Hello all!

This is a two part questions

1) what is your review/opinion on C&C? What you like and dislike in the system?
2) how does C&C compare with  AD&D 1e/OSRIC and 2e in your opinion since it is basically AD&D 3e?

Thanks!

1.  It's a great game.  I like the simplicity of the Siege Engine mechanic.  I like that the "philosophy" is you don't need to roll for everything.  The PHB could have more spells per level, but that's just a minor gripe.  I can just pull out my old AD&D PHB for more if necessary.  And on that note, I often use old AD&D modules and just convert on the fly.  It's very easy.
2.  It "feels" like AD&D to me, but with less checks and it flows smoother

1) C&C is far from perfect. Not that any game is, but there a few things I dislike about C&C as a whole. Saves tied to threat level instead of AD&D-style tied to character level is probably the one I hate the most. I mean, it's actually a decent idea in theory when you think about it, but I prefer the notion that 20th level paladins are nigh-invincible against spells vs. threatened by a high-level caster. Not a deal breaker. I also think how the SIEGE engine works in general can be a bit wonky at times, and it's STILL somewhat ambiguous after years and going on 10 printings. Outside of that, game is basically AD&D that can be played with minimal effort. Combat is easy as hell to run, has an old school flavor, and converting modules is trivial.

2) C&C is AD&D with ascending AC and an easier combat system. All the little differences than seem to be important when comparing the games really aren't whatsoever. Compared to AD&D 2nd, I'd say it's "close enough" to not even matter. 1st vs. 2nd is nearly entirely cosmetic, anyway, so trying to split hairs there is essentially just listing how things are done in a slightly different manner BtB and subsequently glossed over by any competent DM.

Most of my group really like it and for the basic reason Brad and The Spaniard already mentioned.

About the only gripe that ever came up when we played is that henchmen don't come with any equipment and you are expected to completely outfit them with all gear, weapons and armor on top of the starting fee. It's a minor thing unless you really need someone at lower levels, when money is tighter, to help round out the group.

Easier and faster to run than prior versions of TSR D&D.  Scales better for high level PCs vs. high level monsters.  I never liked 3 + D&D from WotC so no comparison needed; if one likes extreme complexity in mechanics and roll playing vs role playing I can see them liking 3.x more than C&C though as C&C is simple and streamlined.

If one likes a skill based system C&C is not for them.  If you want something with a single mechanic for conflict, task resolution then C&C might work for them.  If a GM wants fast flexible combat that is C&C.

I'm afraid I strongly dislike the "Siege Engine" your milage may vary.  I've heard they've fixed the encumbrance rules but they were a disaster in first edition.  There's lots of other little things I dislike.  Too many class specific abilities being one of them.

If you always preferred basic and wanted advanced's options C&C might be for you.

Quote from: David Johansen on October 02, 2023, 07:38:05 PM
I've heard they've fixed the encumbrance rules but they were a disaster in first edition.

I don't like them much either but I have never liked the encumbrance rules of any version of D&D and always end up making a super simple system (rule of thumb) for the games I run.

It works, but it's just so bland. Basically does what D&D does without the flavor.

I wanted to like this game badly but it didn't land for my table. The game seems to lean heavily into the need for class diversity to accomplish basic, "everyday" roleplaying session actions, and it feels so stretched with a party of fewer than four.

Quote from: Scooter on October 02, 2023, 07:41:55 PM

Quote from: David Johansen on October 02, 2023, 07:38:05 PM
I've heard they've fixed the encumbrance rules but they were a disaster in first edition.

I don't like them much either but I have never liked the encumbrance rules of any version of D&D and always end up making a super simple system (rule of thumb) for the games I run.

Wow that is harsh. Rule of thumb for encumbrance. Ouch. So if a player tries to carry too much you can whack them with an object no wider than your thum, provided you are on the steps of the courthouse of course. 

Quote from: SmallMountaineer on October 02, 2023, 08:10:03 PM
I wanted to like this game badly but it didn't land for my table. The game seems to lean heavily into the need for class diversity to accomplish basic, "everyday" roleplaying session actions, and it feels so stretched with a party of fewer than four.

Exactly like AD&D.  Which was the design intention.

Quote from: rgalex on October 02, 2023, 03:55:29 PM
Most of my group really like it and for the basic reason Brad and The Spaniard already mentioned.

About the only gripe that ever came up when we played is that henchmen don't come with any equipment and you are expected to completely outfit them with all gear, weapons and armor on top of the starting fee. It's a minor thing unless you really need someone at lower levels, when money is tighter, to help round out the group.

Looked it up to verify: "Equipment Of Henchmen:
All henchmen will come with nothing except the (normal) clothes they wear. Although they will have a few copper and silver coins, they will have nothing of value — no armor or weapons, nothing! Their wretched state is, in fact, one of the prime motivations for their seeking employment with a successful adventurer."

So you can blame Gygax for that one...

The DMG seems to imply hitelings ARE hired with equipment, but of course they are paid muscle, not friends.

That's exactly right.  Hirelings are professionals and come with their gear.  Henchmen are rabble aspiring to be adventurers or at least to profit from adventures.

SIEGE turns me off, and after ASSH I'm not eager to investigate AD&D-derived rulesets; I'd rather play a B/X derivative (ACKS or maybe highly-tweaked OSE), 5e with OSR sensibilities, or something further afield.

Quote from: kaliburnuz on October 02, 2023, 01:57:00 PM
Hello all!

This is a two part questions

1) what is your review/opinion on C&C? What you like and dislike in the system?
2) how does C&C compare with  AD&D 1e/OSRIC and 2e in your opinion since it is basically AD&D 3e?

Thanks!

1) Here you go. The TLDR is: overall a great system but I dislike the main mechanic (SIEGE engine).

https://methodsetmadness.blogspot.com/2023/09/a-few-thought-on-castles-crusades.html

2) Feels like simplified/modernized AD&D to me, with similar classes and bonuses (+1 per level), since it lacks many important bits of 3e (3 saves, feats, prestige classes, etc.). but it also has some aspects of basic (3d6 in order, streamlined abilities) and some modern aspects before 5e (six saves, roll high ability checks, a kind of "proficiency").

If I had to run a game with minimal house ruling, I'd probably choose C&C over AD&D.