I am a fan of the current edition of the Dungeons & Dragons game, but there is just too much. Too many rules, too many stoppages of play and just plain old 'too much.'
Has anybody here been following the developments of Castles & Crusades? www.trolllord.com.
C&C is a D&D v3.5 lite (or what is the best way to describe it). C&C follows the OGL but leaves most of the extrememly detail rules of the game up to the DM. To me, C&C looks to be a "basic" version of D&D 3.5. Of course, I have yet to actually play it, and don't really know that much about it. However, I'm looking forward to this product. It promises to 'get back to the basics' in a sense. Just a core fantasy adventure game for those who do not want every situation described by unlimited abouts of rules.
Just wondering what everybody thought? C&C looks like it is going to be old-school gaming goodness, birthed from the newest edition of the game.
.............................Omote
FPQ _________________ Prince Omote Landwehr, Holy Order of the FPQ ~ Castles and Crusades Society
Discussion of C&C is considered off topic in the Old Lore forum folder. I'm moving this post to the greyhawk general folder, where it is more than welcome _________________ What would Raxivort do?<br />
While I'm making a pretty decent transition from 1.0 to 3.5, I agree that the ever-increasing number of rules is getting kinda scary. This simplified game sounds like a good idea. Especially if it fits in a cargo pocket.
Now that I'm DMing, one house rule I use is that anything coming from outside the PHB needs DM approval. Feats, skills, classes, races, everything. Since I played back when Dwarf was a class, the burden of proof that it will enhance gameplay is definitely on the player.
So far, no griping, but we're just getting started....
(I have found that 3.5 gets much smoother as you learn/memorize the rules. I believe our 3.5 games are getting as fast as our 1.0 games were, but it's not an easy comparison to make.)
I will probably take a look at them, but I doubt that I will switch systems... if I want to play 1e I will play 1e, not a 3e version of 1e (this is actually similar to my complaint about hackmaster as well-- ie. if I wanted to play a "jazzed up" version of 1e I would play 2e).
I liked everything that was released about C&C, it is not a 'lets go back' to the first edition, it is a simplified version of the D&D game, it does not exactly fit in any edition.
Take the skill rules for instance, very simple yet well thought. There are lots of people who like rules, and 3.5 is rule heavy, it is quite honest about it and is a complete return to the old miniature style play, which is honest too!
But I'm tired of the lack of organization and 'free for all' spirit of the 3.0 and 3.5 - they don't bother separating things for style of play neither do they have a clear limit of what to do with the impact of tons of new rules added every month on your campaign!
C&C may not be the solution, it may become a product with good sales, but not that much use (actual play) but it IS a good idea. I hope that the good ideas described are developed into a good game.
Just wondering what everybody thought? C&C looks like it is going to be old-school gaming goodness, birthed from the newest edition of the game.
I don't think C&C will have market longevity lacking a serious and large consumer base. It is good they have Gygax and Kuntz producing early product for the rule set and hopefully that will help C&C endure.
I'm deffinately interested in C&C, but only so far as my curiosity pertaining to Castle Zagyg goes. I've been in 2nd Ed. so long, I simply don't feel the need, nor desire to switch it up. _________________ Kneel before me, or you shall be KNELT!
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
Canonfire! is a production of the Thursday Group in assocation with GREYtalk and Canonfire! Enterprises
