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

Re: Castles and Crusades Rules are Incomplete

Post by Buttmonkey »

Like most, my group used the combat engine from B/X and all of the classes, equipment, spells, magic items, and monsters from 1E, although we didn't know it. We were taught "on the job" by the DM and my dad. I just assumed we were playing RAW. As a practical matter, the Frankenstein version of D&D we were playing was relatively rules lite, especially when compared to something like 3E or Pathfinder. I still say 1E, as written, is not rules lite. There is plenty of crunch there, even if it doesn't reach the bloat of Pathfinder. 1E is only arguably rules lite after you strip out all of the stuff you don't understand or decide isn't worth it.
tylermo wrote:Your efforts are greatly appreciated, Buttmonkey. Can't believe I said that with a straight face.

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 »

One thing we can agree on (I hope) is that C&C is more rules "lite" than 1E AD&D. Last year one of my C&C groups (not run by me, I play) decided to do a game using 1E AD&D. By the time we got to 3rd or 4th level we decided to switch back to C&C because it is simpler. Now we are 7th or 8th level, depending on class/XP earned.
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 »

Treebore wrote:One thing we can agree on (I hope) is that C&C is more rules "lite" than 1E AD&D. Last year one of my C&C groups (not run by me, I play) decided to do a game using 1E AD&D. By the time we got to 3rd or 4th level we decided to switch back to C&C because it is simpler. Now we are 7th or 8th level, depending on class/XP earned.
This
Old age and treachery will overcome youth and skill

House Rules

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:One thing we can agree on (I hope) is that C&C is more rules "lite" than 1E AD&D.
Absolutely.
tylermo wrote:Your efforts are greatly appreciated, Buttmonkey. Can't believe I said that with a straight face.

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 »

I think so. I think AD&D in some cases was counter-intuitive.

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 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.
Alrighty then. It sounds like you want some things spelled out (such as what "incorporeal" means for every incorporeal creature), but not everything spelled out. Perhaps you feel that 3x/Pathfinder is ridicules, but you feel that C&C is just a bit too rules light and needs some additional clarification for certain game elements. So the question then becomes, who decides what other information needs to be provided, and what doesn't? What gaps need to be filled before it's just right for you, but doesn't exceed your threshold of too many rules (like 3x/Pathfinder)?

Given that desire, you really have 2 choices. 1) You can appeal to the Trolls with the things you'd like to see fixed in an upcoming edition of the game (provide specifics with plenty of detail). Good luck with that. 2) You can house rule your game, in the grand 40-year tradition of D&D.

Since most gamers who prefer "rules light" versions tend to house rule, it seems logical to refer to a source of information that is already complete, rather than creating house rules from scratch. Since C&C is a "d20-like" game, it further makes sense to refer to the SRD for ideas, guidance, or straight up details about rules you think should be explicit in C&C. For this reason, people encourage you to check there for clarification.

If you want to use "conditions" in your C&C game that are universally defined, why create new rules for "dazed," "entangled," "incorporeal," etc? Why not take the conditions as they are already defined in the SRD and add them to your game, in a modular format.
Incorporeal: Creatures with the incorporeal condition do not have a physical body. Incorporeal creatures are immune to all nonmagical attack forms. Incorporeal creatures take half damage (50%) from magic weapons, spells, spell-like effects, and supernatural effects. Incorporeal creatures take full damage from other incorporeal creatures and effects, as well as all force effects.
The "rule" already exists and can easily be applied to any incorporeal creature in your game. You've filled a perceived gap in the rule set and can now sleep easy at night.

EDIT: I really feel that C&C was designed in the tradition of 1e AD&D. Consistency, as you've observed, wasn't necessarily a priority in that game set, nor is it a priority in this one. Conditions like "incorporeal" could be different from one incorporeal creature to the next, and that condition was defined in each creature's text block. The long and the short of it is that a rules heavy game has consistency (or at least should), so that "conditions" or "features" become universally applicable. When a creature is incorporeal, you can rest assured it will be no different in that regard than any other incorporeal creature. If something "entangles" you, you can rest assured that this condition is no different than if something else had entangled you.

In my opinion, C&C just isn't that kind of game. It's a framework, and you need to add to it what you want. If I sounded snarky above or earlier, I really wasn't trying to come off that way. I really think that you're grievance with C&C is either, A) Something you need to solve with your own house rules or, B) A sign that perhaps it's just not the game for you. I know I suggested Pathfinder earlier, but there's a BROAD spectrum of fantasy RPGs out there to try. If there are gaps in this game that you don't want to fill on your own, find another game that fills those gaps.

I say this because the issue you raise is one that I can personally relate to. I think C&C is just the right amount of "rules light" for me, but that is NOT the case for my other regular players. They prefer something more crunchy with more player options. Hence we play Pathfinder. The key is to find the right game that works for you and your group.
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
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 »

You have a good point. I should just define conditions that I feel need definition for smooth play, and add them to my house rules. I will have to take it on a case by case basis. I have to live with what comes with rules light. I just cant bear to go back to straight up D20.

Thanks Redwullf

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: EDIT: I really feel that C&C was designed in the tradition of 1e AD&D. Consistency, as you've observed, wasn't necessarily a priority in that game set, nor is it a priority in this one. Conditions like "incorporeal" could be different from one incorporeal creature to the next, and that condition was defined in each creature's text block. The long and the short of it is that a rules heavy game has consistency (or at least should), so that "conditions" or "features" become universally applicable. When a creature is incorporeal, you can rest assured it will be no different in that regard than any other incorporeal creature. If something "entangles" you, you can rest assured that this condition is no different than if something else had entangled you.
Reading that part in particular reminded me of what made my early D&D player experience neat. It was that sense of unknown. I didn't know what that never before encountered "monster" was all about. Just because I knew kinda what it was didn't mean I could put it into a predefined box.

A made up example: "That translucent thing just passed right through that pillar and is coming after me!" (I didn't immediately KNOW how it could or, could not be attacked.) Think about it from a player viewpoint. Excitement, fear, wonder, etc...
Old age and treachery will overcome youth and skill

House Rules

User avatar
Julian Grimm
Greater Lore Drake
Posts: 4514
Joined: Thu May 11, 2006 7:00 am
Location: SW Missouri
Contact:

Re: Castles and Crusades Rules are Incomplete

Post by Julian Grimm »

I would have to say that there is an incomplete feel to the game especially when you are coming into the game from AD&D or even D20 D&D. I know that my game has filled in the blanks with material from the SRD to add in an air of completeness to the rules. Things like gaps in the spell lists, gaps in the monster roster and how certain things work have all been smoothed over by conversion from the SRD to C&C. While I do like the rules light feel of the game it has become more of a supplement to (A)D&D rather than a full on game itself.

This is one thing that I hope TLG does address before D&D Next is released because I can see players jumping ship from C&C to Next for a more 'complete' game.
Lord Skystorm

Grand Knight Commander KoTC, Member C&CS

Donner Party Meats: We're here to serve YOU!

AD&D per se is as dead a system as Latin is a language, while the C&C game has much the same spirit and nearly the same mechanics. --Gary Gygax 8/16/06

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 »

Julian Grimm wrote:Things like gaps in the spell lists, gaps in the monster roster and how certain things work have all been smoothed over by conversion from the SRD to C&C.
That is obviously HIGHLY subjective. ANY spell from D20 games not in C&C could be called a gap. But one would have to make a more convincing argument than just that statement.
Old age and treachery will overcome youth and skill

House Rules

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 »

unfortunately there will almost always be gaps in bringing over work from SRD to C&C the reasoning being is that they are constantly looking how to make the game better by improving classes, the core mechanics of the game, giving out adventures and other supplemental material and creating tools to enhance the game with depending on your style of play, that unfortunately does not include reprinting already written and workable spells and monsters due to probably a list of reasons including but not limited to they are already in print and the conversions aren't too hard if you really want them, product identity or Steve just forgot. I have a feeling the last reason may be one of the more prominent ones lol

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 »

Regarding this point, and am so happy that TLG decided not to include every spell from the SRD. I think C&C got it 100% right in regards to magic and spell lists. In my opinion, d20 put too many spells in the base game. d20 more or less merged the forms of magic so that each class has a spell list that could help itself cover abilities that core class didn't have. In effect, the classes that could cast spells had a spell to make up for some deficiency in the class. I did not like that, not one bit. With C&C the spells from each class are unique and do not blur the lines between divine magic versus arcane which d20 did. The possible exception to that statement is illusionist healing, which is supposed to be very different from clerical healing -- that point is debatable. Another point I like is that there aren't a half-dozen spells in C&C which grant the wizard more AC. If I recall right, there were a great many spells in d20 that gave the wizard more AC. C&C has only a few scant spells regarding this. Wizards do not deserve to have ACs like fighter-types. As a player, find another way around that.

~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
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 »

Omote wrote:Regarding this point, and am so happy that TLG decided not to include every spell from the SRD. I think C&C got it 100% right in regards to magic and spell lists. In my opinion, d20 put too many spells in the base game. d20 more or less merged the forms of magic so that each class has a spell list that could help itself cover abilities that core class didn't have. In effect, the classes that could cast spells had a spell to make up for some deficiency in the class. I did not like that, not one bit. With C&C the spells from each class are unique and do not blur the lines between divine magic versus arcane which d20 did. The possible exception to that statement is illusionist healing, which is supposed to be very different from clerical healing -- that point is debatable. Another point I like is that there aren't a half-dozen spells in C&C which grant the wizard more AC. If I recall right, there were a great many spells in d20 that gave the wizard more AC. C&C has only a few scant spells regarding this. Wizards do not deserve to have ACs like fighter-types. As a player, find another way around that.

~O
Yes, this was a HUGE problem in 3.x. "Buff" spells. Coupled with the universal XP chart this completely unbalanced spell casters at mid-high level. Which lead to the nuttiness that was the "prestige" classes.
Old age and treachery will overcome youth and skill

House Rules

User avatar
Julian Grimm
Greater Lore Drake
Posts: 4514
Joined: Thu May 11, 2006 7:00 am
Location: SW Missouri
Contact:

Re: Castles and Crusades Rules are Incomplete

Post by Julian Grimm »

Arduin wrote:
Julian Grimm wrote:Things like gaps in the spell lists, gaps in the monster roster and how certain things work have all been smoothed over by conversion from the SRD to C&C.
That is obviously HIGHLY subjective. ANY spell from D20 games not in C&C could be called a gap. But one would have to make a more convincing argument than just that statement.
Call it subjective all you want. There are certain things that one would assume the game would contain given it being a derivative of the SRD. Friends of mine have looked at the books and their first questions have always been to ask where certain things are. Going through the spell lists a wizard would ask where Mage Armor is or why Grease was not included, fighters would ask questions about the description of certain pieces of equipment and I would hand them my AD&D or 3.X PHB. This got to be such a common occurrence that my DM/CK notebook now has a section of printouts to handle these questions. Now when they want this info they get handed the binder to help make spell or equipment choices. Furthermore, there is an entire section in my binder of monsters that were not included in M&T that have been reintroduced as they were both staples of the game or S&S fiction.

Now, I am not talking about the copyrighted material that WOTC has withheld as IP. I am talking about things that have become so common to a D&D type game that they have been taken for granted. Nor am I talking about house rules or home brewed material. This is stuff that had to be reintroduced to C&C to make it the experience that the players wanted and remembered as (A)D&D. In fact, my best friend and co-conspirator in my campaign has commented that we would be better off playing a modified AD&D rather than C&C if this much work had to be put into the game.

See, the point is that there are people that come into C&C wanting something similar to their AD&D or even D20 games. When they find that to get that experience they will ultimately have to do a large amount of work to do so, they will look at another game. In all honesty the only thing I am saying is that TLG needs to consider adding in three things: The rest of the SRD spell lists, equipment descriptions and the rest of the SRD monsters. I would be the first in line to buy something that included these even if it is just a supplement to the game.
Lord Skystorm

Grand Knight Commander KoTC, Member C&CS

Donner Party Meats: We're here to serve YOU!

AD&D per se is as dead a system as Latin is a language, while the C&C game has much the same spirit and nearly the same mechanics. --Gary Gygax 8/16/06

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 »

Julian Grimm wrote:
There are certain things that one would assume the game would contain given it being a derivative of the SRD.
Again, subjective. There are certain things YOU expect. I expected pretty much what C&C is. :roll:
Old age and treachery will overcome youth and skill

House Rules

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 »

Arduin wrote:
Julian Grimm wrote:
There are certain things that one would assume the game would contain given it being a derivative of the SRD.
Again, subjective. There are certain things YOU expect. I expected pretty much what C&C turned out to be. :roll:
Old age and treachery will overcome youth and skill

House Rules

User avatar
Julian Grimm
Greater Lore Drake
Posts: 4514
Joined: Thu May 11, 2006 7:00 am
Location: SW Missouri
Contact:

Re: Castles and Crusades Rules are Incomplete

Post by Julian Grimm »

Arduin wrote:
Julian Grimm wrote:
There are certain things that one would assume the game would contain given it being a derivative of the SRD.
Again, subjective. There are certain things YOU expect. I expected pretty much what C&C is. :roll:
It is amazing that you find your subjective opinion superior to those of everyone else. :roll:
Lord Skystorm

Grand Knight Commander KoTC, Member C&CS

Donner Party Meats: We're here to serve YOU!

AD&D per se is as dead a system as Latin is a language, while the C&C game has much the same spirit and nearly the same mechanics. --Gary Gygax 8/16/06

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 »

Defining things and putting them in an easy, consistent location so it is quickly found is essential to fast play, whether rules lite or complex. A big part of rules lite is the fast play, so anything that makes it take more time to find is a detriment to that. It would not be a big deal for the next printing of the M&T to include definitions of terms in a Glossary, or to include armor stacking rules that is consistent with the various types of bonus' in C&C, such as Natural Armor and Insight and Luck, which can otherwise only be obtained from a 3E rules set. The earlier editions did not have all these various types of bonus'. Plus totally new players need such guidance, or they are going to quickly have their game broken by AC 40 or 50 PC's when they stack armor and shields with bracers, rings, cloaks, Ioun Stones, etc...

Don't get me wrong, after 8 years of not doing anything about this I have given up on the Trolls making C&C a much more polished game. They are obviously happy with where C&C is, and I have made myself happy by making C&C into a game I am happy to run any time. Just if they ever want to make C&C get popular, they are going to have to address these issues. While people like me are fine with fixing C&C by creating house rules, etc... the reality is most people don't like, let alone want, to spend that kind of time and effort into making the game better. They pay money to get a "complete" game, and that includes easy to find definitions as well as complete and consistent rules for situations any CK will definitely run into, such as armor stacking. This is just simple marketing presentation. Something the Trolls have made clear to me is an aspect they don't really care about. They have had 5 printings of the PH and it still has errors in it, such as the aforementioned Minor Globe of Invulnerability actually cannot block Phantasmal Killer, and others. Not to mention small typo's and word errors. At least they have greatly improved the layout from that horrible first printing. I just wish they would seriously start using their new printings to actually improve the rules presentation of C&C. Its not like defining these terms is going to add to the complexity, it will add to rules clarity, and making them easier to find will facilitate "fast play". How can it add to the complexity when the term/situation is already there, causing confusion and frustration? So clarification can only make the game better, not more complex, since the term/issue is already there regardless.
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
redwullf
Ulthal
Posts: 651
Joined: Tue Jun 07, 2011 9:28 pm
Contact:

Re: Castles and Crusades Rules are Incomplete

Post by redwullf »

Julian Grimm wrote:This is one thing that I hope TLG does address before D&D Next is released because I can see players jumping ship from C&C to Next for a more 'complete' game.
You've raised a very good point here. It was 3/3.5E and, even more so, 4E that have really given "3rd party" games like C&C a chance to flourish. It's taken over a decade, but it looks like Wizards of the Coast got the message and D&D Next looks like it aims to fill the rules light void it created with its flagships. No one can blame Wizards for trying to capitalize on the OSR movement - it is a part of their market, after all, and they mean to compete in it. All of that said, my experience with the D&D Next play test has been very positive so far. It really appeals to my rules light desire, but also has some features that make it fresh - such as the Advantage / Disadvantage mechanic, and the way they are going to approach optional Feats. At any rate, Wizards has the brand everyone associates with "fantasy role playing," and they will be the 400 pound gorilla in the room when they want to be. They lost a lot of "old" players with 4th Edition (and no small share with 3rd edition, for that matter), but that doesn't mean they can't win them back. I consider myself an "old" D&D player, and my interest with D&D Next is certainly peaked. Perhaps I'm just an anecdote in my own perspective, but I'm willing to wager that's not the case.

Sorry for hijacking the thread. I said a lot more on this than I expected to.
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
Julian Grimm
Greater Lore Drake
Posts: 4514
Joined: Thu May 11, 2006 7:00 am
Location: SW Missouri
Contact:

Re: Castles and Crusades Rules are Incomplete

Post by Julian Grimm »

redwullf wrote:
Julian Grimm wrote:This is one thing that I hope TLG does address before D&D Next is released because I can see players jumping ship from C&C to Next for a more 'complete' game.
You've raised a very good point here. It was 3/3.5E and, even more so, 4E that have really given "3rd party" games like C&C a chance to flourish. It's taken over a decade, but it looks like Wizards of the Coast got the message and D&D Next looks like it aims to fill the rules light void it created with its flagships. No one can blame Wizards for trying to capitalize on the OSR movement - it is a part of their market, after all, and they mean to compete in it. All of that said, my experience with the D&D Next play test has been very positive so far. It really appeals to my rules light desire, but also has some features that make it fresh - such as the Advantage / Disadvantage mechanic, and the way they are going to approach optional Feats. At any rate, Wizards has the brand everyone associates with "fantasy role playing," and they will be the 400 pound gorilla in the room when they want to be. They lost a lot of "old" players with 4th Edition (and no small share with 3rd edition, for that matter), but that doesn't mean they can't win them back. I consider myself an "old" D&D player, and my interest with D&D Next is certainly peaked. Perhaps I'm just an anecdote in my own perspective, but I'm willing to wager that's not the case.

Sorry for hijacking the thread. I said a lot more on this than I expected to.
I have been downloading the playtest packets and watching the panels on Youtube. I have also been following what has been happening with the Forgotten Realms and the Sundering. Long story short, I like what I see. You can quickly and easily build the game you want and there will be the product support that some of us want with any game. In fact, I have been introducing elements from Next into my C&C games and have had very good results with it.

Of course, I will not be an early adopter of the game but I will be watching with quite a bit of interest when we finally see it. As soon as I see certain things I can see myself pulling the proverbial trigger on the game, making a couple of adjustments and possibly moving on with D&DN. If TLG wants to try to compete they have no choice but to be watching and adjusting C&C to what people are wanting. If not, it will be a case of evolve or die with possible bad results.
Lord Skystorm

Grand Knight Commander KoTC, Member C&CS

Donner Party Meats: We're here to serve YOU!

AD&D per se is as dead a system as Latin is a language, while the C&C game has much the same spirit and nearly the same mechanics. --Gary Gygax 8/16/06

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 »

Julian Grimm wrote:
Arduin wrote:
Julian Grimm wrote:Things like gaps in the spell lists, gaps in the monster roster and how certain things work have all been smoothed over by conversion from the SRD to C&C.
That is obviously HIGHLY subjective. ANY spell from D20 games not in C&C could be called a gap. But one would have to make a more convincing argument than just that statement.
Call it subjective all you want. There are certain things that one would assume the game would contain given it being a derivative of the SRD. Friends of mine have looked at the books and their first questions have always been to ask where certain things are. Going through the spell lists a wizard would ask where Mage Armor is or why Grease was not included, fighters would ask questions about the description of certain pieces of equipment and I would hand them my AD&D or 3.X PHB. This got to be such a common occurrence that my DM/CK notebook now has a section of printouts to handle these questions. Now when they want this info they get handed the binder to help make spell or equipment choices. Furthermore, there is an entire section in my binder of monsters that were not included in M&T that have been reintroduced as they were both staples of the game or S&S fiction.

Now, I am not talking about the copyrighted material that WOTC has withheld as IP. I am talking about things that have become so common to a D&D type game that they have been taken for granted. Nor am I talking about house rules or home brewed material. This is stuff that had to be reintroduced to C&C to make it the experience that the players wanted and remembered as (A)D&D. In fact, my best friend and co-conspirator in my campaign has commented that we would be better off playing a modified AD&D rather than C&C if this much work had to be put into the game.

See, the point is that there are people that come into C&C wanting something similar to their AD&D or even D20 games. When they find that to get that experience they will ultimately have to do a large amount of work to do so, they will look at another game. In all honesty the only thing I am saying is that TLG needs to consider adding in three things: The rest of the SRD spell lists, equipment descriptions and the rest of the SRD monsters. I would be the first in line to buy something that included these even if it is just a supplement to the game.
Thats all subjective to the player and the group. The group I play with now, John and Mona both played AD&D and while some of the game mechanics were carried over, when we play John nor mona have felt the need to bring in spells and other items from AD&D on a regular occurence. I'm sure John uses monsters from AD&D when he runs the gamebut he doesn't pull out a different games rulebook to convert it over he just runs it from the top of his head.

My father who grew up playing AD&D in high school joined in playing C&C with some of my other friends and never once commented on anything that didn't carry over, hell if my brother went looking for something or questioned something that was in a different game my father spoke these words and which I think are at the heart of what Steve wanted C&C to be and those words are quite simply
My Old Man wrote:Just do what he asks and use the materials and resources provided its his game let him run it, if you don't like it we will find something else to play
I'm under the impression from a friend of mine that the more rules we ask for and the more rules placed in there, the more spells and the more monsters and adding this and adding that slowly kills the trolls on the inside. I am told that if Steve could have his way he would have 2 pages of mechanics and rules then if there is anything not covered in those two pages it would either be decided by a seige check or there would be situational rules made up on the spot for that particular campaign embracing the creativity of the players and game masters.

But thats just my long winded very opinionated opinion

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:
Julian Grimm wrote:
Arduin wrote:
Julian Grimm wrote:Things like gaps in the spell lists, gaps in the monster roster and how certain things work have all been smoothed over by conversion from the SRD to C&C.
That is obviously HIGHLY subjective. ANY spell from D20 games not in C&C could be called a gap. But one would have to make a more convincing argument than just that statement.
Call it subjective all you want. There are certain things that one would assume the game would contain given it being a derivative of the SRD. Friends of mine have looked at the books and their first questions have always been to ask where certain things are. Going through the spell lists a wizard would ask where Mage Armor is or why Grease was not included, fighters would ask questions about the description of certain pieces of equipment and I would hand them my AD&D or 3.X PHB. This got to be such a common occurrence that my DM/CK notebook now has a section of printouts to handle these questions. Now when they want this info they get handed the binder to help make spell or equipment choices. Furthermore, there is an entire section in my binder of monsters that were not included in M&T that have been reintroduced as they were both staples of the game or S&S fiction.

Now, I am not talking about the copyrighted material that WOTC has withheld as IP. I am talking about things that have become so common to a D&D type game that they have been taken for granted. Nor am I talking about house rules or home brewed material. This is stuff that had to be reintroduced to C&C to make it the experience that the players wanted and remembered as (A)D&D. In fact, my best friend and co-conspirator in my campaign has commented that we would be better off playing a modified AD&D rather than C&C if this much work had to be put into the game.

See, the point is that there are people that come into C&C wanting something similar to their AD&D or even D20 games. When they find that to get that experience they will ultimately have to do a large amount of work to do so, they will look at another game. In all honesty the only thing I am saying is that TLG needs to consider adding in three things: The rest of the SRD spell lists, equipment descriptions and the rest of the SRD monsters. I would be the first in line to buy something that included these even if it is just a supplement to the game.
Thats all subjective to the player and the group. The group I play with now, John and Mona both played AD&D and while some of the game mechanics were carried over, when we play John nor mona have felt the need to bring in spells and other items from AD&D on a regular occurence. I'm sure John uses monsters from AD&D when he runs the gamebut he doesn't pull out a different games rulebook to convert it over he just runs it from the top of his head.

My father who grew up playing AD&D in high school joined in playing C&C with some of my other friends and never once commented on anything that didn't carry over, hell if my brother went looking for something or questioned something that was in a different game my father spoke these words and which I think are at the heart of what Steve wanted C&C to be and those words are quite simply
My Old Man wrote:Just do what he asks and use the materials and resources provided its his game let him run it, if you don't like it we will find something else to play
I'm under the impression from a friend of mine that the more rules we ask for and the more rules placed in there, the more spells and the more monsters and adding this and adding that slowly kills the trolls on the inside. I am told that if Steve could have his way he would have 2 pages of mechanics and rules then if there is anything not covered in those two pages it would either be decided by a seige check or there would be situational rules made up on the spot for that particular campaign embracing the creativity of the players and game masters.

But thats just my long winded very opinionated opinion
The thing is, those of us who are here obviously like C&C well enough as is to stick around, if the Trolls want to actually grow their market they need to make their product stronger. Thats what this is really about, simple things that can be done to make C&C more appealing to a larger market, and a little better for some of us who already like it.
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 »

[quote="Treebore
The thing is, those of us who are here obviously like C&C well enough as is to stick around, if the Trolls want to actually grow their market they need to make their product stronger. Thats what this is really about, simple things that can be done to make C&C more appealing to a larger market, and a little better for some of us who already like it.[/quote]

Yes there are some things that what make gameplay a bit more smooth and i'm sure that are things that everyone would want to see changed or included, I am also into appealing to wider audience, i'm not the selfish type that wants to keep this all to myself however my fear is that with appealing to wider audience could start c&c down the slippery slope of selling out, not that I would ever expect any of trolls to sell out, it could never the less happen or if the company changes hands cause steve gets too old or goes on a quest to find the mythic dr pepper fountain. I also don't know how much of his ideals steve wants to change, not include, become manipulated or any other ten thousand other possibilities just to increase the market presence of C&C.

Its my understanding that one of the biggest things killing D&D Next and making authors and game engineers jump ship is appeasing to too many people.

I'm not saying c&c is perfect because it isn't and I'm not saying that I don't agree with you guys about some of the issues that are wrong with the way the game is written. But if we are going to change things about the game do it for the reason to make it easier to the loyal fan base. The return to the haunted highlands kick started proved that TLG has one hell of a loyal fan base, lets make those that are loyal to tlg the focus of the revisions not those who jump ship because its convient (which there is nothing wrong with that) or to win new market presence by some folly or stupid gimmick.

I kind of feel I have talked myself into a circle, i'm sorry i'm tired and work is doing its best to kill me or put me to sleep not sure yet.

User avatar
Julian Grimm
Greater Lore Drake
Posts: 4514
Joined: Thu May 11, 2006 7:00 am
Location: SW Missouri
Contact:

Re: Castles and Crusades Rules are Incomplete

Post by Julian Grimm »

I do like C&C but I do see things that can be improved and make the game stronger without going into rules bloat. No matter how much I like C&C I am still a customer of TLG and vote on products with my wallet. If TLG does not produce what I want then, I will have no choice but to go somewhere else. I would rather buy from TLG hence my championing of certain ideas that I feel would help the game along. If some do not want to hear these ideas or want to call my criticisms 'subjective' then that is their business. However, I do stand by what I say and I will point out that all the opinions expressed in this thread are just as subjective as mine.
Lord Skystorm

Grand Knight Commander KoTC, Member C&CS

Donner Party Meats: We're here to serve YOU!

AD&D per se is as dead a system as Latin is a language, while the C&C game has much the same spirit and nearly the same mechanics. --Gary Gygax 8/16/06

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 »

Here-Here!
That is exactly why I brought this up. I think selling more books and having success is NOT selling out. The game needs some refinement. A few of us who lie game design done mid filling the gaps. A few of us expect quality and that in terms of rules, means that if you bring up a condition, them it needs to be defined. Treebore gave a bunch of examples.

THIS!

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 »

Here's another thing to think about. The current C&C PHB is 142 pages. If the Trolls added a little bit of information to the game to clarify, the page count would increase. However, nobody wants to see the level of detail that is within 3E. That means, that perhaps a few more pages would be added to the PHB or the M&T. The fact of the matter is, shops that produce books do not often books at odd number pages. They also make books with X amount of pages, sometimes in 12-page lots. If TLG were to add a few pages of material, it is possible they would have to actually add 8-12 pages of content just to keep the book at a respectable price. Years ago, TLG actually struggled with raising the price point of the PHB above the $20 mark. TLG Steve deliberated for months to take the PHB from $19.95, to $24.95. That additional price was counter-intuitive to the Trolls. With the release of the color PHB for the 5th printing, they raised the price again. Now, to keep the cost of the new book to $29.95 to $34.95, the Trolls will have to include 8-12 pages of content. Perhaps there isn't enough to add to justify such a move. Perhaps making the PHB $160 pages (or whatever) is not something the Trolls want to do. Think about if the Trolls did this to multiple books. Now the price-point to get into the game is $10 or more higher then the previous printing. Perhaps finding another 8-12 pages is more than just book cost? Maybe TLG has to hire another writer, editor, artwork, layout, etc. That could cost TLG thousands of dollars, and may not be worth it in the end. Maybe adding another 8-12 pages sells only 200 PHBs. Maybe it sells less.

The point is, there is much more to think about then simply adding a few more pages to the books based on what only a few people claim to want on these MBs.

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

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 »

Omote wrote:Here's another thing to think about. The current C&C PHB is 142 pages. If the Trolls added a little bit of information to the game to clarify, the page count would increase. However, nobody wants to see the level of detail that is within 3E. That means, that perhaps a few more pages would be added to the PHB or the M&T. The fact of the matter is, shops that produce books do not often books at odd number pages. They also make books with X amount of pages, sometimes in 12-page lots. If TLG were to add a few pages of material, it is possible they would have to actually add 8-12 pages of content just to keep the book at a respectable price. Years ago, TLG actually struggled with raising the price point of the PHB above the $20 mark. TLG Steve deliberated for months to take the PHB from $19.95, to $24.95. That additional price was counter-intuitive to the Trolls. With the release of the color PHB for the 5th printing, they raised the price again. Now, to keep the cost of the new book to $29.95 to $34.95, the Trolls will have to include 8-12 pages of content. Perhaps there isn't enough to add to justify such a move. Perhaps making the PHB $160 pages (or whatever) is not something the Trolls want to do. Think about if the Trolls did this to multiple books. Now the price-point to get into the game is $10 or more higher then the previous printing. Perhaps finding another 8-12 pages is more than just book cost? Maybe TLG has to hire another writer, editor, artwork, layout, etc. That could cost TLG thousands of dollars, and may not be worth it in the end. Maybe adding another 8-12 pages sells only 200 PHBs. Maybe it sells less.

The point is, there is much more to think about then simply adding a few more pages to the books based on what only a few people claim to want on these MBs.

~O
If that was all that big of an issue they wouldn't have added all those Illusionist spells or the appendix.
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.

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:I kind of feel I have talked myself into a circle, i'm sorry i'm tired and work is doing its best to kill me or put me to sleep not sure yet.
:lol:

Been there!
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
mmbutter
Red Cap
Posts: 352
Joined: Sat Jun 29, 2013 8:28 pm

Re: Castles and Crusades Rules are Incomplete

Post by mmbutter »

Omote wrote:They also make books with X amount of pages, sometimes in 12-page lots.
The standard in book binding is multiples of 8 page "signatures" - 8, 16, 24, 32, etc.

User avatar
Julian Grimm
Greater Lore Drake
Posts: 4514
Joined: Thu May 11, 2006 7:00 am
Location: SW Missouri
Contact:

Re: Castles and Crusades Rules are Incomplete

Post by Julian Grimm »

Omote wrote:Here's another thing to think about. The current C&C PHB is 142 pages. If the Trolls added a little bit of information to the game to clarify, the page count would increase. However, nobody wants to see the level of detail that is within 3E. That means, that perhaps a few more pages would be added to the PHB or the M&T. The fact of the matter is, shops that produce books do not often books at odd number pages. They also make books with X amount of pages, sometimes in 12-page lots. If TLG were to add a few pages of material, it is possible they would have to actually add 8-12 pages of content just to keep the book at a respectable price. Years ago, TLG actually struggled with raising the price point of the PHB above the $20 mark. TLG Steve deliberated for months to take the PHB from $19.95, to $24.95. That additional price was counter-intuitive to the Trolls. With the release of the color PHB for the 5th printing, they raised the price again. Now, to keep the cost of the new book to $29.95 to $34.95, the Trolls will have to include 8-12 pages of content. Perhaps there isn't enough to add to justify such a move. Perhaps making the PHB $160 pages (or whatever) is not something the Trolls want to do. Think about if the Trolls did this to multiple books. Now the price-point to get into the game is $10 or more higher then the previous printing. Perhaps finding another 8-12 pages is more than just book cost? Maybe TLG has to hire another writer, editor, artwork, layout, etc. That could cost TLG thousands of dollars, and may not be worth it in the end. Maybe adding another 8-12 pages sells only 200 PHBs. Maybe it sells less.

The point is, there is much more to think about then simply adding a few more pages to the books based on what only a few people claim to want on these MBs.

~O
I know that I would buy a PHB that had the needed edits, clarifications and what I feel are the needed expansions. In fact, I would even break my no Kickstarters of any kind rule to bringing a book like this to light. Also people would be more apt to buy into C&C if it were a more polished and complete game. Yes, there is some risk but any business has risk and if you want to grow you have to take the occasional risk.
Lord Skystorm

Grand Knight Commander KoTC, Member C&CS

Donner Party Meats: We're here to serve YOU!

AD&D per se is as dead a system as Latin is a language, while the C&C game has much the same spirit and nearly the same mechanics. --Gary Gygax 8/16/06

Post Reply