Castles and Crusades

G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.misc (More info?)

Anyone here check this out yet? I did, and I definitely like it. Bought
the cut-down boxed version, which has the same feel as the original D&D
boxed version. My only real complaint is that the adventure they put in
the boxed set has some NPC classes that aren't included in the rules,
but that's no biggie. Uses pretty much the same resolution mechanic as
D20, but without all the bulky rules. Sweet. This is what I think 3E
should have been.


Ralph Glatt
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.misc (More info?)

julian814@hotmail.com wrote:

> Anyone here check this out yet? I did, and I definitely like it. Bought
> the cut-down boxed version, which has the same feel as the original D&D
> boxed version. My only real complaint is that the adventure they put in
> the boxed set has some NPC classes that aren't included in the rules,
> but that's no biggie. Uses pretty much the same resolution mechanic as
> D20, but without all the bulky rules. Sweet. This is what I think 3E
> should have been.

I've got the Player's Handbook. Haven't had a chance to actually play it
yet, but I like what I've read, for the most part.

I especially like the emphasis on using attributes, and the de-emphasizing
of using miniatures and a map for combat. In fact, I've explained C&C to
someone else as "Imagine if the designers of 3e had chosen to crossbreed
D&D with Tunnels & Trolls, instead of with Milton Bradley's HeroQuest."

Of course, nothing's perfect, so I've got a few dislikes:

- Fighters seem rather flavorless, just as in old-style D&D. I'd rather not
add in 3e's full feat structure, but some more options to differentiate
them would be nice.

- Going back to "every class has its own XP table" feels like a huge step
backwards to me. I could see 3e's method of multiclassing working really
well with C&C... if it weren't for that.

- Having primary vs. secondary attributes change the target numbers feels
wonky... it would feel smoother to me to express it as a bonus to the roll
instead.

A few other things I really do like:

- The separate list of spells for Illusionists. I think I like that feel
more than the AD&D2+ method of making the illusionist spell list be
basically a minor variation on the standard mage one.

- Having saves based on Intelligence, Strength, and Charisma as well as
Constitution, Dexterity, and Intelligence.

- The return of the Assassin as a base class. Maybe it's just old-school of
me, but... I like it. :)

--
ZZzz |\ _,,,---,,_ Travis S. Casey <efindel@earthlink.net>
/,`.-'`' -. ;-;;,_ No one agrees with me. Not even me.
|,4- ) )-,_..;\ ( `'-'
'---''(_/--' `-'\_)
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.misc (More info?)

julian814@hotmail.com wrote:
> Anyone here check this out yet? I did, and I definitely like it.
Bought
> the cut-down boxed version, which has the same feel as the original
D&D
> boxed version. My only real complaint is that the adventure they put
in
> the boxed set has some NPC classes that aren't included in the rules,
> but that's no biggie. Uses pretty much the same resolution mechanic
as
> D20, but without all the bulky rules. Sweet. This is what I think 3E
> should have been.
>
>
> Ralph Glatt

Wow. The Castles & Crusades Society (or club or whatever) was the
wargaming group that produced first Chainmail(tm) and then the original
D&D. Now I have to find out who put this new game out and whether they
have any connection with the original C&C.

Will in New Haven

--

SunSpear, who walked the length of Shadows Dance
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.misc (More info?)

willreich_77@yahoo.com wrote in news:1111433031.139723.246650
@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com:

> julian814@hotmail.com wrote:
>> Anyone here check this out yet? I did, and I definitely like it.
> Bought
>> the cut-down boxed version, which has the same feel as the original
> D&D
>> boxed version. My only real complaint is that the adventure they put
> in
>> the boxed set has some NPC classes that aren't included in the rules,
>> but that's no biggie. Uses pretty much the same resolution mechanic
> as
>> D20, but without all the bulky rules. Sweet. This is what I think 3E
>> should have been.
>>
>>
>> Ralph Glatt
>
> Wow. The Castles & Crusades Society (or club or whatever) was the
> wargaming group that produced first Chainmail(tm) and then the original
> D&D. Now I have to find out who put this new game out and whether they
> have any connection with the original C&C.

The game is put out by Troll Lord Games.

Written by Robert Doyel with contributions from Davis Chenault, Todd Gray
and Mac Golden. Gygax is making a campaign for it (Castle Zagyg).

It's basically rules-light 1st Edition AD&D (with Unearthed Arcana). The
XP tables are the same, the spell lists are the same, most of the classes
and abilities are the same. About the only thing changed is saves (now
attribute based), and a unified d20-style resolution mechanic (d20 +
attribute bonus + level > target #). Attribute bonuses are taken from
original D&D rather than 3E's much more regular system.

In fact, it's so close to 1st Edition that I'm not sure if it's violating
TSR/WotC's copyrights. (The authors appear to think that the OGL applies
to earlier editions of D&D, which it does not).

--
Shadow Wolf
shadowolf3400 at yahoo dot com
Stories at http://www.asstr.org/~Shadow_Wolf
AIF at http://www.geocities.com/shadowolf3400

----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.misc (More info?)

Shadow Wolf <shadowolf3400@NOSPAMyahoo.invalid> wrote in
news:Xns96207B53ADA91shadowolfsofthome@38.119.71.9:

> In fact, it's so close to 1st Edition that I'm not sure if it's
> violating TSR/WotC's copyrights. (The authors appear to think that the
> OGL applies to earlier editions of D&D, which it does not).
>
Game mechanics are not subject to copyright. As long as they do not copy
anything verbatim, there are no copyright issues.

http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl108.pdf

Whether or not Hasbro's lawyers know this is another question entirely.

--
Terry Austin
www.hyperbooks.com
Campaign Cartographer now available
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.misc (More info?)

Travis Casey wrote:
> julian814@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> > Anyone here check this out yet? I did, and I definitely like it.
Bought
> > the cut-down boxed version, which has the same feel as the original
D&D
> > boxed version. My only real complaint is that the adventure they
put in
> > the boxed set has some NPC classes that aren't included in the
rules,
> > but that's no biggie. Uses pretty much the same resolution mechanic
as
> > D20, but without all the bulky rules. Sweet. This is what I think
3E
> > should have been.
>
> I've got the Player's Handbook. Haven't had a chance to actually
play it
> yet, but I like what I've read, for the most part.
>
> I especially like the emphasis on using attributes, and the
de-emphasizing
> of using miniatures and a map for combat. In fact, I've explained
C&C to
> someone else as "Imagine if the designers of 3e had chosen to
crossbreed
> D&D with Tunnels & Trolls, instead of with Milton Bradley's
HeroQuest."
>
> Of course, nothing's perfect, so I've got a few dislikes:
>
> - Fighters seem rather flavorless, just as in old-style D&D. I'd
rather not
> add in 3e's full feat structure, but some more options to
differentiate
> them would be nice.
>
> - Going back to "every class has its own XP table" feels like a huge
step
> backwards to me. I could see 3e's method of multiclassing working
really
> well with C&C... if it weren't for that.
>
> - Having primary vs. secondary attributes change the target numbers
feels
> wonky... it would feel smoother to me to express it as a bonus to the
roll
> instead.
>
> A few other things I really do like:
>
> - The separate list of spells for Illusionists. I think I like that
feel
> more than the AD&D2+ method of making the illusionist spell list be
> basically a minor variation on the standard mage one.
>
> - Having saves based on Intelligence, Strength, and Charisma as well
as
> Constitution, Dexterity, and Intelligence.
>
> - The return of the Assassin as a base class. Maybe it's just
old-school of
> me, but... I like it. :)
>
> --
> ZZzz |\ _,,,---,,_ Travis S. Casey
<efindel@earthlink.net>
> /,`.-'`' -. ;-;;,_ No one agrees with me. Not even me.
> |,4- ) )-,_..;\ ( `'-'
> '---''(_/--' `-'\_)
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.misc (More info?)

Damned Google, had problems posting my reply. :-/


Travis Casey wrote:
>
> Of course, nothing's perfect, so I've got a few dislikes:
>
> - Fighters seem rather flavorless, just as in old-style D&D. I'd
rather not
> add in 3e's full feat structure, but some more options to
differentiate
> them would be nice.

The way we did it "back in the day" was with equipment. I hear the CK's
Guide will have rules to add skills, so that may help.

>
> - Going back to "every class has its own XP table" feels like a huge
step
> backwards to me. I could see 3e's method of multiclassing working
really
> well with C&C... if it weren't for that.

Yeah, I see problems coming up with multiclassing as well, though,
again, this will probably be addressed in the CK's Guide.

>
> - Having primary vs. secondary attributes change the target numbers
feels
> wonky... it would feel smoother to me to express it as a bonus to the
roll
> instead.

They explained this decision on the forums in their website, but I
can't remember exactly where.

>
> A few other things I really do like:
>
> - The separate list of spells for Illusionists. I think I like that
feel
> more than the AD&D2+ method of making the illusionist spell list be
> basically a minor variation on the standard mage one.

I like this, too. Makes it easier to know what spells are available to
a certain class.

>
> - Having saves based on Intelligence, Strength, and Charisma as well
as
> Constitution, Dexterity, and Intelligence.

Makes sense, when you think about it. In 1E, you really didn't use
stats all that much.

>
> - The return of the Assassin as a base class. Maybe it's just
old-school of
> me, but... I like it. :)

Never really used assassins, but yeah, it's great to see them back as a
core class all their own.


Ralph Glatt
 
G

Guest

Guest
Archived from groups: rec.games.frp.misc (More info?)

Travis Casey wrote:
> julian814@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> > Anyone here check this out yet? I did, and I definitely like it.
Bought
> > the cut-down boxed version, which has the same feel as the original
D&D
> > boxed version. My only real complaint is that the adventure they
put in
> > the boxed set has some NPC classes that aren't included in the
rules,
> > but that's no biggie. Uses pretty much the same resolution mechanic
as
> > D20, but without all the bulky rules. Sweet. This is what I think
3E
> > should have been.
>
> I've got the Player's Handbook. Haven't had a chance to actually
play it
> yet, but I like what I've read, for the most part.
>
> I especially like the emphasis on using attributes, and the
de-emphasizing
> of using miniatures and a map for combat. In fact, I've explained
C&C to
> someone else as "Imagine if the designers of 3e had chosen to
crossbreed
> D&D with Tunnels & Trolls, instead of with Milton Bradley's
HeroQuest."
>
> Of course, nothing's perfect, so I've got a few dislikes:
>
> - Fighters seem rather flavorless, just as in old-style D&D. I'd
rather not
> add in 3e's full feat structure, but some more options to
differentiate
> them would be nice.

Fighters don't need to be flavorless. You don't need different classes
or sub-classes to know that one guy is a warrior from an iron-age
tribe, armed with a big shield and a spear that is mostly spearhead.
That other guy, over THERE, is from one of the towns around the Inland
Sea. He will fight over any slight on his honor and his weapons are the
crossbow and the longsword. His friend there, don't STARE at her, is
from the Blue Isles, where the women wear tattoos like that. She has a
two-handed sword on her back and a shorter sword in her belt. And
KNIVES. I TOLD you not to stare. It's ok, your hand won't fall off.
They won't charge you for the table top. Give her the KNIFE back.

They screwed up when they made barbarians, etc, different classes.

Will in New Haven

--

SunSpear, who walked the length of Shadows Dance


> - Going back to "every class has its own XP table" feels like a huge
step
> backwards to me. I could see 3e's method of multiclassing working
really
> well with C&C... if it weren't for that.
>
> - Having primary vs. secondary attributes change the target numbers
feels
> wonky... it would feel smoother to me to express it as a bonus to the
roll
> instead.
>
> A few other things I really do like:
>
> - The separate list of spells for Illusionists. I think I like that
feel
> more than the AD&D2+ method of making the illusionist spell list be
> basically a minor variation on the standard mage one.
>
> - Having saves based on Intelligence, Strength, and Charisma as well
as
> Constitution, Dexterity, and Intelligence.
>
> - The return of the Assassin as a base class. Maybe it's just
old-school of
> me, but... I like it. :)
>
> --
> ZZzz |\ _,,,---,,_ Travis S. Casey
<efindel@earthlink.net>
> /,`.-'`' -. ;-;;,_ No one agrees with me. Not even me.
> |,4- ) )-,_..;\ ( `'-'
> '---''(_/--' `-'\_)