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
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 »

Traveller wrote:So what exactly do you believe needs work in the PHB and M&T?
The 1st thing I find myself doing with new people is to help them understand the 12/18 thing. It would be better to word it as 18 + Difficulty level, and simply add 6 to the roll if against a "Prime".
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 »

Traveller wrote:So what exactly do you believe needs work in the PHB and M&T?
All the editing issues you have submitted addressed, to begin with. Consolidating term definitions into an easy to locate location would also be nice. Another one that has caused me issues is the stunned condition from a certain 1st level priest spell. Try looking up the specifics of that to see what I mean rather quickly. Have you noted that they have Minor Globe of Invulnerability cited as one of the ways to block Phantasmal Killer? It should be Globe, not Minor Globe, since Minor can't even affect spells above 3rd level. I would also like them to add some additional rules I see as very fundamental to a system, meaning rules that describe how all the various armor bonus' mentioned in the various spell and item descriptions and how they should, and should NOT be allowed to stack. A new CK is likely to think they should all be allowed to stack, and then see AC 40's and 50s and then think the game is broken and move on to another RPG.' By the book, they would be right, because any game that doesn't put in restrictions against how armor modifiers can be stacked does lead to a broken game. Which is why EVERY edition of D&D since the little brown books has had them.

Just for starters.
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
Traveller
Greater Lore Drake
Posts: 2021
Joined: Tue May 02, 2006 7:00 am

Re: Castles and Crusades Rules are Incomplete

Post by Traveller »

  • Editing issues I submitted: agreed.
  • Consolidating term definitions: makes sense, and would help fix the stunned condition issue you mention.
  • Stunned condition: I see your point.
  • Phantasmal Killer/Minor Globe of Invulnerability: I missed it in editing. Clearly the word "minor" should not be there.
  • Added "fundamental" rules: The word "fundamental" is in quotes here because not everyone is going to agree with your definition of what a fundamental rule is. Now, about armor stacking, I ran into this issue with the Rogue's Gallery draft. The author in some cases added the AC of the helm to the total AC, leading to the very situation you mentioned. However, in his case he simply did not read the rules regarding the AC of helms.

    That said, if "fundamental" rules are to be added, then something will have to be taken out to make them fit. You can't just simply adjust the font size and the kerning and have it all fit. To do that would impact readability and playability far more than the absence of these "fundamental" rules you mention.
Side Note: Where did you see rules for armor stacking in OD&D, Holmes, or anything subsequently published in the basic Dungeons & Dragons line? My research into OD&D didn't reveal the existence of such a rule, and that is because I don't believe such a rule exists in the basic D&D line. Instead, they put a hard cap on the armor class.

Which leads me to my comments, not all of which are truly issues of incompleteness, but things that I feel do need some work.
  • Called shots to the head and the helms table are an oddity given that Castles & Crusdes doesn't have rules for determining hit locations. I'd remove the helms table and use the space for something else.
  • Armors are not sorted alphabetically like every other equipment list in the PHB.
  • I'm not a huge fan of how C&C handles raising the dead. Basically, the dead are raised, get hit with a -1 to CON, and then go about their merry old way as if nothing happened. A holdover from d20, there is no risk of permanent death to the character, which is something I believe is sorely missing.
  • Encumbrance seems to be forgotten in Monsters & Treasure.
  • Aerial movement classes need to be excised from the game as there are no rules for aerial combat in the core books.
  • Treasure tables still need some tweaking, especially when it comes to armor and shields.
  • The Figurines of Wondrous Power still don't have their XP and GP values.
  • Rules on poisons in Monsters & Treasure should be removed as the information is duplicated in the Players Handbook. The space would be better served by adding descriptions of the spell-like abilities some creatures have. Descriptions that are not in the book.
  • Every creature should have its XP figured using the guide given on page 6 of the book. Further, a brief description of how the creature's XP was figured would be helpful. For example, an ape awards the player killing it 30+3XP. The XP writeup should read something like this.

    Code: Select all

    XP: 30+3 (20XP base, +10 for 3 attacks, +3 per HP)
If you have more things you can think of, this thread is the perfect place to come right out and say it.

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 »

Someone pointed out that the Monks Fast Movement reads like you get a base movement of 35, regardless of race. That should probably read, "Adds 5' to the base of the characters racial movement" for those who play Dwarves, Halflings, gnomes, etc... Then something about how it goes up from 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
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 »

Traveller wrote: [*]I'm not a huge fan of how C&C handles raising the dead. Basically, the dead are raised, get hit with a -1 to CON, and then go about their merry old way as if nothing happened. A holdover from d20, there is no risk of permanent death to the character, which is something I believe is sorely missing.
I wouldn't mind a Con Siege check for Raise Dead & Resurrection. But not for True Res or a Wish.

Magic Item creation rules might need some clarification. I seem to remember a few people creating posts about it being confusing in some manner.
Old age and treachery will overcome youth and skill

House Rules

User avatar
Traveller
Greater Lore Drake
Posts: 2021
Joined: Tue May 02, 2006 7:00 am

Re: Castles and Crusades Rules are Incomplete

Post by Traveller »

I don't use a siege check for system shock because the chance of making the roll is static and almost impossible to make if CON is not prime. A simple roll of CON or less on a d20 works far better. As CON is reduced through the character being raised from the dead, the system shock roll becomes progressively more difficult to make until the player fails the roll, resulting in the permanent death of the character.

As for no system shock with True Resurrection and Wish, I can buy that as a house rule. If it were to be implemented in the rules, I wouldn't make an exception for those two spells.

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 »

Traveller wrote: If it were to be implemented in the rules, I wouldn't make an exception for those two spells.
I don't think that'll happen though.
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 »

While it may seem trivial, I would put the races section before the classes. Many of my players, and myself included, are used to races being before classes in the majority of games we've played. While I know it doesn't seem like much they way that the C&C PH does this seems somehow off.

(Hope I explained that well, kinda tired and scatterbrained after an impromptu BBQ with family)
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 »

Thought of another "fix" I'd like to see, I'd like to see the Trolls go through all the spells and actually base the save on the attribute it is supposed to be based on in accordance with that section in the CK section of the PH.
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
Traveller
Greater Lore Drake
Posts: 2021
Joined: Tue May 02, 2006 7:00 am

Re: Castles and Crusades Rules are Incomplete

Post by Traveller »

Arduin wrote:
Traveller wrote: If it were to be implemented in the rules, I wouldn't make an exception for those two spells.
I don't think that'll happen though.
It won't. I already tried getting it put in for the 5th print and it wasn't changed. Thus the Trolls seem to be pleased with just the -1 to CON.

User avatar
seskis281
Lore Drake
Posts: 1775
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2006 7:00 am
Location: Manitowoc WI
Contact:

Re: Castles and Crusades Rules are Incomplete

Post by seskis281 »

I hope Marv doesn't mind, but I want to quote something he said quite well in an RPG discussion on a different site:
I think that anyone could take almost any RPG and find something they don't like about it. Too many rules, not enough rules, all d6's, too many types of dice, or whatever.
First off, I think forums here are absolutely the right place to debate different opinions. These forums are, even when people disagree, mostly very civil and respectful (especially when one takes a gander at the vitriolic nature of all too many sites and hobby debates all around the internet). Ok, so every now and then we can get in a little snit :( , (although I've been hard pressed to come around, so maybe I missed something), but compared to the nastiness people in other corners can fling it is downright sedate around here. I also think it's perfectly valid to voice our own wants and opinions. The reason I refer to the quote above is because good debate can turn - and in the end, as Snoring said, we are all fans of the game, warts and all.

I say "warts and all" because I think it's quite accurate. The creators of C&C and TLG are who they are. Editing and proofing has never been a strong point of the company. A certain ambiguity and "style" in prose is also present. For some this is a big deal, for others not so much, for some the writing style is a draw because it evokes a "feel" that takes one back to a similar reaction to early D&D and the sometimes hard-to-really get Gygax (at times) prose. I think everyone who is concerned are bothered by this should feel they have every right to voice these feelings, and to suggest what they would want to see done differently. I also think those that aren't bothered by the specific criticisms enumerated have every right to disagree, and we have to step back and understand there can be some natural defensiveness in any discussion when someone says "I think something's wrong with that thing you like so much." You don't want your friend telling you what's wrong with the person you're in love with (and guess what, it's not a stretch to say that for many people our relationship with gaming IS a deep relationship that is important to our well-being - so much so that people seek positive reward and validation through it - this is not a "negative" thing, for the same can be said of someone who has devotion to a sport, or to an activity such as hunting, or volunteering in the community).

The title of the thread is "the rules are incomplete." I guess the only issue I have is, going back to what I quoted, has there ever been a "complete" RPG that satisfied everyone? It seems like that was the big fail of WotC going into the current development cycle, by announcing that they would do a game system that would be "back to core rules," but with "modularity that would please everyone of any edition." It was impossible from the get-go, and seems that they only way to try and "please" playtesters was to keep adding back this rule or that rule. I have friends I've tried to get to look at C&C, and I've heard some of these things, but just as many or not more of the "it's too much like old, boring D&D when it was broken before 3E fixed things," or "game theory has evolved and you guys are going backward not forward - 4E and now 13th Age are where it's at!" Also valid subjective opinions - but the single biggest thing I've run into is this - I show a PHB to someone and they say "that's too thin! No way is it a complete game!" - it doesn't even GET to the person actually reading the PHB or reacting to any of the issues brought up - it's a mere conception that an RPG must have a level of complexity and "thickness" or it's "incomplete."

But then I recognize that I am someone who's NEVER run anything RAW. I take and adapt on the fly, and don't consider it "work" to simply shape my games as I go. I run a monster, I might "add" a power or something not in M&T to make it just that much more difficult for the party that's been kicking everything's butt all over Greyhawk :twisted: . For me, I don't react they way others do. I also know that my own personality (which is similar to others here) doesn't want more specifics or even more clarity. I do understand and respect those that do. I want more modules and setting materials. This would be the exact opposite of what others want. I, too, have things I don't like - I may be a minority but I actually DON'T like the color 5th printing for functionality - it looks pretty and I have a copy as collector, but I prefer the B&W easier on my eyes printing. I wish the Trolls wouldn't keep changing the trade dress SO radically all the time. I understand why, but I just felt I got my "complete" collection of 4th printing green covers of all books when it changes again. But what I like is pretty irrelevant to what Steve & Co. like - and having minor irritation with something doesn't outweigh all the things that still make the game my primary choice to play. And it's not just "liking the guys" who run the co. and turning a blind eye to faults, it's that, for me, the faults are about the same as what irritated me when I started playing D&D back in the early 80's - this or that might annoy me, but it isn't some critical flaw that has caused a game to suck. (Granted the landscape was different - the fear expressed here is that in our 21st century saturated RPG market there's always a choice to go somewhere else - PF, DCC, just play older 1e, LL, etc. - true but nothing one can do about that. My suspicion is that if any individual keeps looking for that "perfect" answer to their own RPG wants they will always find a new love for a brief time, move on to a new one, and ultimately either get very frustrated or basically try and create their own RPG - how many "labors of love" are out there now?)

So the long and the short (and yes it's more long than short lol) - the very definition of whether something's "complete" or not is, at the outset, a subjective debate. Steve and Co. probably don't think the game is "complete" any more than others do, but what they are interested in changing might be far afield of things mentioned on this thread. A new printing could come out and rather than deal with anything mentioned here, it might be "Mac & Davis and I got into a discussion on the Bard as a class and we are re-writing the class so that spells are completely removed and their instruments will now be magically imbued 'weapons' from which simple, individual powers emit." Remember the revision with Illusionists healing? In the end, it's their game - they'll produce C&C as they like it, and even if there was quantified, absolute proof that if they did "X" they'd increase sales, if "X" isn't their taste they likely wouldn't do it. :o This shouldn't stop ANYONE from expressing their thoughts, their wishes for the game, for the company - just don't become disillusioned if you don't see the response you are hoping for. If you keep a flag flying on something, and in the end it leads to a change or something in a future printing, celebrate! - the greater likelihood is what you wish were different is more likely to remain status quo. This doesn't make TLG "bad" or unresponsive, it just means they don't feel the same about the issue being brought up.

Ok, sorry for being so long-winded - guess I'm making up for my absence from the boards for too long. 8-)
John "Sir Seskis" Wright

Dreamer of Ilshara
Lands of Ilshara: http://johnwright281.tripod.com

User avatar
Traveller
Greater Lore Drake
Posts: 2021
Joined: Tue May 02, 2006 7:00 am

Re: Castles and Crusades Rules are Incomplete

Post by Traveller »

seskis281 wrote:...has there ever been a "complete" RPG that satisfied everyone?
There is no such thing as complete in a RPG. Based on recent experience however I know there are some games that tried too hard to be complete and died upon completion. Traveller 5 I'm looking at you!

The thrust of the thread isn't about adding more rules to codify everything. I'm fairly sure no one here wants that. Instead, it's about making sure that the books are more noob friendly, but doing so in a manner that doesn't destroy the rules-light design of the game. I'm all about noob friendly, which is why in editing the PHB I set one of my goals at making the game easier to read and understand. To do that I had to try and kill a sacred cow: the Gygaxian-esque prose.

Gygax's use of language was, to put it simply, both stilted and forced. In the '70s such language was unusual to see or hear even among the upper crust. The old game was successful, but not because of the language. It could be argued that it would have become even more successful had Gygax simply not tried to sound like an English major. For Castles & Crusades, the use of Gygaxian-esque prose was a means to evoke nostalgia for the old game. Unfortunately the nostalgia has worn off. As an established name, the game now needs to focus on making itself more accessible to the people who play it. Part of that is to make the text clear and easy to read. The other part is to ensure that things that need to be explained, like stun effects, are explained well.

Many of the items that Treebore has mentioned do make sense in that they make it easier for a complete noob to pick up the book and play. Some of the things are simply errata which either didn't get caught or did get caught but for some reason didn't get corrected. Two of my things are wishful thinking/house rule area, with the rest being errata. Regardless, focusing on making the game readable and playable by cleaning up the text and providing examples will go a long way in the future, and make the game that much better for it.

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 »

Yep, only one thing I am asking for, that I can recall anyways, that would be "new" is AC stacking guidelines. The rest is just rules fixes and clarification and making terms clearly defined and in one easy to find location.
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
seskis281
Lore Drake
Posts: 1775
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2006 7:00 am
Location: Manitowoc WI
Contact:

Re: Castles and Crusades Rules are Incomplete

Post by seskis281 »

Trav and Tree both - very fair and understandable.
Gygax's use of language was, to put it simply, both stilted and forced. In the '70s such language was unusual to see or hear even among the upper crust. The old game was successful, but not because of the language. It could be argued that it would have become even more successful had Gygax simply not tried to sound like an English major. For Castles & Crusades, the use of Gygaxian-esque prose was a means to evoke nostalgia for the old game. Unfortunately the nostalgia has worn off. As an established name, the game now needs to focus on making itself more accessible to the people who play it.
I have no beef philosophically and personally wouldn't disagree. It doesn't bother me as much, but then I am not the newbie approaching it for the 1st time.
Yep, only one thing I am asking for, that I can recall anyways, that would be "new" is AC stacking guidelines. The rest is just rules fixes and clarification and making terms clearly defined and in one easy to find location.
No problem here and I would rejoice if this all occurred. If I win the Powerball this week I promise to throw some capitalization towards Little Rock so some full-time editorial, production and business staffing could be added (and I'm willing to bet Steve would rejoice at someone taking some of that business morass off his plate so he can concentrate on writing Aihrdian stories of epic adventure!) - heh, if that happens I'll make WotC an offer they couldn't refuse and and buy some very popular IP for the Trolls. :twisted: Trav you've done a lot for the Trolls in this area, but the shop's still very small and stuff falls through the cracks in getting out. I think the world of Steve, but I don't think he'd dispute he is more "creative-minded" than "organizationally-minded," and he's essentially at the head of the "line" for everything, + writing his own material. Hence the reason TLG production seems like stuff winding its way out of the minotaur's maze at times. :o Companies like Paizo hire teams of people to handle things. For TLG, things might get cleaned up, or might get partially clean and then something else gets dropped (looking at you, Shark stats :oops: ), or the attention to this side might never really reach a really cleaned up level. I think you're both completely right in what you're saying here, but it may not be in TLG's nature to ever prioritize it as much as we might want (unless I win that aforementioned Powerball :) ). You can say to the turtle "if you just speed up a bit you'd get there sooner," but the turtle won't ever catch the road-runner - just not in it's nature (and, folks, Paizo is the road-runner right now).

I'll be honest, I am curious how much clean up was affected on 5th printing - quite honestly since I'm one of the ones not bothered by this sort of thing I tend to not notice as much and with the color pages I haven't read in depth the new printing.

Cheers! :ugeek:
John "Sir Seskis" Wright

Dreamer of Ilshara
Lands of Ilshara: http://johnwright281.tripod.com

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 will say that the things I advocate for inclusion or change in C&C are for those that are either completely new to gaming or for those coming in to the game from 3.X and even 2e. Personally, I have no emotional attachment or nostalgia for 1e and all of it's trappings and am not a big fan of 1e outside of using material from it that did not make it into the SRD or 2e.

Things like equipment descriptions are something I have heard many comments on and a friend of mine put it in perspective the other night when he said, "Why should I have to go to the g*ddamned library or internet to find out what a cestus is when the friggin description should have been in the damned book all along?"

The other things I have been advocating are all based on comments made from those looking at the game from backgrounds beyond 1e. They had interest but ultimately went with another system when it became time to put the money down. Some look at it as them buying what they liked, that's fair enough. I look at it as lost sales for TLG that a few minor changes could have prevented.

Thus, I will add in my 2 cents in these discussions even if it does make the grognards cry. :P
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 »

Julian Grimm wrote: Thus, I will add in my 2 cents in these discussions even if it does make the grognards cry. :P
Only certain Grognards. While I love 1E AD&D and the Little Brown Books, I also play a crap ton of other RPG's, including 3E and 4E and D&D Next. Plus C&C is my "go to" game for D&D style gaming, with my house rules. So while I have strong preferences for how I spend my time gaming, I also play a lot of other RPG's. Like at RinCon I will be playing Shadowrun and the Pathfinder card game RPG, as well as running a C&C scenario. So while I am a Grognard in that I love and play things like 1E AD&D (played a game for levels 1 to 4 just last year) and use Swords and Wizardry to run one shots for my face to face group, when needed, I am not so fixated on a specific edition as to play the "hate games" some seem to like to do.
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
seskis281
Lore Drake
Posts: 1775
Joined: Thu Jul 20, 2006 7:00 am
Location: Manitowoc WI
Contact:

Re: Castles and Crusades Rules are Incomplete

Post by seskis281 »

Here, here! - and now we come back to our common ground - for any warts, flaws or needed editing, the best thing about C&C is how much intersection it allows for across the spectrum of games and editions, and the diversity of likes (while sometimes leading to debate) are what have always made this corner of the RPG world my cup of tea :)

Jordan (Dracyian here) from my group is most definitely a 2e fan. I came to C&C from 3rd Edition, and enjoyed DMing it for years (albeit with my same approach, which occasionally led to a discussion with a player when I did something oppositional to the RAW :twisted: ). I enjoyed immensely playing in a Skip Williams 3e game at GaryCon, also got killed by Jim Ward in a sci fi game. I try lots of different things. I tend to support people and co.'s I like as well, even if I don't play their game per se (Goodman games and especially Harley I really like, I've bought enormous number of older DCC's, but just am not as wild about the DCC RPG; I always enjoy gaming with Jeff T. and have his AS&SH game, but it hasn't supplanted C&C at all). Our group has paused to do Shadowrun. I've tried 4e, have a copy of 13th Age. I tried playing 4e, just didn't find it my thing. If it weren't for already planning to play OD&D with Ernie and Frank @ upcoming Gamehole con in Madison, I might have snagged the ticket (still open) to Chris Perkins D&D Next playtest game, even given my thoughts on it.

Maybe we just need....

... more cowbell? :ugeek:
John "Sir Seskis" Wright

Dreamer of Ilshara
Lands of Ilshara: http://johnwright281.tripod.com

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 »

Where to begin? The truth be known; even though my background is in 2e AD&D I really happen to have liked 3.X intitially. In fact I still have a soft spot for that edition. However, the biggest problem with 3.X was that the numbers got too high, too fast. When I got to the point I was having to deal with attack bonuses of +10 or more far earlier than I felt I should be I began looking for ways to tame down the system. I learned of C&C being in development and it being based on the SRD and began looking at the system. I even bought the PHB with the express intent of using it to replace certain trouble spots in 3.X.

As a quick aside these were the days when I was using either The Psychotic Sea Otter or Syko as handles. I had forgotten about that until I was reading some things I had written back in the day that had the old name attached to them. Anyway. . .

Really, what I was looking for was a type of d20 light more than I was an updated AD&D. The fact that C&C just also happened to work with AD&D was a bonus since it did allow me to use material from my 2e collection that I had problems converting to 3e. However the truth remains that I was coming to C&C from a more D20 direction than I was an AD&D direction. It is also true that when I find a spot that I feel is unclear or needs more explanation I will turn to the SRD or my 3e books for what I feel is needed.

I know there are those here that are coming from a more AD&D past and perspective. In fact I feel that that end of the spectrum is more than adequately represented here. So, that would make me the other end of the spectrum, I am the guy that came in that liked 3e, the Forgotten Realms, Drizzt and bought supplements and likes the idea of product support beyond adventures and core books. However, I do not want another 3.x, there is a game that does that already.

I guess what I am trying to say is that there are two sides to the C&C coin. The 'old school' side has been represented very well. We need to make sure the other side of the coin is represented or the game will become just another 'grognard boys club' that few will want to enter.
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
Frost
Beer Giant Jarl
Posts: 1324
Joined: Wed Nov 28, 2007 8:00 am
Location: Pittsburgh, PA
Contact:

Re: Castles and Crusades Rules are Incomplete

Post by Frost »

I haven't read all the posts here, but, by and large, I agree with Snoring Rock. A bit more organization and a bit more clarification would go a long way.

Modern gamers are accustomed to more structure, etc., so when compared to Pathfinder, 3e, etc., the lack of it really stands out.

Heck, better organization is even true with most retro-clones. I mean, when you ask folks, "Why are you playing/using OSRIC/S&W/LL, etc. instead of the original rules," they often say "It's better organized than the original editions."

I think part of the problem is that in many ways C&C is "d20 lite" (which is why I love it). It holds onto a lot of d20 terms, etc., but it tosses some of it. This mostly works, but when it doesn't it (i.e., when something feels missing or left out), it really sticks out.

I think an effort to sort of lock down terms, etc. would really clean up the game in general and probably find a lot of holes that could easily be patched (even if it's with, "Hey we know this isn't codified, but that is on purpose").

Anyhow, C&C is my game of choice, but I would be much more willing to shell out cash for cleaned-up rules rather than just new art (no matter how cool that new art may be).

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 »

Hey Frost, long time no see. I think you summed it up nicely. I believe the 6th printing could use refinement. And I like a lot of what I have read. I could do without the color. Black and white is old school and easier to read. Tree has a great idea about effects and even has a neat little list.

There is some good stuff here....

User avatar
mbeacom
Ulthal
Posts: 550
Joined: Thu Apr 07, 2011 1:51 pm

Re: Castles and Crusades Rules are Incomplete

Post by mbeacom »

I've read through all the posts and I don't want to get into any of the arguments within since almost all are subjective and based on personal preference. I do however want to state my own opinion on the matters being discussed.

First, let me say that I'm constantly impressed at the posters on this forum. Disagreements can be very fundamental and yet very rarely does it get mean or nasty like on so many boards I read. So, kudos to everyone for that.

My feelings, in no particular order.

1. I would love to see typos and grammar fixed. I'm honestly a little bothered by the fact that so many squeeze through. Even things that a spell check would catch sometimes end up getting printed. I've even offered to do free proofreading of anything they'll have me for, and to date, they've shown no interest.
2. I have no problem with Errata being included in future printings. That's a no-brainer.
3. I don't mind if a glossary of terms is included. I think that would probably be helpful. But I'd want them to be careful not to use it as an excuse to codify too many things that should not be codified.
4. The C&C game rules are not incomplete IMO.
5. I would not like it if the presence of a glossary meant that information was removed from monster entries. While a glossary is fine, I'd rather not be forced to consult it constantly. When I run a monster right from the book, I like as much info to be present on that entry as possible to minimize cross referencing.
6. I see no reason to request more "rules" be pulled from extraneous sources. I realize that C&C is largely based on 1E and 3E but it is its own game. Divergence from those games is acceptable and frequently an improvement, including omission of certain spells/skills/feats/whatever.
7. I prefer rules light design, not just rules light systems. What I mean by this is that I actually like leaving things up to the player/DM/Group to decide. C&C does this but not in a way that is too much. A predefined list of conditions and statuses contradicts a rules light approach to design. I'm perfectly ok with saying something can "stun" you without giving a mechanical explanation of stunned as a condition. This allows the group to use the stun that makes sense to them, rather than be pushed toward the designers concept of what stun means. I'm perfectly ok with listing a monster as "incorporeal" without in depth mechanization of it as a status for the same reasons. I'd rather not use tags like that at all, honestly. I'd rather they simply state something along the lines of "This creature can pass through walls and can only be hit by magic weapons". When you have a status like "incorporeal", you're inclined to use it. Then everything with that status becomes a mechanic, rather than a fantastic creature. Maybe some incorporeal creatures should be hit by silver, or by cold forged iron or by magical or by +2 or greater, etc. By creating a status of "incorporeal" you force every creature with that tag to be identical, which makes them predictable and ultimately boring IMO. In many cases C&C gets this right and in some, I feel it gets them wrong. However, in many cases where I think they made a different choice than I would, I can generally understand their reasoning.

Anyway, this post got longer than I had intended
TL:DR version: Fix up the typos, update for all errata and then don't worry about too much else. The game is awesome. :)
Witty Quote Pending
-Someone

User avatar
Eisenmann
Ulthal
Posts: 470
Joined: Mon Feb 12, 2007 8:00 am

Re: Castles and Crusades Rules are Incomplete

Post by Eisenmann »

Pondered this thread a bit before writing something up. I think the players handbook can feel incomplete due to its organization and the (sometimes) implicit nature of its presentation.

It felt like I got a better handle on C&C itself by reading Amazing Adventures.

http://platonicsolid.blogspot.com/2013/ ... plete.html

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 »

Eisenmann wrote:Pondered this thread a bit before writing something up. I think the players handbook can feel incomplete due to its organization and the (sometimes) implicit nature of its presentation.

It felt like I got a better handle on C&C itself by reading Amazing Adventures.

http://platonicsolid.blogspot.com/2013/ ... plete.html
I agree with this. After reading Amazing Adventures I feel as if I understand C&C better.

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 »

Someone above mentioned that there were new monsters and spells in many of the modules made for C&C. While that is great there is one problem; many do not buy adventures. I really haven't bought one in years since they are not what I want. What would be the problem with TLG collecting this material in a future book for those that want the info but not the adventures?
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 »

Julian Grimm wrote:Someone above mentioned that there were new monsters and spells in many of the modules made for C&C. While that is great there is one problem; many do not buy adventures. I really haven't bought one in years since they are not what I want. What would be the problem with TLG collecting this material in a future book for those that want the info but not the adventures?

Of Gods and Monsters and Monsters and Treasures of Aihrde have done that.
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.

koralas
Ulthal
Posts: 525
Joined: Sun Aug 26, 2007 7:00 am

Re: Castles and Crusades Rules are Incomplete

Post by koralas »

Julian Grimm wrote:Someone above mentioned that there were new monsters and spells in many of the modules made for C&C. While that is great there is one problem; many do not buy adventures. I really haven't bought one in years since they are not what I want. What would be the problem with TLG collecting this material in a future book for those that want the info but not the adventures?
Pretty much every game system has had this effect. Modules including new content that is. Often many of those have appeared in future books. Look at the Drow series from TSR (D1-3) and the new content released in those that made it into the Fiend Folio - Drow, Kuo-Toa, Lolth, Mezzodaemon, and Svirfneblin, might be missing a couple. The Lost Caverns of Tscojanth has a long list of monsters, some magic items, and spells that made it into later the FF or MMII, and the UA.

As Tree has said, M&ToA and OG&M has taken some of those from the modules and put them in other books. Though some may not be looking for those books as M&ToA seems setting specific, bah, I would use those critters and items in any world. OG&M isn't just a stat line of the gods, it has a lot more information in it, and some optional rules (though admittedly for a more high-powered campaign), they can be used for provoking new ideas on ways to spice up your campaign.

I would love to see a UA like book for C&C, pulling more information in from modules, and from other sources, understanding that they are optional additions.

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 »

Just noted Bless has no "target" or area of effect specified. So the range is 50 ft, so what? What happens, how many are affected, etc...? Horrible copy/paste from teh 3E SRD.
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 »

Treebore wrote:Just noted Bless has no "target" or area of effect specified. So the range is 50 ft, so what? What happens, how many are affected, etc...? Horrible copy/paste from teh 3E SRD.
What's so hard to understand? Range is 50'. Text says "caster's allies" gain a bonus. So, every ally of the caster within 50' gets the bonus. I don't know why this so hard to understand?

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 »

mmbutter wrote:
Treebore wrote:Just noted Bless has no "target" or area of effect specified. So the range is 50 ft, so what? What happens, how many are affected, etc...? Horrible copy/paste from teh 3E SRD.
What's so hard to understand? Range is 50'. Text says "caster's allies" gain a bonus. So, every ally of the caster within 50' gets the bonus. I don't know why this so hard to understand?

Yes. Range, It says nothing at all about an area of effect. Which is totally separate from Range. Since every single other version/edition of D&D tells you the area of effect it would be nice if C&C did too.
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 »

Treebore wrote:Yes. Range, It says nothing at all about an area of effect. Which is totally separate from Range. Since every single other version/edition of D&D tells you the area of effect it would be nice if C&C did too.
"Range" defines a 50' circle centered on the caster. This is like 8th grade geometry.

I don't see what's so difficult about this. Look at the caster's allies. All of them that are 50' or less from the caster get the bonus. There is no more description needed.

Post Reply