SRD for Castles and Crusades

[Alto Banor]

Oh, I don't necessarily disagree. But how interactive does it need to be? Not a lot really needs to happen client-side.

You are right. You don't really need to make too complicated. I have already started in the complicated direction...
I do plan to cut down on a few things one being the spell cards. Going more to spell pages.

[Treebore]

I understand why some players and CKs would like clarification on a number of rules and issues. I don't understand why people think it is necessary to consult the 3.0 or 3.5 SRD. I get that C&C was in part derived from Wizbro's SRD, but that doesn't make the rest of the SRD authoritative. Consult the SRD if you'd like, but you can certainly run C&C without refering to the SRD. I've never played nor owned any 3.x materials. If I run into a gap in C&C's rules ir something confusing, I just make something up and move on. You don't need the SRD to play C&C.

I have been waiting for this exact statement for the entire thread. I completely, and utterly agree. I play and run C&C pretty regularly in 2 weekly games. I have never referred to the SRD in trying to patch a perceived gap in the C&C rules. Sure, I have played 3E in the past and by that association have knowingly and unknowingly used SRD rules when I need to come up with something quickly. However, I haven't looked at 3E rulebook or SRD in at least 3+ years. Have no need to.

Back in the day, either Basic, 1E or 2E, whenever you needed a rule, what did you refer to? The SRD wasn't around in those days to prop up your GMing. The differences between classic, 1E and 2E are pretty negligible, yet to any DM who has run those games, you needed a rule. I'd wager in most cases you just made up a rule on the fly. Why can't that be done with C&C? Why do you have to fall back to some monolithic all knowing rule source to run your games?

BTW, I'm not calling out any specific person at all. Everybody has their own way of doing things, and that is fine. I am only expressing that before the SRD came around, I assume we all made up our own rules at that time to fill in any gap that we encountered. IMO, the SRD is not needed in any way to run a successful and fun C&C game.

~O

I use the SRD because despite all its flaws, 3E D&D has the clearest explanations for its rules, so simply prefer working with that for figuring out how I want it to be in C&C. Plus in cases like armor and spell stacking, older editions of D&D do not have all the terminology that C&C references, such as Luck and Natural Armor. Plus I have been finding that many of the rules in the 3E SRD and 1E AD&D often have a very high degree of similarity. Such as the armor stacking rules and the rules on Grappling have a lot in common. Then there is spells. The spells in C&C are far closer to 3E than 2E or earlier, so I prefer working things out with the closest example, not ones that have greater differences, or do not exist at all. So, over all, I am far more likely to find what I am looking for in the 3E SRD than I am with the older rules. So I find using the 3E SRD is simply the smartest way to go, especially since I am usually looking for the clarification during a game. I don't want to increase the time I am taking by looking through 2 or more sources, when my highest chance of success is finding it in the 3E SRD. So these are the big reasons I primarily use it. When I can take my time, I will actually go through every edition of D&D, and see which version of the rule, spell, monster or item I like best, and go with it. Which usually ends up being the 3E SRD, simply because it is the best explained, covers all the terminology used, such as Luck and Natural Armor, or has the spell in question, such as Enhance Attribute.

Then there are my SIEGE checks, which I allow to be used to emulate Feat like abilities, so of course I have to reference the 3E SRD for those when I need an example.

[Arduin]

I consult either the 1e DMG or the 2e PHB. Because that's how I want my C&C to feel.

R-

Yes. C&C is much closer, style wise, to those two editions than it is to 3.X 3rd and later have layers of complexity that would ruin C&C if applied.

[Snoring Rock]

Removed

[Treebore]

I consult either the 1e DMG or the 2e PHB. Because that's how I want my C&C to feel.

R-

3rd and later have layers of complexity that would ruin C&C if applied.

I disagree. It has far more to do with how things are applied than what edition it may be pulled from. I don't think any of my 8 players think my games feel more like 3E or 4E, I am pretty sure it feels like "D&D" to them. A fun and cool "D&D".

[Treebore]

I don't know that C&C needs any SRD of its own. I know this; all reference to d20 from the SRD, that is sprinkled throughout the PHB and M&T, need to finally be completely removed. At lunch today I was proofreading the M&T for errata and found 6 references to rules not included in C&C, from the SRD in just 9 pages.

What I am saying, is that if the SRD is not needed, then lets get C&C cleansed of it. I hate looking up a monster for use in a game and finding that the thing has "d20 only" abilities listed but then not explained in the rules anywhere. Gelatinous Cube on page 36 of the M&T. Help me understand what Blind Sight attack means. Is that from the PHB or the M&T? Will I find that in C&C rules, 1e, 2e, or will I find it in the d20 SRD? Why?

Tell me Steve put that in because he wanted me to make something up on the fly for it.

This! This is the stuff that I find frustrating. I never said C&C cannot be played without the SRD. But with all the reference to it, you kind of do. Anyway, what book and what page is Blind Sight on?

Yep. Just more examples of why the 3E SRD is my first stop for clarifying rules questions that pops up. Plus there is more of the same in other products converted over from their D20 versions, such as Book of Familiars.

[alcyone]

Playing 3.5 at the table, I hated looking up rules; it was bad enough that everyone's character was drawn from at least 8 books, even before spells kicked in. And everything was superseded or errata'd, it would sidetrack the game and we'd get 2 encounters done in a night.

But in our online games I like it when we go down rules rabbit holes. Different group, I guess. Everyone has a different lens they are looking through and I always learn trivia about how this or that thing changed across editions. Sometimes we still make something up and keep going anyway; actually, usually the lookups don't hold things up. A decision is made and then side conversations pop up in Skype chat pasting rules and things.

Anyway, I usually turn to the SRD first because there are two websites that make looking things up in it very easy, and they are usually closely related to what is in the C&C book. Usually the reason I have to look up anything at all is because some d20-specific term is mentioned or too much was taken out.

I am starting to think maybe my next C&C PHB will be printed at Kinkos and put in a loose-leaf binder so I can insert pages clarifying rules easily.

[Omote]

I guess CK are just different. I would think that with all of the GMing experience on these MBs, there would be no need to reference anything ever again. With C&C I don't reference the SRD, 1E, 2E, or pretty much any other game. If something needs to happen for C&C, and there is a rule or ability that is not defined, I just make it up on the spot. I understand that there are player/GMs out there that demand a certain type of conformity and uniformity to their rules. That is OK, but at this point in my hobby career I do not want to look stuff up any more. Just roll 'n go, if you will.

I agree with Snoring Rock that C&C should clean up it's terminology, and define or excise any SRD references, but I will not and cannot let those little idiosyncrasies ruin my ability and determination to have fun while playing. If the hobby becomes more of a job then a relaxing and fun experience, perhaps you're not doing it right. That's just my opinion and how I roll, but as soon as any of these games become more of a chore then a hobby, I'm going to put it down and move on. With that in mind, I can't get hung up on the SRD references in C&C. If I did, the hobby is lost to me.

~O

[Snoring Rock]

Removed

[Treebore]

I look up the old rules because I feel no desire to reinvent wheels. Its written up in the old rules. In fact, another reason I love the SRD is I can copy and paste it so easily, then modify it to fit the specifics of my C&C. My House Rules have remained largely static for years now. Even my recent changes are relatively minor. Just changing my modifiers on two weapon fighting, movement when casting, and letting my players know I will be adding a "1" to any and all SR values. Besides, I know my players rarely read my House document, and that it is primarily to help me remember how I have decided to do things in C&C.

[Buttmonkey]

I hope I was clear that I don't see anything wrong with people referring to the SRD when running C&C. Look at anything you would like. I'm just saying it isn't necessary. I completely agree with Rock Snore that 3.x artifacts should be removed from the M&T monster descriptions. That's just good editing and really should be done by the Trolls sooner rather than later. However, I've run monsters out of M&T just fine without consulting the SRD. When I hit one of those undefined artifacts, I make something up and move on. Making stuff up to fill a rules gap worked in the 70s and 80s and it works now. Again, I don't see anything wrong with consulting the SRD when deciding how to fill those gaps. I just disagree with the idea someone has to consult the SRD to run C&C. If you aren't arguing for that point, then I'm not disagreeing with you.

[Arduin]

I disagree.

I know of no one that can disagree (with a straight face) that introducing 3.x complexity would ruin the simplicity that is C&C. You're the 1st one.

[Treebore]

There are relatively very few things anyone HAS to refer to an SRD about, or any other rule book. I just do it because I either want to see if I want to use the unsupported monster ability, such as the recently mentioned Blind Sight, etc... or just ignore it completely. Or my biggest example, since my games often last into the higher levels, 14th to 17th level, I wanted coherent rules on the stacking of AC bonus'. Since the rules in 1E AD&D do not cover all the modifiers C&C uses, I used the 3E SRD version as the basis I have in my House Rules.

Then there are the magic and potion creation rules, for those I don't use the SRD, mine are based upon 1E AD&D, Dragon articles, and my own personal thoughts on the issues.

Bottom line for me is, no rules set are something I feel any need to adhere to in any strict sense. They are suggestions, that I remold as I see fit based upon my own play experiences. I just utilize the tools available to me as fully as I can to make sure that any remodeling I do remains sensible, coherent, and works within the context of the rules I do use. Which they do, as I think my 7+ years of nearly weekly play illustrates. Not to mention my face to face games. These games are the only "bottom line" that concerns me.

[Treebore]

I disagree.

I know of no one that can disagree (with a straight face) that introducing 3.x complexity would ruin the simplicity that is C&C. You're the 1st one.

What 3E complexity have I introduced? Everything I do adheres to the SIEGE engine. Even the "feat like" things I allow require a SIEGE check, and the Arcane/Divine blasts have been well received, and even they still operate on the SIEGE engine when taken outside of their baseline parameters I spell out. Thats a 4E idea I incorporated. So I think my games clearly illustrate that you can use 3E rules and ideas, as well as 4E rules and ideas, without adding in any of their rules complexity when the CK takes the time to make those ideas work with the SIEGE engine. Which is what I always do.

[Rigon]

I'm not going to say I haven't every looked at the SRD for a rules clarification, but I tend to do that well after a game session, where I've made a "stop gap" ruling. Most of which come with a caveat that I will ponder and utilize all relavent avenues to come up with a permenent rule for the situation. And, like I said earlier, I tend to lean on my fellow gamers for ideas and thoughts or 1e/2e first.

I just think that with the new printing of the PHB, M&T, and CKG, a lot of people are demanding more crunch from the Trolls and less control over thier own games. Not that that is a bad thing, I just think that it is taking away from the flxibility that is build into C&C (whether the Trolls intentionally put it there or it was just a happy accident).

R-

[kreider204]

I
I just think that with the new printing of the PHB, M&T, and CKG, a lot of people are demanding more crunch from the Trolls ...

I haven't gotten that impression. I see a lot of requests for cleanup, clarifications, and completion when needed - for example, when specific abilities are mentioned in M&T but never explained. But I haven't noticed too many people asking for 3rd edition-like crunch.

As always, I could be wrong ...

On topic - I definitely refer to my 1st ed. books, and in many ways, I see myself not so much playing C&C as playing 1st ed. AD&D with C&C as a set of optional / substitute rules. Whether that means C&C is incomplete or needs an SRD, or if I'm just personally more comfortable with 1st ed., I don't rightly know ...

[Snoring Rock]

Removed

[Arduin]

What 3E complexity have I introduced?

I am talking about in general. I didn't say a person. But, since you want to bring it up. Just because you use the siege mechanism to add 3rd & 4th Edition rule set to your game does NOT mean that it isn't added complexity. Complexity: Composite nature or structure.

I'm NOT saying that it is good or bad. Just that it is.

[Treebore]

What 3E complexity have I introduced?

I am talking about in general. I didn't say a person. But, since you want to bring it up. Just because you use the siege mechanism to add 3rd & 4th Edition rule set to your game does NOT mean that it isn't added complexity. Complexity: Composite nature or structure.

I'm NOT saying that it is good or bad. Just that it is.

Well, we will just have to agree to disagree, because I don't think anyone feels that my rules add more complexity, let alone rule mechanics. No more so than anyone who adds classes, spells, magic items, or monsters to their games.

[Arduin]

Well, we will just have to agree to disagree, because I don't think anyone feels that my rules add more complexity, let alone rule mechanics. No more so than anyone who adds classes, spells, magic items, or monsters to their games.

Right. But, I can only go by the language I speak.

[MrGrim]

All this talk of an SRD for the Castle Keeper...

When I started this thread it was due primarily for the need of the PLAYERS in my online games. In the last two weeks I've GMd several one off games with random players on roll20.net. I've moved to Swords and Wizardry for these games because I can send people to the SRD to see everything they need for making their characters. During play, it is a quick, easy reference to review class and racial abilities as well as spell effects. People don't have to ask me to remind them about these details during play because anything they want to see is a click away for them. It really helps things go very smoothly...so much so that I'm using Swords and Wizardry now instead of Castles and Crusades though I think the later is the better system (I'm just house ruling key C&C stuff back into the game on the GM side).

In my humble opinion, I think Troll Lord Games needs to take a hard look at Frog God Games business model. Because of the rise of Internet play, FGG's approach is swinging the pendulum heavily in their direction (those guys are exceedingly "Internet aware" in their approach as indy publishers and it is working like gangbusters for them). Free SRD (with all spells and over 1000 monster stats), Free PDF of the core rules, (even Free RTF of the core rules for making your own home brew editions!). All of this makes it so easy to attract players to their edition of the game. Later on, most people who continue with it purchase the physical books (owning the books is a part of the hobby right?)...

[Treebore]

Yeah, that used to be somewhat off set by the Quickstarts they used to make available, but they don't even do that anymore. I agree they are hurting themselves more than they are protecting themselves by refusing to do such things. But hey, they are Trolls, and unfortunately are way "behind the times" even compared to other humans. Hopefully one day they will see that an SRD will help spread their word and increase their popularity, not decrease their bottom line, since the pirates are already doing that as much as its going to be. It always irritates me that they punish the majority, their paying customers, by refusing to provide things because of what the "thieves" are already doing anyways. By "they" I don't just mean the Trolls, but all the other companies afraid to join the modern age of realizing that making your legitimate customers happy will more than offset what the thieves do.

One possible alternative, but it doesn't sound like you know your players well enough to trust them, is to buy the PHB PDF and share it with them via Dropbox, Google Drive, etc... with the understanding that they are to only read it, not DL it. That is the digital equivalent of passing the book around the table for your players to be able to read the rules for themselves. Like I said, a degree of trust is involved, plus I put it in writing that I only give them permission to only read, not DL, it, and remind them that if they do DL it that it is a crime. So I only do it with players I believe won't screw me over, let alone the RPG company in question, by DLing it, because those PDF's often have my name in it, so any criminal investigation will come back to look at me to see if I distributed it to them. So yeah, a risky thing to do, so do it only with people you trust, and still put it into writing that they cannot DL it, to remind them of the law, and to prove your not distributing copies if it ever gets investigated. Hopefully everyone will be trustworthy, and never DL it, so never violate copyright distribution laws.

[Treebore]

Another still less than ideal situation, but is much more affordable than buying everyone a PH PDF, is to get the CK screen in PDF:

http://rpg.drivethrustuff.com/product/8 ... h=255_8288

It covers most of the "core" rules, but still doesn't have spells, even though you can easily make up a spell list if you have the PH in PDF.

[Arduin]

Later on, most people who continue with it purchase the physical books (owning the books is a part of the hobby right?)...

I know of NO empirical data that shows that people who only play a game if provided free rule books in e format go on to purchase those same rules in dead tree form. If you have a legit study showing that pls share. Otherwise what you are presenting as fact has no basis in fact. Even that assumption flies in the face of your own argument because the people in question use electronic format as their preferred version. Without any REAL data to back up the position it comes off as whining about not getting free books...

[dachda]

Later on, most people who continue with it purchase the physical books (owning the books is a part of the hobby right?)...

I know of NO empirical data that shows that people who only play a game if provided free rule books in e format go on to purchase those same rules in dead tree form. If you have a legit study showing that pls share. Otherwise what you are presenting as fact has no basis in fact. Even that assumption flies in the face of your own argument because the people in question use electronic format as their preferred version. Without any REAL data to back up the position it comes off as whining about not getting free books...

I'm in agreement with Arduin's thinking here. I think the Trolls need to get a new quick start ruleset out again, more then they need an SRD. A quickstart with 4-5 base classes maybe up to 5th level, would be usable for the on-line gaming situation discussed above. Only the CK needs monster stats, so a quick start with say rules and spells for wizard, cleric, fighter, rogue, with combat/spell rules and siege engine rules, should serve the purpose fine.

My disclaimer is: I've never tried to recruit players on-line. My current group are my FtF buddies, that I left behind when I moved last summer. I've also had the pleasure of playing briefly in treebore's online game. (got employed and the time difference nixed that for me!).

[Rigon]

The only problem with doing a quick start, is they would have to put more in it than the previous ones. I printed out several copies of an old quick start set for some of the students to use. They had a hard time figuring them out and when I ran a couple of games for them, there were some compatibility issues between the quick start rules and the PHB (mainly with how spells were described). So if Trolls were to put out a new quick start set, it should have the spells directly from the PHB and not abbreviated (one line) descriptions.

R-

[Treebore]

Later on, most people who continue with it purchase the physical books (owning the books is a part of the hobby right?)...

I know of NO empirical data that shows that people who only play a game if provided free rule books in e format go on to purchase those same rules in dead tree form. If you have a legit study showing that pls share. Otherwise what you are presenting as fact has no basis in fact. Even that assumption flies in the face of your own argument because the people in question use electronic format as their preferred version. Without any REAL data to back up the position it comes off as whining about not getting free books...

and you have no empirical evidence to the contrary either. For some strange reason the publishing industry tries to stay away from factual studies on the issue, and to just continue making claims, while pointing at the few pirates who made millions pirating off of their billion dollar industry. Which is in no way a empirical breakdown of what is actually going on, to what extent, and how many, if any, of those who buy/pirate that go on to legitimately buy product.

In the meantime I see people and even know people who claimed to have gotten started with "pirated" goods, and once they knew they would like it, went on to buy legal products, because now they knew they would like it. So while not "empirical", its the only info I have to go on. I also see a number of people in the Forums on Facebook, G+ and online that I am a member of and/or moderate that has 10's of thousands of members state often enough how an SRD or Quickstart type document got them started. So again, while not an official, empirical study, I see more than enough compelling statements to make me think its worth doing. Then there is the obvious facts, the success of the RPG's that do have an SRD, Swords and Wizardry, Pathfinder, and 3E all have an SRD, and are all doing good to fantastic. If people like you were correct they would have gone out of business years ago. That is "empirical". Then there is Eclipse Phase. They give away each and every rule book, with full art, for FREE, yet their popularity grows, and their sales have been strong enough they have done at least 7 full color RPG books. Giving away each and every one of these books in PDF format for FREE. How is that for empirical data? They give away all of their full art rule books for free, and their popularity grows, and their sales support making even more full color print books. Its how they hooked me. Until they came along, I thought the whole genre is one I would have no interest in. Their free PDF's proved me wrong, and now I have gone back and bought every single book in print, and since the third book, I have bought every single PDF, yes, BOUGHT.

Plus it just makes sense. Most people have integrity. Most people who use an SRD or Quickstart and like it know that in order to keep the RPG in question in print and supported, the company needs to make a profit. So they buy what they can when they can. Much like why I buy direct from the Trolls. I could find cheaper prices much more readily on sites like Amazon or eBay, but instead I wait for the Trolls to have sales, or I support their Kickstarters. Or if I was really desperate/short on cash, I could go the pirate route. I don't, because contrary to common PERCEPTION, most people do not steal. Most people legitimately buy when they can. That is a fact, with "empirical evidence" to back it up. Its a well known fact a relatively very small percentage of people are thieves. Rich or poor, or somewhere in between, we always have a relatively fixed percentage of people who steal. From super rich bankers all the way down to super poor people. They all steal, and its a pretty consistent percentage, which I would bet has a strong correlation to those who use pirated materials, or only ever use an SRD for their gaming. We just don't know. Why? Because the pirated industries conveniently avoid doing any legitimate research into it. Why? I can make guesses, and I bet their close to "spot on", but I cannot empirically prove why.

I do have the following relevant articles, though:

http://www.techdirt.com/articles/201107 ... ales.shtml

http://news.cnet.com/2100-1023-898813.html

http://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/2347/125/

http://venturebeat.com/2009/04/21/study ... ore-music/

Thats not all of them either. But it does contain at least one Government study, as well as other claims, that all say one thing, people who "share" buy a lot more product than they get for free.

[Arduin]

and you have no empirical evidence to the contrary either.

<Huge snip>

Bzzt. I Don't need it. I am NOT the one making the extraordinary claim. Onus is on the person who is making such claims. As is ALWAYS the case. For example: If I make a claim that giving out free mp3 versions of albums (to online savvy (living) people) will cause them to then purchase CD's of those same albums; it becomes incumbent on ME to support said claim. NOT on you if you call B.S. for lack of supporting data. Capiche?

[Treebore]

and you have no empirical evidence to the contrary either.

<Huge snip>

Bzzt. I Don't need it. I am NOT the one making the extraordinary claim. Onus is on the person who is making such claims. As is ALWAYS the case. For example: If I make a claim that giving out free mp3 versions of albums (to online savvy (living) people) will cause them to then purchase CD's of those same albums; it becomes incumbent on ME to support said claim. NOT on you if you call B.S. for lack of supporting data. Capiche?

Well, now I have given you several articles, and I have more, that prove your view point isn't "spot on". I even have articles, citing studies, saying that people who "share" their music files are 10 times more likely to buy product. So ball is in your court. Capiche?

[Arduin]

Well, now I have given you several articles, and I have more, that prove your view point isn't "spot on".

You have shown ZERO evidence that giving away free e rule books will cause those same people to purchase hard copies of those rule books Which is the point in contention.

But, I DO want what you are smoking.