So I've got a bit of an old-school itch that needs scratching. I'd like to hear some thoughts on Castles & Crusades, which sounds like it's just the right mix of Basic D&D, AD&D1e, and D&D3e for me.

I'd especially like to hear about any experiences you've had with the relatively-new(?) multi-classing system for the game.

Thanks in advance!

Quote from: Dan Davenport;452272I'd like to hear some thoughts on Castles & Crusades, which sounds like it's just the right mix of Basic D&D, AD&D1e, and D&D3e for me.

I have no experience with the multiclassing system you're talking about (in the CKG I'd assume, since I haven't got that book), but I'll just pitch in to tell you your assessment is basically correct.

I went from being dissatisfied with 3rd ed's bloat and gaming culture to playing older games gradually. My first stop was with C&C, which I found to be an alright game, though I was tweaking with the SIEGE engine more than I would have wanted to. Bit by bit, however, I basically found out that I liked C&C more for its older bits than its "modern" ones, and from there the natural question became "why play C&C when what you really want is to play older editions of the game?" So I went back to older editions of the game and dropped C&C.

C&C is still useful to me as a gamer as a bridge between 3rd ed and OGL-related materials and the older editions of the game. It helps me understand how to go about translating from one system to the next, as a middle ground esperanto of sorts. So I'm likely to have a look at it to understand how some 3rd ed stuff could translate into C&C's context, and then from there how that thing in C&C's context would translate into AD&D's, for instance.

I'd play C&C. I wouldn't mind. I wouldn't run it however, unless I had a very good reason to do so (a player that just loves the game, or a compromise to be reached between different types of players at the same game table, basically). I'm just happier with O/AD&D and its related clones (S&W and OSRIC).

I find it interesting and innovative in many respects, but overhyped. I have no interest in actually playing it.

I've mentioned my thoughts on C&C a few times already.  Here's what I had to say about it on the recent "Wanted to like but couldn't" thread:

QuoteI wanted a version of D&D that took out the complexity of 3e but left the clean design.

Instead I got something that had the clunky aspects of AD&D without the flavor, missing the options of 3e, and adding a completely unnecessary and counterintuitive mechanic with the SEIGE engine.

Then when everyone pointed out the flaws, they said "don't worry, we'll address all your concerns plus show you cool new stuff to do with the SEIGE engine in our soon to be released keeper's guide".

And a mere 7 years later, they released something that addressed none of those concerns but did manage to present reheated versions of old AD&D mechanics that no one cared about and a lite version of the mass combat rules they already had another book for.

Granted, it's not as depressing as, say, being a Mets fan, but there were definately some missed opportunities there for a clean, simple version of D&D Classic.

Quote from: Benoist;452282though I was tweaking with the SIEGE engine more than I would have wanted to. Bit by bit, however, I basically found out that I liked C&C more for its older bits than its "modern" ones

Same here.

In the C&C games I played in, we ended up dropping the SIEGE engine altogether which pretty much made C&C superfluous.

Given the pricing (page count is low for the price) and quality of the line  (needs a lot of proof reading) I would just go with one of the retro-clones. It not that C&C is bad, just there are better old school games out there.

Quote from: jgants;452286Granted, it's not as depressing as, say, being a Mets fan, but there were definately some missed opportunities there for a clean, simple version of D&D Classic.

The closest retroclone I can think of is Swords & Wizardry Core or Complete. They use ascending AC and the bonus to hit but not the multiclassing.

So what is your check list of rules out of the d20 SRD you would include?

Quote from: Benoist;452282I have no experience with the multiclassing system you're talking about (in the CKG I'd assume, since I haven't got that book),

Apparently, they were introduced in the 4e of the Player's Handbook.

C&C's development process and especially its simplified ("white box") edition were instrumental in my move from 3.0 to more old school systems, but I wanted more of d20's mechanical elegance than C&C provided, so we sort of parted ways and I gradually developed my house system. I do like the finished game, though, as a decent compromise system.

I had high expectations for the support material, too, but there, the game has been a disappointment. Most of the official modules I've seen for it have been mediocre (the main exceptions being Casey Christofferson's works), plus there was the whole Castle Zagyg disappointment.

I playtested C&C, and wrote for it - none of that latter part came to fruition.  I wrote for Gary, and when he passed away any and all projects being worked on by freelancers fell by the wayside.  I found, when I was doing things in modules that more often than not I consulted the Dungeon Masters Guide (1st edition AD&D) when I wanted to gin something up, generate a treasure, etc.

As to playing C&C, I found the Siege system, Primes, etc. not to my liking.  Once I removed, those, added AD&D stuff back, flipped the Armor Class system back to the way I liked it and on and on I was just playing AD&D so I quit bothering with it and just played AD&D.

Make of that what you will.

I like the SIEGE engine and Primes are a fun, fast way to add some differentiation and gave you a reason to play humans. I'd happily play C&C and I would happily run the game for C&C fans.  It's a good AD&D 2.5e, but TL dropped the ball rather badly.

That said, S&W:WB + house rules is my go-to OSR game.

I'm fairly sure we've had a similar thread a few months back.

What do you know, here it is!

The general consensus, though, is that it was too streamlined to appeal to the old school fans, who probably already owned AD&D 1e (or OD&D or whatever) and were more inclined to play it anyway.

The troubles with the Castle Zagyg series and the CKG didn't help either.

For myself, I feel that the SIEGE Engine and Primes introduces some new factors which make it weird in actual play (e.g. the Cleric is often better at finding traps than the Thief).

It's certainly not unplayable, though; I'm in the middle of a long-running game right now.

I read it when it was originally released. I thought it perfectly captured the feel of 1E. It also reminded me of why I do not play 1E any longer. I promptly sold it.

As much as I want to like it, I hate C&C it's sloppy, lacks rigor, and the siege engine sucks donkey balls.  Class abilities are poorly balanced in places, there are super weapons in the equipment list  You'd think I'd be happy to have a 1/10 / round crossbow but no, the bows really should have a rate of fire advantage.  It's an accumulation of little things that are capped with the horror of the siege engine.

If C&C had been better I wouldn't have writen Dark Passages (which I'm thinking about re-naming Obscure Passages since there's an OSR Dark Dungeons).

Just to hit on some salient points of things I changed in my game.

flat + level to d20 rolls if your class has a skill, this is a skill specific bonus

all hit dice by size with classes giving a bump up or a bump down

all weapon damages by weapon size, all tiny weapons do 1d4, all medium weapons do 1d8 and so forth

classes, races, and spells built with a system that can be used to build new calsses and races and spells, also used to design multiclasses so you're never paying for things you don't get because there are class overlaps

more focus on miniatures battle style play with a long term notion of retrocloning BattleSystem 2e and actually supporting it

I like C&C alot. It's good for a basic style 3e game, and the siege engine and added mechanics cuts out all the 3e math and lets combats go superfast like, which is a win in my book. It's also great for a quick two or three hour game.

Haven't put together a game for it in the last year or so though, cause I felt they really delivered CKG way too late. For the time they spent putting it together I expected some novel new play mechanics, and an overhaul of the 1e style generators geared towards Erde. Didn't see either in CKG.

As an example, with the Pathfinder GM Mastery Book, I was treated to haunts, which are unique locations where recurring encounters happen and also Hazards, which are like traps only natural.... Plus they threw in 50 pages on different types of adventuring, which for a GM's book serves as a handy reference... Plus they threw in pre-stated npcs.

I didn't see anything that especially caught my eye in the CKG however. Combined with the late (almost never) availability in print, I switched to 0D&D homebrew to fulfill my gaming needs.