Do you run C&C with the flavor of a certain D&D edition?

[Mach Front]

Matt Finch stated years ago that he wished for Swords & Wizardry to come as close as possible to a 'Rosetta Stone' for old-school D&D gaming. I believe it works in such a manner wonderfully. Of course, there are three distinct iterations of the rules to do that, so...

It has also long seemed to me that the fandom of C&C views/utilizes C&C in such a way.
There is certainly no shortage of C&C fans who happily gush that they can play and use anything D&D with C&C. I don't doubt or disagree they can and do, so don't misunderstand.

In relation to my other first and recent thread here and my own view of C&C as a gateway to how I view a certain aspect of D&D* I have to wonder:

How do you use C&C as it relates to D&D?
That is, do you play C&C as simply C&C? It's own thing.
Or do you play C&C in an AD&D 1E way?
Is it a replacement for 2E and it's played in your group with such a flavor?
Is your C&C gaming a way to dial back the complex rules of but with the atmosphere and feel of 3.x?
Something else?
Maybe you even came to C&C with that intent but decided C&C-as-C&C was a better way or perhaps it was a 3rd ed. analog and it transferred to more of a 2E feel because of....of what...why? Or vice-versa? What's the story?

I'd like to hear not just the simple answers but the hows and whys. There's no such thing as too long-winded here. I'm truly and honestly interested to hear how you view it and use it and why and perhaps what else you may have done to help facilitate your use of C&C in the pursuit of you and your group's preference (such as using the Complete books from 2E or focusing only on classes from such-and-such edition, etc.).



I pray you pardon me for such threads but even after years of owning first and third printings of C&C and being well-versed in 'classic'/'basic' D&D and Original D&D, I'm sort of just now delving into C&C in earnest and still feel like a really fat guy that never goes outside suddenly stepping over uneven river rocks. Back in 2000 or 2001 some friends and I attempted 3rd ed. when it was brand new but after three or four sessions we essentially "laughed it out of the room" and I've not read or played a latter-day edition of D&D since outside of skimming over the recent 5th ed. basic pdf, so I'm naked and largely ignorant in that aspect of D&D preference.

*(My own preteen entry to the hobby and my vision of how I saw AD&D 1E and 2E through the lens of Dragon magazine, Elmore and Easly art and a multitude of supplements for each of those editions is a self-made-in-mind version of D&D that I need a game to fit, to which I've turned to C&C to be the key to that gate towards.)

[finarvyn]

I think that for me C&C is more of an alternate to AD&D or 2E. When I want something really loose and freewheeling I go to OD&D, but when I want something with a little structure (but not too much) I grab my C&C.

[Treebore]

I use C&C to run "D&D" "My Way", so I don't know what it feels like to my players. I imagine since I have been running 1E AD&D modules for the last couple of years, they would say it feels like 1E AD&D.

Besides, C&C is the only true "Rosetta Stone" on the market. S&W requires too much additional writing/work to make it compatible with every edition of D&D. I've gotten to the point where I can just look at a 3E or 4E or 2E stat block and convert it on the fly. I suppose I could get that way with S&W, but I doubt it.

[Litzen Tallister]

Part of the appeal of Castles & Crusades for me was that it wasn't 3rd edition D&D in terms of the aesthetic (the "Dungeonpunk" vibe of 3rd/3.5 never felt like D&D to me). So in that sense, my take on C&C was somewhat in reaction to that and returning to some of the aesthetics of 1st and 2nd edition AD&D. But, as Treebore pointed out, it's hard to tell what everyone else is picturing when they play, so I can only speak for what I try to invest into it on my end. But, I think as I've continued in reading and incorporating new Castles & Crusades material, it seems to be taking on its own themes and ideas, rather than an OSR OGL pared down AD&D/D&D.

[Julian Grimm]

I try to run it as C&C but AD&D and even 3e creeps in. I think it has more to do with taking what works from them all and making my own game.

[alcyone]

I picked up C&C because I had been playing 3.5 and was astonished at the arguments that popped up at the table, and that there was this underlying philosophy of play that I wasn't meeting, where you can't make a ruling because it cascades into a long breakage of multiple rules, and players have so many books that they expect to use, all with more rules (or rules that absolutely require you didn't break the careful scaffold of core rules) that you can't keep on top of them. I heard Gary Gygax was working with these C&C guys and decided to buy the white box.

My previous experience with roleplaying had included Basic D&D, which I ran and played as a loose hybrid with AD&D books, since we didn't have an AD&D DMG. We had to make all sorts of stuff up. Making stuff up had been my experience in all other RPGs to that point, especially the old TSR stuff I liked to run like Top Secret and Star Frontiers.

When I started running C&C, I first saw the similarity to the D20 SRD, and thought, oh, this is 3.5 without feats, skills, or layering classes to qualify for more abilities. Then I started rereading my AD&D books (1e) and thought, oh, this is clearly a leaner, simplified AD&D. We started running classic D&D again for some games and now I am thinking, oh, we can do all of the same things in C&C. I find OD&D to be much like C&C also, but that's because once I supply the level of complexity I want to OD&D I find it's about as complex as C&C.

I am someone who these days knows the rules pretty well for multiple games. I find the rules comforting, because they help me quickly resolve situations in a way the players are most certain to find fair, and they are usually what I would have ruled anyway if I had time to think about it. I only need to make up what the rules don't provide. I do have to fill in the blanks on spells, which as verbose as you find them, I think are sometimes vague or nonsensical even. Initiative and combat maneuvers are pretty clear and are almost the same as Classic D&D. Saves and attacks are already simple. I am not sure anymore if C&C is rules-lite or not. I find the complexity similar to Classic or OD&D. I guess it's not a beer-and-pretzels game but there are really only two systems at play. The combat resolution and SIEGE and a couple of outliers like grapple and overbear. I'd call that rules light.

I'll address your questions:
How do you use C&C as it relates to D&D?

C&C is "a D&D" to me. It is a complete reference book for a self-consistent style of D&D.

That is, do you play C&C as simply C&C? It's own thing.

I pretty much do now. I find less and less need to fill in the cracks as I play with other people who have solved certain problems, as I've sounded out approaches on the boards, as more monster products have become available, and as the product has improved.

Or do you play C&C in an AD&D 1E way?

I don't really play C&C as if it were AD&D, but it took me a while to not feel like I should. I had to ask myself what AD&D was and why I thought it was more D&D than C&C. Especially as there once existed an AD&D that I played any way I wanted because I was a kid and couldn't be bothered to read it, and AD&D that as an adult I have thoroughly read and mostly understand. I think when I picked up C&C I found it worked a lot like how I THOUGHT AD&D worked when I was 14, and I liked that. It's the spirit of AD&D. I think I probably really don't know what "an AD&D 1e way" means, especially to someone else.

Is it a replacement for 2E and it's played in your group with such a flavor?

I only briefly played 2E. When I played 2e with just core books, it played like every other D&D I ever played. When I have played with all the books I had available, I disliked it and thought it was worse than 3.5. In any case, I probably don't know what that flavor is.

Is your C&C gaming a way to dial back the complex rules of but with the atmosphere and feel of 3.x?

It was a way to dial back those rules at first, certainly. The atmosphere and feel of 3.x or any of these games, I keep finding myself thinking of the artwork more than anything else, which doesn't have much to do with how I play any game. The only atmosphere really imparted is through the modules and published settings. I guess I am not trying to preserve any atmosphere or feel of 3.x.

Something else?

See above long-winded history.

Maybe you even came to C&C with that intent but decided C&C-as-C&C was a better way or perhaps it was a 3rd ed. analog and it transferred to more of a 2E feel because of....of what...why? Or vice-versa? What's the story?

Today I guess I'd say I run C&C as C&C but use it anywhere I need "a D&D".

[Zardnaar]

I use it as a modern AD&D or in effect AD&D 3rd ed as I recruit Pathfinder/3.5 players for the most part. I find it easier to teach them C&C as opposed to THACO or having them laugh at 1st ed books although they do not mind 2nd ed.

[Warunsun]

C&C for my group is very much like returning to Advanced Dungeons & Dragons whether 1st or 2nd edition. Since C&C is simpler and comparable with AD&D I can easily run 1E and 2E adventure scenarios plus use 1E/2E source-books/spells/items with very little Dungeon Master oversight. I also run a lot of the official C&C adventures but I tend to replace the adventure setup/back-story with something more relevant to my campaign and specifically the Forgotten Realms since we are using that game world (set during its second edition timeline).

[DMSamuel]

How do you use C&C as it relates to D&D?
That is, do you play C&C as simply C&C? It's own thing.

I play C&C as its own thing. The first time I played the game I ran C&C for a group of RPG newbies - they had payed video games and MMOs, but never a tabletop RPG. They asked me to pick something fun and that could give them the "True Feel" of what it's like to play a tabletop RPG. I described for them the settings and complexity levels of several games, including every edition of D&D, Swords & Wizardry, OSRIC, Dark Dungeons, BECMI D&D, Labyrinth Lord, and some other (non fantasy) games like Twilight 2000, Gamma World, Traveller, and Top Secret, as well as some newer interesting games like Hollow Earth Expedition, Eclipse Phase, and Deadlands: Reloaded. They decided that Fantasy was the genre they wanted to play in, so we discussed at length the various fantasy games I had mentioned. In the end they left the decision up to me since I would be running the game.

I wanted them to be able to get a modern book that is in print and be able to support a current company. The C&C rules are modern, but provide the feel of older editions of D&D, much different from the new-school way of gaming.

As a GM, I chose C&C because it is extremely easy to teach and run and I can run iconic older adventures and new adventures with almost no conversion.

I still have all of my 1e AD&D books (and 2e and 3e and 4e books as well) and I could have easily run any one of those for them. But I still chose to run C&C for them because I think it is the best. It has the feel of an older, deadly, press your luck and do heroic things game with none of the rules bloat and baggage that came along in late 2e and was carried forth to the extreme in 3.x and 4e. And because the books are modern, they are easy to read and currently in print (with lots of support products available now too). All of these things contribute to my love of C&C.

Or do you play C&C in an AD&D 1E way?

I'm not sure what that means... I play C&C like a modern gamer who has 25 years of RPG experience to draw from. If I want to play AD&D, then I play AD&D, not C&C. C&C has it's own feel, and though it is very very close to AD&D, it is different, better, easier for a modern gamer.

Is it a replacement for 2E and it's played in your group with such a flavor?

No. It is not a replacement for 2e D&D, and when I play I don't play C&C with all of the splat and bloat that 2e brought with it. I do still play 2e, and I am running a campaign with one of my groups right now (just had a session yesterday as a matter of fact). For that 2e feel, we play 2e - it's bloated and contains a plethora of mini-systems and sub-rules and exceptions. It is complicated and the rules are spread over so many books I can't carry them all with me. No, 2e is quite a different game and I don't port very much (if anything) from my 2e game into my C&C game. They are different beasts.

Is your C&C gaming a way to dial back the complex rules of but with the atmosphere and feel of 3.x?
Something else?

I am not (and never was) a huge fan of the 3.x versions of the game. Too much complexity, too many fights about how I should be adjudicating something, not enough time simply enjoying the game and meeting the challenges I set for the PCs.

Saying that I play C&C as a way to dial back the complexity of 3.x is a crime against C&C I play C&C because it is a better game, not to replace 3.0/3.5.
C&C is the game I wanted 3rd edition D&D to be. Instead, the designers of that game went in a different direction.

Maybe you even came to C&C with that intent but decided C&C-as-C&C was a better way or perhaps it was a 3rd ed. analog and it transferred to more of a 2E feel because of....of what...why? Or vice-versa? What's the story?

The story is, C&C is easy to learn, can be played with one single book, and runs fast and free. If I choose to be more complex, I can bolt on any house-ruled items I want and the underlying system will not break under the strain. I can also change any stated rule and the system is robust enough to bend but not snap. I can, therefore, adjust to taste depending on the group and the campaign. It is the game that has the most flexibility and can withstand the most tinkering. It has wonderful support from the company that makes it and they don't expect you to play their way and only their way.

I, honestly, don't tinker with it much. I have a few house-rules, but nothing extensive. Most of my house stuff comes from the campaign setting that I run the game in (my own setting). The unified mechanics of the game make running it so easy that I have gotten spoiled by that - every time I prep for my 2e game I lament the fact that I am not running C&C, which takes about 1/4 of the time for me to prep.

C&C has it's own feel - I don't use it to "replace" the 1e, 2e, or 3e feel specifically (though it feels closest to 1e for me). I play it as its own game.

[Buttmonkey]

The only edition of D&D I played before picking up C&C was 1E. I played back in the 80s, then took a 15-20 year break from RPGs. When I got interested in gaming again around 2007, a quick glance at 3.5E told me it was not the game for me. I was bored at work and googled Gary Gygax and discovered LA and eventually C&C. It was in-print and sounded good, so I picked up the PHB. I flirted with some other systems, but ultimately settled on C&C as my game of choice. A played a lot of 1E and some 0E in the ensuing years, but I run C&C exclusively.

It's really hard to say if I run C&C with the flavor of a particular D&D edition. I'm not really familiar with any version of D&D after 1E, so I'm certainly not trying to play like the newer editions. I may be running C&C like 1E subconsciously, but I think I play C&C as its own thing. C&C feels a lot like 1E did back in the 80s after we stripped out a lot of the fiddlier bits no one cared about (weapon vs. AC, complicated initiative/surprise, psionics, etc.). I can't help but think 1E has heavily influenced me. I imagine that if I were to run 1E again, it would feel a lot like my current C&C game. I am a much better GM now than I was in the 80s (or even 7 years ago). I don't think that is the product of running C&C as its own thing. I think I've just learned how to run an RPG much better. I like C&C because everything is smooth and elegant. There is no need to consult combat or saving throw matrices and I love ascending AC. About the only thing I would consider porting from 1E is the item saving throw. I don't really like the system for that from the CKG and prefer the 1E chart. Other than that, I don't have any need for my old 1E stuff anymore. Except for when I play it at cons, I guess.

[Fiffergrund]

I think when I picked up C&C I found it worked a lot like how I THOUGHT AD&D worked when I was 14, and I liked that. It's the spirit of AD&D. I think I probably really don't know what "an AD&D 1e way" means, especially to someone else.

This rings very true to me. I never played AD&D "correctly" as a kid, and more than anything, I wanted C&C to give me the chance to play the game I played as a kid.

I think it hit the nail right on the head. I can open Mentzer Basic, AD&D, or C&C and feel right at home.

[edit - some typos]

[serleran]

I do not. I run C&C with the flavor of a mixed genre which is not very D&D, except for Blackmoor and S3.

[Fizz]

I don't think i have a simple answer. I use the setting to feed C&C, but i also use C&C to enhance the setting.

My setting of choice is Birthright (which was designed for AD&D 2nd Ed), so i use few of the default races and classes from C&C as-is. Instead, they are tweaked to match those of 2nd Ed, but using the C&C mechanic. Birthright also relies on a skill system, so i have created one akin to 2nd Ed to plug-in to C&C.

But conversely, i've also used C&C to enhance Birthright- both the barbarian and knight classes are perfect fits for the setting.

So for me, it's a symbiotic kind of relationship between C&C and 2nd Ed.


-Fizz

[Omote]

My setting of choice is Birthright (which was designed for AD&D 2nd Ed), so i use few of the default races and classes from C&C as-is. Instead, they are tweaked to match those of 2nd Ed, but using the C&C mechanic. Birthright also relies on a skill system, so i have created one akin to 2nd Ed to plug-in to C&C.

But conversely, i've also used C&C to enhance Birthright- both the barbarian and knight classes are perfect fits for the setting.

Excellent answer. As BR happens to be one of my fav settings too, I look to have a similar approach when running in with C&C in the future. I think C&C is such a mid-point between the various D&D/psuedo-D&D rules that it really does feel like all of these games. I wish more people would try C&C to understand how well it facilitates a D&D-like game play experience.

As for me personally, I run my C&C games with a more 3E feel than 1E feel. My players demand a more mechanically diverse game, and if I didn't add certain 3Eisms I would probably not have a large of groups as I do. But, over the years, I have subtly and secretly been removing more and more of the 3Eness of my C&C games. Players have not noticed, or have agreed with the changes. The overall mindset of many of my players has changed from the uber-crunch of 3E-era games, to a very scaled back version of them with C&C. That, I am happy with at this point. The good thing is, C&C is so easy and such a bolt-on rules game, that if I ever wanted to run a game at GenCon, or run C&C totally pure I can do so without greatly affecting my GMing style.

The Crusaders have been singing the praises of C&C for a good long while, and the fact that the game hasn't really changed since 2004 is a testament, at least in part, the the viability of the rules. That, I am still grateful for after 10+ years.

~O

[Snoring Rock]

My setting of choice is Birthright (which was designed for AD&D 2nd Ed), so i use few of the default races and classes from C&C as-is. Instead, they are tweaked to match those of 2nd Ed, but using the C&C mechanic. Birthright also relies on a skill system, so i have created one akin to 2nd Ed to plug-in to C&C.

But conversely, i've also used C&C to enhance Birthright- both the barbarian and knight classes are perfect fits for the setting.

Excellent answer. As BR happens to be one of my fav settings too, I look to have a similar approach when running in with C&C in the future. I think C&C is such a mid-point between the various D&D/psuedo-D&D rules that it really does feel like all of these games. I wish more people would try C&C to understand how well it facilitates a D&D-like game play experience.

As for me personally, I run my C&C games with a more 3E feel than 1E feel. My players demand a more mechanically diverse game, and if I didn't add certain 3Eisms I would probably not have a large of groups as I do. But, over the years, I have subtly and secretly been removing more and more of the 3Eness of my C&C games. Players have not noticed, or have agreed with the changes. The overall mindset of many of my players has changed from the uber-crunch of 3E-era games, to a very scaled back version of them with C&C. That, I am happy with at this point. The good thing is, C&C is so easy and such a bolt-on rules game, that if I ever wanted to run a game at GenCon, or run C&C totally pure I can do so without greatly affecting my GMing style.

The Crusaders have been singing the praises of C&C for a good long while, and the fact that the game hasn't really changed since 2004 is a testament, at least in part, the the viability of the rules. That, I am still grateful for after 10+ years.

~O

And that takes us back to AD&D. You may say you run on the 3e side, but because of the versatility it is more like 1e. What you say? Well I remember playing 1e in my basement as a kid and when we ran into something we could not understand in the rules or that just did not exist, we made up our own. There were others doing this strange thing called "house ruling" as well. What you found was that whenever you played with someone new, you learned that they played a different D&D than you did.

In this way, I think it is very 1e-ish. No two basements have the same game played in them, though the cover on the book says C&C. I found that most 3e games, were very consistent. A house rule here or there, but massive tweaks ended in massive fails down the road.

C&C lends itself to tweaks and is hard to break. Genius, just pure genius.

[Captain_K]

CnC is more like DnD than say a non-DnD game. So it has that base flavor, especially since Gary Gygax was pretty big in on it. So DnD it is most close to.. can we agree to that?

So then Basic or Advanced.. well it has many PCs and many races so I think Basic is out (I must admit I never really did much basic since I only started in 1980). Note: First edition AD&D, which lasted years and years and folks house ruled as they needed, seems more like CnC from that point of view too - the good things in life need so little to remain good and true.

2E was a "welcome" change and what seemed like many of the best of house rules and some more detail and flexibility.. sort of like CnC, but of those two AD&D vs 2E I would say still AD&D is closest to CnC.. thoughts?

I think we all agree 3, 3.5, 4.0, 4.PI, etc it ain't....

So, by the above logic it is unique but closest to AD&D? Simple or complex, it's up to you.

[Julian Grimm]

The more I think about it the more I see C&C as either the true 3rd edition of AD&D or the 2nd Edition that Gary wanted. I noticed the other day I am leaning more toward the AD&D side for rulings, ideas and off the cuff adventuring than I am 3.x. So I guess I would have to say I run C&C like AD&D but as a better version of the game.

[pawndream]

How do you use C&C as it relates to D&D?

C&C is the version of "D&D" that gives me everything I want/need to play fantasy themed games, without a bunch of extra stuff that gets in the way of a clean, simple game. I am not a fan of mechanical complexity, so that is why C&C wins the day for me.

As far as the follow-up questions go, i.e., what flavor of D&D does C&C replicate or is C&C its own thing...

In my case, C&C is just the fantasy RPG that allows me to not worry about such questions and just play the game using my 30 years of gaming experience to provide engaging stories for my players. I don't want to have to memorize a bunch of rules, count squares, and fuss over mechanical builds and which feat chain I need to pursue.

C&C, to me, is the perfect distillation of 40+ years of D&D experience and provides a player the basics of what makes "The Game" so appealing and engaging, without introducing a bunch of optional stuff that complicates the game. Some want that additional level of complexity described for them. I do not.

C&C is a good baseline fantasy RPG to either play as-is (i.e., basic no frills), OR, is easy to house rule to add the various innovations that have come through the different editions of D&D.

Really, if you think about it, C&C is the perfect tinkerers game, because it gives you a basic model and then gives you the freedom to trick it out to your heart's delight.

[DeadReborn]

I think we all agree 3, 3.5, 4.0, 4.PI, etc it ain't....

But, it can be, if one chooses to go that route. That, to me, is the beauty of C&C. It can be as "Basic" or as "Advanced" as you want it to be. You could use a rules lite approach (four core classes, race as class, etc.), or you can add in a complex skill system, "Feats", a more tactical combat (Attacks of Opportunity, etc.). As Snoring Rock pointed out, no two games are identical.

I grew up with 2e, so I borrowed stuff from it for the last game I ran; d10 for surprise, item saves, Morale, and used my all time favorite setting, Ravenloft. Everything fit seamlessly.

[neuronphaser]

I think we all agree 3, 3.5, 4.0, 4.PI, etc it ain't....

But, it can be, if one chooses to go that route. That, to me, is the beauty of C&C. It can be as "Basic" or as "Advanced" as you want it to be. You could use a rules lite approach (four core classes, race as class, etc.), or you can add in a complex skill system, "Feats", a more tactical combat (Attacks of Opportunity, etc.). As Snoring Rock pointed out, no two games are identical.

To those ends, I've detailed some thorough house rules that I think achieve a strange mix of AD&D 1e with 3e/4e tactical combat:
http://timbannock.com/rpg/index.php?tit ... ouse_Rules

To me, C&C is -- at its "root" -- a near-perfect expression of AD&D 1e in that it has the Gygaxian flavor but in a simpler ruleset. But I love giving fighty-classes tons of choices, and thereby I expanded the weapons rules considerably, beef up characters and monsters just slightly to account for Critical hits, and take a cue from 4e by making casters a bit more versatile (while I'm still able to control what spells are in play, even moreso considering my house rules for Divine casters)...all of this provides for a deeper tactical experience and allows me to use battle maps and all that with a clearer sense of what to expect in play.

In fact, I did a thorough blog post about how this allows me to convert monsters:
http://timbannock.com/2014/07/convertin ... h-tactics/

Not trying to advertise or anything Seriously, though, I find C&C allows rules to be layered on like this without any difficulty, so you can scale it up or down in complexity a few degrees and not worry about the whole thing breaking.

[Arduin]

How do you use C&C as it relates to D&D?

I see C&C as what 3rd Ed should have been if it had stayed with the original creators... I play accordingly.