Is C&C right for my game?

[an_idol_mind]

Okay, I'm not stupid. I know that if I post in a forum sponsored by Troll Lord, you guys are going to tell me that I should be playing C&C. What I'm looking for are people who will give me constructive reasons as to why my game would fit better in C&C than some other system.

Here's a little background: I've been running my campaign setting of Blackwood for the last six years. I've had a lot of fun with it and have even written a novel called Shadowslayers set in that world. The game has run across several different systems, and I'm still looking for something that is nice and easy but provides a wealth of options as well. D&D 3.5 has done the job nicely here, especially with an excellent multi-classing system. However, it's a bit on the heavy side--literally. I game on the go a lot, and carrying around 10-15 pounds of books everywhere is a bit of a pain. There are also some areas in D&D that I find lacking, such as the dozens of combat modifiers and the fact that I have yet to get a good explanation of why a prestige class is conceptually different from a core class.

My searches have brought me to Castles & Crusades, which looks like an excellent system. However, I still have reservations about its flexibility in certain ways. I know most of its problems can be overcome by house ruling things, but I don't want to have to do too much house ruling. I have a bunch of house rules for D&D, too, and I figure that I want to run the game more than come up with new rules. So while I'm not adverse to house rules, I'd like to keep them at a minimum.

As I said, my setting is the world of Blackwood, something that has gained its share of custom features over the years that I've run it. Here are a few of the main points in my setting that I need to keep more or less intact:

-All elves and half-elves are inherently magical creatures

-Magic comes in two types: learned (i.e., Vancian magic) and innate (i.e., sorcerers from 3e)

-Gunpowder and steam engines exist and are becoming more common

-The gods are not really godsmore like super-powered semi-gods who have been imprisoned for millennia

-The worlds one actual goddess was once mortal, and would like to get involved in mortal affairsbut she cant, or mortals will come to rely on her, thus giving up their free will

-Rangers are a secret organization that represent some of the most skilled individuals in the world

Of course, a setting is useless without characters. These are the main characters of the setting that I need to incoporate. They use a lot of D&D multiclassing, which leaves me wondering how well they will translate into C&C:

-Seelik Malamute: a clever rogue with an innate magical spark who serves the crown of Blackwoodwhile making a few illegitimate deals on the side

-Allaina Elderstar: a druid from the northern village of Starfall, recently entering training to become a Ranger.

-Garyl Shadowslayer: a cursed wizard who died decades ago and now roams the world as a ghost

-Penelope Smith: a bizarre warrior-ruler of the province of Lorinth

-Samuel Shestrik: once a great bounty hunter, now living in retirement

-Elony Anuvier: the ruler of the empire, a woman who descends from the proudest family of warriors the world has ever knownbut has never got her chance to set the crown aside and adventure for herself

-Toria Intaveere: an elfin troubleshooter whose conscience usually manages to keep her mischievous nature in check

-Sparrowwood: an amazon princess, called a barbarian by the civilized folk of Blackwood, who lost her home to a wizards machinations

-Draga: a fearsome ogre-mage who seeks to conquer the north for his dark kin

-The Red Mage: the mysterious leader of the Crimson Claw, a cult set on resurrecting the dead dragon-god Derrezen

-Je: a self-centered monk who fell to a bodak and has wandered the world as an undead monster ever since

-Felix von Ludendorf: a mad scientist who straddles the line between magic and technologyusually while blowing things up at the same time

So, based on the information above, do you guys think this would be an easy task to move into C&C? Or would I spend more time rewriting the rules system than playing?[/i]

[angelius]

You'll be spending a lot of time writing up new rules. But that being said, if you're already a writer I dont see the issue with that. Unless you're more of a story writer than a rules writer.

Even in that case, it doesn't really mean that C&C isn't for you. Since C&C is not really all about houserules as you mentioned but really about story telling. The amount of houserules is strictly used to enhance the game to suit the campaign of whoever the CK is and not because it is needed for the game to succeed.
_________________
Big Iron Vault Your friendly neighbourhood gaming magazine. Check out our new webcomic, The Heindrich Project!

[an_idol_mind]

angelius wrote:
You'll be spending a lot of time writing up new rules. But that being said, if you're already a writer I dont see the issue with that. Unless you're more of a story writer than a rules writer.

Even in that case, it doesn't really mean that C&C isn't for you. Since C&C is not really all about houserules as you mentioned but really about story telling. The amount of houserules is strictly used to enhance the game to suit the campaign of whoever the CK is and not because it is needed for the game to succeed.

I guess my question isn't so much, "would I have to come up with new rules," but more, "how extensive would those new rules be?" I don't mind house ruling things, especially in the age of the Internet when I can simply borrow house rules already suggested online. But it's one thing to change a few modifiers or add in new equipment, and another thing entirely to build up new subsystems.

As an example, I tried converting Blackwood into Rules Cyclopedia D&D a while ago. The downside was that I started making endless houserules, eliminating THAC0, changing Armor Class from low to high, breaking up the races as classes thing, and so on. It got to the point where I wasn't really playing basic D&D, so I abandoned the project for 3.5 again. With Castles & Crusades, I'm wondering whether I could use it for my setting without tearing apart the rules, or if I'd be better with a different system for this task.

[angelius]

I believe that C&C is suited to any campaign where storytelling is strong. I don't think you'll have a problem for your purposes. Besides the capital investment for the PHB and M&T is so low vs. other systems.
_________________
Big Iron Vault Your friendly neighbourhood gaming magazine. Check out our new webcomic, The Heindrich Project!

[Omote]

In your above post you mentioned you;ve carried you games across a few systems. Was any one of then 1E AD&D? If so, I think C&C fairly closely resembes 1E, but IMO more dynamic.

I'm sure with C&C you seem like you would need to write up some houserules, there is no doubt about that. The benefit for doing so with C&C is that, again IMO, it is easy to do. C&C is very modular in this regard.

...........................................Omote

FPQ
_________________
> Omote's Advanced C&C stuff <
Duke Omote Landwehr, Holy Order of the FPQ ~ Prince of the Castles & Crusades Society

[babbage]

My background is a DM of 25(ish) years, using such varied systems as RuneQuest, Traveller, Shadowrun, D&D (1e, 2e, 3e, 3.5e), Palladium, Paranoia and a host of others. They each have had their strong suits and I have enjoyed them all (including 3e/3.5e).

In my experience of C&C so far, because the mechanic is simple it can be applied to so many different situations. I don't think you'll need to houserule much. I've started out with a vanilla system and the only thing I have changed so far is to use 10/15 instead of 12/18 for the prime/non-prime challenge bases. This is because I like my players to succeed a little more and to make the maths a tad easier.

I have seen a number of other houserules and most of them have been so simple in their execution and application that they almost feel as if they were there to begin with. Examples include signature spells for clerics of specific deities, reduced EV for magical armour.

There is an issue with multi-classing. There isn't any - but that then works in your favour. Existing characters or protagonists can easily be explained. There have been a host of houserules (and indeed articles) on multi-classing, from the simple 3e style to the more complicated 'creating classes that combine the classes of others'.

All in all C&C provides a good base, which is all we ask. We can then mould it into whatever we want but it is good enough to stand on its own should you not want, or are not confident enough, to modify it at all.

I hope you join the crusade and if you do (and even if you don't) you will always find some friendly discourse on these forums. Heck, we even talk about 3e from time to time!

8)
_________________
They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.

- Benjamin Franklin

[an_idol_mind]

Omote wrote:
In your above post you mentioned you;ve carried you games across a few systems. Was any one of then 1E AD&D? If so, I think C&C fairly closely resembes 1E, but IMO more dynamic.

I'm sure with C&C you seem like you would need to write up some houserules, there is no doubt about that. The benefit for doing so with C&C is that, again IMO, it is easy to do. C&C is very modular in this regard.

...........................................Omote

FPQ

The campaign officially began with D&D 3e, although it incorporated characters I had used in 2nd edition. I've also played it in 3.5 and Big Eyes, Small Mouth. I never tried it in 1st edition AD&D, largely because I came into the system during 2nd edition and could never get into the clunkier 1e mechanics.

[babbage]

Oh, and Omote - the avatar is now the toad!
_________________
They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.

- Benjamin Franklin

[an_idol_mind]

babbage wrote:
There is an issue with multi-classing. There isn't any - but that then works in your favour. Existing characters or protagonists can easily be explained. There have been a host of houserules (and indeed articles) on multi-classing, from the simple 3e style to the more complicated 'creating classes that combine the classes of others'.

Multiclassing is the big sticking point in this case. However, I think the prime mechanic helps overcome that somewhat. For example, a mage/thief could just be a wizard with a Dexterity prime. For more complex multiclass combos, I'd have to work out a system that probably would resemble the AD&D dual-classing system, if that is feasible.

[Rigon]

an_idol_mind wrote:
Multiclassing is the big sticking point in this case. However, I think the prime mechanic helps overcome that somewhat. For example, a mage/thief could just be a wizard with a Dexterity prime. For more complex multiclass combos, I'd have to work out a system that probably would resemble the AD&D dual-classing system, if that is feasible.

I use a multi/dual-classing setup that is very similar to the 2e rules. So if you started with 2e, you could do something like that and I'd be more than willing to share.

R-
_________________
Rigon o' the Lakelands, Baron of The Castles & Crusades Society
The Book of the Mind

[andakitty]

There is a workable looking multiclass system for download at dragonsfoot, too. Which I am going to grab.

[gideon_thorne]

Sounds like everything you want can be done with

1) The CZ skill bundles and Multiclassing

2) The Seige engine core mechancs at basic

3) Writing up a couple of character classes

4) and some flexibility in class ability interpretations.
_________________
"We'll go out through the kitchen!" Tanis Half-Elven

Peter Bradley

[serleran]

There are something like 12 different "multiclass" rules systems, from the three in Crusader #3, to other people's houserules, to the two sort-of methods I once had as a free download from CnCPlayer.

Yes, C&C can handle any setting. It depends on whether you need mechanics to get the feel you want, or not. If you need emchanics... you'll have to create them, because the game does not suppose everything for you, nor can it provide every conceivable possibility... its core machanic is flexible to allow such things, but specifics have to be handled by individual CKs. Doing otherwise is to to have a game with overhead and less enjoyment (unless one likes the accounting aspect of gaming... I guess.)

[Treebore]

First check ou cncplayer.net and the book of classes linked there, if you haven't already.

Second, from my impression of you, I think if your willing to write up customized classes, which is surprisingly easy to do after you work your way through the first one, I think C&C will work very well for how you like to run your game/campaign.

The cross-classing will not give you the "right feel" that I think you are going for. Customize.

[BeZurKur]

Practically any game system can handle any setting. d20 is proof of that. The real question is not based from the setting, but what it is you want the game-system to do. For example, d20 is very crunchy rules style gaming. The emphasis is on handling the rules to get the most out of them. C&C has more of a minimalist approach. I get your setting, but what do you want your game to be driven by?

[an_idol_mind]

BeZurKur wrote:
Practically any game system can handle any setting. d20 is proof of that. The real question is not based from the setting, but what it is you want the game-system to do. For example, d20 is very crunchy rules style gaming. The emphasis is on handling the rules to get the most out of them. C&C has more of a minimalist approach. I get your setting, but what do you want your game to be driven by?

The game is almost entirely character based. When a new campaign begins, I run one to three adventures to set the scene, and then let the PCs go after whatever they might want. I have an increasingly detailed world map and I'm pretty familiar with the setting, so a lot of my game is winging it. Generally, I let the players go after what they want, and decide how the world around them reacts. When necessary, I add new towns or dungeons to accommodate the PCs' whims.

[Omote]

TOAD!!! *waits 3 turns*

........................................Omote

FPQ
_________________
> Omote's Advanced C&C stuff <
Duke Omote Landwehr, Holy Order of the FPQ ~ Prince of the Castles & Crusades Society

[babbage]

_________________
They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.

- Benjamin Franklin

[BeZurKur]

C&C rules are geared towards combat, making them more satisfying than other type of encounters. The reward system is also more structured for handing out XP dealing with combat. However, even in this aspect, it is very rules light, especially when compared to 3ed. If you are coming from 3ed, you are no stranger to this. In C&C, however, they tend to be more dramatic because there isn't a rule saying what you can and can't do. The SIEGE engine really makes this dramatic license easy.

From what you described, C&C sounds suitable to your style of game. I reccomend you check this blog article for a game hack I think will complement your character based campaign style. It is for written for 3ed and is heavily inspired from a really good game called The Shadow of Yesterday, but it works in C&C with some minor tweaking. I use it as well for my C&C game. If you do, scan the replies, the author made an amendment he forgot to include in the rules.