Official ICE Forums
Systems & Settings => HARP => Topic started by: Alwyn on August 28, 2007, 04:07:02 PM
-
Can anyone give me an opinion as to the merits of Castles & Crusades by TL Games?
One of my players has gotten a hold of some information on this game from a friend who says it is great. Unfortunately this friend is not near by, so we can't actually look at the books and compare them. Although I am not ready to sink money into another gaming system, from what he has told me it sounds like old style (original 1st Ed) AD&D with a better combat and skill system. He also says that it is compatable with all of the old TSR AD&D modules.
I did look at Troll Lord's website and read about the game, but I am looking for information from "real" folks who may have played or heard about this game.
C&C sounds too good to be true from an old DM standpoint (I mean really old, I started playing D&D back in 78). Even though I love running HARP, I might consider running C&C also off and on if it is worth the purchase.
So anyone got any advice or opinions on C&C? How does it compare to our beloved HARP?
Thanks in advance for any info. :)
-
Castles & Crusades is quite a different game from HARP. It is a pretty well done attempt to recreate a game in the style of AD&D with the d20 rules. As such, you can plug your AD&D adventures in a C&C game with no trouble. The designers incorporated the d20's AC rules, as they are clearly easier to use than the AD&D version, and a number of novelties of their own. In C&C there are six saving throws, one for each ability, about a dozen of classes, no feats and no skills. Skills are replaced by their siege system. Basically, you choose an ability to be your prime. Your class will give you another prime. Any situation normally resolved by skill is done by a roll using level plus the appropriated ability bonus. If the ability is a prime then the difficulty class (the number to beat) is lower than normal.
Quite frankly, if you want to replay all those old AD&D modules, C&C may be a blast. However, the siege system makes little sense to me and the whole system carries a lot of D&D features I dislike, such as exploding hit points making characters near impossible to kill by regular foes, weird mechanics as separate system for combat and other actions, and the linear progression of all abilities. HARP handle all those things much better. If you really want a game with lighter rules, look elsewhere -- I suggest WEG's d6 for cinematic action and Chaosium's BRP for anything else.
-
C&C does a good job of getting the feel of AD&D1 using the 3.0 d20 rules - so it probably shouldn't have too many problems with whatever happens with the OGL etc.
The biggest problem I see in using all the old AD&D modules for C&C is the problems of converting AD&D1 to d20. Once you have a bit of experience with it, its not too difficult to do on the fly, but it can be a steep learning curve.
A possible solution to this is to check out some of the module from Goodman Games. They specialise in doing d20 modules that have a 1st edition feel. Some of them are pretty good.
Hawk
-
C&C is essentially what D&D 3.0 should have been (IMO and in the opinion of many "old school" players). By the simple act of reversing Armor Class they made the game actually 10x more logical. It's still geared towards a D&D mentality, specifically in the realm of role protection. If you play a thief you're role in the group is absolute. The same goes for fighters, clerics, and every other class. Role boundries can often blur in games with free skill development (HARP, RM, GURPS, etc), sometimes resulting in generalists that can get trumped by numerous specialists, so a game like C&C is awesome for beginners. Not that it can't also be enjoyed by veterans. It's "lighter" form frees you up for a lot of narrative and rich storytelling.
The primary concept and design philosophy behind C&C, though, is the elmination of rules bloat that has rotted D&D from the inside out for the past 25 years. They basically stripped 3.5 back to its 1.0 roots, then progressed it back up to a 1.5, if that makes sense. This is the perfect version of AD&D and, arguably, the true vision that Gygax had always seen. In fact, he even supported and assited its development. The question that remains is this: did you like AD&D? If you did, you'll love C&C. If you felt AD&D was restrictive and dumb, avoid it like the plague.
In comparison to HARP, well, they're really in two different fields. Neither is inherently more or less immersive than the other. That is up to the players and GMs (as is the case with ALL rules systems). But HARP supports far more skill aspects than C&C, which handles little more than combat abilities, spells, and a few skills for thieves and assassins. Think of it as comparing AD&D 1e with Rolemaster 2. While the differences in level of detail between HARP and C&C is a bit less than the differences between RM2 and AD&D 1e, the different approaches and remain the same.
Hope that helps.
Oh, and the artwork in C&C kicks bootaaaay!
-
Thanks for the replies. Like I said, I am an old D&D player, so C&C might be fun to run on the side. I think I can handle the conversion issues. Our group is not planning on giving up on HARP (or RM2), but we do have nostalgia for the old AD&D that started us all on RPGing. So C&C might give us something to use when we feel we need to revert back to our primative RPGing days (WHAT! No crits? ;D).
Thanks again.
-
Thanks for the replies. Like I said, I am an old D&D player, so C&C might be fun to run on the side. I think I can handle the conversion issues. Our group is not planning on giving up on HARP (or RM2), but we do have nostalgia for the old AD&D that started us all on RPGing. So C&C might give us something to use when we feel we need to revert back to our primative RPGing days (WHAT! No crits? ;D).
Thanks again.
I think most criticisms would come in the form of simple, general anti-D&Dism. If you find something valuable in AD&D, and hated anything beyond 1st edition, you're in for a cool game. But if you hated AD&D from the start, or switched to other games simply 'cause you couldn't handle it anymore, than I don't imagine you'll have anything good to say about it.
As D&D games go you simply can't say anything bad about it...unless, of course, you think anything after 1st edition was actually an improvement...then you're just too much of a moron to have a valid opinion anyway. ;D
Let's face it: "Improving" AD&D with 2.x and 3.x was sort of like hiding your vegetables under your lumpy mash potatoes when you were a kid: you've simply covered up the problem with something else you'll have trouble swallowing.
-
I think he probably meant crit charts
-
Converting AD&D critters to C&C can be done on the fly : Hit Dice, Hit Points, Attacks, and special abilities can be taken as they are. You just have to change AC (simple math: 20 - AD&D AC = C&C (or d20) AC) and use your judgement and C&C rules to adapt the saving throws.
Anything else can be adapted on the fly, such as the difficulty of traps, where you just have to figure the approximate level of the guy who's done it, poisons are less deadly but there are rules in the C&C PHB to handle them, spells can mostly be used as is, etc.
It's much easier than a conversion from AD&D to d20, where some monsters received such a notable boost (giants, dragons) that they cannot be kept as they were if you want to play with the previous AD&D players levels, and where you feel you have to add some d20 "sauce", like skills, feats, prestige classes, advanced monsters, etc. to the mix.
I am actually running a HARP Middle Earth campaign, a D&D 3.5 AP3 - Paizo - Savage Tide campaign and a C&C Queen of the Spiders (G1-3, D1-3, Q1) campaign, and I have to say that each of these games has a different flavor:
- HARP is sweet and delicious, full of little details I love DMing, dark and bloody on some occasions. It conveys the setting's atmosphere so well that this campaign has become a role playing paragon for us (some of us have played RPGs for more than 25 years). I think HARP will stay as our ME system for years, as RM or MERP have been for others.
- D&D 3.5 is a techno fiesta I don't enjoy that much as a DM, but my players for this campaign are like the "dream team table" of our large gaming group, so I share some very good moments with them. I won't start another game of D&D 3+ after this one.
- C&C is like DMing in a rocking chair, with sun glasses and a good drink at hand, as a DM you just have to make it fun, quick and let the monsters and the epic adventure do their job. Never have a look at a rule book, just play.
-
Never have a look at a rule book, just play.
Hummmmmm... tempting. :D
-
I think he probably meant crit charts
...um...oh...nevermind. :confused:
-
The simplicity of C&C sounds like it may be perfect for my kids and their friends (8-11 year olds) who are wanting me to start a game with them. :)
I did manage to download a free "starter" intro copy from DriveThrough RPG yesterday and the rule set (what little there was) intrigued me.
I might just have to go out and purchase the books. I can run my friends in HARP and my kids in C&C. ;D
-
Never have a look at a rule book, just play.
Absolutely my kind of game. I remember doing that with the old WEG Star Wars. I'd go months at a time (gaming weekly) without opening the book during play. Often I'd go back to the book weeks later and realized that we had improvised something that we thought was in the book and even thought we improvised something that was in the book. It didn't matter. Never had to worry about balancing encounters or even balancing the PCs for that matter. We just played. Man, I miss those days. I think that's a form of gaming that is totally lost on most of today's newer gamers. Of course, look at the games they have to work with. 3.5 practically straps you down to your chair with all its mechanics...
-
GoblynByte,
The "WHAT! No Crits" comment in my post was a joke. I was being facetious about not having the HARP/RM crit charts for D&D/C&C. ;D
-
I actually have a document written up that produces RM-style criticals for d20....
;D
-
Rasyr,
You know, I forgot all about those tables! And I have them on my computer too (the HARP ones). ::)
Are the RM ones in the vault?
Thanks. :)
-
No, I meant that I once wrote a set of d20 critical table based on the RM/HARP style....
These are not something that I have ever released...
-
Oh, bummer. Any plans to release them in the future?
-
was thinking about it....
-
I recently got the C&C 2nd edition Players Handbook and have read about half of it. Whilst it does look like a nice way of reliving 1e AD&D, I've found several things about it quite irritating:
1. There are frequent grammatical errors and ugly sentence structures. For instance fighters "don themselves [sic] in the accouterments of war", "The ranger's distance from cities and towns requires them to be dependent upon the land for sustenance and excellent outdoorsmen and are capable of living off land others may find barren or empty." These are not isolated examples unfortunately.
2. There are some obvious glitches. For instance both assassins and illusionists have 'disguise' as a class ability, but the mechanics given in the two descriptions are inconsistent in a way that seems quite illogical. No explanation is given and it looks like an editing botch.
3. The equipment section lists a lot of obscure items in the armour and helmet categories but gives no descriptions of them. It might be cool to wear a cuir bouille, brigadine, benin, casquetel or even a 'war hat', but it would be cooler if I knew what the hell they were. In fact they could all be cut and still leave a decent selection (this is not material from the AD&D 1e PHB, which didn't go to town on armour types).
4. Some of the material is otiose. For instance, each character class gets a one-line description on page 7, a one paragraph description on page 9, and a full description on pages 11-30. Fair enough, but do we really then need a further description of the function of each class on page 124 in the GM's section? I think the GM gets it already!
5. With tighter editing they could easily have saved a couple of pages and been able to put an index in without increasing page count. The contents table is okay, but in my view a rulebook should have an index.
None of these issues are exactly game-breakers, but the overall impression given is amateurish. It doesn't make me want to spend money on further Troll Lord products, even though this looks like a potentially fun game for all its blemishes.
-
I've run C&C for my son and some of his friends a time or two. It's a pretty good introductory game. Really, it's great fun but I wish they'd made the spell effects a bit more rational. I've never liked that Sleep doesn't allow a saving throw, for instance.
Also, things like the nine rings broadsword on the weapon table, 30gp 1d10 damage (why use anything else?), rangers getting + level damage against humanoids and giants (gets out of hand by level five), or the 6 point difficulty gap between prime and other stats, are all frustrating problems with the system.
-
It might be cool to wear a cuir bouille, brigadine, benin, casquetel or even a 'war hat', but it would be cooler if I knew what the hell they were.
it seems you need a french translator ;)
- Cuir Bouilli = boiled leather
(cuir=leather, bouilli=boiled)
- Brigandine =
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brigandine
- Casquetel =a light open casque without a visor or beaver
Bouille and Brigadine (without 'n') are typos, they mean nothing here. (American RPG authors which use french words in their games often make this kind of errors. I wonder why. ???)
-
Thank you for the translations and link, very informative 8)
It's a shame the C&C authors didn't take the same trouble...
-
Thank you for the translations and link, very informative 8)
It's a shame the C&C authors didn't take the same trouble...
True, but, to be fair, neither did the HARP authors in the core book. I mean, they describe the armor, but not weapons. Sure most fantasy gamers know what a bastard sword, shuriken, or pilum is, but most fantasy RPGs make this assumption way to much, I think. Traditionally, D&D has been the only game that approaches this from an "layman's" point of view. Others assume, often safely, that they don't need to chew up space with something that most of their clients learned when they started with D&D anyway. On the flip side, how many veteran gamers would put up with a game describing a longsword for the 3,454th time in FRP history? ;)
-
True, but, to be fair, neither did the HARP authors in the core book. I mean, they describe the armor, but not weapons. Sure most fantasy gamers know what a bastard sword, shuriken, or pilum is, but most fantasy RPGs make this assumption way to much, I think. Traditionally, D&D has been the only game that approaches this from an "layman's" point of view. Others assume, often safely, that they don't need to chew up space with something that most of their clients learned when they started with D&D anyway. On the flip side, how many veteran gamers would put up with a game describing a longsword for the 3,454th time in FRP history? ;)
Fair points - of course it is a matter of subjective judgment for game authors to decide which terms can be assumed to be within gamers' general knowledge vs. those that merit an explanation.
To add to Crypt's notes above, here are a couple of links for the remaining items I mentioned in my original post:
War Hat:
http://www.metmuseum.org/TOAH/HD/bnpu/ho_04.3.228.htm
Benin:
http://www.thebritishmuseum.ac.uk/explore/highlights/highlight_objects/aoa/b/brass_helmet_mask_for_the_odod.aspx
http://shanigallery.com/brhelmet.html
(These are the only relevant items I've been able to turn up for 'benin'. Neither the OED nor Webster's shed any light).
-
just for information :
War Hat (chapel-de-fer) => "chapel" is an old french word for "chapeau" (hat) and "de fer" means "made of iron."
-
I never understood the idea that "if you loved/liked AD&D, then you'll love/like C&C." Ummmm .. if you love/like AD&D, then why not play AD&D? The books are still easily available, and in many cases, even cheaper than when they were new. With that smythsewn binding, they are damned near indestructible and often still in great condition.
OTOH, if you've never played OD&D or AD&D, but want to try something that at least claims to give the same experience but is more recently in print, then I guess I can see the point there.
-
I never understood the idea that "if you loved/liked AD&D, then you'll love/like C&C." Ummmm .. if you love/like AD&D, then why not play AD&D? The books are still easily available, and in many cases, even cheaper than when they were new. With that smythsewn binding, they are damned near indestructible and often still in great condition.
correction : "If you loved/liked AD&D 1st ed when you was a student but need a lighter/simpler/faster set of rules now because of job/family/etc. Or just because you don't want to spend a lot of time for what is just a nostalgic game."
Obviously if you've never stopped DMing AD&D 1 st you won't need C&C.
But if you've left ADD1 for several years it can be a real pain i* t** a** to re-read it.
C&C can be seen as a fast coffee-break rpg and friendler way to obtain the same result.
-
AD&D had a lot of issues we never liked (racial level limits, a lot of different dice and game mechanics) and classes were really bearbones. C&C "refreshes" the whole thing and brings in "modern" mechanics and style of play, but still respects the spirit of the elder one.
-
Too hard to re-read old rules of AD&D; for me it's just nostalgia ( I really like see the old drawings...)
For C&C...it's up to You, some prefer a game, some another...for me simple: HARP is really a better game; for the reste, I'm agree with Mando ;)
-
I never understood the idea that "if you loved/liked AD&D, then you'll love/like C&C." Ummmm .. if you love/like AD&D, then why not play AD&D? The books are still easily available, and in many cases, even cheaper than when they were new. With that smythsewn binding, they are damned near indestructible and often still in great condition.
OTOH, if you've never played OD&D or AD&D, but want to try something that at least claims to give the same experience but is more recently in print, then I guess I can see the point there.
What I meant by "if you loved AD&D..." is that C&C is essentially the same game with the mechanics you probably found frustrating about AD&D fixed. So it holds that nostalgia of all the fun you used to have, but without having to put up with the nostalgia of the stuff that didn't work. ;D
-
Well All,
I bought the C&C Player's Handbook and read through it this weekend. So far, I like what I have seen. The system is a streamlined version of d20 that harkens back to the old days of the 1st edition. All the original classes are back (including the Assassin and the Monk), plus versions of the classes from Unearthed Arcana are there too (the Cavalier, now called a Knight, and the Barbarian).
I think I have found a new d20 system I can actually live with, besides Conan! C&C is simple enough to run my kids and their friends in, and after looking at it, I see very little problem with converting over all my original AD&D modules.
I am not trying to steal any of you away from HARP or RM, but C&C looks like a good system to run in as well. I will still continue to play and run HARP (which I think is a great system), but for the younger ones, I think my son said it best: "Dad, this (C&C) one looks easier."
So I think I will take C&C out for a spin. ;)
-
I am not trying to steal any of you away from HARP or RM
You couldn't.
One of the things i've always dislike in D&D (and C&C) is the xDy damage rolls.
This is one of the reasons i like RM/HARP. In this point of view HARP is even better than RM because there is one less random factor in damage resolution. Skills rule.
but for the younger ones
You could also try Tunnels & Trolls. I really like this one :)
-
Crypt,
I agree with you that the skill and crit system in HARP rules! I am just trying to find an easier system for my kids and their friends, since HARP seems a little too much for them to handle right now. Plus my group may play it when we want to revive some of the old nostalgia.
I have never played T&T. How is the system? What mechanics does it use?
-
Oh, one other thing. The C&C Player's Handbook I got was the third printing. I didn't notice many of the poor gramatical errors that one of the posters had mentioned. This one seems pretty clean and clear so far. ;)
-
If you are seeking a game to "stick with" and really explore ... go with HARP.
The game is simply amazing for any number of reasons, some of which have been posted on the forums... the character options, the spell system, etc... ;D
-
The problem is not really with me. I love HARP, been playing it for two years and change now.
It is the fact that my kid, who is 11, and his friends are a little too young to get into HARP right now and are looking for something a little more simple.
-
Yeah...HARP is definately above children (and some adults I know too!!) C&C would indeed seem the way to go for playin' with young'uns... ;D
-
I have never played T&T. How is the system? What mechanics does it use?
Very fun and fast, a fresh rpg despite it's 30 years old.
There is currently two official versions: 5.5 th and 7th (30th Anniversary Edition ).
(6th was a fan made non official version)
I use the 7th edition with some parts of the 5.5th ed.
note: the 7th ed lacks a lot of the explanations, mainly about combat, which are present in 5.5.
Both are very cheap.
The 7th one is pocket size (in a metal box) and has several rules really different from the 5.5 th ed.
You can also find a pocket size version of the 5th edition from Corgi Books (UK) (for instance on the nobleknight site.)
(5 and 5.5 are the same. 5.5 only have a few more pages with some options and informations.)
about rules =>
You can find a very lite version of TNT 5 here: (in fact this is the old gamebook-solitaire lite version)
http://www.freedungeons.com/rules/
some reviews:
http://www.rpg.net/reviews/archive/11/11474.phtml
http://www.rpg.net/reviews/archive/11/11764.phtml