Troll Lord Games

angelius wrote:
hehe.. I personally think that you dont even need one book to play a RPG! That's how I use to play it when I was but a wee lad...couldn't afford the books so we just made it up as we went a long.

Till this day, that style of play still has some nostalgic value to me.

Troll Lord wrote:
Well we don't want to go crazy!

Steve

angelius wrote:
hehe.. I personally think that you dont even need one book to play a RPG! That's how I use to play it when I was but a wee lad...couldn't afford the books so we just made it up as we went a long.

Till this day, that style of play still has some nostalgic value to me.

gideon_thorne wrote:
*chuckles* My first group didn't have internet forums to go to in order to answer questions. Hell, I don't think IRC was even around when I first started playing.

So it pretty well forced us to slog it through on our own. Not that a bunch of 7-8 year olds were all that concerned over fine points in mechanics.

Troll Lord wrote:
What is core to me? Well its more than mechanics as mechanics don't drive my game (ask Mark, he'll tell you); role playing does. So core to me are those core books that give me solid expansion material for the game itself. In this case, we will have four books filled with useful material: PH, MT, CKG and OG&M. These are core books because they generate the attention and support the game the most; that is how I've always viewed them and the ad copy I write, and I write 99% of it, reflects that.

Does any of this make sense?

Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary wrote:
Main Entry: core

Pronunciation: \ˈkȯr\

Function: noun

Usage: often attributive

Etymology: Middle English

Date: 14th century

1 : a central and often foundational part usually distinct from the enveloping part by a difference in nature : as a : the usually inedible central part of some fruits (as a pineapple); especially : the papery or leathery carpels composing the ripened ovary in a pome fruit (as an apple) b : the portion of a foundry mold that shapes the interior of a hollow casting c : a vertical space (as for elevator shafts, stairways, or plumbing apparatus) in a multistory building d (1) : a mass of iron serving to concentrate and intensify the magnetic field resulting from a current in a surrounding coil (2) : a tiny doughnut-shaped piece of magnetic material (as ferrite) used in computer memories (3) : a computer memory consisting of an array of cores strung on fine wires; broadly : the internal memory of a computer e : the central part of a celestial body (as the earth or sun) usually having different physical properties from the surrounding parts f : a nodule of stone (as flint or obsidian) from which flakes have been struck for making implements g : the conducting wire with its insulation in an electric cable h : an arrangement of a course of studies that combines under basic topics material from subjects conventionally separated and aims to provide a common background for all students i : the place in a nuclear reactor where fission occurs
2 a : a basic, essential, or enduring part (as of an individual, a class, or an entity) b : the essential meaning : gist c : the inmost or most intimate part

3 : a part (as a thin cylinder of material) removed from the interior of a mass especially to determine composition

Traveller wrote:
I quoted the whole thing, but the definition that applies to this discussion is 2a, which states "a basic, essential, or enduring part (as of an individual, a class, or an entity)". I do not know how you came up with your definition of "core" and I don't know where the book distributers came up with their definition, but the CKG and OGM are NOT core according to the accepted definition. They are neither basic nor are they essential to the play of the game. So why then are they marketed on the website as "core" material when they clearly are not?

angelius wrote:
The truth is that I've been searching all these years for a game that had that 'feel', that would bring me back to a time when things were just so 'fantastic' and made me feel that a world opened up to me...

Omote wrote:
I say this without any influence from anybody, that Castles & Crusades brought that special feeling back to me. Nothing will ever replace the majesty of first learning that first paper and pencil RPG, but in the eternal quest for doing so, C&C has come the closest. Trollzah. Trollzah.

~O

Traveller wrote:
2 a : a basic, essential, or enduring part (as of an individual, a class, or an entity) b : the essential meaning : gist c : the inmost or most intimate part

gideon_thorne wrote:
Now, its been made perfectly clear, on a number of occasions, that the PHB and the M&T are the only ones required for the game. But the odd bloke might want to add other books to their core experience for the system.

There is nothing deceptive about it from TLG. However, there is nothing TLG can do about people who insist on reading motives into these matters that aren't there.

Wasgo wrote:
It's less important what you intend to communicate, than what people will perceive as your communication. Poor dictionary semantics asides, people read core as necessary. They aren't going to see the subtle distinctions that are intended just because you say they will.

Quote:
Similarly, you say it's been made clear, but where on TLG's website under the product section or any obvious section, does it make it clear that the PHB and M&T are all that are required? Or going by the even more limiting proposition, that only the PHB is required? Similarly, where on the books does it say that? You've previously noted that most buyers don't go on forums or cons, so how should the other buyers know what you mean by Core?

gideon_thorne wrote:
I don't expect people to bother over such subtle distinctions. The point that I've been getting at, repeatedly, is that the vast majority of the people who play rpgs don't care about such things. They buy what they think they need, and ignore the rest.

Quote:
C&C PHB Page 5, "What Do You Need To Play"

"Unlike many other games, Castles & Crusades only requires this book of rules for those playing the characters.....

And "The Castle Keeper will need the Castle & Crusades Monsters and Treasure rulebook and will find the CKG handy as well. "

Doesn't get any more clear.

marjasall wrote:
Finally when someone "re-wrote" one of Jim's paragraphs in a childish display of "i'm a better writer than you are", I quit reading, closed it up, and dismissed the entire discussion. That act right there spoke volumes about what I was reading.

Troll Lord wrote:
So core to me are those core books that give me solid expansion material for the game itself. In this case, we will have four books filled with useful material: PH, MT, CKG and OG&M. These are core books because they generate the attention and support the game the most; that is how I've always viewed them...

Wasgo wrote:
If I look on the website, my sense is that I would need to buy four Core books for C&C, compared to three for D&D and three for Pathfinder. That does matter if I'm deciding to buy a new RPG.

Quote:
Again, that's presuming a certain level of interest hasn't already been lost. People are not going to flip through the book to learn what is required, when the concept of Core appears to make it quite clear.

Quote:
C&C PHB Page 5, "What Do You Need To Play"

"Unlike many other games, Castles & Crusades only requires this book of rules for those playing the characters.....

And "The Castle Keeper will need the Castle & Crusades Monsters and Treasure rulebook and will find the CKG handy as well. "

Wasgo wrote:
I believe that only happened because one of the people vehemently defending Mr. Ward kept insisting if you couldn't write better, then you couldn't criticize the clarity of the writing. In my estimation that passage was fairly poorly written.

gideon_thorne wrote:
Well, I'm not getting the same sense from the website. But then again, I generally don't shop from websites.

Quote:
The above section has been in the books since the first printing. Again, it doesn't get any more clear.

And, actually most people do flip through books to see what's required. Just common sense.

gideon_thorne wrote:
Hahah. Ya. Pretty common tactic of the more vehement critics of TLG. Posting their complaints elsewhere and often behind closed doors, and not bringing them directly to this forum.

Such moral cowardice is laughable. And generally why I don't take the more vocal and hysterical critics seriously.

Wasgo wrote:
As a player, I can state that until I read the forums, I did find the whole 4 Core Books to be confusing. At first I thought they were expanding the number of 'standard' books from three to four. Especially since the new edition of the PHB came out after Of Gods and Monsters so the website was all I had to reference. As of now there is 1 required book to play, 2 books are necessary for most game purposes, 3 books will be in the standard box set and 4 books are Core. Given that I was confused, I refuse to debate whether or not this can be confusing.

I'd thought I'd reference an earlier quote here:



I like C&C. I own a few of the books, and more than a few of the PDFs. I hate making any sort of constructive criticism of C&C on this forum. I find certain people's responses, especially yours, to be dismissive and condescending. I can fully appreciate why many people wouldn't want to post any criticism on these forums. In fact, this will be my last post on this topic, as it's very clear there is no intention to have a merit-based discussion. The only purpose that I can see for this topic is to prove how much superior posters here are by slagging on RPG.net and the RPGNow reviewer about how biased and stupid they are.

Sir Ironside wrote:
Actually it wasn't a true defender, I'm pretty sure the poster in question didn't even own any C&C stuff but took to task some of the garbage people had thrown out and called them on it. There were two that took up the challenge and one of them was the reviewer.

Later on both rewrites were commented on and most agreed that what they wrote was not any better and actually the reviewers was worse.

marjasall wrote:
Fire Jim?? To me it was not an opinion, but an attack. A smear. It should be recognized as such and whacked on the nose with a rolled up newspaper.

serleran wrote:
See Jim. Jim writes. Jim writes well. Write, Jim, write.

Wolfram_Stout wrote:
Hello,

What I liked about that thread was that in on moment, he was dogging the Tainted Lands because it was a re-hash and therefore did not show any intelligence and imagination (my rough paraphrase), then in the next moment, was dogging that paragraph because it didn't have specific benefits.

Here is the "offending paragraph":


_________________

_________________

_________________
_____

p. 64 Of Gods & Monsters

While the goddess isn't confrontational, she works behind the scenes to get things done. Her clerics are the same way, and work with the rulers of the cities and the country to push forward the cause of magic and the raising of her temples. Clerics of Isis are trained so well that they start out at the second level. Clerics are also able to cast the magic missile spell as if they were wizards matching their clerical levels.


_________________

_________________

_________________
________

They couldn't figure out how a goddess and her priesthood could do that and for what end they would do it for. I was at a lost, because I read the "offending paragraph" and immediately had a feel for the goddess and how her priesthood would function. I don't own the book yet.

It is on my want list for Christmas. At least now it is.

Regards,

Wolfram