I don't get the complaints about the prime system. It is basically just a short-hand for the skill systems in other games but takes 1/10th as many rules to implement. Your choice of prime stats is a stand in for the categories of things you value and focus on. When those things come up, you get a substantial bonus to do them successfully, compared to someone who ignores them. Maybe the bonus could be some different (presumably smaller) number, and I'm sure you can think of narrow cases that are counter intuitive, but the general idea is solid and a great solution to a long standing problem of D&D: the rules are extensive and heavy but too narrowly focused on melee combat and a couple of other things. The prime system fills in all the rest in a way I find works well in play.

Quote from: Pat;907409My biggest problem with C&C is saves. In AD&D, saves get objectively better as you go up in level. Low level fighters fail most of the time, but they face fewer threats where a save is needed. And while high level fighters have to make tons of saves against a wide variety of effects, they'll usually make their saves. It's very important for balance, and is one of the most important reasons why fighters don't suck.

C&C throws that out. While saves do improve as a character goes up in level, they're opposed by the caster's level. So instead of improving, your chance to save stays about the same, or even gets worse.

The concept is that your save is more difficult when you are trying to save against more powerful opposition. If your high level character is resisting a spell from an equally high level caster, I think it makes sense that the odds are more or less the same as they were when both foes were lower level.

Quote from: Pat;907409C&C throws that out. While saves do improve as a character goes up in level, they're opposed by the caster's level. So instead of improving, your chance to save stays about the same, or even gets worse.

I have a strong dislike for "opposed" rolls in general. The first guy does something. Say, casts a spell. It affects the game world. The more powerful the first guy is, the more likely he is to affect the game world and/or the more drastic the effect is. Then guy B comes along, is inconvenienced by this change, and so he engages is save, skill, or ability against the change. Not against the caster. And that works perfectly fine. The greater challenge of saving vs a level 10 fireball compared to a level 5 fireball is that even if you save against the level 10 fireball, it's going to hurt as much as not saving against the level 5 fireball. Not because the probability of saving has changed. But because the conditions against which you are saving are more intense.

Quote from: Larsdangly;907438I don't get the complaints about the prime system. It is basically just a short-hand for the skill systems in other games but takes 1/10th as many rules to implement. Your choice of prime stats is a stand in for the categories of things you value and focus on. When those things come up, you get a substantial bonus to do them successfully, compared to someone who ignores them. Maybe the bonus could be some different (presumably smaller) number, and I'm sure you can think of narrow cases that are counter intuitive, but the general idea is solid and a great solution to a long standing problem of D&D: the rules are extensive and heavy but too narrowly focused on melee combat and a couple of other things. The prime system fills in all the rest in a way I find works well in play.

I'm perfectly fine with the magnitude of the bonus. It's just redundant with attributes. If my guy is strong, he already has an advantage when it comes to feats of strength over the weakling. The game system already provides a way to differentiate that. What it doesn't differentiate is one guy who is maybe a better swimmer. Maybe one guy has a higher Str than another, so is better at fighting currents. Maybe the other guy has higher Con, so is better and swimming underwater. Using the exact bonus the prime system uses, if a guy could be "primed" in Swimming, he'd be better than both the high Str and high Con guys at all aspects of swimming since he is, after all, a skilled swimmer. The system already calls for the GM to use judgment as far as which attribute an activity check would fall under. There's no reason he couldn't be called upon to make similar judgment calls around loose skill bundles.

Quote from: Larsdangly;907439The concept is that your save is more difficult when you are trying to save against more powerful opposition. If your high level character is resisting a spell from an equally high level caster, I think it makes sense that the odds are more or less the same as they were when both foes were lower level.

This is the way I see it, so it's never been a problem for my campaign.

Having said that, if Saving Throws are the one thing that disturb a group about an RPG then I'd suggest you just come up with your own system for Saving Throws. Heck, just steal the chart from AD&D or other edition of that era.

Quote from: Larsdangly;907439The concept is that your save is more difficult when you are trying to save against more powerful opposition. If your high level character is resisting a spell from an equally high level caster, I think it makes sense that the odds are more or less the same as they were when both foes were lower level.

It makes no sense.

First of all, it's a fantasy system. Arbitrarily deciding that ability in magic and one mechanical way characters resist magic have to increase in lock step is just that: Arbitrary.

Second, and far more important, saves are like hit points. They're a game mechanic, designed to create a specific outcome. They don't, and can't, really make sense. Because they're not designed to support world building considerations, they're designed to support gameplay.

In AD&D, low level characters face few saves, and the magic-users have a lot less tricks in their arsenal. At high levels, magic-users have practically infinite spells, which can cause a bewildering variety of effects. If fighters have the same chance to save against a magic-user of the same level at 12th level, as they do when they're 1st level, what happens?

The 1st level fighter survives, because they had one save, got lucky, and made it. The 12th level fighter? Makes the first save, and then is turned to stone, disintegrated, paralyzed, poisoned, fingered to death, sheeped, catted, confused, and so on.

It's about frequency and severity. A high level character needs better absolute saves just to keep up, because they're facing so much more crap.

Failing to recognize that is what made 3.X such a nightmare for anyone who didn't want to play wizards, clerics, or druids. And C&C adopted that from the d20 system, because of that "logic".

But yes, finarvyn is right. It's easy to correct: Just fix the challenge level, and don't allow it to vary based on the caster's level. But a lot of people fall prey to that superficial logic, so here's why it's a problem.

I appreciate all the responses!

I've decided to go ALL IN and give the Siege engine a solid shake. I'll be porting over a couple things from other games (ACKS wound system, Silent Legions sanity perhaps...). I like how the Prime system works. People seem to disregard the part where the CK sets a Challenge Level that adds or subtracts from the base. Your simply doing it behind the screen. Also, if a fighter has all day and a smithy full of tools he/she will likely "pick the lock" so it's hardly worth rolling for unless it's trapped. :-D

I like how saving throws work, that is exactly how I believe they should work.

More to follow as I dig in more...

If I had a group that really wanted to play AD&D, I would run C&C for them in an instant. It's AD&D 3e.

For me, OD&D is my preferred "raw" and "weird" fantasy and C&C represents more modern vanilla fantasy. Maybe its my sense of "Swords & Sorcery" vs. "High Fantasy".  That said, I've played and run plenty of C&C and while I can agree with much of the complaints being discussed, I didn't find them meaningful at the table.

C&C is stupid easy to houserule. Don't want Clerics to find traps? Great, make trap finding exclusive to Thieves. Don't want STR 3 with STR prime to equal STR 18? Great, make primes only be chosen from Stats rated 9 and above.

I bought Amazing Adventures, but unfortunately haven't had a chance to run it yet. I want to run it as modern day pulp and use Silent Legions to horror it up.

Quote from: Spinachcat;907505.... I want to run it as modern day pulp and use Silent Legions to horror it up.

I seriously plan on stealing stuff from all the amazing OSR stuff I've picked up over the last couple years. There is some damn creative stuff, too much good stuff to ignore!

Im wondering how C&C holds up today againt 5e(as a system)? I own neither. I read some people claiming C&C became obsolete and there is no reason playing it over 5e since they are kind of in the same design space: " A modern AD&D 3e", and 5e did everything better and smooth ( dont kill the messenger). For several reasons Im not "feeling it" for 5e, but C&C sure looks very tempting for aesthetic reasons. More classic look and feel somehow. But I ve also heard a lot of negative about SIEGE. Wonky math, especially for saving throws and spells.

I ran C&C a few years ago, and am planning on using it again; for the easy to convert wealth of material, and the simplicity of the system. Less complicated than TSR/Hasbro DnD, but a little more complicated than Basic. It just hits a sweet spot for me.

My biggest complaint is the encumbrance system. As written it is ridiculously complicated and unnecessary. I used and will continue to use the encumbrance system from LotFP.

I have the 4th printing Players guide, Castlekeepers guide, and Monsters & treasure. So encumbrance might have been cleaned up in the later printings. I dunno.

In play, the biggest issue was the group had a bunch of guys that only play AD&D and couldn't understand Primes and saves. So next time, I'm thinking about having the players list various saves and write in the base value (12 or 18). Less confusion that way. Non-AD&D people had little to no issue with the SIEGE engine. Some people are just set in their ways.

That's just from my experience.

Quote from: Teodrik;907704Im wondering how C&C holds up today againt 5e(as a system)? I own neither. I read some people claiming C&C became obsolete and there is no reason playing it over 5e since they are kind of in the same design space: " A modern AD&D 3e", and 5e did everything better and smooth ( dont kill the messenger). For several reasons Im not "feeling it" for 5e, but C&C sure looks very tempting for aesthetic reasons. More classic look and feel somehow. But I ve also heard a lot of negative about SIEGE. Wonky math, especially for saving throws and spells.

I'd say 5e and C&C are in the same design space only in the broadest sense of possibly sharing similar design goals, especially around providing a mid-point between various previous editions.  Their practical solutions to that are very different.  C&C is basically conservative (and compatible) with old school games in terms of hit points and attack bonus numbers, and just the general range and power of class abilities.  Whereas 5e to me feels very modern in it's implementation, with the larger hit point numbers that make bounded accuracy work, and a range of class powers informed by 3 and 4e.  (I'm not saying based on, but clearly meant to appeal to the same player base.)  Characters are more survivable and more powerful, for good and for ill (char-op is already a thing for 5e online, even without the worst imbalances of 3.x, for instance).

Quote from: trechriron;907086Looking for opinions for or against (the whys and wherefores are important!), actual play experiences, and other info.

I played both Castles and Crusades and Blood & Treasures. They along with D&D 5e I consider as retro rulesets that uses modern mechanics. When it comes to C&C versus B&T I like Blood & Treasures better. One B&T has better value in the books that you pay for. Two it "universal" mechanic plays better than the Siege Mechanic. Basically when it comes to skills and tests, you roll a 1d20 + attribute bonus + other bonus and see if you exceed your Fortitude, Reflex, or Will save. For example Stealth is Reflex.

It sounds odd but in play it works a lot smoother than the Siege mechanic and the design of the classes make this work sensibly. So I recommend checking out Blood & Treasure over C&C. The rest of B&T is a well made retro-clone with good graphics and layout. Like the other retro-clone it is easy to mix and match stuff from other retro-clones. Also out of all the retro-clone it is the easiest to bolt d20 stuff into. Again to stress it is more value for the buck than C&C.

Quote from: Teodrik;907704Im wondering how C&C holds up today againt 5e(as a system)? I own neither. I read some people claiming C&C became obsolete and there is no reason playing it over 5e since they are kind of in the same design space: " A modern AD&D 3e", and 5e did everything better and smooth ( dont kill the messenger). For several reasons Im not "feeling it" for 5e, but C&C sure looks very tempting for aesthetic reasons. More classic look and feel somehow. But I ve also heard a lot of negative about SIEGE. Wonky math, especially for saving throws and spells.

C&C is a hair more rules-lite than D&D 5e core rules. However I think D&D 5e is more playable than C&C and better designed. If you ignore feats and go with the single class options of the 5e SRD. I think D&D 5e is the winner.

Quote from: Dave R;907709I'd say 5e and C&C are in the same design space only in the broadest sense of possibly sharing similar design goals, especially around providing a mid-point between various previous editions.  Their practical solutions to that are very different.  C&C is basically conservative (and compatible) with old school games in terms of hit points and attack bonus numbers, and just the general range and power of class abilities.  Whereas 5e to me feels very modern in it's implementation, with the larger hit point numbers that make bounded accuracy work, and a range of class powers informed by 3 and 4e.  (I'm not saying based on, but clearly meant to appeal to the same player base.)  Characters are more survivable and more powerful, for good and for ill (char-op is already a thing for 5e online, even without the worst imbalances of 3.x, for instance).

My experience is that C&C is substantially simpler when it comes to the palette of PC powers, and retains the lethality and relatively low power level of 1E, whereas 5E has some of the design goals of C&C but ended up being a more structurally complex game with higher level of PC power and lower overall PC mortality. C&C feels like a hybrid of 1E and BD&D in play; 5E feels more like a hybrid of the very first offerings for 3E and 4E.

Quote from: estar;907737I played both Castles and Crusades and Blood & Treasures. They along with D&D 5e I consider as retro rulesets that uses modern mechanics. When it comes to C&C versus B&T I like Blood & Treasures better. One B&T has better value in the books that you pay for. Two it "universal" mechanic plays better than the Siege Mechanic. Basically when it comes to skills and tests, you roll a 1d20 + attribute bonus + other bonus and see if you exceed your Fortitude, Reflex, or Will save. For example Stealth is Reflex.

It sounds odd but in play it works a lot smoother than the Siege mechanic and the design of the classes make this work sensibly. So I recommend checking out Blood & Treasure over C&C. The rest of B&T is a well made retro-clone with good graphics and layout. Like the other retro-clone it is easy to mix and match stuff from other retro-clones. Also out of all the retro-clone it is the easiest to bolt d20 stuff into. Again to stress it is more value for the buck than C&C.

I've always been interested in Blood and Treasure (Grit and Vigor, as well). But you may have sold me on it.