Castles and Crusades

[cailano]

So, I have a bunch of Castles and Crusades books, but I go back and forth on how I feel about the system.

For those who don't know, Castles and Crusades is a D&D alternative that combines ideas from AD&D and 3E. It uses ascending armor class and attack bonuses for combat. Outside of to-hit rolls, it resolves nearly every check in the game with a universal mechanic called the Siege Engine, which is based on a single difficulty class modified by challenge level and what the PC in question is good at (their prime attributes.) The Siege Engine is used for both attribute checks and saving throws.

Castles and Crusades features classes and level advancement that are very AD&D-like, and it stays rules-lite by omitting a formal skill list and anything resembling feats.

Basically, I feel that if 3E had been a true continuation of AD&D instead of an entirely new direction for the game, it would have looked a lot like Castles and Crusades. That's not an accident, as it was designed with input from Gary Gygax.

The system is well-supported, with plenty of adventure modules and a well-developed setting called Aihrde. It is what I'd consider a "campaign-ready" game, with rules to cover everything from building strongholds to mass combat and traveling between planes of existence.

Castles and Crusades seems like a game that stands somewhere between the OSR and 5E. At best, it could be considered a Goldilocks point between the two. At worst, you end up with players who think it is too OSR and others that think it isn't OSR enough. Has anyone here actually played it for more than just a couple of sessions? I'd be curious to hear your thoughts and experiences. I'd also be curious to hear from people who would be interested in giving the system a try.

Castles and Crusades is published by Troll Lord Games, and they have the core rules available for free right HERE.

[yxanthymir]

I will download and look at the rules to see if it gets my interest. I know the concept of OSR, but never really played one, only read many of the AD&D and Lamentations of the Flame Princess adventures. Mostly I started from D&D 3ed.

[cailano]

4 minutes ago, yxanthymir said:

I will download and look at the rules to see if it gets my interest. I know the concept of OSR, but never really played one, only read many of the AD&D and Lamentations of the Flame Princess adventures. Mostly I started from D&D 3ed.

I don't know that I'd call Castles and Crusades an OSR system, but it does have some things in common with them.

I haven't read the PHB cover to cover or anything, but I've put it down and then cycled back to it a couple of times. I'm on my third now.

One thing I find myself doing with OSR systems is wanting to house-rule them, and I find myself judging systems by how little I'd want to change. Castles and Crusades is one that I don't think I'd need to do much to, although there is a whole pile of suggested rules options in the Castle Keeper's Guide, which is their version of the DMG.

[Malkavian Grin]

I've never played C&C but I think I have some adventure modules and some solo stuff I got from one of the various itch.io sales. But as I never had the base rules, I couldn't do anything with them, so they're collecting digital dust.

I'd be interested in giving them a try, because why not? Rules-lite can be fun, and I cut my teeth on tabletop with D&D 3.5. My mindset has always been OSR, though, having grown up with those old school video games like OG Final Fantasy and Dragon Warrior. That stuff conditioned me to like OSR, I think.

This Siege Engine thingie sounds odd, though. "One mechanic to rule them all, and in the darkness bind them!"

[cailano]

The Siege Engine is pretty straightforward. Basically, if your PC wants to do something and there is a significant chance of failure, you roll using a DC of either 12 or 18. 12 is for things your PC is good at. For example, a ranger might be good at anything to do with Strength or Dexterity. The 18 is for things you aren't as good at. That ranger might not be great with Charisma, for example.

You roll a D20 and add your attribute bonus. If it is in a thing your character class would be likely to know about, you get to add your level, too. For example, a Rogue would add her level to a pickpocket attempt. A fighter would not.

The only other wrinkle is the idea of a challenge level, which is a modifier that describes an unusually difficult task. That often comes into play when you use the Siege Engine for saving throws. For example, when a wizard casts a spell, he adds his caster level to the challenge level of the saving throw. A 10th-level Wizard would therefore have a "save DC" of either 22 or 28 depending on if the target was saving with a prime attribute or not.

I've heard people say that's too complicated, but that's the whole Siege Engine. My guess would be that it plays pretty well.

It's a big difference from AD&D, though. A high-level AD&D character might be all but immune to spells like Disintegrate because their saves would be so good. That would not be the case in C&C.

[Malkavian Grin]

Ohh, that sounds an awful lot like Barbarians of Lemuria. That game just has careers (you pick 4) that represent things you're good at. You'll always add an attribute, and if you can come up with a reason why a career would come into play for a roll, you add it too.

The one thing that strikes me is that in C&C, characters seem like they'd need at least attributes of +2 (however those are calculated) to "break even" with the system. A 12 on a d20 is a 60% chance of failure. I assume C&C uses higher numbers, probably, than BoL. 

[cailano]

1 hour ago, Malkavian Grin said:

Ohh, that sounds an awful lot like Barbarians of Lemuria. That game just has careers (you pick 4) that represent things you're good at. You'll always add an attribute, and if you can come up with a reason why a career would come into play for a roll, you add it too.

The one thing that strikes me is that in C&C, characters seem like they'd need at least attributes of +2 (however those are calculated) to "break even" with the system. A 12 on a d20 is a 60% chance of failure. I assume C&C uses higher numbers, probably, than BoL. 

Your math is correct, but like a lot of skillless systems, the key is for the GM to know when not to make attribute checks. That was one of the hardest things for me to wrap my head around when I started running OSR games, even though I played a lot of Basic and AD&D back in the day. I'd gotten used to 3E and Pathfinder and making perception checks for everything.

Now that I've re-familiarized myself with the OSR way of doing things, I realize how unnecessary formal skill systems actually are. In general, most "skill checks" should be automatic successes. Is the thief trying to pick a normal lock with no time pressure? Automatic success. Is the wizard trying to decipher an ancient tome back in his tower? Either an automatic success or an automatic "quest for the extra thing you need." Is the fighter taking the time to analyze someone's fighting style? Automatic success unless the other warrior is trying to hide it somehow.

Attribute checks are for the heroic stuff. The thief wants to drop from a ledge right behind two guards without making a sound. The ranger wants to use his knowledge of the wild to intimidate the alpha of a wolfpack. The wizard wants to tweak a spell on the fly to make it do something slightly different than normal. That's when I'd bring in the Siege Engine. I use the same ideas for thief ability checks in systems like Basic Fantasy or Swords and Wizardry.

[Malkavian Grin]

54 minutes ago, cailano said:

Attribute checks are for the heroic stuff.

I really like this sentiment.

Mundane things ought not to be the focus. Many GM advice sections I've seen call for this, yet I think a lot of modules and such don't follow these rules, and in fact help perpetuate the problem because so many GMs lean on them for whatever reason (no judgement, I do it too).

The only time I can see when it matters for the little stuff is when the heroes aren't actually heroes. Things in, say, Harnmaster where you play a peasant in a medieval simulator, or in a game where the whole point is to go from being nobodies with nothing to actually being heroic through constant trial and failure (I have a heavily modified D&D game about this).

[Excior]

if you ran the lost city of Gaxmore I would love to play in that, In truth if your the GM I would apply for just about any game you started if I had the rules for it.

[Raistlinmc]

You took the words right out of my mouth, Excior. 🙂

 

Hope all's well with you, Cai!

[cailano]

5 hours ago, Raistlinmc said:

You took the words right out of my mouth, Excior. 🙂

 

Hope all's well with you, Cai!

Raist! Long time no see old friend. I'll send you an invite to the next campaign I spin up.

[cailano]

Quick Poll: I've been looking through some of the rules options for C&C and they have one that could lower the lethality of low-level play quite a bit, similar to the idea of Hero Points in Pathfinder (C&C calls them Fate Points.)

For those interested in trying this system, would you prefer the game to be more lethal, ala old-school AD&D, or less so, with a greater possibility of seeing your character survive and level up?
 

[cailano]

If anyone is feeling super into Castles and Crusades, all their stuff on DrivethruRPG is 60% off till the end of the weekend. The 7th printing of the Players Handbook is free, but the latest version is only $8 on sale. Also books like Monsters and Treasure and the Castle Keepers Guide if you want to try running your own campaign.

Just a heads up for those interested!

[cailano]

I’ve started a forum for this game. It’s still a WIP and I’m not ready for applications yes, but feel free to take a look and give any feedback you have.

 

https://www.myth-weavers.com/index.php?/clubs/803-legends-of-aihrde/

[cailano]

I've been digging in hard on Castles and Crusades over the last couple of days, as well as the Aihrde setting.

It's been an interesting ride. I'm going to ramble on about it for a while, and I don't really have a point. I'm just kind of blogging. If you're not interested, please feel free to skip this post.

The System

I really like the system a lot. My initial impression of C&C being what 3E should have been has been reinforced numerous times. A common criticism from the OSR crowd is that C&C is like AD&D but with elements of 3E added to it, which the purists don't like. But while I get as nostalgic as anyone about the 70s and 80s versions of D&D, I also get annoyed by some parts of the rules systems. C&C cleans all that up while not letting itself get bogged down in new rules. It isn't as rules-light as Swords and Wizardry or Basic Fantasy, but it's much lighter than 5E or Pathfinder. It should play as fast at level 15 as it does at level 3.

For me, I think it's a bit of a Goldilocks system. Just the right amount of crunch while keeping that AD&D vibe. It just feels right.

And C&C has some interesting takes on common RPG tropes, too. For example, the Illusionist class. C&C has by far the coolest take on Illusionists I've read, as it takes the point of view that they are not tricksters but sorcerers learning to manipulate reality itself. Their illusions aren't in the mind of the victim, and there is no disbelieving them, even if they aren't quite 100% real. This has interesting in-game effects, such as illusionists being able to heal wounds by changing the reality of them. It's different, but I like it.

They've also got a fascinating take on race-classes. In general, the system doesn't use them. You can't just play an "elf" for example. But in the Aihdre setting, they have classes unique to certain races. So if you really want to explore what it means to be a warrior in the dwarven tradition, or a mage in the elven tradition, you can do that.

And C&C has systems for strongholds and mass combat, which is a big check in the pro column for me.

Aihrde

Aihrde is much like Greyhawk or the Forgotten Realms at a ten thousand-foot level. It is a purposely vanilla fantasy setting meant to act as a canvas for telling fantasy RPG stories. It isn't highly thematic in the way that Dark Sun is, nor is it a kitchen sink setting like Golarion with different regions for different styles of fantasy campaigns.

What I like about Aihrde is the love that's gone into it. This is clearly the world in which the publishers run their games and have for a very long time. It is a huge, sprawling setting with eons of history and lore. Steven Chenault and the rest of the Troll Lords are gaming geeks down to the bone. They aren't marketing mavens or corporate raiders. They are people who love this hobby and made the system that they wanted to play. I can't tell you how much I prefer that to how WotC runs its shop.

I love RPG settings. I've read a bunch of them. Unfortunately, that's where the trouble comes in, because Aihrde might be one of the most challenging settings I've come across. There is a metric ton of fluff, and while I can and do appreciate the level of detail, it's hard to know where to start. The mythology of the world is very (and I mean very) developed. How developed is it? You can actually buy it as a separately bound book called the Andanuth. There are also many countries named in the Codex of Aihrde, but because the world is so vast, none of them have a lot of detail, and what detail is there isn't always the kind that would be useful in games.

I've read online that some people don't find the setting inspiring or that they find the Codex of Aihdre boring. I don't think it is the sort of thing you're supposed to read cover to cover. I think you're supposed to mine the Andanuth for adventure hooks and focus in on the regions and lore that are useful to your campaign.

But it's a setting you could go back to again and again and always find new details. It's deep. I like that.

 

Summary

There is a lot of good in C&C, but it isn't well organized, and you have to be willing to dig for the gold. From what I've read online, that turns off a lot of potential players. C&C doesn't blow your mind with awesome ideas like Dungeon Crawl Classics, and it doesn't have the AAA production values of 5E or Pathfinder, but it does hit that sweet spot of being a modern system that is true to the roots of the hobby.