C&C = D&D?

Aladar · Post by **Aladar** » Fri Sep 19, 2008 6:26 pm

I also think C&C handles the balance between nostalgia and new pretty well in their products. C&C is cleaner than 1st ed. AD&D, but you can still use all the old stuff in your C&C game.
_________________
Lord Aladar

Warden of the Welk Wood

Baron of the Castles & Crusades Society

The Poster formerly known as Alwyn

Senior Gamer - Member of the Senior RPG Tour

"NEMO ME IMPUNE LACESSIT - At least not in Yu Gi Oh"
http://www.cncsociety.org/

Luther · Post by **Luther** » Fri Sep 19, 2008 6:29 pm

Quote:
As a bit of an aside; I realize as C&C fans, that is one of our mantras when talking about the system. But isn't it really true for any system there is?

Savage Worlds, the Palladium system, AD&D, WoD, etc.

Heck, on a whim I even made some modifications to the 4e Ranger class and ran a one shot game for my wife where she played a gun-fu type character in a not-so-distant dark future type setting. Was easy to modify and pretty much did it on the fly.

The more rules a system has, the more restrictive it will be on the mindset of those playing it. That's just the way it is, because aside from rare exceptions, people buy a game to use the rules set, not to completely tear it down and rebuild them from scratch. Furthermore, the more one rule is balanced against its companion rules, the more likely you are to 'break' the game by tampering with it. So, not every system is as flexible or easy to convert as every other, especially on the fly.

My idea of doing something on the fly is exemplified by looking at the difference between using C&C and 4e to play old D&D modules. You cannot just play them on the fly with 4e. There is a lot of conversion work that has to be figured out pre-game to make sure the game runs appropriately in 4e terms. In fact, you're basically taking the dungeon, emptying it out and repopulating it with 'balanced' encounters and treasure, adding 'tactical' chalenges for the mini combat system, figuring out where the 'skill checks' are, rejiggerring the XP values and level requirements of the module, replacing the gods, changing any planes that might be in use, etc. etc.

With C&C, on the other hand, I can literally change things as I go in the game without even having to write anything down. I can implement any needed change in my head in less than a second. Got a monster that's not in the M&T book? Subtract the AC from 19 or 20, figure out if it is a P or M save (or both) and Bob's your uncle. Have a trap? Use the most appropriate save. Wandering monster/secret door check? No change needed. I can run Keep on the Borderlands with no more preperation than I needed with the BD&D basic set (basically, filling out my adventure log and giving the Keep NPCs names). That's what I call on the fly...

Julian Grimm · Post by **Julian Grimm** » Fri Sep 19, 2008 6:38 pm

I think C&C needs to remember the past but also look to the future. That is remember what it was born from but continue to be it's own system. IMNSHO C&C is superior to the older AD&D/D&D editions, and I can't go back to them. I have tried.

Yes, we have Zagyg but that should only be one facet of C&C not the whole diamond. I like C&C because I can remember the past but play a system that makes more sense and is easily adaptable to what I want to bring in.

So does C&C need D&D? In a way, yes. Just like we need our history to read and remember but not repeat.
_________________
The Lord of Ravens
My blog

Luther · Post by **Luther** » Fri Sep 19, 2008 7:05 pm

Julian Grimm wrote:
I think C&C needs to remember the past but also look to the future. That is remember what it was born from but continue to be it's own system. IMNSHO C&C is superior to the older AD&D/D&D editions, and I can't go back to them. I have tried.

Yes, we have Zagyg but that should only be one facet of C&C not the whole diamond. I like C&C because I can remember the past but play a system that makes more sense and is easily adaptable to what I want to bring in.

So does C&C need D&D? In a way, yes. Just like we need our history to read and remember but not repeat.

Yes, indeedy. But in addition, while we don't repeat D&D, we don't want to move away from the playstyle it represents.

Because it has taken the old and worked out the kinks by streamlining the existing framework instead of bogging it down with a ton of extraneous rules (leaving that to the discretion of houserulers), C&C is essentially D&D for the modern era and from what I can see, it shouldn't need a new Edition for a very long time (if ever).

Honestly, the only reason I haven't picked up Starseige yet is the fact that from what I've heard, the system has a much more detailed rulesset including skills and other baggage that C&C left out. I'm still waiting to see a copy of it to confirm this, but if it's true, I think I'd rather just use my basic C&C book and wing it, because I'm hooked on the free-wheeling playstyle of old school gaming and just don't have the time to learn something more complex...

DangerDwarf · Post by **DangerDwarf** » Fri Sep 19, 2008 7:11 pm

Luther wrote:
You cannot just play them on the fly with 4e.

Actually, yes you can. I admit I scribbled a few notes before I ran the Golden Auroch (about 1/2 a page), but after doing it that first time. I'm positive I could run B2 without any notes and just the 3 core books sitting at the game table. But that is a different thread.
But yes, I know what on the fly means and you can easily take Savage Worlds, AD&D, Talislanta and countless other systems and easily add to them what you want. Yes, I think it is cool that you can do it with C&C, but its not unique to the system. In my personal experience, I think Savage Worlds probably does it better than most systems.

Before anyone gets huffy, I'm not knocking C&C. I do love the system, otherwise I wouldn't be buying everything TLG puts out for it. I simply joined this thread to say that I think it is a solid enough system to stand on its own without needing to fall back on older editions.

Post by **Breakdaddy** » Fri Sep 19, 2008 7:16 pm

DD HATES C&C!!!!1!!!111 DD, you bast! Quit haeteng on teh C&C plz and thx!!!!

OK, Im done horseing around.... maybe

DangerDwarf · Post by **DangerDwarf** » Fri Sep 19, 2008 7:19 pm

Doh...BD is on to me. I've really been secretly trying to subvert the C&C fanbase to leave him with no message boards to post "Belee dat!" and other weird shit.

I need a new plan.

Word.

Post by **Breakdaddy** » Fri Sep 19, 2008 7:24 pm

DangerDwarf wrote:
Doh...BD is on to me. I've really been secretly trying to subvert the C&C fanbase to leave him with no message boards to post "Belee dat!" and other weird shit.

I need a new plan.

Word.

ROFLCOPTER

Luther · Post by **Luther** » Fri Sep 19, 2008 7:38 pm

DangerDwarf wrote:
Luther wrote:
Actually, yes you can. I admit I scribbled a few notes before I ran the Golden Auroch (about 1/2 a page), but after doing it that first time. I'm positive I could run B2 without any notes and just the 3 core books sitting at the game table. But that is a different thread.

Ahhh! That I would like to see! Let's start that thread, not to prove anything in particular, but as a friendly 'challenge' to show the relative merits of not only C&C and 4e, but of any other system anyone would care to put to the test.

In the end it might prove very instructive on how one goes about converting a module as quickly and efficiently as possible for a multitude of systems. While I think C&C is hands down the easiest, I would love to see how other systems handle it as well.

What do you say DD? Shall we grab a copy of Keep on the Borderlands and go a-converting, with you representing 4e, and me, C&C..?

Valerian · Post by **Valerian** » Fri Sep 19, 2008 7:55 pm

DD ? Hello DD ? I hear crickets . I think he's busy writing down conversion notes .
_________________
What is best in life-

To crush the PC's

See their character sheets piled before you

And to hear the lamentations of the players

-Conan the dungeonmaster

froglegg · Post by **froglegg** » Fri Sep 19, 2008 8:06 pm

seskis281 wrote:
This can go on awhile lol -- seriously, it's when we try convincing each other of what C&C "really is" that we get trapped in a loop, because like anything it's different things to different people.

When I say "we're gaming on Sunday," and people ask what, I say "we D&D." My group still says "D&D," much like growing up in the south we said "Coke" for all soft-drinks.

I still play D&D. Castles & Crusades is my system for playing it. I use "D&D" to mean a genre, a generic for a certain level-based style of Fantasy Role Playing. But what I refer to it as differs from many others, I know.

So remember, just don't get frustrated if someone doesn't see or visualize what any of us take for granted.

AMEN BROTHER!

DangerDwarf · Post by **DangerDwarf** » Fri Sep 19, 2008 8:14 pm

Valerian wrote:
DD ? Hello DD ? I hear crickets . I think he's busy writing down conversion notes .

Actually playing Ninja Gaiden. And plotting against BD.

Julian Grimm · Post by **Julian Grimm** » Fri Sep 19, 2008 8:26 pm

*popping popcorn*
_________________
The Lord of Ravens
My blog

Julian Grimm · Post by **Julian Grimm** » Fri Sep 19, 2008 8:32 pm

Luther wrote:
Because it has taken the old and worked out the kinks by streamlining the existing framework instead of bogging it down with a ton of extraneous rules (leaving that to the discretion of houserulers), C&C is essentially D&D for the modern era and from what I can see, it shouldn't need a new Edition for a very long time (if ever).

One area I disagree with TLG is the no revisions or new editions idea they have. For any design to work you should reassess and revise as needed. There are things that may need fixed, tweaked or new ideas that work better than the original design. But, the revisions should work with, not against, existing material. I've worked with enough plans and schematics over time to learn that the initial design will need changes over time.

Also by the strictest definition of the word the PH has been revised with each printing. Adding new poison rules and fixing typos does count as a revision.
_________________
The Lord of Ravens
My blog

DangerDwarf · Post by **DangerDwarf** » Fri Sep 19, 2008 8:46 pm

Alright. F Ninja Gaiden. Stupid tank guys keep making me asplode. I love/hate this damn game.

Luther wrote:
What do you say DD? Shall we grab a copy of Keep on the Borderlands and go a-converting, with you representing 4e, and me, C&C..?

Nah, can't really say it is of interest to me for a couple reasons.

First, a message board doesn't do that sort of thing justice. The above post is a perfect example, I could decide to play a video game for a bit and have snide remarks about scribbling away at conversion notes. It diesn't show the ease of converting on the fly at all.

Second, I don't think converting on the fly is so much about what system you are converting for as much as it does how familiar you are with the system you are converting too. I used to run D&D adventures when I was running Rolemaster, and did it on the fly because I played A LOT of rolemaster at the time and knew the system well enough that it took mere seconds to know that this particular AC should be about this particular DB or whatever.

I've run Pathfinder 1: Burnt Offerings set in Rifts North America using the Rifts rules, and did it on the fly. I know how to run Rifts. Actually, I did do some pre-converting but it was all fluff to make it fit in with the Rifts setting. No crunch conversions prior to game time though.

Thirdly: What need to convert a large majority of B2. It is as simple as opening the MM to the appropriate page.

Matthew · Post by **Matthew** » Fri Sep 19, 2008 9:18 pm

I like Castles & Crusades because it is a variant on Dungeons & Dragons and I happen to like the latter. I don't really care for the SIEGE system itself nor several other elements of the game, but I appreciate them as an interesting and valid take on D&D. There is plenty about C&C I do like, but if the adventures and other paraphanalia weren't 90% compatible with other variations, I would probably be less enamoured.

In short, I look at C&C as an addition to my B/AD&D collection, rather than a distinct entity in the manner of WHFRP or D20/3e/4e (though this is only a matter of degrees of association).
_________________
It is a joyful thing indeed to hold intimate converse with a man after ones own heart, chatting without reserve about things of interest or the fleeting topics of the world; but such, alas, are few and far between.

Yoshida Kenko (1283-1350)

csperkins1970 · Post by **csperkins1970** » Fri Sep 19, 2008 9:24 pm

Julian Grimm wrote:
One area I disagree with TLG is the no revisions or new editions idea they have. For any design to work you should reassess and revise as needed. There are things that may need fixed, tweaked or new ideas that work better than the original design. But, the revisions should work with, not against, existing material. I've worked with enough plans and schematics over time to learn that the initial design will need changes over time.

I totally agree with you about revising C&C in order to improve the game. Some may rankle at the idea and say that a revision = a new edition BUT I disagree.

One revision, for example, I would make would involve "fixing" the barbarian class in order to make it (mechanically) on par with the fighter, ranger and paladin. If there is one class that needs a bit of a boost, it's the barbarian.

I'm going to put on my flame retardant suit now and go hide...

DangerDwarf · Post by **DangerDwarf** » Fri Sep 19, 2008 9:26 pm

Heh.

I agree that the barbarian needs something. More than any other C&C class that one leaves me wanting more.

Treebore · Post by **Treebore** » Fri Sep 19, 2008 10:24 pm

C&C allows me to play any "feel" of D&D I want to have. That is why I love C&C over all others. I personally want a little of every edition, C&C allows me to have that easily.

No other version of D&D allows me to do this with such ease.

Because I know C&C can allow me to have the "feel" of any edition of D&D I want, I am always baffled by posts saying they aren't able to get the "Feel of edition X".

Its easy to do if the feel of the edition for the individual isn't dependent upon using the save charts or percentiles to resolve various mechanics issues. As long as your OK with resolving everything via the SIEGE mechanic its easy to get the feel of any editions of D&D.

You simply use the class, race, spell, monster, and magic item write ups of your favorite edition and VOILA! You have a SIEGE game with all the feel of your favorite edition, now with a simple unified mechanic. Plus you can still easily steal ideas from any other edition you wish.

the best of all worlds of D&D. Hence why I have been known to call C&C the "One RPG to rule them all", not because C&C is the best, but because it allows you to use what you consider the best of each edition, easily, without breaking anything. That is why C&C is my favorite. That is why I see C&C as being all editions rolled into one, and I get to decide how rolled together they are.
_________________
The Ruby Lord, Earl of the Society

Next Con I am attending: http://www.neoncon.com/

My House Rules: http://www.freeyabb.com/phpbb/viewtopic ... llordgames

Treebore · Post by **Treebore** » Fri Sep 19, 2008 10:40 pm

DangerDwarf wrote:
Thirdly: What need to convert a large majority of B2. It is as simple as opening the MM to the appropriate page.

Yeah, converting, most of the time, involves using the right monster. If its already written up in the version of D&D you want to use, the works done. The next most frequent conversion is an NPC with character classes. That can be tedious, even in 4E, depending on the level, and especially if they are a spell caster.

The only other problems I have seen are with spells and character levels. Like if I wanted to run Ravenloft in 3E I had to seriously up the level if I wanted to keep Strahd a fighter and mage. Strahd became a CR 22 NPC.

In 4E I cannot even recreate Strahd. I can get close, but not close enough. Plus, to do it by the rules, and give Strahd enough feats to allow me to get him close, I would still have to seriously up the level of the adventure.

So to me the biggest problem of using many old modules in 3E or 4E I have to wait for the party to get 5 to 10 levels higher then they had to be in games prior to 3E. Or seriously weaken the antagonists from what they originally were.

It can work, but I like how much less work it takes within the framework of C&C.
_________________
The Ruby Lord, Earl of the Society

Next Con I am attending: http://www.neoncon.com/

My House Rules: http://www.freeyabb.com/phpbb/viewtopic ... llordgames

Morgrus · Post by **Morgrus** » Fri Sep 19, 2008 11:06 pm

I know, we will roll for it. The whole product line will be based on hackmaster esk charts.
_________________
Awww Craap.

Lord Dynel · Post by **Lord Dynel** » Sat Sep 20, 2008 2:27 pm

Wow. Great thread. Awesome conversation!

I think that C&C does many things, and does them all well. Does it cater to the nostalgic, older days of D&D? Yep. Does it take a lot of (the better) things from the d20 system and implement them in the system? Sure does. Does it do some unique, innovative things all its own (SIEGE) that give it its own identity? Yes.

I think C&C can be all those things, to the individual who looks upon the system. It doesn't have to be one or the other. It's what each of us sees in it - what gives it merit - that's important. I think that's one of the things that so great about the system - it caters to very discerning tastes. It caters to the d20 guy who maybe got tired of the books upon books of rules. It caters to guys who played the X edition of AD&D or BD&D (or heck, even OD&D) in its classic feel. It might even cater to the random RPG guy who happens to see it on the shelf and had no association to the other types who just wants to try something new.

The system is innovative, yet simplistic. New, yet nostalgic. Love it, embrace it. It may very well be the best RPG in production today.

Post by **finarvyn** » Sat Sep 20, 2008 6:20 pm

As an old crusty guy who was hanging around the older boards from pretty close to the start, I can say that I think that C&C turned out pretty well considering some of the restrictions we had to work with.

First of all, since C&C came out prior to the flurry of retro-clone games, there was a lot of uncertainty at the time about what could be allowed or not in a rules set. The notion of starting from the 3E SRD and working from there was based on a perceived necessity to comply with legal correctness more than the idea that we wanted the game to resemble 3E, for example.

The creation of the SIEGE rules mechanic was important for (1) simplicity and ease of play, and (2) to help make C&C its own unique game. I remember playtesting with and without the SIEGE rules and found that overall the SIEGE notion actually fit my style of play (make a dex check, make a wisdom check) better than any other that I had house ruled over the years. The idea of prime stats giving certain SIEGE advantages also fit in with the freestyle grab dice and roll something philosophy that I wanted in my games.

Is C&C perfect? Of course not. I really dont even consider barbarian and knight as options in my home games because they dont have the flavor I want in my game, but its so easy to ignore parts I dont like. I used to carry the D&D Rules Cyclopedia around all of the time (its probably the best single D&D resource ever) but now I carry the C&C Players Handbook instead.
C&C is so neat because its essentially a simple game, but you can input skills and feats and other goodies from various D&D editions with minimal problems. I was excited to get in on the C&C playtest back in 2003 and Im still excited by the game in 2008. Thats great for me because my den is full of games that I bought and thought would be cool, only to lose interest in them three weeks later.

And, yes we still call our game D&D most of the time, although when I make my homemade character sheets I put C&C images on them and my players call the game C&C more and more often.
_________________
Finarvyn

Lord Marshall, Earl of Stone Creek, C&C Society

C&C Playtester in 2003
OD&D player since 1975

tylermo · Post by **tylermo** » Sun Sep 21, 2008 1:17 pm

Great discussion! I totally agree with much that has been said. Siege is good, and simple. Compatability with 1E and 2E is another strong point. Not to mention that C&C gets rid of some of the 1E and 2E clunky bits. And, you can totally avoid the splat fat of 3.5, or the MMORPG feel of 4E. C&C gets my vote for fantasy hands down. Savage Worlds gets my vote for practically every other genre. Even some of their pirate, and fantasy-type products play quite well. Keep it coming, TLG. It's because of your fine product, and that (Sav Worlds) of Pinnacle Entertainment, that I only bought the 4E phb, and will probably by few or (most likely) no other products from that line.

seskis281 · Post by **seskis281** » Sun Sep 21, 2008 1:22 pm

finarvyn wrote:
And, yes we still call our game D&D most of the time, although when I make my homemade character sheets I put C&C images on them and my players call the game C&C more and more often.

Ya, at play rehearsal the other night we have a friend who plays 3.5 and asked about our game, and before I can answer one of my players says "we play C&C... you'll love it."

To some extent, I am seeing a shift this year - where people identify by the numerical "3.5 v. 4e," or the specific brand name "C&C," "Pathfinder," etc.
_________________
John "Sir Seskis" Wright

Ilshara: Lands of Exile:
http://johnwright281.tripod.com/

High Squire of the C&C Society
www.cncsociety.org

Matthew · Post by **Matthew** » Sun Sep 21, 2008 1:30 pm

seskis281 wrote:
Ya, at play rehearsal the other night we have a friend who plays 3.5 and asked about our game, and before I can answer one of my players says "we play C&C... you'll love it."

To some extent, I am seeing a shift this year - where people identify by the numerical "3.5 v. 4e," or the specific brand name "C&C," "Pathfinder," etc.

I think that's true; certainly, if we have the C&C PHB at the table, then people are more likely to say we're playing C&C, but then there's the follow up question...

"So, what's Pathfinder?"

"Well, it's basically a variant on D20/3e..."

"So what's Castles & Crusades?"

"Well, it's basically a variant on B/AD&D..."

But that's always been more or less the case; I think if somebody asked me to explain what WHFRP is, I would probably begin with "Well, you know Dungeons & Dragons?" It is hard, and maybe pointless, to remove that as a common reference point.
_________________
It is a joyful thing indeed to hold intimate converse with a man after ones own heart, chatting without reserve about things of interest or the fleeting topics of the world; but such, alas, are few and far between.

Yoshida Kenko (1283-1350)

DangerDwarf · Post by **DangerDwarf** » Sun Sep 21, 2008 1:35 pm

For non-gamers, I always find it easier to just say, 'We're playing D&D" regardless of what we are really playing even if it is Rifts, Shadowrun, etc. They know that term and it keeps me from having to explain any further.

Among other gamers, I always use the name of what we are actually playing. Though, when I first picked up C&C, I did call it D&D with regularity. I've since stopped that.

tylermo · Post by **tylermo** » Sun Sep 21, 2008 1:42 pm

Calling other rpg's D&D can be dangerous in some circles. Especially when introducing younger kids to a game. It doesn't happen much these days, but a few folks who grew up during the 1980's pop culture inquisition may have a negative opinion of that game. Might not even let their kid play if they think it's "that game". hehe

Pat Payne · Post by **Pat Payne** » Sun Sep 21, 2008 4:54 pm

csperkins1970 wrote:
I totally agree with you about revising C&C in order to improve the game. Some may rankle at the idea and say that a revision = a new edition BUT I disagree.

At any rate, there already have been revisions on the game. Some rules in the first printing that the Troll Lords looked at and said "nah...just not workin'" such as some of the assassin rules. So even within their "no new editions" philosophy (which I agree with), C&C does seem to still be a "living document."

As to whether or not C&C is D&D, a whole-hearted YES. I've been running C&C the past few weeks, and everybody loves it. It has the feel that I've been searchig for, the free-wheeling "well, make a roll as opposed to me looking for ten minutes for an arcane rule of subparagraph (a) in section 31 on page 386" spirit.

In one encounter versus bandits, we had one PC pulled off his horse and wrassled to the ground, while another did a spectacular derring-do fight on a runaway wagon -- stuff that would take much longer to do in 3e. I cannot wait till they get to the castle now.

Joe Mac · Post by **Joe Mac** » Sun Sep 21, 2008 6:36 pm

finarvyn wrote:
First of all, since C&C came out prior to the flurry of retro-clone games, there was a lot of uncertainty at the time about what could be allowed or not in a rules set.

The creation of the SIEGE rules mechanic was important for (1) simplicity and ease of play, and (2) to help make C&C its own unique game.

Very interesting point, and it leads a fella to wonder if/how C&C might have been different, had the legal issues been clearer at the time.

The SIEGE and prime mechanics are fantastic for many purposes -- most notably resolving class abilities, and dealing on the fly with the myriad random game situations that crop up. I'm not as wild about SIEGE for other purposes, such as surprise and, to an extent, saving throws.

More to the point of this discussion: despite its significant innovations, I do think of C&C as a more freewheeling (and streamlined) variant of B/AD&D. If it didn't have that 'feel', I wouldn't like it so much.