People complaining about the editing in C&C? Surely you jest!

No doubt, it is bad...I had every single version of the PHB (got rid of my 1st edition because the layout was terrible), and it was pretty much exactly the same except for layout. The new color versions look great, but the same fucking grammatical errors from over 10 years ago? Annoying.

Since he mentioned it, Turanil's Fantastic Heroes and Witchery is a great game, but quite a bit different in feel and scope than C&C. I wouldn't recommend it if you're looking for original D&D feel. My guess is most people who like to play C&C really just want to play AD&D but with ascending AC so they don't have to have combat tables anywhere. That is pretty much the exact reason I started using it, but like I said, I eventually added AD&D saves, and now my C&C game is essentially Labyrinth Lord with AD&D classes and ascending AC (sounds almost exactly like Philotomy Jurament).

Actually the more I think about it, the less I think it matters what rules-system you're using. All these systems are close enough that you can just pick one as a base and import whatever you want from other places. As I stated somewhere else, my players don't even know the rules and they have fun, so obviously rules don't mean anything.

Quote from: Gwarh;852301Does anyone know if there are B&W versions of the newest releases of the 3 core C&C books?

I seem to remember reading somewhere that they offered Black and White versions of the newest books as a printer friendly option.

You'd want to look at the 4th printing- should be the books with the sea sick green covers.  The color books were tough for me to read, writing aside.  They used a tan page with dark brown lettering- difficult for my mark I eyeball to read.

Quote from: Kellri;852368- The editing (or really lack thereof). Everything from spelling errors to inconsistent terminology to just plain bad, bad writing. Despite several editions, it never improves and often gets worse. Considering the high quality of many of the free OSR games produced with little to no budget at all, there's just no excuse for that other than to say TLG just doesn't give a single fuck.

Yeah, the editing is terrible, and always has been, from what I can tell.  In some cases, it wasn't just misspelling and poor writing, but also entire sections left out, or bad cut-and-paste errors, or system conversion errors that cut across the entire work.  In Gygax's Yggsburgh book, all the monetary conversions were screwed up.  Also, I kept looking for a certain order of battle that was mentioned in the text, and that I couldn't find among the orders of battle.  Asked Gary about it, and he said, "it's in there," but it wasn't.  His response was something like "well, it SHOULD be in there...Trolls!!!"  He seemed as frustrated as I was.

Quote- The artwork. I'll admit this is largely a matter of personal taste, but weirdly proportioned asses and elbows are a running theme.

Ah, that's Peter Bradley.  Yeah, his art isn't to my taste, either.

I like for game lines to use a wide variety of artists.  When they stick with one for the majority of their prominent stuff, it can be a real bummer if you don't like that artist's style, or if you just get "fatigue" from seeing that style all the time.

Quote from: Brad;852277I think C&C is a pretty good game, but I greatly dislike the saving throw system and starting using AD&D's instead, mostly because I didn't like 20th level paladins failing their saves as often as 1st level paladins.

That's the main beef that occurs to me. I think the spell lists are also a bit out of whack, but I have only the first edition Handbook.

That's compact, and has nice character type write-ups. In sum, though, I find it hard to call out C&C as especially special when there's such a field of rivals.

Perhaps it's notable for a flavor that appeals more to folks steeped in 3E D&D idioms than do many retro-clones?

As mentioned, using TN 15 with +5 for primes is the way to go. I *think* that's the default in their pulp game Amazing Adventures.

The editing, while rough in spots, hasn't detracted from my ability to grok the game at all. Though I do enjoy playing over running. Though when running, it's really very easy to convert to C&C on the fly. Eyeballing is enough to do the trick. Maybe that's the best thing about it.

I'm currently playing in a C&C campaign where the GM is very new to the art and they're running the DCC adventure "Tower of the Black Pearl" for us, pretty much on the fly and it's awesome.

I've long believed that had Castles and Crusades been better the OSR would have been a much smaller movement.

The changes I see as essential to a Castles and Crusades with a broader appeal include:

Ditching the horrible "Siege Engine" it's a lousy mechanic all around.  Not only is a six point spread too broad but it makes absurdities like clerics being better at detecting traps than thieves (until sixth level anyhow) very common.  Plus one per level is also a bit of a problem.  Not the end of the world but it does cause problems at high levels.

Cleaning up the weapon stats and imposing some degree of differentiation or scrapping things like polearms and swords into a single class (the basic D&D option).  Personally I'd have loved it if they'd linked weapon damage to size as they did with hit dice type.

The classes have some weird balance issues.  For all that I love that Fighters are hands down the best fighters in the game at first level, with a +4 to hit with a 16 Strength, the other fighting classes are often lucky to have a +1 as they need other stats to be higher.

The encumbrance system has been softened since first edition but I still don't like it.

The tone of Castles and Crusades is very much Paladins and Princesses and while that's not necessarily the worst thing it's a bit off putting for the fans of earlier editions.

I only have the first printing, so take what I say with a huge grain of salt.

C&C is ok, in that I can run my campaign with it.....but it is not particularly memorable or exciting. It's poorly edited, and that never ceases to irritate me.

I don't really feel like I can run my D&D campaign with 5e, but I definitely can run my campaign with C&C.....so if I were forced to choose between C&C or 5e, I would choose C&C.

However, I would still choose either AD&D or D&D 3.x over either of those games.

Quote from: S'mon;852286Yup. If you like it that high level warriors fail saves vs high level casters, it's a good game. Personally I prefer pre-3e approach.

Really?  Cuz that's the exact problem I had when running 3e.  Especially when magic using critters targeted anything other than Fort.  In fact, a lot of spells and spell effects, especially some of the better ones go for Will.

Personally, the only good thing about C&C for my was the SIEGE mechanic, and even then I found semi-OK in play.

Quote from: Eisenmann;852463As mentioned, using TN 15 with +5 for primes is the way to go. I *think* that's the default in their pulp game Amazing Adventures.

I've used this variant. It's worked fine.

Quote from: Eisenmann;852463The editing, while rough in spots, hasn't detracted from my ability to grok the game at all. Though I do enjoy playing over running. Though when running, it's really very easy to convert to C&C on the fly. Eyeballing is enough to do the trick. Maybe that's the best thing about it.

Agreed. I've run Planescape with C&C and I'd love to run it again. The SIEGE engine, while imperfect, allows players and GMs to use an easily understood mechanic to engage in lots of freeform actions.  And for some, not all, players, having a game mechanic in place is key to their ability to "go off the rails" - especially if they come from a 3e background.

Quote from: David Johansen;852465I've long believed that had Castles and Crusades been better the OSR would have been a much smaller movement.

I'd say that's almost certain.  The original "word on the street" about C&C was that it was going to be an AD&D "clone."  As more details emerged during its development, some people saw C&C straying from that path, and started discussing the development of an alternative that really was a "true 1e clone."  Dissatisfaction with the direction C&C was developing led directly to the creation of OSRIC under the OGL, and it was largely the success of OSRIC (including the fact that it wasn't legally smacked down by WotC) that opened the flood-gates for the whole "retro-clone" concept.

Quote from: Philotomy Jurament;852635I'd say that's almost certain.  The original "word on the street" about C&C was that it was going to be an AD&D "clone."  As more details emerged during its development, some people saw C&C straying from that path, and started discussing the development of an alternative that really was a "true 1e clone."  Dissatisfaction with the direction C&C was developing led directly to the creation of OSRIC under the OGL, and it was largely the success of OSRIC (including the fact that it wasn't legally smacked down by WotC) that opened the flood-gates for the whole "retro-clone" concept.

Yeah, pretty much.

The old C&C vs OSRIC flame wars were pretty epic though. They had enough fire in those arguments to power a city.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;852611Really?  Cuz that's the exact problem I had when running 3e.  Especially when magic using critters targeted anything other than Fort.  In fact, a lot of spells and spell effects, especially some of the better ones go for Will.

Personally, the only good thing about C&C for my was the SIEGE mechanic, and even then I found semi-OK in play.

I like pre-3e where high level characters make their saves. I don't like 3e and C&C where high level characters fail saves. In my Pathfinder Crimson Throne game I houseruled a half-level/hit die bonus to all saves, which is working well, the 13th level PCs make all saves at +6 and a lot of the DCs are ca 25 so there is still some risk.

Quote from: Philotomy Jurament;852431I like for game lines to use a wide variety of artists.  When they stick with one for the majority of their prominent stuff, it can be a real bummer if you don't like that artist's style, or if you just get "fatigue" from seeing that style all the time.

Me too. I kind of like the 1st edition DMG approach - everything from highly detailed Darlene illustrations to Tom Wham comic strips. In that sense I find the C&C art design to be humorless and boring. I want 2 things from a D&D book - be inspiring on every page and writing at least equal to a band 7 on the IELTS exam.

Quote from: Philotomy Jurament;852431

QuoteThe editing (or really lack thereof). Everything from spelling errors to inconsistent terminology to just plain bad, bad writing. Despite several editions, it never improves and often gets worse. Considering the high quality of many of the free OSR games produced with little to no budget at all, there's just no excuse for that other than to say TLG just doesn't give a single fuck.

Yeah, the editing is terrible, and always has been, from what I can tell.  In some cases, it wasn't just misspelling and poor writing, but also entire sections left out, or bad cut-and-paste errors, or system conversion errors that cut across the entire work.  In Gygax's Yggsburgh book, all the monetary conversions were screwed up.  Also, I kept looking for a certain order of battle that was mentioned in the text, and that I couldn't find among the orders of battle.  Asked Gary about it, and he said, "it's in there," but it wasn't.  His response was something like "well, it SHOULD be in there...Trolls!!!"  He seemed as frustrated as I was.

Sadly, it's always been like this.  I used to think it was the editing software they used (they were using WordPerfect in an age where most people use Microsoft Word), but my own experience seeing Gary's original manuscripts and the final products tend to have too many mistakes.

I remember working on edits to Gary's Hall of Many Panes--I was doing several things, making sure the stats for the d20 system were 100% OGL (removing PI stuff some authors make), and correcting some spelling errors and typos,  then later upgrading all the stats to the 3.5 edition (a pain since it re-balanced some monsters, etc.).

At one point, I submitted my revisions, then Gary and I got a draft back, which appeared to have none of my changes.  I wrote a slightly exasperated letter back to the person handling it, mostly upset that all the work I was doing to try to improve the quality of the product (in terms of removing typos and preventing issues with the d20 license), etc.  I got a response that was pretty angry in tone, and Gary actually apologized to me about the response I got.

The guys at TLG are pretty nice and they have a strong following, and Gary definitely liked and trusted them--but I can't see how you can be a publisher and not even make an effort to improve the quality of basic proofreading, editing, etc.

Quote from: Philotomy Jurament;852635I'd say that's almost certain.  The original "word on the street" about C&C was that it was going to be an AD&D "clone."  As more details emerged during its development, some people saw C&C straying from that path, and started discussing the development of an alternative that really was a "true 1e clone."  Dissatisfaction with the direction C&C was developing led directly to the creation of OSRIC under the OGL, and it was largely the success of OSRIC (including the fact that it wasn't legally smacked down by WotC) that opened the flood-gates for the whole "retro-clone" concept.

I don't know it would have been certain that the OSR would have been smaller. If C&C turned out to be a true 1e clone wouldn't it have opened the floodgates in a manner similar to OSRIC?

We still had Gonnerman's Basic Fantasy coming down the pike regardless of how C&C turned out. And while much of OSRIC is OGL a chunk of it is not and under a more restrictive license. A 1e C&C would probably been not 100% OGL either. Given how ornery open content advocates can be somebody would have enough motivation to make a 100% open content clone. From there it would branch out.

But given how open content Runequest turned out a smaller OSR a result of 1e C&C is a very plausible result. While the important parts of Runequest was open content, the community was centered around Mongoose who was producing reasonably good content on a regular basis.