So what's the consensus on Castles&Crusaders

[reelo]

As the title suggests, I was wondering what everybody thought of C&C.
I've been reading a bit about it lately (during my quest for a system with a retro feel, but simple mechanics). Don't get me wrong, I really like 5E. But I also like the simplicity older editions had. Minus Thac0. But I've also read C&C isn't without issues. So, those of you having first-hand experience of the game, what's your verdict?

Sent from my [device_name] using EN World mobile app

 

[GameOgre]

C&C is a grade A+ RPG that I don't play. I have played it, a lot in past years but it has joined a small list of games that I loved but stopped playing for one reason or another.

No rpg is perfect or even close to perfect. 5E has as many or more warts than C&C so it isn't that C&C had too many issues.

I think it's just a case of too many great rpg's so you have to my a choice regardless of how much you like a game and sometimes that choice boils down to "it isn't new, or it isn't the cool latest version of the game or I would have to hunt down players willing to try it.

So there ya go! As far as the game itself, it's so house rules friendly that you can easily shape it into whatever old school game you love best.

 

[Pawndream]

Here's my take on Castles and Crusades (C&C)...

I discovered C&C in late 2010 after growing increasingly frustrated with how complicated it was to run 4th edition D&D, and looking for a game that had the simplicity of 1st/2nd edition AD&D, without all tacked-on subsystems., i.e., roll high for this, low for that, d6 here, d100 there, etc.

C&C fit the bill nicely and I ran that pretty much exclusive for the next 6 years. On forums, you will see a lot of criticism about how saving throws work, etc. but honestly, I have never encountered any of the issues other people discuss. Granted, I primarily run lower powered games (levels 1-7), but in actual play, there have been no issues.

It's a real easy game to teach, play and GM. It's also easy to house rule, though I didn't do much of this when I ran it.

For what it's worth, I started playing 5th edition this past year and moved away from C&C. I didn't stop playing C&C altogether, I just migrated over to 5th edition because it is an equally fun game with a deep community...whereas the C&C community is a small niche within a small niche. Still a great game though!

All this to say, if you're looking for a game with an AD&D feel without THAC0 and a universal task resolution mechanic, C&C fits that bill.

Oh yeah, you only need two books to play the game...Players Handbook and Monsters & Treasure. The Castle Keepers Guide is largely just a book of optional rules and entirely unnecessary.

 

[Lwaxy]

I play it every now and then as one of my GMs likes it. It is as fun as any game and we never encountered any imbalance issues, although we usually don't go beyond level 7 before we switch.

 

[reelo]

Too bad, it looks like I missed a "50% off" sale by only a couple of hours.

Sent from my [device_name] using EN World mobile app

 

[Jack Daniel]

I got C&C right away when it first came out (2004, I think?) because I was very dissatisfied with how complicated 3rd edition was. I played it for a while, and it's a fine game that works well enough in the 1st to 10th level range, but in the end I decided to switch over to Basic/Expert D&D instead because I prefer the flavor of basic, and C&C leans strongly into the 1st edition AD&D flavor.

Without a doubt, C&C inspired me to streamline my basic D&D games in much the same way that it feels like a streamlined and simplified AD&D, so I have no way of quantifying how influential it's been on my gaming sensibilities. But if you play C&C, you'll pretty much wind up adjudicating every. single. action. with d20 rolls. Whether that's a good thing or a bad thing, YMMV. It's good if you like a unified mechanic and bad if you like a little variety in your sub-systems.

 

[GreyLord]

C&C is like a simplified 3e in some ways, but more adaptable. I find that C&C played as is actually mashes even better with 5e modules and games than it does 3e or earlier versions. However, C&C is simple enough that you can easily adapt it to just about every version of D&D (though 4e is a pretty big stretch, that's probably the hardest one to convert it to run in) you wish. I like to pick and choose to a degree. For example, if you like the basic combat ideas of C&C and characters/races/classes they are easy to port over to 5e. At the same time you might not like the saves system for C&C (I use a modified Save vs. spell system, where the save DC the spell level rather than the casters level) and so use the saves in 5e instead. The numbers are slightly different (so fighters will have a higher to hit, but will have less attacks, while Rogues and others may be near the right advancement rate for skills and combat in regards to the Monster AC in 5e), but overall I find it can be decently balanced to run 5e modules for a quick thinking DM that can adapt to necessary changes on the fly and react on their feet to it.

If you go C&C, by all means try to see how a 5e module runs with it if you already have some 5e adventures, you could be pleasantly surprised at how the crossflow works and be able to run both games with the same materials if you want!

The same could probably be said of 3e and 3.5 though a little bit more work would be needed to adapt them, it is still pretty easy (I'd say far easier than adapting 3e or 3.5 to 5e or reverse by several factors of 10 even). You can also do the same if adapting to AD&D or D&D (BX/BECMI).

4e on the otherhand, that's going to be a lot tougher to adapt. I think it is doable, but it's not one I've really wanted to spend the work doing myself.

 

[Ralif Redhammer]

I jumped onto C&C right when it came out. It’s definitely a response to the increasing complexity of 3e at the time. For me, it was a breath of fresh air, and was so liberating to run. It’s still my favorite of the OSR games.

The one thing I don’t like about Troll Lord Ggames is their Kickstarter model – you can trust them to get a product to you, but you can also trust that it will be hella late. And that they will be hyping their next Kickstarter when you haven't even gotten the last one yet.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

C&C is great, although the editing complaints about their supplements are legitimate -- the Book of Familiars is basically unusable in many parts and you have to create the rules for those sections yourself, and they have two different versions of the same monster (with art!) in two different monster books.

Multiclassing is more fiddly than it needs to be.

They're basically just two guys, so I'm pretty forgiving, but it's definitely much more of a small outfit punching way above their weight than it is a big operation like WotC.

That said, it's insanely easy to use with anything from OD&D through 3E with their products, to the point that I don't even bother to pre-convert any of the material.

If a streamlined 3E that feels like 1E sounds like it'd appeal to you, it's a great game.

 

[Netwatcher]

the Book of Familiars is basically unusable in many parts and you have to create the rules for those sections yourself

This, definitely! I would have been happier had that book just been a set of ideas for familiars, instead of buying a book I thought had been vetted and was ready for use. BoF cannot be used as written.

That said, I've had very few issues with their other products and just LOVE the ease of play that is C&C. Compared to most OSRs I would put them at 'high powered' for your level of experience. Running a group of level one C&C characters through any of the old first level AD&D modules shouldn't challenge them too much, nor stress the DM in converting the material on the fly. It has been my go-to system for years and will continue to be so, despite some meddling with AS&SH of late...