SPECIAL NOTICE
Malicious code was found on the site, which has been removed, but would have been able to access files and the database, revealing email addresses, posts, and encoded passwords (which would need to be decoded). However, there is no direct evidence that any such activity occurred. REGARDLESS, BE SURE TO CHANGE YOUR PASSWORDS. And as is good practice, remember to never use the same password on more than one site. While performing housekeeping, we also decided to upgrade the forums.
This is a site for discussing roleplaying games. Have fun doing so, but there is one major rule: do not discuss political issues that aren't directly and uniquely related to the subject of the thread and about gaming. While this site is dedicated to free speech, the following will not be tolerated: devolving a thread into unrelated political discussion, sockpuppeting (using multiple and/or bogus accounts), disrupting topics without contributing to them, and posting images that could get someone fired in the workplace (an external link is OK, but clearly mark it as Not Safe For Work, or NSFW). If you receive a warning, please take it seriously and either move on to another topic or steer the discussion back to its original RPG-related theme.

Opinions on Castles & Crusades

Started by Dan Davenport, April 18, 2011, 02:11:30 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

Zachary The First

Hey Dan,

Here's a link to an article I wrote about my liking of C&C a couple years ago. The same points still apply for me.

Bottom line, it's a great meeting place between d20 and classic D&D.
RPG Blog 2

Currently Prepping: Castles & Crusades
Currently Reading/Brainstorming: Mythras
Currently Revisiting: Napoleonic/Age of Sail in Space

joewolz

I have never played an edition of D&D that was published before 3rd edition.  I have only played 3rd edition D&D twice, as in two sessions.  

I don't understand how C&C isn't exactly like the other old AD&D clones except it doesn't have thacko or negative AC nonsense.

That said, I LOVE C&C!  It's one of my favorite games, I love the simplicity, and the ability to use old D&D books (I particularly like the fluff from 2nd edition stuff) and 3rd-3.5 edition books without having to convert anything (except those damn ACs in the old games ) makes the game very approachable to me.  My friends and I have played C&C quite a bit.  I really have nothing but praise for the game.  However, I never approached it with any kind of nostalgia, so my conclusions are based entirely on C&C being my one and only "old school" experience.
-JFC Wolz
Co-host of 2 Gms, 1 Mic

Spinachcat

Quote from: joewolz;452393I don't understand how C&C isn't exactly like the other old AD&D clones except it doesn't have thacko or negative AC nonsense.

Awesome!

Somebody defibrilate Benoist and Dungeon Delver.

Akrasia

C&C is a solid d20 'old school' ersatz AD&D.  I'd gladly play in a C&C campaign.

Six years ago I was pretty damn enthusiastic about C&C -- as this review will attest.

These days, though, I prefer Swords & Wizardry (+ my house rules) for D&D-ish games.  I came to dislike the SIEGE mechanic in practice after a short C&C campaign.
RPG Blog: Akratic Wizardry (covering Cthulhu Mythos RPGs, TSR/OSR D&D, Mythras (RuneQuest 6), Crypts & Things, etc., as well as fantasy fiction, films, and the like).
Contributor to: Crypts & Things (old school \'swords & sorcery\'), Knockspell, and Fight On!

joewolz

I hear a lot of criticism of the siege engine, but when I play C&C, it almost never comes into play.  Very, very rarely.  I mean, how often do you roll for anything that's not combat?
-JFC Wolz
Co-host of 2 Gms, 1 Mic

KenHR

Quote from: joewolz;452430I hear a lot of criticism of the siege engine, but when I play C&C, it almost never comes into play.  Very, very rarely.  I mean, how often do you roll for anything that's not combat?

When I play games that have non-combat skills and such, I roll them quite a bit behind the screen.  For instance, I roll lots of perception checks in RoleMaster (or, years back, my heavily-houseruled AD&D games) to guide me in how detailed or accurate my descriptions should be.  I roll reaction checks to give me an idea how well NPCs react to what the PCs are saying.  Etc.

The thing is, I don't have the players make those rolls; I do them behind the screen while describing a scene, so it's essentially invisible to my players.
For fuck\'s sake, these are games, people.

And no one gives a fuck about your ignore list.


Gompan
band - other music

KenHR

Quote from: Spinachcat;452404Awesome!

Somebody defibrilate Benoist and Dungeon Delver.

Eh, leave 'em there.
For fuck\'s sake, these are games, people.

And no one gives a fuck about your ignore list.


Gompan
band - other music

The Butcher

Quote from: joewolz;452393I don't understand how C&C isn't exactly like the other old AD&D clones except it doesn't have THAC0 or negative AC nonsense.

Older editions of D&D do not use unified mechanics and instead have lots of quirky subsystems all over the place, for resolving different tasks.

I have nothing against unified resolution mechanics. I just think SIEGE, however sound on paper, is not a very good one in actual play.

But the game's still good. It's just not my go-to "classic fantasy game" experience anymore.

joewolz

Quote from: The Butcher;452440I have nothing against unified resolution mechanics. I just think SIEGE, however sound on paper, is not a very good one in actual play.

I can get that, but it so rarely comes up in actual play that I don't see how it's a hindrance.

What the hell is Thaco anyway?
-JFC Wolz
Co-host of 2 Gms, 1 Mic

thedungeondelver

Quote from: joewolz;452444I can get that, but it so rarely comes up in actual play that I don't see how it's a hindrance.

What the hell is Thaco anyway?

T.H.A.C.0: To-Hit Armor Class 0 (zero).

There is a handy section in the Dungeon Masters Guide for AD&D* that has stats-only for the monsters outlined in the Monster Manual as well as their XP values.

One of the columns lists "To-Hit Armor Class 0".  In AD&D this number is a baseline from which you can work backwards: if you need a 15 to hit armor class 0, then you need a 14 to hit A.C. 1, a 13 to hit A.C. 2, etc.

However, AD&D has "repeating 20s" for some to-hits.  That is, if your T.H.A.C.0 is a 20, your T.H.A.C. -1 is also a 20 - but requires a natural 20 with no bonuses; that is if you have a +1 longsword, and you roll a 19, the attack is still ineffectual.  It represents the dexterity, tough hide, luck, etc. of the target versus your otherwise stunning weapons-play :)

So T.H.A.C.0 isn't, and was never intended to be, a tool for calculating to-hit values for characters.  It's a minor reference point for monsters.  It's handy when you have creatures of a given hit-dice (say, stirges, who have 2+2HD) but attack as higher hit-dice creatures (stirges attack as 4HD monsters due to their agility and so on).

I don't know why - and I don't care, because I don't play the game - it got switched over into being the base mechanic of 2e AD&D.

...

*=in all cases unless otherwise specified I'm referring to 1e AD&D
THE DELVERS DUNGEON


Mcbobbo sums it up nicely.

Quote
Astrophysicists are reassessing Einsteinian relativity because the 28 billion l

PaladinCA

Quote from: The Butcher;452360I'm fairly sure we've had a similar thread a few months back.

What do you know, here it is!


After further review, I stand by my comments in that other thread.

If I want an experience similar to Basic D&D or AD&D, I'll go with Labyrinth Lord and the Advanced Companion book.

Benoist

Quote from: joewolz;452393I don't understand how C&C isn't exactly like the other old AD&D clones except it doesn't have thacko or negative AC nonsense.
The answer is part of your question! :D

THAC0 to me is a strict DM reference. It's not for player use. As for ascending v. descending AC, I just like descending AC better in AD&D's context. I tend to look at it more like armor types in a wargame than raw numbers. Just my mileage with it, I guess.

But yeah. Seriously, if you love C&C, it's great. Awesome for you, mate. Now, knowing most people don't want to read the same posts all over again about why d20 isn't AD&D and all, I'll just let you do a google search and read the zillion of threads on the topic on the intarwebz. If you don't get it now, you'll probably never get it. I'm fine with that.

Spinachcat

Quote from: joewolz;452444What the hell is Thaco anyway?

It's an embarrassment. How nobody figured out ascending AC in the 80s is laughably shameful. Palladium Fantasy came the closest. It's not like there weren't shelves of other fantasy RPGs. Hell, even the Wizardry video games used whackass descending AC. AAC is the one thing I am truly grateful for from D20.

thedungeondelver

Quote from: Spinachcat;452515It's an embarrassment. How nobody figured out ascending AC in the 80s is laughably shameful. Palladium Fantasy came the closest. It's not like there weren't shelves of other fantasy RPGs. Hell, even the Wizardry video games used whackass descending AC. AAC is the one thing I am truly grateful for from D20.

Yep, that sure is the best way to do things.

By the way, that was a 9th or 10th class post of yours up there, S-cat.
THE DELVERS DUNGEON


Mcbobbo sums it up nicely.

Quote
Astrophysicists are reassessing Einsteinian relativity because the 28 billion l

David Johansen

Actually Thieves Guild had ascending AC in the eighties.

The funny thing is they had AC 0 as unarmored and you had a THACO to which you added the target's AC :D
Fantasy Adventure Comic, games, and more http://www.uncouthsavage.com