C&C = D&D?

[csperkins1970]

In my time on these boards I've read many posts from those who see Castles & Crusades as a means to play "classic" Dungeons & Dragons campaigns. Then there are others who seem to want C&C to move away from its D&D roots and be its own entity, with its own flavor.

I'm in the first camp. I came to C&C out of my love for D&D. As such, I'd like to see C&C products that facilitate and emulate old-school D&D games as much as possible.

How do you feel?

Should C&C set its own course and break free from those who limit it by equating it to D&D?

or

Should it try to recapture the glory of D&D past and seek to bring "classic" D&D to the next generation, combining the strengths of C&C's elegant ruleset with the wealth of materials that TSR/WotC has produced over the years?

[Deogolf]

I don't see it moving away from anything. It can do both without having to change anything. That's the nice thing about it.

As far as I can recall, TLG never intended to make different editions. That's what caused all the rifts in the past. I think it'll be fine just the way it is!
_________________
Eulaliaaa!!! Give those rapscallions blood and vinegar, wot?!

Be sure to check out Jim's artwork for sale:
http://jimhollowayart.com/id5.html

[moriarty777]

I think it's the best of both worlds. I came to C&C and readily adopted it because of my love of AD&D. However I was never so rooted to not be able to appreciate change and innovation -- especially since the spirit of the older games encouraged a certain amount of house rulings and allowing a DM to be a DM. C&C gives me the kind of groundwork I was looking for and adaptable enough to touch upon the various eras and incarnations of D&D.

M
_________________
"You face Death itself in the form of... 1d4 Tarrasques!"

Partner to Brave Halfling Publishing
http://www.arcanacreations.com

[csperkins1970]

Deogolf wrote:
I don't see it moving away from anything. I can do both without having to change anything. That's the nice thing about it.

As far as I can recall, TLG never intended to make different editions. That's what caused all the rifts in the past. I think it'll be fine just the way it is!

I'm not saying that a new version should be in the works! I love C&C... I'm just talking about HOW you envision C&C (and, possibly, what kind of future products you'd like to see).

For me, Castle Zagyg is PERFECT because it captures the old-school feel of Greyhawk.

[Taranthyll]

I regard C&C as simply another "edition" of D&D. As many members have said in their signature files: C&C is what 3rd edition should have been. I agree and consider C&C to be the true heir to the game in a way that the last two editions of WotC's D&D is not. They own the name, but they don't own the game.

4th edition D&D may be a fine game, but to me it just isn't D&D in anything but name. Of course, WotC could call the Sailor Moon RPG D&D if they wanted to - but that doesn't make it so.

[Breakdaddy]

I like it the way it is and feel that it's flexible enough to allow for both styles of play. I come to it as an oldschooler. If I want to play a crunchier new school game I will play WFRP, Savage Worlds, or Burning Wheel (and do sometimes!). Then there are guys like Treebore who put in new school crunch into the C&C system itself. Looks like fun and works for him, so I say it can (and should) do both equally well!

[Morgrus]

A product line with an oldschool focus is what I kinda want. I too think C&C is the real D&D. I think products like CZ and Towers o adventure are starting to make C&C stand out. I really just want a Cyclopedia, lots o tinker tools(CKG etc) and monsters and loot(M&T2,3,4). The only thing rules expanding that I might want is a C&C "Tomb of Magic" with different spell systems and new spells. I think the market for oldschool is very sustainable, if C&C just revamps the "Package" a bit it could hit the next younger market, not the 11-14 MMO.ers but the kids/grandkids of C&C players 8-10. Products like kids comics/ coloring books by PB will prime the nostalgia of the next gen. Nostalgia is the key to C&C.
_________________
Awww Craap.

[DangerDwarf]

Morgrus wrote:
Nostalgia is the key to C&C.

On a personal level, I disagree with that statement. C&C is a solid enough system to stand on its own without nostalgia. in fact, I think nostalgia hurts it.

When I get all nostalgic, I drop C&C and play 2nd Edition or OD&D.

[csperkins1970]

DangerDwarf wrote:
On a personal level, I disagree with that statement. C&C is a solid enough system to stand on its own without nostalgia. in fact, I think nostalgia hurts it.

When I get all nostalgic, I drop C&C and play 2nd Edition or OD&D.

This is exactly what I mean! Morgrus thinks that nostalgia is the key to C&C while DangerDwarf thinks it hurts the game.

Does this help or hurt the game? Should it effect future product development and, if so, how?

I'm not trying to be argumentative or critical, I'm thinking out loud here and seeing what my fellow boarders think too.

[ScottyG]

I don't like change for change's sake, but static for statics sake is just as bad. 1E AD&D is a great system, still my favorite, but EGG saw room for improvement, and so he had a 2E planned. I'd like C&C to be what the 2nd ed. of AD&D should have been. And I think its pretty close. A lot of folks bash skill systems, but like it or not, EGG was moving towards skills. Much of the D&D rules were rooted in war gaming mechanics, and there were other option better suited to the RPG format, etc. My worry about C&C is that, just like 1E AD&D, it took years to get the core books out, and as a result, you see inconsistencies.

Scott

[seskis281]

The thing in play here, I think, was part of the design choice of the system - which created friction with those who didn't think it went "far enough" back to AD&D at that time -

The basic structure and frame allows for these different approaches. Many fans like it as something slightly different than older D&D, others view at as a nostalgic take on RPGs (boistered by design choices like the "commerative white box.")

I think what you're really asking is about focus for product development from here forward, are you not?

The answer to that is that when a product line, like Gary (and now Jeff's) CZ is produced, it will definitely go with an "this is D&D like the old days" flavor, as will other products. But when you start getting into all that, it opens up a whole can 'o worms on what really WAS D&D - which even the guys back then (Gary, Rob, James, etc.) often brought different opinions to.

Does having a "metaplot" for an adventure disqualify it? There are some (not me, but some) who say any sort of story makes it "newer" D&D. Are adventures "only" Dungeon Crawls? One of the interesting parts of Gary's forward is how his old group never bothered or even explored the upper castle and ruins - they just wanted to keep going down ("Stairs down" was the phrase every game that his players wanted to hear!)

I don't think there's really much at issue here unless any individual starts demanding that TLG products "must" fit an exact mold, always and forever. This certainly has happened in the past (the steam still smolders to this day from THOSE wars), and we should be able to enjoy the beauty of the system that's MAJOR DESIGN choice was to allow for these different takes and uses.

As for products, you'll see some for both points of view, as we already have methinks.

My two cents.
_________________
John "Sir Seskis" Wright

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

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

[Omote]

I think C&C fascititates D&D play. The differences in the mechanics are nearly cosmetic IMO. The game itself allows for fantastic play, in the vein of the classic games.

-O
_________________
> Omote's Advanced C&C stuff <
Duke Omote Landwehr, Holy Order of the FPQ ~ Prince of the Castles & Crusades Society

[Morgrus]

DangerDwarf wrote:
On a personal level, I disagree with that statement. C&C is a solid enough system to stand on its own without nostalgia. in fact, I think nostalgia hurts it.

When I get all nostalgic, I drop C&C and play 2nd Edition or OD&D.

How do you think nostalgia hurts(curious)?2E nostalgia got me playing C&C. I bought C&C because I could use all my old stuff with it, without all the charts and clutter. I guess by nostalgia I ment it gave the old 2e stuff I loved,then grew tired of new...newness. In truth a skill system would be nice. I think that AC&C might be the way to move forward.
_________________
Awww Craap.

[DangerDwarf]

Relying to much on nostalgia is a big no-no. Why play a nostalgic game when I can play the game I'm nostalgic for? My 2nd Edition books still work just fine.

C&C stands on its own two feet and should continue to do so.

[Morgrus]

DangerDwarf wrote:
Relying to much on nostalgia is a big no-no. Why play a nostalgic game when I can play the game I'm nostalgic for? My 2nd Edition books still work just fine.

C&C stands on its own two feet and should continue to do so.

Ok, that is a very good point. So what products might implement this individual nature of C&C?
_________________
Awww Craap.

[DangerDwarf]

That, I'm afraid I don't know. Like Seskis pointed out, I think C&C handles the balance between nostalgia and new pretty well in their products.

PB's art definitely strikes out as to giving C&C it's own unique feel on a visual level. I also think that more products like Towers of Adventure will go a long way of bringing both new and old in one wholesome little package.

[Luther]

DangerDwarf wrote:
Relying to much on nostalgia is a big no-no. Why play a nostalgic game when I can play the game I'm nostalgic for? My 2nd Edition books still work just fine. C&C stands on its own two feet and should continue to do so.

Because it is the older system with some substantial improvements.

When 4e came out, I saw it and immediately decided to go 'back to the basics,' exemplified by the simpler and more flexible and fun systems of my youth. My favourite version of the game was BD&D and I downloaded Labyrinth Lord to use in conjunction with my Moldvay D&D set for a full 20 level system, but the warts that eventually turned me away from BD&D were still there: Race Classes, THAC0, Negative ACs, Theiving Tables, etc.

When I looked around some more I found Castles & Crusades and realized that this was everything I liked about the rules lite and freewheeling system of OD&D/BD&D, but with the classes and races from AD&D and the unified D20 system of 3e.

So nostalgia motivated my purchase, but it was nostalgia tempered with the knowledge that this was just enough of a change on the old system that it improved the game without taking away from the feel of it.

I have niether the time nor the incliniation to switch back and forth between the original OD&D/BD&D/1e/2e/3e systems when C&C does the best of all of those in one system. If I want to play Keep on the Borderlands followed by The Village of Hommlet I can and without having to switch systems, convert characters or do massive amounts of converions work before the game. That is the beauty of it...

[DangerDwarf]

Luther wrote:
Because it is the older system with some substantial improvements.

Which is entirely subjective. Your improvements are my headaches.

Which, is why TLG should continue to give C&C it's own identity and not turn to an over reliance on nostalgia. For every customer you pick up for nostalgic reasons, you lose another who realizes he can just play the old game.

Keep C&C with its own identity (which I already believe it has) and you get the best of both.

[ssfsx17]

My personal preference is that C&C would continue to become more C&C-ish and more influenced by independent RPGs. I'm one of those crazy people who believes that with the rules as written, you don't need stat numbers, you only need the modifiers and primes.

[Luther]

DangerDwarf wrote:
Which is entirely subjective. Your improvements are my headaches.

So you find the D20 mechanic a headache and prefer Race Classes, Negative ACs, THAC0 and Thieving Tables? In that case, you're quite correct that you would be better off playing the other versions of D&D.

Quote:
Which, is why TLG should continue to give C&C it's own identity and not turn to an over reliance on nostalgia. For every customer you pick up for nostalgic reasons, you lose another who realizes he can just play the old game.

Not true. I may have nostalgic memories, but the people I've introduced to the game on alternate Tuesdays do not. They like the game because of its simplicity and openess: the very things that made the old game great (sort of a second hand nostalgia).

Quote:
Keep C&C with its own identity (which I already believe it has) and you get the best of both.

Well, besides the addition of the SEIGE rule, which is just a codified version of the OD&D method of non-combat resolution, what I described is, by popular acclaim, the identity of C&C: D&D 2/3e the way it should have been. No more. No less.

[seskis281]

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.
_________________
John "Sir Seskis" Wright

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

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

[Jonathan of White Haven]

csperkins1970 wrote:
In my time on these boards I've read many posts from those who see Castles & Crusades as a means to play "classic" Dungeons & Dragons campaigns. Then there are others who seem to want C&C to move away from its D&D roots and be its own entity, with its own flavor.

I'm in the first camp. I came to C&C out of my love for D&D. As such, I'd like to see C&C products that facilitate and emulate old-school D&D games as much as possible.

How do you feel?

Should C&C set its own course and break free from those who limit it by equating it to D&D?

or

Should it try to recapture the glory of D&D past and seek to bring "classic" D&D to the next generation, combining the strengths of C&C's elegant ruleset with the wealth of materials that TSR/WotC has produced over the years?

Disclaimer: I have, over the past 30 years, played in precisely one "pure" 1E AD&D campaign. That is to say, the campaign was run exactly By The Book(s) (PHB. MM, DMG--no UA.) Other than that, the campaigns I've played in have been fiddled with, tweaked, or otherwise modified in order to reduce or remove the inherent tedium of segments/rounds/turns and the bookkeeping that goes along with it.

Our gaming group, of which I am a player, has had a 1E AD&D campaign going for four + years now. The GM and I were trying to find ways to enhance the flavor of our campaign, as well as to find easier ways to do things that were either spelled out in the core books (PHB, UA, DMG) or that weren't actually covered by them. Not having easy access to the 2E core books, we tried (with some small success) to adapt the skill lists from 3E/3.5E to our 1E campaign. And yes, the successes were small--we didn't actually use the additional skills all that often, so the players remained somewhat unfamiliar with them.

During an open gaming night at our FLGS last year, several of our friends (not involved in our campaign) were talking up C&C, how much like 1E it was, and how the game mechanics were able to speed things along. Scott (skerns) and I asked one of them to run a demo game for us at the next open night. Two of our other players joined in. We rolled up several 3rd-4th level characters and went at, IIRC, Assault On Blacktooth Ridge.

We were amazed at how quickly and smoothly the game mechanics worked, how unlisted skills could be brought into play using SIEGE, and at the actual quality of the two core books. While we thought that the layout (specifically, for character generation) was a bit odd, the clarity and straightforwardness of the writing more than made up for it. On the other hand, the ability to look up things such as spell descriptions (which do tend to vary somewhat from the 1E descriptions we were used to) was so much better (alphabetical order? Who came up with that idea?) and faster than the Old Skool books.

The other thing that made a great impression was how "modular" (if you can call it that) the C&C rule set is. They're truly guidelines, rather than hard and fast rules. Wanna add something (such as the UA Weapon Specialization rules)? Go for it. Wanna remove something? That's your choice. Make it your game.

Shortly after that demo session, The Trolls had their 2-For-1 sale. I ordered two sets of the core books and, after they arrived, Scott and I went through them. On the strength of our short play experience and the perusal of the books, we eventually converted our 1E campaign over to C&C, but retained the 1E spell lists (including the "new" spells listed in the UA), along with a few other things straight out of 1E that we preferred to keep.

That campaign in in "winter hiatus" (game time) right now. I'm filling in as GM/DM/CK every couple of weeks or so, running a simplified CZ game using Yggsburgh as the main base, with the Haunted Highlands and Crater of Umeshti plopped 50 or so miles to the west of the East Mark. It's been a lot of fun, mainly due to the easy, straightforward game mechanics of Castles & Crusades. Within those game mechanics, the PCs are able to attempt just about anything the players can think of doing.

We think it's a keeper. Long live the Crusade!
_________________
"You don't understand, Beaufingle", said Lungwort cryptically. "You ARE dinner." -- M.M. Moamrath

[GameOgre]

This is how I feel about this thread
_________________
Baron Golden, Knights of the Tin Palace (GameOgre)

Subscriber to Crusader Magazine!
http://www.cncsociety.org

[Morgrus]

What I want is a C&C version of TOON.
No really..SEIGE would work perfectly for TOON.
_________________
Awww Craap.

[DangerDwarf]

Morgrus wrote:
What I want is a C&C version of TOON.
No really..SEIGE would work perfectly for TOON.

I would soooooo be the Scary Pickle.

[Deogolf]

DangerDwarf wrote:
Relying to much on nostalgia is a big no-no. Why play a nostalgic game when I can play the game I'm nostalgic for? My 2nd Edition books still work just fine.

C&C stands on its own two feet and should continue to do so.

That's the cool thing - you can combine the old with the new and have something even better! The things you can do with the system is pretty much limitless.
_________________
Eulaliaaa!!! Give those rapscallions blood and vinegar, wot?!

Be sure to check out Jim's artwork for sale:
http://jimhollowayart.com/id5.html

[DangerDwarf]

Deogolf wrote:
The things you can do with the system is pretty much limitless.

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.

[gideon_thorne]

DangerDwarf wrote:
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.

Well, that depends on the amount one needs to modify doesn't it? Not to mention how tightly woven the mechanics of a given game are, what sort of players are in ones game group, etc etc etc.
_________________
"We'll go out through the kitchen!" Tanis Half-Elven

Peter Bradley

[Deogolf]

DangerDwarf wrote:
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.

Well, not everyone plays those games or may be as adept as others in converting on the fly. It's a good system for bringing in both newcomers and those coming back after years of nothing (like me).
_________________
Eulaliaaa!!! Give those rapscallions blood and vinegar, wot?!

Be sure to check out Jim's artwork for sale:
http://jimhollowayart.com/id5.html

[Telhawk]

I have an inherent fear and dislike of running back into the past to seek answers; there ain't nothin' there except a hall of mirrors reflecting back either what you want to see, or what you're terrified of seeing. You slow down...and stop...consumed with the exaggerated narcissism of the past...and there's no more forward movement.

I do, of course, draw all the distinction in the world between running back into the past, and examining it for clues as to how to best move onward. With this in mind, I don't believe that Troll Lords and C&C in particular is best served by attempting to replicate AD&D 1-2.0. Using it as an inspiration is, again, a completely different issue, because this allows us to adjust, alter, and change depending on how time and circumstance favor us. My brothers and I definitely did come here because of the AD&D inspirational factor, but we also completely expect that TLG is going to be putting its own touches and stamp on its work. I believe that the Troll Lord gang is interested in creating FRPGs that embrace simplicity and role-play, using AD&D as a launch-point, not in attempting to resurrect a game system that's been out of publication for ten years now.

All this preface is meant to indicate simply that I would prefer TLG to let AD&D, as an object of slavish, untouchable reverence, go and allow them - and us - to pave their own path. As I believe Mr. Gygax himself said, the old system is gone; let's make the best of our future and move forward with a dream of what should be, rather than what could have been.