching for something that "feels" like the AD&D First Ed they knew.
The design is sloppy in general. I hate the siege engine which makes a guy with a three as good as a guy with an eighteen in all ways but attack rolls. I hate the encumbrance system which is more complex than just adding up all the weights you are carrying (you have to subtract one for wearing stuff and modify otherwise to put it in a container). It is particularly bad since the encumbrance system is the only balance to heavy armor and weapons. The only disadvantage to the heavy crossbow is that it's one point bulkier. So while it's not as insane as the 2e longbow (2 shots for 2d4, +1 for being an elf and why aren't you this is AD&D 2e?) It's still superior to a long bow without a real drawback. Or the nine rings broadsword, a one handed sword that does 1d10 damage. Oh and I've got two or three different printings of the player's hand book and the encumbrance system changes in each of them. There's the ranger's +1 damage per level which gets more unbalanced at higher levels and some of the other class abilities that are similarly problematic.
So, my complaint is that Castles & Crusades is insufficiently rigorous. The art's good but not particularly evocative of anything beyond generic fantasy. If you take a look at the game in my sig you'll see that C&C certainly has better art than at least one osr game ;)
Quote from: Benoist;503772I like his humanoids in general, though they do have a kind of "fey" quality to them that is different from the O/AD&D-B/X medievalist-monster period. The chicks however totally have a cute Disney pinup vibe I'm not a big fan of. And I agree: that perception comes in part from the fact that the guy does ALL the art for the game, so in effect, his art IS the game. That rubs some people the wrong way, especially when they are searching for something that "feels" like the AD&D First Ed they knew.
There's a quote by HR Giger about how one baby is cute, but a multitude of them is overwhelming and creepy; that how I feel about the wall of Peter Bradley art in C&C.
And would it kill him to draw one woman who doesn't had a protruding muscular butt in skintight garb?
Quote from: David Johansen;503775Oh and I've got two or three different printings of the player's hand book and the encumbrance system changes in each of them.
Good grief!
I've played the hell out of C&C and even did an entire episode (http://2gms1mic.com/2011/12/06/episode-nineteen-tincture-of-cream/) about it. I love the game, having yet to really encounter the problems many other seem to have. Maybe I'm just dumb, but nothing weird in the rules has ever impacted my gameplay experience.
IIRC (I'm not too familiar with C&C so I might be wrong), the SIEGE system generally means that the party Cleric will be better at tracking than the party Ranger.
Quote from: Daztur;503824IIRC (I'm not too familiar with C&C so I might be wrong), the SIEGE system generally means that the party Cleric will be better at tracking than the party Ranger.
I'd like to see someone give an example...the Cleric would never add their level to the roll, which means a Ranger always has an extra bonus.
There's a lot I love about C&C. The art (which feels like someone took the best of late 1e and early 2e, in B&W), the enthusiasm, their implementation of certain classes (Ranger, Knight, Bard).
But the SIEGE mechanic as written does stick out like a sore thumb (e.g. the already quoted "cleric > thief at detecting traps"). Here's a simple fix I've been thinking of; I have yet to playest it, though, so take it with a grain of salt.
- Drop Primes.
- Drop suggested DCs. Use the DC table from D&D3.0e or 3.5e. Seriously.
- Add level to ALL saves and skill checks (not just class-relevant ones).
- Add +4 or maybe +5 to class-relevant skill checks.
I might take this baby out for a spin one of these days. But you if you beat me to it, by all means, do let me know how'd it go.
Quote from: danbuter;503762I would have preferred a real skill system instead of the Siege mechanic. Keep it simple like 2e, though.
I'd love to see them adapt the simple, no-nonsense skill system of the criminally underrated StarSIEGE RPG to a hypothetical new edition of C&C.
Quote from: danbuter;503762I liked the art, but that is subjective.
The editing was really bad.
100% with you on both counts. See above on art.
The editing really is atrocious, though. And their cavalier attitude towards release schedules (even if you dismiss the CKG as a genuine blunder from Amazon) makes Palladium look like it's run by Swiss watchmakers.
The supplements I've read (Castellan's Guide to Arms and Armor, Of Gods And Men) were okay, I guess, certainly nothing to write home about.
I've never read any one of the adventures, but they look a bit... uninspired, if the synopses are anything to go by (blah blah blah ruins, blah blah blah goblins etc.).
As for Tainted Lands... ugh. The less said of it, the better.
With that out of the way:
1. I've been playing a C&C game for some 2 years now and I'm loving it. Mostly due to the GM being a great guy who's imaginative and comitted to running a kick-ass game, but it also testifies that the system, despite some quirks I'd rather not have, is certainly not "broken".
2. I am very, very fond of C&C in no small part due to the enthusiasm and love which shows through the Trolls' writing. Ultimately, C&C feels like an amateur product, with all the good and the bad that it entails.
Quote from: joewolz;503850I'd like to see someone give an example...the Cleric would never add their level to the roll, which means a Ranger always has an extra bonus.
In the RAW, all Clerics have Wisdom as a Prime, which is +6 right off the bat. With a Wisdom bonus that's likely to be higher than the Ranger's, that means a +7 to +9 modifier, regardless of level.
Unless your Ranger also has Wisdom as a Prime, and an exceptional (13+) Wisdom with a similar bonus, it'll take him anywhere from 6 to 8 levels to outrank the Cleric at finding traps and ambushes, or tracking, or just about anything Wisdom-related.
Quote from: The Butcher;503852... their implementation of certain classes (Ranger, Knight, Bard)...
I do very much like the fact that C&C includes
no 'semi-spell-users'. Rangers, paladins, and bards don't use spells, which is how it should be IMO.
I think that the C&C Bard is my favourite version of the class. I may tweak it someday for use in S&W. :)
That's true, I agree. The C&C bard is pretty cool, actually.
I don't have a problem with spell using hybrids, so long as their spells don't suck.
The 3e implementation was awful.
Quote from: Akrasia;503858I do very much like the fact that C&C includes no 'semi-spell-users'. Rangers, paladins, and bards don't use spells, which is how it should be IMO.
I think that the C&C Bard is my favourite version of the class. I may tweak it someday for use in S&W. :)
I think Bards should be able to use magic, but in a passive way. I think back to ffewder fflam from
The Chronicles of Prydain who just seemed to "know" the lore behind a certain amulet just by touching it.
I never wanted to play a bard until C&C.
My bard is awesome fun to play. He's Falstaff from Richard II and Henry V - a huge jovial drunk with a perfect memory for rhymes.
While I agree with the SIEGE engine critiques, it worked just fine in actual play and I would happily play in a C&C game in the future. Especially if I can bring my bard.
Quote from: Akrasia;503678Also, Peter Bradley is perhaps the single most annoying person affiliated with a RPG company to post on any RPG forum anywhere.
I haven't had any interaction with Peter. What makes him so annoying?
Quote from: FASERIP;503682At least he isn't some non-gaming, Jew-hating OSR groupie like Stefan Poag.
WTF?
Quote from: Elfdart;503944WTF?
I'd tell you to go read his blog, but he baleeted fucking everything.
Quote from: The Butcher;503856In the RAW, all Clerics have Wisdom as a Prime, which is +6 right off the bat. With a Wisdom bonus that's likely to be higher than the Ranger's, that means a +7 to +9 modifier, regardless of level.
Unless your Ranger also has Wisdom as a Prime, and an exceptional (13+) Wisdom with a similar bonus, it'll take him anywhere from 6 to 8 levels to outrank the Cleric at finding traps and ambushes, or tracking, or just about anything Wisdom-related.
I see. This has never happened to me in actual play, but I can see how it might...if the cleric ever decided to try tracking. This complaint (and not necessarily from you) smacks of a hypothetical brought from a critical reading of the rules, not a complaint from actual play experience.
Quote from: joewolz;504035I see. This has never happened to me in actual play, but I can see how it might...if the cleric ever decided to try tracking. This complaint (and not necessarily from you) smacks of a hypothetical brought from a critical reading of the rules, not a complaint from actual play experience.
It came up in my game. Also, keep in mind that the same problem applies to the C&C surprise rules, and those come up all the time.
This is a relic from d20, where Spot and Listen are tied to Wisdom. It is not a very good fit, but there are no good alternatives either.
Quote from: Melan;504046This is a relic from d20, where Spot and Listen are tied to Wisdom. It is not a very good fit, but there are no good alternatives either.
The whole "Wisdom = Perception + Willpower/Spirituality" thing has always been an uncomfortable fit in D&D. Most games either split them out or move perception to fit under Intelligence instead.
I can see an argument for it (perception being part intuition), but it's something I wouldn't mind changing in a new version of D&D either.
As for the OP, I'll echo the chorus of largely blaming the Seige engine. Editing was bad. Art was bad. But the main thing preventing me from wanting to play is the Seige engine.
Quote from: Melan;504046This is a relic from d20, where Spot and Listen are tied to Wisdom. It is not a very good fit, but there are no good alternatives either.
This was one of my earliest C&C house rules where I started ditching the SIEGE engine. My alternative was to use the surprise subsystem from AD&D.
Quote from: Philotomy Jurament;504062This was one of my earliest C&C house rules where I started ditching the SIEGE engine. My alternative was to use the surprise subsystem from AD&D.
And once you do that a couple more times, you start wondering, "why am I not playing AD&D to begin with, exactly?"
Quote from: Benoist;504067And once you do that a couple more times, you start wondering, "why am I not playing AD&D to begin with, exactly?"
Bingo.
Quote from: Benoist;504067And once you do that a couple more times, you start wondering, "why am I not playing AD&D to begin with, exactly?"
LOL, exactly...
The very main reason why I despise house rules. If you remove the SIEGE engine from C&C, you are in essence almost playing AD&D. LOL
Good point....
Quote from: Ancientgamer1970;504091LOL, exactly...
The very main reason why I despise house rules. If you remove the SIEGE engine from C&C, you are in essence almost playing AD&D. LOL
Good point....
...
You are breaking my frigging brain with your logic here, mate.
Quote from: joewolz;504035I see. This has never happened to me in actual play, but I can see how it might...if the cleric ever decided to try tracking. This complaint (and not necessarily from you) smacks of a hypothetical brought from a critical reading of the rules, not a complaint from actual play experience.
It did come up in my game, only with the Cleric outdoing the Rogue
and the Assassin at finding traps.
It's certainly no deal-breaker, but it's bad.
Man, I should really try the fix I outlined above one of these days.
To be fair to C&C though, you get to pick some Primes. If you as a Ranger, Thief, or Assassin don't pick the Trait that ties to those skills as a Prime, then aren't you pretty much choosing to not be good at that? If a Ranger did take Wisdom as a Prime, he would be better at tracking then the Cleric.
I agree that C&C suffers with the whole 3e problem of core class abilities as general skills, and with a stat-based skill system with too few stats, but it's not as if the Thief couldn't be better at Finding Traps if he wanted to.
I stand corrected. It hasn't happened in my games, but now that I know it can...
I still prefer C&C to anything else I've seen from the OSR. Perhaps it's because I missed 1st and 2nd edition D&D, but C&C just works for me.
Quote from: CRKrueger;504157To be fair to C&C though, you get to pick some Primes. If you as a Ranger, Thief, or Assassin don't pick the Trait that ties to those skills as a Prime, then aren't you pretty much choosing to not be good at that? If a Ranger did take Wisdom as a Prime, he would be better at tracking then the Cleric.
I agree that C&C suffers with the whole 3e problem of core class abilities as general skills, and with a stat-based skill system with too few stats, but it's not as if the Thief couldn't be better at Finding Traps if he wanted to.
Indeed the problem can be ameliorated somewhat if the Thief picks Wisdom as a Prime (not necessarily "fixed", because he's still not likely to have as a high a Wisdom as the Cleric, which should bring the "level gap" down to 0-2 instead of 7-9, but this is nitpicking).
But here's where we agree to disagree. I feel the Thief should be better at finding traps than the Cleric, because he's a Thief. Not because he's a particularly "wise" Thief.
Having to pick a Prime so you can perform your class skills better than people outside your class, to me, defeats the purpose of both Primes (because it turns the choice of your non-class-specific Prime into a false choice) and, to a lesser degree, of having a class system in the first place.
It sounds like, as someone said above, Wisdom is being overused in this case. The same would apply to Int if it was used for alertness & finding traps. Frankly it would be better (if not 100% perfect) to just go ahead and use Dexterity on the theory that it represents quickness, adroitness, and alertness.
I've been pushing simple skill systems in various threads lately. Let me try to suggest something for D&D-type games, drawn from Talislanta, and if I have time, I'll try to do another alternative or two, drawing from one or two other games.
Begin by choosing your race & class (if distinct from race). These give you a bunch of core skills at 0. Each may also let you choose a certain number from a menu of optional skills, and you may also choose, say two "background" skills (generally, non-adventuring skills). Note that Thief skills are rolled into this system.
If you do something that falls under a skill, and you have that skill, you roll d20 + ability bonus + skill level (which is initially 0). GM may add a modifier between -10 and +10 based on difficulty. A result of 6 or greater is a partial success. 11 or higher is a success. 0 is a critical failure and 20 is a critical success. If needed, skill descriptions can give ideas as to what distinguishes a partial success from a full success.
With this system, I think rolling for surprise can be used as a skill; it can even be an opposed roll based on level of success. (You could think of it as: people with critical success act in round one, then people with regular success begin to act in round two, and so on. Or level of success determines the range at which you detect the other party.) If you do this, then Alertness becomes a skill for rangers and Elves.
Whenever you go up a level, all your existing skills get a +1. (Exception: bought skills, see below.)
You can also spend XP to raise an existing skill by +1. -- Note, this a problem in D&D, because of the XP inflation curve, where it's not a problem in Talislanta. I'm tempted to say that raising a skill in games that use the D&D progression tables will cost around 25% the difference between what it took to get to your current level, and what it will take to get to the next level. Or, say 500 times your current level.
You can also spend XP to gain new skills. As above, this would have to inflate relative to your current level. Cost depends on the skill, but for example learning a thief-type skill costs the same as raising an existing skill. Skills gained this way do not increase automatically when you gain a level--they have to be raised individually.
Generally the skills that you get at chargen will include some that are pretty exclusive, class-to-class. But if a cleric, say, wants to learn tracking, or most other skills, he can--he just has to spend to learn it, and spend again to raise it.
What if you don't have the skill to try something? Instead of rolling a d20, you roll a d10, but you still get your attribute modifier.
Quote from: The Butcher;504253Indeed the problem can be ameliorated somewhat if the Thief picks Wisdom as a Prime (not necessarily "fixed", because he's still not likely to have as a high a Wisdom as the Cleric, which should bring the "level gap" down to 0-2 instead of 7-9, but this is nitpicking).
But here's where we agree to disagree. I feel the Thief should be better at finding traps than the Cleric, because he's a Thief. Not because he's a particularly "wise" Thief.
Having to pick a Prime so you can perform your class skills better than people outside your class, to me, defeats the purpose of both Primes (because it turns the choice of your non-class-specific Prime into a false choice) and, to a lesser degree, of having a class system in the first place.
First of all, minor correction, I'm pretty sure finding traps is based on INT, not WIS (at least in the 4th printing of C&C). And since the Rogue gets to add their level while others do not, they should become the most competent at it once they have spent some time (i.e. gained some levels) in the class. After all, for a rogue who is just starting out, just learning the ropes, it's understandable that they might not be all that good at some of their traditional abilities. Even without INT as a prime, by 3rd level he should be the best trap finder.
Quote from: joewolz;504161I still prefer C&C to anything else I've seen from the OSR. Perhaps it's because I missed 1st and 2nd edition D&D, but C&C just works for me.
I've played everything from the 0e -> OSR and C&C is a perfectly fine game. I think the classes are better designed and presented than in AD&D.
You are in an interesting position since you can judge the game without any nostalgia. Regardless of how objective I try to be, I know that I have a bias toward 0e because it was my first dungeon orgasm.
Quote from: Technomancer;504268First of all, minor correction, I'm pretty sure finding traps is based on INT, not WIS (at least in the 4th printing of C&C). And since the Rogue gets to add their level while others do not, they should become the most competent at it once they have spent some time (i.e. gained some levels) in the class. After all, for a rogue who is just starting out, just learning the ropes, it's understandable that they might not be all that good at some of their traditional abilities. Even without INT as a prime, by 3rd level he should be the best trap finder.
I don't have my book (2nd printing) with me right now, so you may be right. As long as it's anything other than Dexterity, though, the point stands. Substitute Wisdom for Intelligence, and Cleric for Wizard; the problem remains the same -- characters of different classes beat the Rogue at what should be one of his defining schticks.
Also, 3rd level is hardly enough to offset the considerable difference between a Prime and a non-Prime. A Prime (base DC 12) means a +6 difference versus a non-Prime (base DC 18). All Wizards have INT as Prime, so they get a head start of +6 on a Rogue with the non-Prime INT of the same value (which it usually isn't, most Wizard PCs have higher INT than Rogue PCs, for obvious reasons). Our Rogue will have to wait until 6th level to level the playing field, and 7th level to actually outperform the Wizard at one of his class abilities (assuming equivalent INT scores).
Now, I appreciate that this is not an issue for a lot of people. Hell, I play in a C&C game and I like it, so it's certainly no dealbreaker. But when I choose to roll up a Rogue, I do so because I expect to sneak up on people, and backstab, and pick pockets, and find and disarm traps. And I'd be fairly miffed if the Wizard, or the Cleric, or any other character of any other class was outperforming me in what I perceive to be my character's thing. In a class-based system, niche protection is kind of a big deal to me; do away with it, and it feels kind of pointless to have a class system in place. It feels like bad game design to me. But that's just how I roll.
Quote from: The Butcher;504253Having to pick a Prime so you can perform your class skills better than people outside your class, to me, defeats the purpose of both Primes (because it turns the choice of your non-class-specific Prime into a false choice) and, to a lesser degree, of having a class system in the first place.
I use a primary/secondary/tertiary attribute spread, as suggested in the Castle Keeper's Guide. This is coupled with a set 15 target number and +3/+0/-3 modifiers. I find that this gives players more options and makes Prime choices a bit more meaningful. The original system just seems too black and white to me - either you are competent at something or you suck at it.
Personally I like that C&C puts so much emphasis on attribute values, over race and class choices. When I roll a new character I always begin the process of imagining who that character is by looking at the stat values. Is he strong? smart? a leader of men? To me the attributes are what really define the character as an individual, over and above the culture of his people or his chosen profession.
So why is Peter Bradley the devil?
Quote from: The Butcher;504306Also, 3rd level is hardly enough to offset the considerable difference between a Prime and a non-Prime. A Prime (base DC 12) means a +6 difference versus a non-Prime (base DC 18). All Wizards have INT as Prime, so they get a head start of +6 on a Rogue with the non-Prime INT of the same value (which it usually isn't, most Wizard PCs have higher INT than Rogue PCs, for obvious reasons). Our Rogue will have to wait until 6th level to level the playing field, and 7th level to actually outperform the Wizard at one of his class abilities (assuming equivalent INT scores).
D'oh, you are right, I was only thinking of the actual attribute bonus and not taking the prime into consideration.
What if primes didn't give as much of a bonus. Say, +3, no greater than the highest attribute bonus. Would that make it more palatable?
My main criticism of C&C is the SIEGE engine. At the time, I really didn't need another D&D-ish game, let alone one with a new save/skill mechanic. I already had games like classic AD&D with it's subsystems, RuneQuest 2/Stormbringer, and 3e with it's save/skill/feat systems.
On top of that, if I want a game with an old-school feel, I'll go play an old-school game. The counter argument to that was "C&C is in print and supported", but that doesn't matter to me, though I acknowledge it is an issue for others.
And I didn't care for the art, and the editing in the early prints was pretty bad.
So I passed it by, as a game I'd play, but I familiarized myself with it so I would understand Castle Zagyg when it came out. Without CZ, I never would have even bothered.
Quote from: Spinachcat;504334So why is Peter Bradley the devil?
Oh, he's not the devil. Not even close. I haven't dealt with him in years (used to be on the gygax talk mailing lists and hang out at the trolls messageboard when they ran the LGGC), but my recollection is that at times (not always), he came across in a smarmy, condescending manner. In addition, he really seemed like someone living in a bubble where reality dare not intrude, and seemed to lack any sort of real life experience.
So in other words, he's much like a lot of "parental basement dwelling" gamers, which are a dime a dozen on the net. :-P
Quote from: Technomancer;504402What if primes didn't give as much of a bonus. Say, +3, no greater than the highest attribute bonus. Would that make it more palatable?
I know your question was directed at The Butcher, but IMO I would say 'no', it still wouldn't be palatable because it doesn't go far enough to address the problem. If I were to play C&C again, I would address the 'problem' as such;
1) Ditch Primes and the SEIGE stuff as written.
2) Base target numbers is 15 adjusted up or down depending on difficulty ( CK's ruling ).
3) If performing an action pertaining to your class, you get a +3 bonus + your level as a modifier.
4) If performing an action pertaining to your backround*, you get a +3 bonus + HALF of your level rounded down as a modifier.
Of course your appropriate attribute modifier is also always added to your rolls too.
* Backrounds would be something simple like 'rural farmer', 'nobelman', or 'towns blacksmith'.
Now maybe the actual numbers would need to be adjusted somewhat, but IMO this would address the problems I see with the Prime/SEIGE mechanic as written.
Quote from: km10ftp;504332Personally I like that C&C puts so much emphasis on attribute values, over race and class choices. When I roll a new character I always begin the process of imagining who that character is by looking at the stat values. Is he strong? smart? a leader of men? To me the attributes are what really define the character as an individual, over and above the culture of his people or his chosen profession.
I agree that attributes matter a lot when you're
describing your character. And I definitely think they should matter, to a degree, when your character is
doing stuff, but I feel training and experience should trump natural talent, save extraordinary (supernatural) circumstances. But that's just how I prefer things.
Quote from: Technomancer;504402What if primes didn't give as much of a bonus. Say, +3, no greater than the highest attribute bonus. Would that make it more palatable?
It mitigates the problem, but it's still a problem in my eyes.
Quote from: Spinal Tarp;504416I know your question was directed at The Butcher, but IMO I would say 'no', it still wouldn't be palatable because it doesn't go far enough to address the problem. If I were to play C&C again, I would address the 'problem' as such;
1) Ditch Primes and the SEIGE stuff as written.
2) Base target numbers is 15 adjusted up or down depending on difficulty ( CK's ruling ).
3) If performing an action pertaining to your class, you get a +3 bonus + your level as a modifier.
4) If performing an action pertaining to your backround*, you get a +3 bonus + HALF of your level rounded down as a modifier.
Of course your appropriate attribute modifier is also always added to your rolls too.
* Backrounds would be something simple like 'rural farmer', 'nobelman', or 'towns blacksmith'.
Now maybe the actual numbers would need to be adjusted somewhat, but IMO this would address the problems I see with the Prime/SEIGE mechanic as written.
Your ideas read a lot like what I've suggested in an earlier post on this thread (http://www.therpgsite.com/showpost.php?p=503852&postcount=29), so I'm obviously inclined to like them. ;)
Right now, I think if I was to run C&C, I might as well adopt 4e's task resolution equation almost wholesale. Roll 1d20 + ability modifier + 1/2 level for everything. Add +5 if you're "trained" (which, in C&C means a class ability, or -- optionally -- a background or secondary skill, like you suggest). Of course, you'll have to drop the "Challenge Level" schtick and use the 4e DC tables instead, but that looks easy enough to me.
Quote from: Benoist;504067And once you do that a couple more times, you start wondering, "why am I not playing AD&D to begin with, exactly?"
Yeah, that's precisely what happened.
Quote from: Spinal Tarp;5044161) Ditch Primes and the SEIGE stuff as written.
2) Base target numbers is 15 adjusted up or down depending on difficulty ( CK's ruling ).
3) If performing an action pertaining to your class, you get a +3 bonus + your level as a modifier.
4) If performing an action pertaining to your backround*, you get a +3 bonus + HALF of your level rounded down as a modifier.
Of course your appropriate attribute modifier is also always added to your rolls too.
* Backrounds would be something simple like 'rural farmer', 'nobelman', or 'towns blacksmith'.
This is similar to the skill rules I use in Microlite74 Extended:
QuoteThere are no specific skills in Microlite74. Instead players are expected to think like adventurers, tell the GM what they are doing and the GM decides if it will succeed in the situation, taking into account the characters' classes and backgrounds. If the GM decides a random success chance is truly needed he may resolve the situation with a roll of his choice or he may call for one of the following rolls:
Primary Skill Roll: 1d20 + Stat Bonus + Class Level if the character is attempting something directly related to their class or background.
Secondary Skill Roll: 1d20 + Stat Bonus + (Class Level/2, round up) if the character is attempting something only loosely related to their class or background.
Minor Skill Roll: 1d20 + Stat Bonus + (Class Level/3, round down) if the character is attempting something not really related to their class or background.
When the GM calls for a skill roll, he will declare the type of skill roll, which stat the skill roll falls under, and any situational modifiers and the player will make a skill roll. (The GM should make the roll in secret if seeing the result would give the player more information than his character should have.)
Roll higher than the GM assigned Difficulty Class to succeed. Unless the GM rules otherwise, a natural roll of 20 always succeeds for a Primary Skill Roll. Suggested Difficulty Classes: Easy - 8, Normal - 12, Difficult - 16, Hard - 20, Very Hard - 24, Legendary - 28, Unbelievable - 32.
Quote from: The Butcher;504498Your ideas read a lot like what I've suggested in an earlier post on this thread (http://www.therpgsite.com/showpost.php?p=503852&postcount=29), so I'm obviously inclined to like them. ;)
Well it seems we're very much on the same page on this subject! I can only guess as to why the designers and play testers for C&C thought they struck gold when they came up with the 'revolutionary' SEIGE mechanic....
QuoteRight now, I think if I was to run C&C, I might as well adopt 4e's task resolution equation almost wholesale. Roll 1d20 + ability modifier + 1/2 level for everything. Add +5 if you're "trained" (which, in C&C means a class ability, or -- optionally -- a background or secondary skill, like you suggest). Of course, you'll have to drop the "Challenge Level" schtick and use the 4e DC tables instead, but that looks easy enough to me.
I thought of doing the exact same thing because it's easy and it scales good with level but there was always the one thing holding me back from doing it though; class 'skills' would only improve every OTHER level which would be a slap in the face to the 'thief' ( and other classes to a lesser extent ) who's only thing are their 'skills' since they would have to advance 2 levels before seeing any improvement in doing thier craft. I know it's a minor quib, but for someone who only cares about how good they are in their 'skills' and not combat ability, it could be a dissapointment to a player to find out a 3rd level theif isn't any better at his craft than a 2nd level theif. I would still seriously consider using that system though if I were to play C&C again just to try it out. In fact, I see the attack bonuses using a similar mechanic i.e. you get a big bonus up front and then everyone adds 1/2 their level regardless of what class you are.
Quote from: Spinal Tarp;504638I thought of doing the exact same thing because it's easy and it scales good with level but there was always the one thing holding me back from doing it though; class 'skills' would only improve every OTHER level which would be a slap in the face to the 'thief' ( and other classes to a lesser extent ) who's only thing are their 'skills' since they would have to advance 2 levels before seeing any improvement in doing thier craft. I know it's a minor quib, but for someone who only cares about how good they are in their 'skills' and not combat ability, it could be a dissapointment to a player to find out a 3rd level theif isn't any better at his craft than a 2nd level theif.
Excellent point.
Taking a page from 3.x now: IIRC, maximum skill level is current class level +4. Which, of course, would mean 1d20 + ability mod. + level; and an additional +4 for "trained" or "class" skills. Maybe even +5, a la 4e, or +6, after C&C's own Primes? I like +4 or +5 because both represent clear, round percentages of a d20's range (+4=+20% and +5=+25%).
Quote from: Spinal Tarp;504638I would still seriously consider using that system though if I were to play C&C again just to try it out. In fact, I see the attack bonuses using a similar mechanic i.e. you get a big bonus up front and then everyone adds 1/2 their level regardless of what class you are.
Umm, not sure about the attack bonus progression. This is one area of the game that's never been problematic at my game table, and I'd be inclined to use it as written.
Quote from: Benoist;504067And once you do that a couple more times, you start wondering, "why am I not playing AD&D to begin with, exactly?"
Playing C&C feels like listening to a re-recording of a hard rock classic (e.g. Tarja Turunen's take (http://youtu.be/56XHwnktSTo) on Alice Cooper's "Poison" (http://youtu.be/-qU2nCgQGVo)). It's a fresh take on an old favorite, and can be a great performance (or tank horribly), but sometimes you just want to listen to the original tune.
And thus the OSR was born...I've got to say that with the back-and-forth on system and possible fixes to what I perceive to be a problem (i.e. the Primes vs. class debacle), I have half a mind to dust off the old C&C books and use them before, or after, I run my S&W dungeon crawl game. I feel it would be a particularly good engine to use late 1e and early 2e AD&D material with, such as early FR and DL stuff.
Damn it, so many great games, and so little time to play them. :o
C&C perfectly emulates the 1E experience.
I sold it as soon as I finished reading it.
As listed in many of the posts above the system has some serious problems, the company has some serious problems, the execution of the product has some serious problems, and perhaps the creators as well. But, that being said, it is a product of its time- mid 2000s when the OGL was not well understood and some inefficiencies were put in the system to make it not get the smack down from Wotc IMO. Since then, there have been several advancements in the OSR family of games which IMO have left C&C in the dust. As they are free/cheap, there is no more need for C&C.
Also, the C&C/OSRIC blood feud is quite fun reading. The fact that TLG botched Zagyg so horrendously makes it even more funnerer.
Quote from: Teazia;505964As listed in many of the posts above the system has some serious problems, the company has some serious problems, the execution of the product has some serious problems, and perhaps the creators as well. But, that being said, it is a product of its time- mid 2000s when the OGL was not well understood and some inefficiencies were put in the system to make it not get the smack down from Wotc IMO. Since then, there have been several advancements in the OSR family of games which IMO have left C&C in the dust. As they are free/cheap, there is no more need for C&C.
Also, the C&C/OSRIC blood feud is quite fun reading. The fact that TLG botched Zagyg so horrendously makes it even more funnerer.
I agree with you 100%. As an isolated product, C&C was rife with small flaws, none of which was a dealbreaker on its own, but which added up to give the product a decidedly amateurish air.
The lackluster supplements, the mishandling of the CKG fiasco (which may or may not have ben Amazon's fault as they claimed), the loss of Castle Zagyg (which, as far as I knew, had little to do with the Trolls, and more with Gail Gygax), all compounded the problem. Throw in the explosion of well-laid-out, well-illustrated, free-to-download retro-clones and you've got C&C and TLG sidelined by the very OSR they helped start.
I feel it's sad, really, because I sympathize with the Trolls' enthusiasm and love for what they do (though I admit to never having spent any significant measure of time on their forums) and feel C&C as written and published is something of a missed opportunity, to bridge the gap between old school sensibilities and new school design.
Somewhat relevant to the system talk: TLG has a pulp RPG on their release schedule (Amazing Adventures (http://www.trolllord.com/anvil/index.html#AApulp) -- not sure if it's a good idea to have your RPG abbreviated "AA"...). It's class- (and possibly level-) based, unlike StarSiege, but the blurb suggests a comprehensive rehaul of the SIEGE system:
Quote from: Troll Lord Games release scheduleInside this book you'll find:
• Eight brand new character classes: Arcanist, Gadgeteer, Gumshoe, Hooligan, Mentalist, Pugilist, Raider, and Socialite
• Character customization options: Generic Class Abilities, Traits, Backgrounds, Fate Points, Pulp Costumes, Sanity rules, and more!
• A streamlined presentation of the SIEGE engine, which uses a single Challenge Base
• Rules for vehicular combat
• Guidelines on how to run a pulp game
• A complete Monster section with all kinds of pulp beasties from giant apes to Lovecraftian horrors
• A complete starting adventure for 4-6 new pulp heroes
• And tons more
#3 is a no-brainer, but #2 bugs the hell out of me... what's the point? If you want a d20-based game with character customization options, why not just play d20? :confused:
I might pick it up, though, if only for the Monster section. Like I've said elsewhere, I'm a sucker for new monsters.
Quote from: The Butcher;506036The lackluster supplements, the mishandling of the CKG fiasco (which may or may not have ben Amazon's fault as they claimed), the loss of Castle Zagyg (which, as far as I knew, had little to do with the Trolls, and more with Gail Gygax), all compounded the problem.
The teacup storm tragedy is that Castle Zagyg was never completed. By most accounts the product is very strong and Gary's swan song. I was active on the TLG boards when Gail pulled the plug on the license and it was a bit of a confusing shock. There seems to behave been some unusual business dealings going on at the time around Gary's death. Some folks know the truth about what happened during this time, but they aren't really talking. One recent development has been that Jeff Tolaran (sp?) the co-author of CZ was paid in product for his work, not cash (he sold the majority of his 20 odd sets recently on DF and made $4-5000), so it goes to figure TLG had some cash flow problems which may have affected Gail's decision to pull the plug.
When the CZ project was first announced Gary and Rob Kuntz were supposed to finally do there Castle Greyhawk magnum opus. Gary subsequently fell into ill health which derailed the project for an extended time. What finally came out was too little too late, and now it seems that any steam Gail had to republish/continue he project has dissipated. There was other CZ material written as well, which may actually be the property of the writers as they were never paid IIRC. They would need to take out the CZ references and Gygax Games IP in it for it to be publishable. Jeff has already stated that he has no plans to do so with the material he wrote. Which is too bad,
Quote from: The Butcher;506042Somewhat relevant to the system talk: TLG has a pulp RPG on their release schedule (Amazing Adventures (http://www.trolllord.com/anvil/index.html#AApulp) -- not sure if it's a good idea to have your RPG abbreviated "AA"...). It's class- (and possibly level-) based, unlike StarSiege, but the blurb suggests a comprehensive rehaul of the SIEGE system...
Huh. The author is Jason Vey (a.k.a. 'Grey Elf', and proprietor of 'Elf Lair Games (http://www.lulu.com/spotlight/elflairgames)'), which I find somewhat surprising, given his involvement with the retro-clone movement. (Vey also authored some Unisystem stuff for Eden Studios, years ago.)
I might check this out, if the reviews are good, but I don't really need another 1920s/30s RPG, as
Call of Cthulhu suffices for my needs.
In case anyone is interested, Jeffrey Talanian now has his own gaming company, North Wind Adventures (http://www.swordsmen-and-sorcerers.com/), and is coming out with his own FRPG, 'Astonishing Swordsmen & Sorcerers of Hyperborea'.
Quote from: Teazia;506442When the CZ project was first announced Gary and Rob Kuntz were supposed to finally do there Castle Greyhawk magnum opus. Gary subsequently fell into ill health which derailed the project for an extended time. What finally came out was too little too late, and now it seems that any steam Gail had to republish/continue he project has dissipated. There was other CZ material written as well, which may actually be the property of the writers as they were never paid IIRC. They would need to take out the CZ references and Gygax Games IP in it for it to be publishable. Jeff has already stated that he has no plans to do so with the material he wrote. Which is too bad,
Kuntz quit the project for reasons unclear to me after writing one introductory module for the setting. Talanian came in later to help Gary.
I have the folio and box set that eventually was released. It's very good, and would work well for a campaign. I'm tempted to use it, someday (though I would run it with either B/X D&D or S&W).
Quote from: The Butcher;503856In the RAW, all Clerics have Wisdom as a Prime, which is +6 right off the bat. With a Wisdom bonus that's likely to be higher than the Ranger's, that means a +7 to +9 modifier, regardless of level.
Unless your Ranger also has Wisdom as a Prime, and an exceptional (13+) Wisdom with a similar bonus, it'll take him anywhere from 6 to 8 levels to outrank the Cleric at finding traps and ambushes, or tracking, or just about anything Wisdom-related.
Sorry for the year old thread necromancy, but I came across a link to this thread while looking up C&C modules and what people thought of them (as I'm planning to start a C&C game soon) and I just have to ask a pretty obvious question that seems to have been missed in this discussion...
Why would you allow the Cleric to make an unmodified roll for tracking when the Cleric clearly doesn't have the same training as the Ranger? Doesn't "you're doing this untrained" deserve a difficulty modifier to the roll?
The Challenge Rating for any task is 12/18 +
GM determined modifiers of 0-10+. I think "You don't have the specialized training of a ranger but are trying to act as one" is deserving of a substantial modifier to the challenge base.
This is just using the rules as written, it doesn't require convoluted house rules to "fix". It seems like common sense that this is how it's intended to be done.
I can't imagine, as a GM, allowing a Cleric PC to make an unmodified roll to perform a class ability of another class. Clearly, this is a case where you should be applying a modifier to the Challenge Base.
So it seems it's more a rulings problem, than a rules problem. Or am I missing something here?
Quote from: Doctor Jest;623033Sorry for the year old thread necromancy, but I came across a link to this thread while looking up C&C modules and what people thought of them (as I'm planning to start a C&C game soon) and I just have to ask a pretty obvious question that seems to have been missed in this discussion...
Why would you allow the Cleric to make an unmodified roll for tracking when the Cleric clearly doesn't have the same training as the Ranger? Doesn't "you're doing this untrained" deserve a difficulty modifier to the roll?
The Challenge Rating for any task is 12/18 + GM determined modifiers of 0-10+. I think "You don't have the specialized training of a ranger but are trying to act as one" is deserving of a substantial modifier to the challenge base.
This is just using the rules as written, it doesn't require convoluted house rules to "fix". It seems like common sense that this is how it's intended to be done.
I can't imagine, as a GM, allowing a Cleric PC to make an unmodified roll to perform a class ability of another class. Clearly, this is a case where you should be applying a modifier to the Challenge Base.
So it seems it's more a rulings problem, than a rules problem. Or am I missing something here?
I'm pretty sure the level bonus is supposed to represent training. To the best of my knowledge there's no recommendation for tacking a penalty for "cross-class" checks specifically and to me it feels like contriving a ruling to fix a wonky system (not my favorite kind of ruling).
When/if I get the chance to play C&C again I'm ditching the whole SIEGE mechanic and using the system I outlined earlier in this thread (http://www.therpgsite.com/showpost.php?p=503852&postcount=29), and using C&C only for the classes (which are awesome), monsters, items, etc.
But right now it's ACKS and Delving Deeper who are competing for my attention.
My main criticisms of Castles & Crusades, based upon the 1st printing that I possess:
* terrible paper quality
* poor editing
* poorly organized
* boring, uninspiring writing
* needlessly verbose, without adding actual depth
* Siege Engine/Primes are poorly explained
* a Prime bonus of +6 is a little too high
* art is bland and uninspiring
* Peter Bradley is an annoying twit (and mediocre artist)
* differing xp values feels clunky and out of place in C&C (as opposed to AD&D, where it belongs)
* Clerics being more proficient in tracking or trapfinding than other classes is retarded
Personal Note: I prefer some degree of character customization. If a game does not possess this, then that's fine.....as long as said game is well-written, and provides the reader with tons of campaign ideas. But C&C bored me. I don't know if subsequent printings corrected most of these issues, but my belief is that you get one chance to make a first impression, and Troll Lords blew it.
The only good thing I can say about C&C it is that its gameplay is faster than either AD&D or 3.x, and I can actually use it to run my campaign. But I just couldn't stick with Castles & Crusades, because the product as written just bored me to tears. :pundit:
P.S. The various OSRIC vs C&C threads on the Internet are hilarious though. :)
Quote from: Planet Algol;503778There's a quote by HR Giger about how one baby is cute, but a multitude of them is overwhelming and creepy; that how I feel about the wall of Peter Bradley art in C&C.
And would it kill him to draw one woman who doesn't had a protruding muscular butt in skintight garb?
What garb? Pete likes big butts and he cannot lie... (http://legendofbill.com/files/2011/01/PETER_BRADLEY_WOW_101230.jpg)
Quote from: CRKrueger;623086What garb? Pete likes big butts and he cannot lie... (http://legendofbill.com/files/2011/01/PETER_BRADLEY_WOW_101230.jpg)
An enticement to adventure!
Quote from: Kuroth;623089An enticement to adventure!
Now that's a megadungeon!
Speaking strictly as a professional artist, it literally would kill me to draw a woman with a lacklustre ass.
I would die. Literally die.
Eh. It's not the ass that bothers me, it's the fact that even from this perspective, it's clear that woman possesses a waist that would be physically incapable of supporting her upper body.
Quote from: J Arcane;623104Eh. It's not the ass that bothers me, it's the fact that even from this perspective, it's clear that woman possesses a waist that would be physically incapable of supporting her upper body.
Perspective is a mysterious thing: http://a3.ec-images.myspacecdn.com/images02/118/c5da694cbfab4ff6a2c7ecefa520f758/m.jpg
My biggest issue with the art is that all of the women are wearing entirely too many clothes. How do they expect to be decent adventurers while wearing pants and a shirt?!
I enjoy C&C...but I don't have much use for the game. It doesn't do anything for me that my OD&D/S&W doesn't do.
I do prefer the C&C classes to their AD&D equivalents. I really enjoy my Bard and my Knight. If there was a C&C Living Campaign, I would definitely try it out.
I have played a few sessions with hardcore C&C fans and I have found the Primes and SIEGE engine to work fine at the table. Nothing amazing, but nothing nightmarish like I've read about on forums.
But then again, I enjoy Palladium.
We ran a little experiment where we ran a session with Swords & Wizardry characters using the Siege Engine. It worked.
So, precisely what is people's beef with Peter Bradley? I've never encountered him online but would be interested if people can point me to examples of particularly poor behaviour on his part.
Quote from: Warthur;623179So, precisely what is people's beef with Peter Bradley? I've never encountered him online but would be interested if people can point me to examples of particularly poor behaviour on his part.
He can be a bit of an ass on the forums. That's really it.
Quote from: danbuter;623190He can be a bit of an ass on the forums. That's really it.
Oh.
Considering that RPG discussion includes people who'll declare that all pre-Forge RPGs cause brain damage, that doesn't sound terribly obnoxious.
This system (castles and crusades) has always been one of my bugbears. I like the underlying idea of the system and I think it was really unique when it came out. But the books tend to be . . . flat. I found Monsters and Treasures of Aihrde to be fairly uninspiring. It focused on a lot of technical details without telling why this creature was awesome or why this item was interesting.
The editing is never the best. I understand how hard it is to proof your own work and I also have an overly dry style. But it is an issue.
Finally, the importing of the Seige mechanics has the same underlying issue I have with 3.5E. In 3.5E they try to unify everything into one system, and some of the most odd things about that game come from this. Wisdom for perception, for example, leads to strange things like aging increasing the acuity of a person's senses. It's an easy system and it isn't bad (and I like how Primes make it impossible to strong everywhere).
But it just doesn't gel. And yet I still buy some of their products hoping that it will make that last little jump to "really cool".
To an extent, the SIEGE "system" seems to me more the superficial appearance of a system -- something to ease folks accustomed to the more truly systematic Wizards of the Coast rules sets.
In that regard, I think it works better to give players a bonus factor for "primes" on the character sheet, as opposed to the recommended approach of the GM adjusting target numbers.
To another extent, though, there are (as I recall) some significant differences in how the game works as compared with old D&D. For example, IIRC, saving throws against spells always have about the same chance of success against a caster of similar level; in the old game, they improved along with the level of the figure making the save.
This sort of thing may appear in other cases as well.
Some other things (e.g., revisions to the spell list) may also boost spell-casters, perhaps analogously to effects of rules in "3e" D&D.
On the plus side, many people seem to like C&C character classes very much. There are some interestingly different approaches to old standards.
I bought C&C way back at the first printing as well. Still never played it.
In general, I thought C&C was a good attempt at what a 3rd edition of AD&D could be like. My favorite part was the cleaned-up classes - because AD&D 2e was a bit too restrictive, but AD&D 1e was a mess when it came to adding new classes like the barbarian, etc.
What I liked least was the SEIGE engine. Don't care for it. At all.
For me it's a perfect example of how to poorly attempt to graft in an ill-concieved and confusing unified mechanic and managing to get all the disadvantages of both a unified mechanic and subsystems while managing to not get the advantages of either.
Quote from: Phillip;623208On the plus side, many people seem to like C&C character classes very much. There are some interestingly different approaches to old standards.
I kind of like their take on Bards-as-fighting-poets instead of the 1st edition "prestige class" or the 2nd edition Thief-light.
Quote from: Melan;623232I kind of like their take on Bards-as-fighting-poets instead of the 1st edition "prestige class" or the 2nd edition Thief-light.
I'm a huge fan of their takes on the Bard (warrior-poet), Ranger (muthafucking Aragorn! Almost as good as the S&W Complete version) and Knight (proto-Warlord). I'm particularly fond of the Knight.
Quote from: Zak S;623097Speaking strictly as a professional artist, it literally would kill me to draw a woman with a lacklustre ass.
I would die. Literally die.
Literally?
Quote from: VictorC;623316Literally?
Have you see Mandy's ass, yeah I think it might literally kill him.
Quote from: CRKrueger;623086What garb? Pete likes big butts and he cannot lie... (http://legendofbill.com/files/2011/01/PETER_BRADLEY_WOW_101230.jpg)
Don't we all?
Besides, Frazetta retired that trophy decades ago:
(http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1432/5160954558_38af3340df_z.jpg)
Quote from: Zak S;623097Speaking strictly as a professional artist, it literally would kill me to draw a woman with a lacklustre ass.
I would die. Literally die.
Speaking as an amateur cartoonist, I'm right there with you.
Including night hags and female liches?
It's hard to talk about C&C issues without some confusion by date-of-buy-in. Someone who's talking about the 1st printing PHB (or 2nd) is going to have no point of comparison with the people who've experienced the 4th/5th printing, for example.
I'll say this much: the Trolls have made mistakes, and started off with low-quality layout/design/editing, but over the years they have refined and improved to the point where I am confident that their latest offerings will look good and read without error.
Now, from my time running C&C I have run into a few issues that annoy me, but the core of the SIEGE mechanics don't bug me. From the earlier example I wouldn't let a cleric try to find traps or track, for example, without considering a greater penalty (on top of not adding level). Those are discreet class abilities and, in true old school form, not having that class ability means you ain't got it. In actual play these examples never came up, probably because the players reasoned that not having class ability X meant not being able to try it. However, C&C encourages free form decision-making on the part of the CK, which means that the rules perfectly well allow a cleric to track if one so desires or can justify it. Nor should a player feel slighted if the CK says, "what the hell is a cleric doing trying to track?" but all things considered it's a game that actively encourages you to customize it to what fits. They're not going to tell you how to regulate this, that's beyond the scope of what the game provides for. The CKG might have some optional suggestions (it does) but they're just tools for you to do with as you will. That's pretty well the crunchy center of what OSR means to me.
However, the SIEGE engine is a bit fiddly in actual play, especially if you're trying to get everyone on board with how it works. Every C&C game I have run had a sort of hurdle to get everyone on board with either the 12/18 split or the +0/+6 method. Saves are confusing unless you sit everyone down and precalculate it. These aren't necessarily problematic....just a bit of work, but when I look at S&W Complete with its "one save to rule them all" mechanic that is dirt simple to understand and deploy, it's hard not to lean in favor of it.
And I love Peter Bradley's art, and dig his women. However, they could use more artists, if only for variety (and some of their books have more artists now....but that's another issue of criticizing C&C then vs. now).
C&C also has studiously avoided replicating the demons from D&D, despite most of them being OGL, and I have never determined why.
C&C is also tied to Airdhe as a core setting, which I've never particularly cared for.
So....a teensy bit of criticism from a C&C fan (who never gets to run it anymore because Pathfinder's mind control ray has hit my local town hard).
Adding a minor criticism, I was annoyed when TLG asked some poster from Dragonsfoot to stop sharing his OGL compilation of the C&C rules.
That's some hypocritical bullshit for a tepid clone.
Quote from: Eisenmann;623158We ran a little experiment where we ran a session with Swords & Wizardry characters using the Siege Engine. It worked.
Oh, I am sure that it works. The bigger question is whether it is superior to the other mechanical approaches or if it brings some advantages that they do not. I do like how it makes it impossible to be strong against all forms of attack at once (saves based on stats and only three can be prime).
But the wisdom=perception time was an unfortunate design choice in the d20 era games.
Quote from: Votan;623563Oh, I am sure that it works. The bigger question is whether it is superior to the other mechanical approaches or if it brings some advantages that they do not. I do like how it makes it impossible to be strong against all forms of attack at once (saves based on stats and only three can be prime).
But the wisdom=perception time was an unfortunate design choice in the d20 era games.
I'm not certain if the Siege Engine is absolutely superior to how I usually run, say, Swords & Wizardry. But I do think that it comes down to the group, of course. Some are way okay with me saying, "Roll a D6" and winging it from there. Others like the distributed knowledge of rolling a prime/non-prime.
Sometimes I want to run with the Siege Engine and sometimes I don't. I consider C&C's saves a feature. Depending on what I'm running it feels just right. Heck, sometimes I run S&W with a single save and sometimes with the full spectrum. And most of the time I'm pulling bits from all over.
That's a bit of meandering to get to saying that I think Castles & Crusades is a nifty game that uses the nifty D&D API.
Quote from: Eisenmann;623633I'm not certain if the Siege Engine is absolutely superior to how I usually run, say, Swords & Wizardry. But I do think that it comes down to the group, of course. Some are way okay with me saying, "Roll a D6" and winging it from there. Others like the distributed knowledge of rolling a prime/non-prime.
Sometimes I want to run with the Siege Engine and sometimes I don't. I consider C&C's saves a feature. Depending on what I'm running it feels just right. Heck, sometimes I run S&W with a single save and sometimes with the full spectrum. And most of the time I'm pulling bits from all over.
That's a bit of meandering to get to saying that I think Castles & Crusades is a nifty game that uses the nifty D&D API.
Heh, D&D API, nice way to put it.