Quote from: Brad on October 05, 2023, 11:54:22 AM
SIEGE engine "needs work", primes don't always "work out right", saves (for me) are less than ideal, etc., etc., etc. But when we're playing, it works fine. And sometimes fine is all you really want when you're drinking with your buddies and beating the fuck out of orcs in lost tombs.

Best take on SIEGE engine.

Overall I wholeheartedly agree with Brad. C&C is basically AD&D3 at the table and I like it, even if it is not perfect.
The only real cons are the typos (I feel you Opaopajr  ) and the overall art direction which is really hit and miss IMHO.

Quote from: Felneth on October 06, 2023, 06:26:21 AM

Overall I wholeheartedly agree with Brad. C&C is basically AD&D3 at the table and I like it, even if it is not perfect.
The only real cons are the typos (I feel you Opaopajr  ) and the overall art direction which is really hit and miss IMHO.

Typos are pretty much a thing of the past in the core rule books

It's a game I'd like to like more than I actually do, I think.

I ran C&C for a while. At first I liked it. After running it for a while I kept running into things I didn't like, so I started changing them. I excised some spells (e.g., I remember getting rid of "sound burst" which I think came from 3e and totally stepped on the toes of the Magic-User, in my opinion). I changed the way surprise worked (instead of using a SIEGE engine check based on Wis I just house-ruled TSR D&D surprise into the game). I didn't like the way saving throws worked (again, it was a SIEGE engine thing) and house-ruled that (and again, I just house-ruled TSR D&D saving throws into the game). I prefer my D&Dish games to be strongly class/level based, and I didn't like the emphasis the SIEGE engine put on stats. I started ditching it, in general. I can be pretty thick, but eventually even I realized that what I really seemed to want was TSR D&D, so that's where I went. I currently run an original D&D game, and also a 1e AD&D game.

I think C&C is okay, but it's kind of its own thing with its own quirks. Whether you like or can tolerate those depends on what you're looking for, I suppose. To me, it just makes more sense to play TSR D&D.

As for the second part of the question, I'm not a big 2e AD&D fan (I prefer 1e), and as you can tell from the above I'm not a huge C&C fan, either. I'm not much for *running* any of the clone systems, for that matter. I appreciate them more as a source of possible supplements/adventures that are mostly compatible with the games I prefer. If I were to actually run a clone system (instead of actual TSR D&D) it would almost certainly be OSRIC. The OSRIC book available from Black Blade Publishing is a very reasonably priced, single volume set of rules that I think captures AD&D better than C&C and other clone or clone-like systems I'm familiar with.

Quote from: Philotomy Jurament on October 06, 2023, 12:56:00 PM
I ran C&C for a while. At first I liked it. After running it for a while I kept running into things I didn't like, so I started changing them. I excised some spells (e.g., I remember getting rid of "sound burst" which I think came from 3e and totally stepped on the toes of the Magic-User, in my opinion). I changed the way surprise worked (instead of using a SIEGE engine check based on Wis I just house-ruled TSR D&D surprise into the game). I didn't like the way saving throws worked (again, it was a SIEGE engine thing) and house-ruled that (and again, I just house-ruled TSR D&D saving throws into the game). I prefer my D&Dish games to be strongly class/level based, and I didn't like the emphasis the SIEGE engine put on stats. I started ditching it, in general. I can be pretty thick, but eventually even I realized that what I really seemed to want was TSR D&D, so that's where I went. I currently run an original D&D game, and also a 1e AD&D game.

I think C&C is okay, but it's kind of its own thing with its own quirks. Whether you like or can tolerate those depends on what you're looking for, I suppose. To me, it just makes more sense to play TSR D&D.

As for the second part of the question, I'm not a big 2e AD&D fan (I prefer 1e), and as you can tell from the above I'm not a huge C&C fan, either. I'm not much for *running* any of the clone systems, for that matter. I appreciate them more as a source of possible supplements/adventures that are mostly compatible with the games I prefer. If I were to actually run a clone system (instead of actual TSR D&D) it would almost certainly be OSRIC. The OSRIC book available from Black Blade Publishing is a very reasonably priced, single volume set of rules that I think captures AD&D better than C&C and other clone or clone-like systems I'm familiar with.

A reasonable position.  C&C was my intro to the OSR scene.  I played it quite a bit for about 2 years, ditched it for other options, and came back to it a few years later.  I like its adaptability and flexibility. 

As for other games that are more like retroclones, unless they're improving something significantly or streamlining (as in giving me a full game in one book), I'm no longer interested.  I find OSRIC dull and poorly organized.  Easier for me to use all my AD&D books than waste time with that.  BFRPG is boring beyond belief.  OSE is great as a reference and I like some of the advanced material, but I'm not crazy about the art and tone.  Labyrinth Lord Advanced is good primarily for being in one book and emulating how we played, including freely mixing B/X and AD&D character classes for awhile.  But it's also poorly organized and the art is generally bad. S&W is fine, but a bit limited in terms of things like spells & magic items.  I love their monster books, though.  The new edition is a bit disappointing in the art & presentation department.  The previews of Greg Gillespie's new game were pretty underwhelming; just another set of house rules mashing things together.  Labyrinth Lord does that already.

So for now we'll still with C&C, freely cribbing from everything else, which, in any case, is the beauty of the OSR.

I love Castles & Crusades in theory. Though I don't know I'd like it plain. I never liked the "prime" system. One little tweak I make that I think makes it awesome, though, is to bring back the Secondary Skills table. Anything that falls under the umbrella of the secondary skill gets the lower TN as if primed. So it goes more logically by skill area rather than being redundant with the attribute bonus. Done that way, I think it's a great, simple system for the standard "motley band of wandering psychopaths wander the land getting caught up in wacky adventures" motif that nearly every GM runs no matter how much they go on about their own personal style or unique campaign.

However, I don't think that lives up to the name of the game. "Castles & Crusades" gets me thinking about sieges and mass combat. And when it comes to that, I think the game only punctuates the brain rot of "modern" RPG sensibilities. There is a lot of stuff in 1E--a lot of it absolutely hated--that works remarkably well when you stray from the path of motley psychopaths. Three rules, at the very minimum, that I would have to port over are: 1E's full initiative system. Weapon vs Armor adjustments. And lower-is-better ACs, specifically the way only 1E calibrates the hit tables.

The first two, I think are more or less easy to throw into any game. Reversing the ACs, though, that requires converting every last AC. And at that point, I get to feeling it's a lot easier just to play 1E.

Quote from: Lunamancer on October 06, 2023, 09:16:52 PM

However, I don't think that lives up to the name of the game. "Castles & Crusades" gets me thinking about sieges and mass combat.

You do know why it is named Castles & Crusades don't you?

I'm going to just answer the thread title instead of the OP.

Quote from: kaliburnuz on October 02, 2023, 01:57:00 PM
What is your unfiltered opinion on Castle & Crusades?

One of the better games I no longer play. I retain a soft spot for it, but time has passed it by and we've got more finely tuned options now. I particularly liked the take on the bard, and the class-and-a-half system for multi-classing.

It's critics (last time I checked, I'm answering this before reading the thread) sometimes seemed needlessly vituperative over what I consider relatively minor and typical flaws for an rpg. Most valid critique is that target numbers for Primes and non-Primes can stand to be adjusted, but that's the easiest thing in the world to do, and the first thing that most who run it do.

Quote from: Scooter on October 06, 2023, 09:22:24 PM
You do know why it is named Castles & Crusades don't you?

I do.

I have no idea why you'd choose a handle for yourself that means one who has diarrhea. I mean maybe you're really trying to land a gig in an Imodium commercial or something. I have no problem admitting that I don't really know, though.

But I do know why it's named Castles & Crusades.

Quote from: Lunamancer on October 06, 2023, 09:43:29 PM

Quote from: Scooter on October 06, 2023, 09:22:24 PM
You do know why it is named Castles & Crusades don't you?

I have no idea why you'd choose a handle for yourself that means one who has diarrhea. I mean maybe you're really trying to land a gig in an Imodium commercial or something. I have no problem admitting that I don't really know, though.

It's gonna be okay.  There are many new treatments for mental disorders these days.

Quote from: Philotomy Jurament on October 06, 2023, 12:56:00 PMThe OSRIC book available from Black Blade Publishing is a very reasonably priced, single volume set of rules that I think captures AD&D better than C&C and other clone or clone-like systems I'm familiar with.

But isn't OSRIC literally just AD&D with some slight changes for publishing adventures while avoiding lawsuits? Anyway, playing OSRIC seems kinda dumb because you can play the real thing instead of a clone. I had about five copies of OSRIC and finally got rid of them all because it wasn't even a good resource for playing AD&D since nothing was identical. Contrast with OSE which can be used as a reference for B/X.

Quote from: Brad on October 08, 2023, 03:48:31 PM

Quote from: Philotomy Jurament on October 06, 2023, 12:56:00 PMThe OSRIC book available from Black Blade Publishing is a very reasonably priced, single volume set of rules that I think captures AD&D better than C&C and other clone or clone-like systems I'm familiar with.

But isn't OSRIC literally just AD&D with some slight changes for publishing adventures while avoiding lawsuits? Anyway, playing OSRIC seems kinda dumb because you can play the real thing instead of a clone. I had about five copies of OSRIC and finally got rid of them all because it wasn't even a good resource for playing AD&D since nothing was identical. Contrast with OSE which can be used as a reference for B/X.

As someone who is not expert at AD&D, I prefer using OSRIC for reference, as:

- It feels easier to navigate / better organized.
- Excludes some rules few people like (e.g., weapon vs. armor).
- Other rules are simplified (eg. initiative).
- Is free online, has a good SRD I can reach in a few clicks - and link to my players.

If you're very familiar with AD&D, maybe you don't need a "reference index" at all.

Here:
https://osricwiki.presgas.name/doku.php?id=osric:index

Quote from: Eric Diaz on October 08, 2023, 04:52:31 PM

Quote from: Brad on October 08, 2023, 03:48:31 PM

Quote from: Philotomy Jurament on October 06, 2023, 12:56:00 PMThe OSRIC book available from Black Blade Publishing is a very reasonably priced, single volume set of rules that I think captures AD&D better than C&C and other clone or clone-like systems I'm familiar with.

But isn't OSRIC literally just AD&D with some slight changes for publishing adventures while avoiding lawsuits? Anyway, playing OSRIC seems kinda dumb because you can play the real thing instead of a clone. I had about five copies of OSRIC and finally got rid of them all because it wasn't even a good resource for playing AD&D since nothing was identical. Contrast with OSE which can be used as a reference for B/X.

As someone who is not expert at AD&D, I prefer using OSRIC for reference, as:

- It feels easier to navigate / better organized.
- Excludes some rules few people like (e.g., weapon vs. armor).
- Other rules are simplified (eg. initiative).
- Is free online, has a good SRD I can reach in a few clicks - and link to my players.

If you're very familiar with AD&D, maybe you don't need a "reference index" at all.

Here:
https://osricwiki.presgas.name/doku.php?id=osric:index

Yeah, I think it's a matter of personal preference.  I found OSRIC poorly organized and uninspiring in every facet.  But I have all my original AD&D stuff and know it well enough that I scarcely need a reference.  OSE, on the other hand, I do find useful as a reference, though I'm not as impressed with it overall as some are.  It's good because it's B/X, not because the game itself has been improved.

Quote from: Eric Diaz on October 08, 2023, 04:52:31 PM

As someone who is not expert at AD&D, I prefer using OSRIC for reference, as:

- It feels easier to navigate / better organized.
- Excludes some rules few people like (e.g., weapon vs. armor).
- Other rules are simplified (eg. initiative).
- Is free online, has a good SRD I can reach in a few clicks - and link to my players.

The epub is great.  All hyperlinked internally.  Takes the place of AD&D PHB, DMG & MM

I loathe e-books so that's never a plus for me.  Never looked at an SRD in my life so also of no interest.  I want a giant table in the basement or kitchen with books and gaming stuff spread all over the place, thank you very much.