The Case For Castles & Crusades

DeadUematsu · October 15, 2008, 11:03:08 AM

Quote from: Zachary The First;256709Yes, but he does have some kick-ass old school netbooks. :hatsoff:

Agreed. Kell, more netbooks, less C&C gall.

David Johansen · October 15, 2008, 11:07:48 AM

I always find C&C a mixed bag. In places its nice and in other its sloppy as hell particularly the ranger's damage bonus, nine rings broadswords, and heavy crossbows with one round to ready them are as annoying as second edition AD&D's long bow with sheaf arrows. Balancing the weapons is something 4e did right.

TheShadow · October 15, 2008, 11:26:49 AM

Never understood why there's a vocal minority who act as if C&C strangled their pet kitten or something. It's a workable and well-presented version of D&D. Not quite my thing but I can see why it might be the only game some people ever need.

jgants · October 15, 2008, 11:40:43 AM

Quote from: David Johansen;256757I always find C&C a mixed bag. In places its nice and in other its sloppy as hell particularly the ranger's damage bonus, nine rings broadswords, and heavy crossbows with one round to ready them are as annoying as second edition AD&D's long bow with sheaf arrows. Balancing the weapons is something 4e did right.

I'm in the same boat. C&C offers a cleaner version of AD&D, but unfortunately adds some extra baggage I'd rather not bother with.

I'm thinking the ideal for me would be something like combining D&D 4's basic mechanics for weapons, skills, and combat with the classic classes, races, and spell mechanics of AD&D 2e. I hate the clunky aspects of combat and proficiencies with 2e, but I'm equally unfond of the class powers, race changes, and changes to the magic system in 4e.

Vadrus · October 15, 2008, 11:59:39 AM

Quote from: Zachary The First;256718I'm working on a long-term Greyhawk C&C game, to debut next year. In the meantime, we're running some old D&D modules and some shorter arcs. What setting are you thinking of going with? Wilderlands, homebrew, something else?

Snap, I was going to pitch to my group that I'd run C&C starting a couple of years before the Greyhawk Wars and then continuing through them as I love that setting.

Vadrus

Seanchai · October 15, 2008, 12:14:18 PM

Personally, I gave it a pass because I'm not into the whole old school nostalgia thing. If I want to play OD&D, I have the books. However, I am planning to get StarSeige.

Seanchai

David Johansen · October 15, 2008, 12:19:55 PM

Quote from: jgants;256778I'm in the same boat. C&C offers a cleaner version of AD&D, but unfortunately adds some extra baggage I'd rather not bother with.

I'm thinking the ideal for me would be something like combining D&D 4's basic mechanics for weapons, skills, and combat with the classic classes, races, and spell mechanics of AD&D 2e. I hate the clunky aspects of combat and proficiencies with 2e, but I'm equally unfond of the class powers, race changes, and changes to the magic system in 4e.

Make that 1e and we'll be a little closer to my tastes, but yeah. 4e "look kids we've cleaned up weapons and skills but we've turned the game into a tangled mess of interacting ability types" If they were going to do powers they damn well should have at least killed feats. I always hated feats.

James J Skach · October 15, 2008, 12:19:57 PM

Quote from: David R;256744Sorry James, but your setting will be looted too.

Regards,
David R

David, you have no idea how happy that would make me. It's made for looting...

Damn languages are bogging me down. Who knew how interesting and complicated linguistics would be?

Spinachcat · October 15, 2008, 12:52:12 PM

I liked C&C, but I would re-write the weapons section. The Siege Engine is the big advantage over AD&D and I appreciate its compatability with all the shiznack on my shelves. If I were to run a C&C campaign, I'd probably put it in the Palladium world and whip up rules for Wolfen, Ogre and Goblin PCs.

Personally, 4e has been a godsend for super quick DM prep. I am a big fan of the new Dungeon Tiles and they both inspire ideas and make mapping super easy.

If I had a group that wanted an Old School game, I would probably take Swords & Wizardry (OD&D) and homebrew it with the just released Carcosa setting. I have done so much high fantasy of late that I would want to go Conan style Iron Swords & Weird Sorcery.

Nicephorus · October 15, 2008, 01:13:34 PM

C&C is ok. For my tastes, it took brough back some of the wrong things about older editions, such as differing XP for classes and the resultant lack of simple multiclassing.

I'd play it but not run it.

wulfgar · October 15, 2008, 01:28:43 PM

QuoteIf I had a group that wanted an Old School game, I would probably take Swords & Wizardry (OD&D) and homebrew it with the just released Carcosa setting.

Carcosa you say? Is this something released for Swords and Wizardry? If so, where would I find it?

RandallS · October 15, 2008, 01:45:40 PM

Quote from: wulfgar;256859Carcosa you say? Is this something released for Swords and Wizardry? If so, where would I find it?

It's actually written for OD&D but should work just fine for S&W without many changes. You can find more info here:

http://carcosa-geoffrey.blogspot.com/

Simon W · October 15, 2008, 02:04:21 PM

Quote from: S'mon;256724... and Washourne's Netbook of Classes is extremely cool.

Thanks very much and I am inclined to agree

.

Simon W

Akrasia · October 15, 2008, 04:42:05 PM

C&C is good fun, and the next campaign I run will use the Yggsburgh setting with Castle Zagyg, partially because it looks rather cool, and partially as an homage to EGG.

Akrasia · October 15, 2008, 04:49:27 PM

Quote from: Kellri;256702Did the Trolls put you up to this after they lost their golden egg? I could muster up a point by point rebuttal of your uncalled-for shilling but let's just leave it at this ...

:rolleyes:

Wow. Take a deep breath and try to relax. It's only a game that you happen to not like.

Does it pain you to know that I use your old school netbooks with C&C?