Troll Lord Games

It would be really really nice if there was an SRD specifically for Castles and Crusades. Has there been any official word on this?

MrGrim wrote:It would be really really nice if there was an SRD specifically for Castles and Crusades. Has there been any official word on this?

It's almost all OGL for the mechanics. Don't really see the point of having as SRD...

C&C is already based on the Open Game License, and the things that make it different are called out in each book as their intellectual property. Do you plan to make derivative material, or did you want that just as a reference? Peter Schroeder had put something together that I think was intended to have just the open game content in it, but took it down, I think at the Trolls' request (but still has available his excellent Crusader's Companion http://www.trolllord.com/downloads/pdfs ... panion.pdf).

It probably doesn't have an SRD because it's based on the OGL and not the D20 SRD to begin with (it doesn't carry the d20 logo) and it seems to me that would make for a confusing product (and also one that lawyers would need to look at).

As for official word, I don't know.

Heh, when I want rules clarifications, like for armor stacking rules, I reference the D20 SRD anyways...

Treebore wrote:Heh, when I want rules clarifications, like for armor stacking rules, I reference the D20 SRD anyways...

Me too; depending on what we are doing and what rule it reminds me of, I have a sort of stack of rules I go through, and try each one until one of them makes sense. Usually it goes something like:

1. C&C
2. D20 SRD
3. AD&D 1e
4. Rules Cyclopedia
And if necessary Rules Cyclopedia also has a search hierarchy of RC, then BECMI, then Moldvay/Cook, then Holmes
5. OD&D

And I'll drag in various retroclones if something is missing from all of those. I skip around that hierarchy sometimes. I know it's not a ringing endorsement of C&C that it takes 8-20 books to play the core game, but that's my game, and I like it fine .

MrGrim wrote:It would be really really nice if there was an SRD specifically for Castles and Crusades. Has there been any official word on this?

There is no need for this.

I am guessing that you want a text searchable way to find things?
These books are certainly confusing at times.

Best options:
Player's Handbook PDF (TLG) or Player's Handbook PDF (RPGNow)

Monster's & Treasure PDF (TLG) or Monster's & Treasure PDF (RPGNow)

Castle Keeper's Guide PDF (TLG) or Castle Keeper's Guide PDF (RPGNow)

Actually, don't buy the CKG PDF. Instead buy the CK Bundle at RPGNow. It is $1.96 cheaper and includes the CKG and includes 5 other products!

@Aergraith: That list is similar to mine except yours includes the rulebooks in the basic D&D line. Here's my list.

1. C&C
2. d20 SRD
3. AD&D 1st
4. OD&D

I ignore everything in the basic D&D line for one simple reason: the rules were built off a misinterpretation of an OD&D layout mistake. Due to space limitations in OD&D the Races header was removed. Both races and classes were placed under the Classes heading, leading to the pervasive belief that OD&D has races as classes. It doesn't, and never was supposed to. If racial classes were intended than both the Holmes rulebook and AD&D would have them, but neither do. Since the basic D&D line was designed around a mistake, to use them as a reference I believe was a mistake.

I lump Dr. Holmes' rulebook in with OD&D because the former was directly based off the latter.

Peter Schroeder had put something together that I think was intended to have just the open game content in it, but took it down, I think at the Trolls' request

Yes, it was all open game content, and I still have it and I have updated it. The Trolls did request it's removal. I use it daily for writing new material.

It probably doesn't have an SRD because it's based on the OGL and not the D20 SRD to begin with (it doesn't carry the d20 logo) and it seems to me that would make for a confusing product (and also one that lawyers would need to look at).

You don't have to use the d20 logo to use the d20 SRD. Usually works with the d20 logo are closed content, Castles & Crusades PHB & M&T are almost all open game content.


If you want your own C&C SRD, buy the epub copies, extract them (epub is an archive), and copy/paste the html into a doc. It would still need some cleanup tho. I didn't figure that out till I got Classic Monsters .

Peter wrote:
If you want your own C&C SRD, buy the epub copies, extract them (epub is an archive), and copy/paste the html into a doc. It would still need some cleanup tho. I didn't figure that out till I got Classic Monsters .

Yes. Take the file and change .epub to .zip

I still have Peter's original file, so...

Besides, its not like its that hard, the two main rules are the SIEGE engine itself, then the next most critical is probably the Grappling rules set, then after that is is probably spell use, then the races, if you even want to use them, then classes, if you even want to use them. I've been tempted to run a C&C Campaign using the 1E write-ups. Not to mention using 2E Specialist Wizards and Specialty Priests. C&C is easily made into whatever you want it to be, with the SIEGE engine at its core.

The value of an SRD is that when playing online, I could have players simply reference the SRD to see what abilities the classes and races have for both character generation and clarification while they are playing. I can do this already with both Pathfinder and Swords and Wizardry and it is VERY helpful (http://www.d20swsrd.com/swords-and-wizardry-srd/). With Castles and Crusades, if they haven't purchased the Players Handbook (and 90% of the people I pick up for quick games don't have it), I have to read out (or explain) the abilities to them every time they have a question. The players also want an SRD and it the lack of one is limiting opportunities to bring new players into this game.

Now that I'm starting to DM online games, this is a HUGE issue with me. So much so that I'm considering moving to Swords and Wizardry for my online games (though staying with Castles and Crusades for my on site game).

MrGrim wrote:The value of an SRD is that when playing online, I could have players simply reference the SRD to see what abilities the classes and races have for both character generation and clarification while they are playing.

Have them buy the PHB. That's what people have been doing for decades when they play a game. SRD's aren't created to enable people to avoid buying product to play a game. They exist so as to facilitate 3rd party content creation for the platform in question by commercial entities.

I understand your issue. I've suggested before that TLG should make a book with just enough rules for someone to play a fighting type or a spell caster. The spell caster is really the one with the major issue because they need those spells. To agree with Arduin, that book just ends up looking a lot like the existing PHB.

To disagree with Arduin, I don't think your players are trying to avoid a buying a product, they are just new to the system, and we'd like them to pull up a chair and stay (like we'd like you to as well.) Right now I don't have a perfect solution for you.

You could:
- Run games from the quick start (to begin with until everyone has their books and a level or two) http://www.trolllord.com/cnc/ccqs.html
- Assemble packets for each player listing the abilities they have at their first few levels, plus summaries or full descriptions of the spells in their books.
- Or make them do that work when they make their character.
- Watch for sales on RPGNow so everyone can get a book, either them buying them or you buying them
- There are cheat sheets people have made for some things if you search the forums
- Replace all of the spells with the SRD versions, if you are willing to convert saves and ignore the more specific language.
- Don't make the players worry about any of this rules stuff, say you will do all of the rules lookups. Honestly, this is the game I prefer. No one really needs a book after character creation. People flipping through books while I talk bug me.

Obviously, there are other options that I won't discuss, and you have avoided anyway by coming here and asking. It's possible that the new Knights of the Crusade society might provide materials to get people into the game (I have no idea. Rigon, Julian?) You might also just talk to Steve about it and see what he suggests.

It's too bad I can't recommend Peter's book anymore, but if he and the trolls have agreed to not distribute it, I guess that's that.

I haven't run Fantasy Grounds in a while. I know you can allow "books" in that game to be shared to players during the game, but I don't remember if that is possible with the core rules. Maybe someone can chime in if they know. Not helpful if you are using Roll20 I know.

Aergraith wrote:I understand your issue. I've suggested before that TLG should make a book with just enough rules for someone to play a fighting type or a spell caster. The spell caster is really the one with the major issue because they need those spells. To agree with Arduin, that book just ends up looking a lot like the existing PHB.

To disagree with Arduin, I don't think your players are trying to avoid a buying a product, they are just new to the system, and we'd like them to pull up a chair and stay (like we'd like you to as well.) Right now I don't have a perfect solution for you.

You could:
- Run games from the quick start (to begin with until everyone has their books and a level or two) http://www.trolllord.com/cnc/ccqs.html
- Assemble packets for each player listing the abilities they have at their first few levels, plus summaries or full descriptions of the spells in their books.
- Or make them do that work when they make their character.
- Watch for sales on RPGNow so everyone can get a book, either them buying them or you buying them
- There are cheat sheets people have made for some things if you search the forums
- Replace all of the spells with the SRD versions, if you are willing to convert saves and ignore the more specific language.
- Don't make the players worry about any of this rules stuff, say you will do all of the rules lookups. Honestly, this is the game I prefer. No one really needs a book after character creation. People flipping through books while I talk bug me.

Obviously, there are other options that I won't discuss, and you have avoided anyway by coming here and asking. It's possible that the new Knights of the Crusade society might provide materials to get people into the game (I have no idea. Rigon, Julian?) You might also just talk to Steve about it and see what he suggests.

It's too bad I can't recommend Peter's book anymore, but if he and the trolls have agreed to not distribute it, I guess that's that.

I haven't run Fantasy Grounds in a while. I know you can allow "books" in that game to be shared to players during the game, but I don't remember if that is possible with the core rules. Maybe someone can chime in if they know. Not helpful if you are using Roll20 I know.

The trouble isn't so much my ability to handle the matter as a GM really...it's getting people's interest in the first place to want to play C&C. With Swords and Wizardry I can share a link to the SRD when looking for a group and this leads to a much stronger response from potential players.

From the perspective of playing C&C online...this is a major marketing issue. Internet marketing is what I do professionally and the dynamic I'm dealing with here, from a marketing perspective is just screaming at me.

What's really needed is the Trolls taking a look at this huge shift towards online tabletop play and coming up with a better strategy to market to it. I'd be be willing to argue that C&C is one of the best games to run on a virtual table top because of the rules light approach and more options/depth than the other retro-clones (it's really what D&D 3 should have been). However, the community is getting used to the SRDs. It's hard for me to think that people who begin playing games online using the SRD don't eventually purchase a copy in print. If that weren't the trend, Paizo would be bleeding revenue from Pathfinder but the opposite seems to be true.

The Trolls are making moves towards "marketing" towards online VTT's. They have all kinds of stuff available for Fantasy Grounds, and are working with Roll 20 to do similar stuff, including their new and upcoming Character sheets. Still, you are right, there are more avenues for them to utilize to help grow their own market.

This is 4 years idle and unfinished, but maybe something could incent Brian Caldwell to finish.

http://altobanor.com/CastleKeeper20.html

Though the difficulty isn't really in getting the rules up; anyone could make static HTML or a wordpress site and throw the tables up. Ideally it would be official, sanctioned, and kept up-to-date with each printing. The official and sanctioned parts I think (but don't know) aren't legally necessary if it's just OGC, but we like the Trolls and an environment of trust and goodwill, and gosh golly, we want the non OGC parts too.

Aergraith wrote:This is 4 years idle and unfinished, but maybe something could incent Brian Caldwell to finish.

http://altobanor.com/CastleKeeper20.html

Though the difficulty isn't really in getting the rules up; anyone could make static HTML or a wordpress site and throw the tables up. Ideally it would be official, sanctioned, and kept up-to-date with each printing. The official and sanctioned parts I think (but don't know) aren't legally necessary if it's just OGC, but we like the Trolls and an environment of trust and goodwill, and gosh golly, we want the non OGC parts too.

I had completely forgotten about that!

Aergraith wrote:This is 4 years idle and unfinished, but maybe something could incent Brian Caldwell to finish.

http://altobanor.com/CastleKeeper20.html

Though the difficulty isn't really in getting the rules up; anyone could make static HTML or a wordpress site and throw the tables up. Ideally it would be official, sanctioned, and kept up-to-date with each printing. The official and sanctioned parts I think (but don't know) aren't legally necessary if it's just OGC, but we like the Trolls and an environment of trust and goodwill, and gosh golly, we want the non OGC parts too.

Yeah, that Brian Caldwell is a lazy B…. whoa, that's me! I was contacted, today in fact, about the possibility of me finishing it. I will be honest, I lost a bit of interest in it because my whole group moved out of state (Florida) except for one guy and I started to fall behind version wise. The longer I was out, the more I was going to have to go back and re-work some pieces. There were a couple of emails that went back and forth between the Troll lords and I about an iPad version. I didn't hear much from them so I assumed it was being worked on by someone else. The iPad version would be MUCH better in my opinion but, others may have a different thought. Is the PC/MAC version still viable?

I'd love to see you complete this, but not on an iPad! (darn overpriced, overhyped, monopolistic . . . .Oops, rant over) Give me windows or android and I'm all over it though. Great work for what you've completed so far.

Alto Banor wrote:

Aergraith wrote:This is 4 years idle and unfinished, but maybe something could incent Brian Caldwell to finish.

http://altobanor.com/CastleKeeper20.html

Though the difficulty isn't really in getting the rules up; anyone could make static HTML or a wordpress site and throw the tables up. Ideally it would be official, sanctioned, and kept up-to-date with each printing. The official and sanctioned parts I think (but don't know) aren't legally necessary if it's just OGC, but we like the Trolls and an environment of trust and goodwill, and gosh golly, we want the non OGC parts too.

Yeah, that Brian Caldwell is a lazy B…. whoa, that's me! I was contacted, today in fact, about the possibility of me finishing it. I will be honest, I lost a bit of interest in it because my whole group moved out of state (Florida) except for one guy and I started to fall behind version wise. The longer I was out, the more I was going to have to go back and re-work some pieces. There were a couple of emails that went back and forth between the Troll lords and I about an iPad version. I didn't hear much from them so I assumed it was being worked on by someone else. The iPad version would be MUCH better in my opinion but, others may have a different thought. Is the PC/MAC version still viable?

Had to laugh as I read this on my iPad.

Alto Banor wrote:I didn't hear much from them so I assumed it was being worked on by someone else. The iPad version would be MUCH better in my opinion but, others may have a different thought. Is the PC/MAC version still viable?

I can't imagine Macs and PCs are going anywhere. But I am not sure about device support for Flash. Does that work on an iPad? In any case, it's totally up to you of course, but my preference would be for HTML5 that would work on any device or computer.

Flash is definitely out. It's not officially supported as of Android version 4.0.3, and no longer functions at all on version 4.2.2 and beyond.

It's true that Flash won't be able to run using the plugins on iOS or Android but, you can create an Adobe Air application using Flash that converts the flash into a native application. Hence forth, YES, you can in fact run Flash apps on mobile devices. The catch is it takes a little more work.

Removed

Snoring Rock wrote:All of us either use AD&D or go to the SRD for clarifications. But maybe it is time for C&C to move out and list those details and become a free-standing game of it's own. I should be able to purchase the PHB and the M&T and play the game without referencing another system's rules for help.

The next PHB should have all the rules needed. (sans M&T which is a bigger job as you know) It will never get to the detail of 3.x rules, by design. All the rest is for house ruling. Whether someone does it based on other D20 games or not.

Aergraith wrote:I can't imagine Macs and PCs are going anywhere. But I am not sure about device support for Flash. Does that work on an iPad? In any case, it's totally up to you of course, but my preference would be for HTML5 that would work on any device or computer.

It seems that a Level 50 illusionist has cast a "Mass Effect" spell that convinces a lot of people that HTML 5 is so much better than HTML 4. We are working a project now that converts Adobe Flash assets into HTML 5 and SVG and it is a NIGHTMARE!! There is absolutely NO consistency with any of the browsers AND each one has a different security sandbox. Granted, for non-complex sites, HTML5 and HTML4 are fine. Create once run everywhere! Real interactive apps is a whole different ball game. My rant for the day.

Alto Banor wrote:

Aergraith wrote:I can't imagine Macs and PCs are going anywhere. But I am not sure about device support for Flash. Does that work on an iPad? In any case, it's totally up to you of course, but my preference would be for HTML5 that would work on any device or computer.

It seems that a Level 50 illusionist has cast a "Mass Effect" spell that convinces a lot of people that HTML 5 is so much better than HTML 4. We are working a project now that converts Adobe Flash assets into HTML 5 and SVG and it is a NIGHTMARE!! There is absolutely NO consistency with any of the browsers AND each one has a different security sandbox. Granted, for non-complex sites, HTML5 and HTML4 are fine. Create once run everywhere! Real interactive apps is a whole different ball game. My rant for the day.

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

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.

Buttmonkey wrote: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.

While I don't necessarily make things up, I don't consult the SRD either. I first ask the other gamers I'm gaming with. Especially those, like Tree, who have been running and playing longer than I have and then I consult either the 1e DMG or the 2e PHB. Because that's how I want my C&C to feel.

R-

Buttmonkey wrote: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