Topic: Castles & Crusades vs. HARP

[Alwyn]

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. 

[Monteblanco]

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.

[Hawkwind]

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

[GoblynByte]

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!

[Alwyn]

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? ).

Thanks again.

[GoblynByte]

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? ).

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.   

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.

[Witchking20k]

I think he probably meant crit charts

[Mando]

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.

[Dr_Sage]

Never have a look at a rule book, just play.

Hummmmmm... tempting.

[GoblynByte]

I think he probably meant crit charts

...um...oh...nevermind. 

[Alwyn]

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.

[GoblynByte]

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...

[Alwyn]

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.   

[Rasyr-Mjolnir]

I actually have a document written up that produces RM-style criticals for d20.... 

 

[Alwyn]

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.   

[Rasyr-Mjolnir]

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...

[Alwyn]

Oh, bummer.  Any plans to release them in the future?

[Rasyr-Mjolnir]

was thinking about it....

[Mascodagama]

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.

[David Johansen]

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.