Castles and Crusades Rules are Incomplete

Open Discussion on all things C&C from new product to general questions to the rules, the laws, and the chaos.
User avatar
Snoring Rock
Lore Drake
Posts: 1003
Joined: Mon Aug 09, 2010 7:00 am
Location: St. James, Missouri

Castles and Crusades Rules are Incomplete

Post by Snoring Rock »

I would like to see TLG go back, remove eratta and then list rules and effects like D20 did, in the PHB. For example; vulnerabilities. How about what does incorporeal mean? Unless you decide to define what that means yourself, and house rule it, there is nothing in the rules about it. I do not like having to fill the gaps myself with house rules.

Here is in example; I meet a ghost that is listed as incorpreal. So I think that means it can move through solid stone. Is it imune to standard attacks? Is a magic weapon required to hit it? Wait, before you tell me to go look up D20 SRD or Pathfinder, I must ask to see what Castles and Crusades has as a rule. If I have to go look it up in Pathfinder, then maybe that is the game I should playing. I should be able to look this up in the PHB or M&T. I am not asking for too much here.

There are things like cold iron and what affects it has, incorporeal, vulnerabilites to name a few. What does it mean to be vulnerable to cold iron? A ghast is listed that way, but what does that mean? According to D20 SRD it means that creature takes 1 1/2 damage from weapons of that material.

There was a thread on that subject here last week. Several folks chimed in but no one ever got it right. Well, my Pathfinder Core Rule Book had it right. It was nowhere to be found in any of the C&C rule books.

But I know that because I played D20 previously. What if D20 was not there? In order to understand some of the rules for C&C I must look up the rules of other games. I am starting to find that frustrating. I do not play a lot of high level games, but as my campaign advances and my group sticks to it, the more of this that comes up. I think C&C needs to stand by itself without relying on the players referring to or owning other rule books.

If I sound frustrated, well, I am. I love the ease and speed of play of C&C but it is a hard sell to Pathfinder players once they find missing rules and machanics in the game. I see them too. I am a big fan, but this is discouraging for lots of reasons.

User avatar
kreider204
Unkbartig
Posts: 830
Joined: Sat Jan 29, 2011 9:01 pm
Location: NE Wisconsin

Re: Castles and Crusades Rules are Incomplete

Post by kreider204 »

I sympathize with you. I love C&C - it's basically the version of D&D that I always wanted to play. But I get frustrated with the errata (even after several printings), omissions, etc. I still feel like I have to use my AD&D books just to play the game. It also makes me hesitant to recommend the game to others, especially those with experience with other D&D variants. For all the talk of new products, I'd much rather prefer that the PHB and M&T get cleaned up and completed once and for all.

User avatar
mmbutter
Red Cap
Posts: 352
Joined: Sat Jun 29, 2013 8:28 pm

Re: Castles and Crusades Rules are Incomplete

Post by mmbutter »

You can't ever write a set of rules that takes into account every situation. Games like RoleMaster and Advanced Squad Leader tried and not only do they get unwieldy, they get criticized because they are too long and too complex.

That's why there is a Castle Keeper - he decides what happens in situations where the rules are vague. This keeps the rules simple.

Besides, I don't want to play a game where the referee is just a walking, talking rulebook. This is supposed to be interactive story telling.

alcyone
Greater Lore Drake
Posts: 2727
Joined: Mon Oct 15, 2007 7:00 am
Location: The Court of the Crimson King

Re: Castles and Crusades Rules are Incomplete

Post by alcyone »

mmbutter wrote:Besides, I don't want to play a game where the referee is just a walking, talking rulebook. This is supposed to be interactive story telling.
I don't think it has to go to that extreme. Over the years people have pointed out some specific things that come up a lot, and they frustrate even experienced CKs who are comfortable with house-ruling.
My C&C stuff: www.rpggrognard.com

User avatar
kreider204
Unkbartig
Posts: 830
Joined: Sat Jan 29, 2011 9:01 pm
Location: NE Wisconsin

Re: Castles and Crusades Rules are Incomplete

Post by kreider204 »

mmbutter, I agree with you completely. I'm all about rules-light these days. I'm talking more about errata that have been pointed out printing after printing that still don't get corrected, including simple spelling, punctuation, and grammar errors (including on the back cover of the PHB!), clear omissions (e.g., special abilities or vulnerabilities for monsters that are listed in M&T but never explained), and so forth. It's not a matter of making things rules-heavy; it's about clearly and professionally presenting the rules you choose to include in the first place.

User avatar
Snoring Rock
Lore Drake
Posts: 1003
Joined: Mon Aug 09, 2010 7:00 am
Location: St. James, Missouri

Re: Castles and Crusades Rules are Incomplete

Post by Snoring Rock »

kreider204 wrote:mmbutter, I agree with you completely. I'm all about rules-light these days. I'm talking more about errata that have been pointed out printing after printing that still don't get corrected, including simple spelling, punctuation, and grammar errors (including on the back cover of the PHB!), clear omissions (e.g., special abilities or vulnerabilities for monsters that are listed in M&T but never explained), and so forth. It's not a matter of making things rules-heavy; it's about clearly and professionally presenting the rules you choose to include in the first place.
Correct. We do not look for a top-heavy set of rules, just consistent clarity. If you have never played D20, then it would be impossible to understand something like "incorporeal" in the stat block. You would not untuitively know that means that it takes magic weapons to hit and even if you do hit it, with a corporeal source, magic or not, it only does 1/2 damage. You would not know that it takes full damage from magical force sources. You would not know that the creature can be hit if someone holding their "action" in the same round is waiting to hit it if it comes out of the wall. This is not "CK rules on the spot" stuff here.

And it is frustrating. This drives players away from the game.

User avatar
mmbutter
Red Cap
Posts: 352
Joined: Sat Jun 29, 2013 8:28 pm

Re: Castles and Crusades Rules are Incomplete

Post by mmbutter »

Snoring Rock wrote:If you have never played D20, then it would be impossible to understand something like "incorporeal" in the stat block. You would not untuitively know that means that it takes magic weapons to hit and even if you do hit it, with a corporeal source, magic or not, it only does 1/2 damage. You would not know that it takes full damage from magical force sources. You would not know that the creature can be hit if someone holding their "action" in the same round is waiting to hit it if it comes out of the wall. This is not "CK rules on the spot" stuff here.
Well, actually, I would just look at the creature's description, which explains that incorporeal means that only magical weapons can hit the creature from the mortal plane. (For this example, I'm looking at page 38 of the M&T book, entry for "Ghost".)

The rest of your description comes from D20 and only applies to D20. I, as CK, would rule that normal weapons do no damage, magical weapons do full damage. I wouldn't need to reference anything except the C&C rules. I don't know why you think that the D20 way of handling "incorporeal" is the only way.

User avatar
Snoring Rock
Lore Drake
Posts: 1003
Joined: Mon Aug 09, 2010 7:00 am
Location: St. James, Missouri

Re: Castles and Crusades Rules are Incomplete

Post by Snoring Rock »

mmbutter wrote:
Snoring Rock wrote:If you have never played D20, then it would be impossible to understand something like "incorporeal" in the stat block. You would not untuitively know that means that it takes magic weapons to hit and even if you do hit it, with a corporeal source, magic or not, it only does 1/2 damage. You would not know that it takes full damage from magical force sources. You would not know that the creature can be hit if someone holding their "action" in the same round is waiting to hit it if it comes out of the wall. This is not "CK rules on the spot" stuff here.
Well, actually, I would just look at the creature's description, which explains that incorporeal means that only magical weapons can hit the creature from the mortal plane. (For this example, I'm looking at page 38 of the M&T book, entry for "Ghost".)

The rest of your description comes from D20 and only applies to D20. I, as CK, would rule that normal weapons do no damage, magical weapons do full damage. I wouldn't need to reference anything except the C&C rules. I don't know why you think that the D20 way of handling "incorporeal" is the only way.
Well, any time someone has a question like this, the answer is normally to go look it up on D20SRD. So I checked on ghost, which does have an entry on "Incorporeal" however, wraith and spectre do not. They list it under "Combat" another inconsistancy I find aggrivating.

So, what does it mean to be vulnerable? What is a vulnerability? A ghast has vulnerability to cold iron. What page explans that?

User avatar
mmbutter
Red Cap
Posts: 352
Joined: Sat Jun 29, 2013 8:28 pm

Re: Castles and Crusades Rules are Incomplete

Post by mmbutter »

Snoring Rock wrote:So, what does it mean to be vulnerable? What is a vulnerability? A ghast has vulnerability to cold iron. What page explans that?
Perhaps an English dictionary would be of use here?

Treebore
Mogrl
Posts: 20660
Joined: Mon May 01, 2006 7:00 am
Location: Arizona and St Louis

Re: Castles and Crusades Rules are Incomplete

Post by Treebore »

Yeah, there are certainly a number of things that have bothered me over the years. Which is a large part of why my house rules are 14 or so printed pages long. Even so, there is a fair amount not in my house rules, but that is because I remember things well enough from all the prior editions of D&D that when asked how it is in my games, I just quote those rules without even looking most of the time. When I do need to look it up I usually just go to the 3E SRD, because I know that has it covered somewhere, and is much easier to find than it would be in the 1E DMG. I never use the 2E DMG. I've disliked that book since day 1.

What have the Trolls said about it, when they even bother to answer? Its one of those many things they have left up to the CK to define as they want it to be in their personal game. Which is fine. I have embraced that and don't even bring it up any more. I just do it how I want it to be done.

I totally agree that this "attitude" has greatly hurt C&C's ability to be used by more "old" players, let alone pick up completely new RPG players. A lot of people don't want to have to put that much thought and effort into making their game "work". So rather than do so they move on to games that spell it all out for them.

Yet the Trolls seem happy to leave C&C as it is. So it sells as it sells.
Since its 20,000 I suggest "Captain Nemo" as his title. Beyond the obvious connection, he is one who sails on his own terms and ignores those he doesn't agree with...confident in his journey and goals.
Sounds obvious to me! -Gm Michael

Grand Knight Commander of the Society.

User avatar
Snoring Rock
Lore Drake
Posts: 1003
Joined: Mon Aug 09, 2010 7:00 am
Location: St. James, Missouri

Re: Castles and Crusades Rules are Incomplete

Post by Snoring Rock »

That's just it Tree, for a rules light games system, there sure is a lot of work. That little bit of cleanup on the rules would go a long way. You get more players, and thus more 3rd party publishers creating adventures, and thus, more players....

It could attract something big eventually.

User avatar
mmbutter
Red Cap
Posts: 352
Joined: Sat Jun 29, 2013 8:28 pm

Re: Castles and Crusades Rules are Incomplete

Post by mmbutter »

Someone looking for a "rules-light" system is not looking for a system where everything is spelled out in the rules. That's kinda the *opposite* of "rules-light". I don't know where you get your definition of a "rules-light" system, but most people think of a system where very little is spelled out in the rules other than basic mechanics and most of the fleshing out is left to the GM. I've seen "rules-light" systems that had the entire rules on a single piece of paper.

User avatar
redwullf
Ulthal
Posts: 651
Joined: Tue Jun 07, 2011 9:28 pm
Contact:

Re: Castles and Crusades Rules are Incomplete

Post by redwullf »

Snoring Rock, I get where you're coming from, but I agree with mmbutter. The point of rules light is to allow for GM rulings and adjudication, rather than documenting every condition and situation. Also, in regard to the specific matter of "incorporeal" creatures, every entry for an incorporeal creature in M&T explains what that means in game terms (need a magic weapon to hit).

It sounds like perhaps a D20 game like Pathfinder is just more your cup of tea. It's my weekly group's game of choice, though I personally would prefer something more rules light like C&C or possibly even D&D 5e, when it's finalized.
Image
"The worthy GM never purposely kills players' PCs. He presents opportunities
for the rash and unthinking players to do that all on their own.” -- E. G. G.

--------------------------------------------------
Castles & Crusades Society Member

User avatar
Omote
Battle Stag
Posts: 11560
Joined: Wed May 03, 2006 7:00 am
Location: The fairest view in the park, Ohio.
Contact:

Re: Castles and Crusades Rules are Incomplete

Post by Omote »

The incorporeal special ability is listed under the Ghost entry in the M&T. That's all there is to it. No big deal.

Excuse my ignorance in this topic, but was "incorporeal" ever discussed in the 1st and 2nd edition of D&D other than in the monster's entry?

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

User avatar
Rigon
Clang lives!
Posts: 7202
Joined: Mon May 01, 2006 7:00 am
Location: Conneaut Lake, PA

Re: Castles and Crusades Rules are Incomplete

Post by Rigon »

Here is the write up for incorporeal in the ghost entery:

Incorporeal: Ghosts exist only partially within the mortal realms, most of their essence resides in the ethereal. A creature on the mortal realms cannot attack a ghost except with silvered or magical weapons, though a creature in the ethereal can attack the ghost’s manifestation there with normal
weapons.

And like O said, how much was it discussed in 1e and 2e? I don't remember it being all that well defined.

R-
Castles & Crusades: What 3rd Edition AD&D should have been.
TLG Forum Moderator
House Rules & Whatnots
My Game Threads
Monday Night Online Group Member since 2007

User avatar
Arduin
Greater Lore Drake
Posts: 4045
Joined: Tue Sep 27, 2011 6:12 pm
Location: Granite quarry

Re: Castles and Crusades Rules are Incomplete

Post by Arduin »

redwullf wrote:Snoring Rock, I get where you're coming from, but I agree with mmbutter. The point of rules light is to allow for GM rulings and adjudication, rather than documenting every condition and situation. Also, in regard to the specific matter of "incorporeal" creatures, every entry for an incorporeal creature in M&T explains what that means in game terms (need a magic weapon to hit).

It sounds like perhaps a D20 game like Pathfinder is just more your cup of tea. It's my weekly group's game of choice, though I personally would prefer something more rules light like C&C or possibly even D&D 5e, when it's finalized.
Yes, C&C has enough rules for me. I don't need more. If I want that I can crack open PF or 3.x and spent 3 days creating a single 1st level PC. :lol:
Old age and treachery will overcome youth and skill

House Rules

User avatar
Snoring Rock
Lore Drake
Posts: 1003
Joined: Mon Aug 09, 2010 7:00 am
Location: St. James, Missouri

Re: Castles and Crusades Rules are Incomplete

Post by Snoring Rock »

No, I don't go that far. I will not roll dice at the same table where one of those ten-pound books sits. I do not like the rules, feats, ways around the rules, rules about skipping rules, etc.....

The point here is that if it is under the incorporeal listing then it should have the same listing for each incorporeal creature. CONSISTENCY is what I would like to see. I never said a damn thing about wanting every single thing spelled out.

User avatar
kreider204
Unkbartig
Posts: 830
Joined: Sat Jan 29, 2011 9:01 pm
Location: NE Wisconsin

Re: Castles and Crusades Rules are Incomplete

Post by kreider204 »

Snoring Rock wrote:I never said a damn thing about wanting every single thing spelled out.
Ditto. I feel as though we've been very clear, and yet some people seem to be arguing against things we didn't say. I don't have the patience to repeat myself, so I'll simply refer people to my initial post, and bow out gracefully before things get nasty ...

User avatar
Dracyian
Unkbartig
Posts: 877
Joined: Mon Mar 18, 2013 3:22 pm
Location: Eastern Wisconsin

Re: Castles and Crusades Rules are Incomplete

Post by Dracyian »

Snoring Rock wrote:No, I don't go that far. I will not roll dice at the same table where one of those ten-pound books sits. I do not like the rules, feats, ways around the rules, rules about skipping rules, etc.....

The point here is that if it is under the incorporeal listing then it should have the same listing for each incorporeal creature. CONSISTENCY is what I would like to see. I never said a damn thing about wanting every single thing spelled out.
And take away the Arknsas back country hick feel from TLG :shock:

Treebore
Mogrl
Posts: 20660
Joined: Mon May 01, 2006 7:00 am
Location: Arizona and St Louis

Re: Castles and Crusades Rules are Incomplete

Post by Treebore »

Some things need to be fixed. Like how all the various magical armor bonus' stack, or that Minor Globe of Invulnerability can never block/stop Phantasmal Killer, and clearly defining the terms a game uses in one consistent spot, such as in the front of the M&T is not, in any way, making C&C not be a "rules lite" game, its just making what is there complete and easy to find. After all, "rules lite" is supposed to be about "fast play", and you lose that as soon as you have to start page flipping to find the odd ball spot where it is defined. Even more so when your converting. I want to know how "incorporeal" is defined in C&C, not search for it if I don't immediately remember its defined in the "Ghost" description. Plus its not like Ghost is the only incorporeal creature in C&C monster books. Off the top of my head at least the Wraith and Spectre are also incorporeal.

Defining everything else in one place, something called a "Glossary" would be super sweet. Something even 1E AD&D did a pretty decent job of doing in the back of the DMG. I believe everyone here considers 1E AD&D a "rules lite" game, and it defined EVERYTHING brought up in this thread. Including armor stacking and incorporeal. Maybe some people think of 1E AD&D as rules lite because they never read most of the rules or definitions? We were all pretty young back then, I can see that happening.
Since its 20,000 I suggest "Captain Nemo" as his title. Beyond the obvious connection, he is one who sails on his own terms and ignores those he doesn't agree with...confident in his journey and goals.
Sounds obvious to me! -Gm Michael

Grand Knight Commander of the Society.

User avatar
Dracyian
Unkbartig
Posts: 877
Joined: Mon Mar 18, 2013 3:22 pm
Location: Eastern Wisconsin

Re: Castles and Crusades Rules are Incomplete

Post by Dracyian »

Appendices would be nice too, like a monster type appendice, negative and positive buff appendice, I don't know the legality of it but maybe even a conversion formula appendice. This is all stuff that we can make as a quick search supplement to the CKG, include a monster table appendice that acts as an index but has a monster table sorted by HD, Treasure Type, EXP, and Type each seperate

Treebore
Mogrl
Posts: 20660
Joined: Mon May 01, 2006 7:00 am
Location: Arizona and St Louis

Re: Castles and Crusades Rules are Incomplete

Post by Treebore »

Dracyian wrote:Appendices would be nice too, like a monster type appendice, negative and positive buff appendice, I don't know the legality of it but maybe even a conversion formula appendice. This is all stuff that we can make as a quick search supplement to the CKG, include a monster table appendice that acts as an index but has a monster table sorted by HD, Treasure Type, EXP, and Type each seperate
I think Kim has some like that in Classic Monsters. I'll try and give it a look soon.
Since its 20,000 I suggest "Captain Nemo" as his title. Beyond the obvious connection, he is one who sails on his own terms and ignores those he doesn't agree with...confident in his journey and goals.
Sounds obvious to me! -Gm Michael

Grand Knight Commander of the Society.

User avatar
Buttmonkey
Greater Lore Drake
Posts: 2031
Joined: Fri Jun 15, 2007 7:00 am

Re: Castles and Crusades Rules are Incomplete

Post by Buttmonkey »

Treebore wrote:I believe everyone here considers 1E AD&D a "rules lite" game
Not me.
tylermo wrote:Your efforts are greatly appreciated, Buttmonkey. Can't believe I said that with a straight face.

User avatar
Arduin
Greater Lore Drake
Posts: 4045
Joined: Tue Sep 27, 2011 6:12 pm
Location: Granite quarry

Re: Castles and Crusades Rules are Incomplete

Post by Arduin »

Buttmonkey wrote:
Treebore wrote:I believe everyone here considers 1E AD&D a "rules lite" game
Not me.
Same here. Weapon speed factors and other rules come to mind...
Old age and treachery will overcome youth and skill

House Rules

Treebore
Mogrl
Posts: 20660
Joined: Mon May 01, 2006 7:00 am
Location: Arizona and St Louis

Re: Castles and Crusades Rules are Incomplete

Post by Treebore »

Well, its a hell of a lot "liter" than 2E with the Options and Complete books, and even a hell of a lot more "liter" than 3E or 4E. So at least comparatively, it is. Plus outside of my own game, I never saw anyone using Weapon speeds or weapon versus armor tables. Those were ignored. Heck, back during the 1E days a lot fo rules were ignored, or simply never "known", because I ran into several GM's who had house rules for things actually covered in the rules, but they never spotted them.
Since its 20,000 I suggest "Captain Nemo" as his title. Beyond the obvious connection, he is one who sails on his own terms and ignores those he doesn't agree with...confident in his journey and goals.
Sounds obvious to me! -Gm Michael

Grand Knight Commander of the Society.

User avatar
NJPDX
Hlobane Orc
Posts: 102
Joined: Sun Jun 09, 2013 5:39 am
Location: Portland, OR

Re: Castles and Crusades Rules are Incomplete

Post by NJPDX »

Treebore wrote:Well, its a hell of a lot "liter" than 2E with the Options and Complete books, and even a hell of a lot more "liter" than 3E or 4E. So at least comparatively, it is. Plus outside of my own game, I never saw anyone using Weapon speeds or weapon versus armor tables. Those were ignored. Heck, back during the 1E days a lot fo rules were ignored, or simply never "known", because I ran into several GM's who had house rules for things actually covered in the rules, but they never spotted them.
My memory is a little hazy, but if I recall AD&D books were often used as "enhancements" for the Moldvay Basic/Expert sets for a lot of people. That's certainly how my little game group in middle school and high school used them. When I go back and read through the DMG and PHB it occurs to me that all we used on a regular basis were the classes, spells, monsters and magic items as bolted on bits. Weapon speeds, segments, variable to-hit bonuses and penalties by weapon type, etc.; none of that ever found its way into the games we ran.

Treebore
Mogrl
Posts: 20660
Joined: Mon May 01, 2006 7:00 am
Location: Arizona and St Louis

Re: Castles and Crusades Rules are Incomplete

Post by Treebore »

NJPDX wrote:
Treebore wrote:Well, its a hell of a lot "liter" than 2E with the Options and Complete books, and even a hell of a lot more "liter" than 3E or 4E. So at least comparatively, it is. Plus outside of my own game, I never saw anyone using Weapon speeds or weapon versus armor tables. Those were ignored. Heck, back during the 1E days a lot fo rules were ignored, or simply never "known", because I ran into several GM's who had house rules for things actually covered in the rules, but they never spotted them.
My memory is a little hazy, but if I recall AD&D books were often used as "enhancements" for the Moldvay Basic/Expert sets for a lot of people. That's certainly how my little game group in middle school and high school used them. When I go back and read through the DMG and PHB it occurs to me that all we used on a regular basis were the classes, spells, monsters and magic items as bolted on bits. Weapon speeds, segments, variable to-hit bonuses and penalties by weapon type, etc.; none of that ever found its way into the games we ran.
Yeah, that is what I saw where I was gaming too. I was the only one I knew who ran a "pure" 1E game. Even I didn't run it completely pure, but I used far less stuff from other games than what I saw. Plus like I mentioned above, some GM's had such rules they stole from other sources, or came up with on their own, because they never found it in the 1E books. Which I completely understand. I'd never accuse the 1E books of being well organized, well laid out, or well written. It took many read throughs to find everything that would be relevant to running your game. Which is definitely one great things about C&C, read the stuff about the SIEGE engine and you pretty much know everything you need to know. Only spells and special combat maneuvers really add any confusion.
Since its 20,000 I suggest "Captain Nemo" as his title. Beyond the obvious connection, he is one who sails on his own terms and ignores those he doesn't agree with...confident in his journey and goals.
Sounds obvious to me! -Gm Michael

Grand Knight Commander of the Society.

User avatar
Arduin
Greater Lore Drake
Posts: 4045
Joined: Tue Sep 27, 2011 6:12 pm
Location: Granite quarry

Re: Castles and Crusades Rules are Incomplete

Post by Arduin »

NJPDX wrote:
My memory is a little hazy, but if I recall AD&D books were often used as "enhancements" for the Moldvay Basic/Expert sets for a lot of people. That's certainly how my little game group in middle school and high school used them. When I go back and read through the DMG and PHB it occurs to me that all we used on a regular basis were the classes, spells, monsters and magic items as bolted on bits. Weapon speeds, segments, variable to-hit bonuses and penalties by weapon type, etc.; none of that ever found its way into the games we ran.
Could be. I played it as an adult and we used most of the rules and we didn't play with anything from Basic/Expert. I don't think anyone who I played with over the years did either.
Old age and treachery will overcome youth and skill

House Rules

Treebore
Mogrl
Posts: 20660
Joined: Mon May 01, 2006 7:00 am
Location: Arizona and St Louis

Re: Castles and Crusades Rules are Incomplete

Post by Treebore »

Arduin wrote:
NJPDX wrote:
My memory is a little hazy, but if I recall AD&D books were often used as "enhancements" for the Moldvay Basic/Expert sets for a lot of people. That's certainly how my little game group in middle school and high school used them. When I go back and read through the DMG and PHB it occurs to me that all we used on a regular basis were the classes, spells, monsters and magic items as bolted on bits. Weapon speeds, segments, variable to-hit bonuses and penalties by weapon type, etc.; none of that ever found its way into the games we ran.
Could be. I played it as an adult and we used most of the rules and we didn't play with anything from Basic/Expert. I don't think anyone who I played with over the years did either.
Yeah, adults tend to follow the rules more. Pretty sure everyone I was running into had played since they were in Middle or High School. I started playing after I was in the Navy, so was in the "follow the written rules" kind of mentality.
Since its 20,000 I suggest "Captain Nemo" as his title. Beyond the obvious connection, he is one who sails on his own terms and ignores those he doesn't agree with...confident in his journey and goals.
Sounds obvious to me! -Gm Michael

Grand Knight Commander of the Society.

alcyone
Greater Lore Drake
Posts: 2727
Joined: Mon Oct 15, 2007 7:00 am
Location: The Court of the Crimson King

Re: Castles and Crusades Rules are Incomplete

Post by alcyone »

Yeah, when I was a kid I had Mentzer Basic and played in a Moldvay game (not that we really noted a difference besides arguing about whether Morgan Ironwolf or Aleena were hotter. Aleena, of course, duh.) Then a friend of mine got some AD&D books (PHB and MM) from a neighbor who stopped playing. So, we started playing with PHB and MM from AD&D and used the Basic DMG for anything we needed that wasn't in those books. We knew it was kind of wrong, but we sure didn't have money to go out and acquire an AD&D DMG and it wasn't clear what books we needed anyway, without someone to ask.

Somehow it seemed to work, though we cared a lot less about how things were supposed to work.
My C&C stuff: www.rpggrognard.com

Post Reply