Fantastic new fantasy RPG that resurrects the feel of old-school gaming with new, slick game mechanics borrowed from d20. Highly recommended - ignore the grammatical glitches.
Post originally by screenmonkey at 2005-03-07 07:15:47
Converted from Phorums BB System
So this is actually a playtest review?
Can someone play the game using only the player's handbook, or is it analogous to the D&D PHB?
Why use this system over other simpler systems? That is, you could run a fantasy game just fine using D6 Fantasy or Savage Worlds for example. They're simple and fast and both handle fantasy just fine. And both are much easier to prep a session for than any incarnation of D&D. So is nostalgia the big draw?
Anyway, thanks for the info. i especially like the smaller book format in the boxed set version - very cool.
Post originally by Technomancer at 2005-03-07 07:46:21
Converted from Phorums BB System
screenmonkey wrote:
-------------------------------
So this is actually a playtest review?
Can someone play the game using only the player's handbook, or is it analogous to the D&D PHB?
Why use this system over other simpler systems? That is, you could run a fantasy game just fine using D6 Fantasy or Savage Worlds for example. They're simple and fast and both handle fantasy just fine. And both are much easier to prep a session for than any incarnation of D&D. So is nostalgia the big draw?
Anyway, thanks for the info. i especially like the smaller book format in the boxed set version - very cool.
Happy Gaming, =)
screenmonkey
I imagine it's mostly for people who are familiar with D&D but are a bit burnt out on the sheer quantity of rules for it. Plus the fact that it is compatible with just about any D&D product already out there.
I would say it is analogous to D&D in that there is a "Castle Keeper" Guide and a Monster/Treasure book, although the fact that people are playing it even though neither of those are out yet as far as I know seems to indicate you don't need the standard D&D holy trinity of books.
Post originally by Carjack at 2005-03-07 08:21:38
Converted from Phorums BB System
I'd say the draw to Castles & Crusades is (for me) is based on a certain affection for D&D. I like to play D&D, but I find that 3.5 bogs down in play for me and my players, much like the example in the above review. C&C has advantages over D6 and SW (both of which i enjoy immensely!) in that it can be easily used with ANY supplement or adventure for D&D of ANY edition. If you've got an adventure that uses Hit Dice and Armor Class in it's monster descriptions, you can use it virtually unchanged with C&C.
You cannot play the game entirely with just the players book, unless you already own a chunk of D&D material that you can draw on. The Monsters and Treaures book due out this month is needed otherwise. Troll Lord has a pdf on their website of monsters to use in the interim, in a similar gesture to what WOTC did in 2000 with the small monster and treasure assortment in the back of the PHB.
Post originally by Mythmere at 2005-03-07 08:57:57
Converted from Phorums BB System
I'm the reviewer - I'm not sure why it didn't use "Mythmere" as my name.
It is a playtested review, about five sessions worth of play. I wasn't involved in the actual playtesting of the game itself.
The CCPHB has more in it than the 3E PHB in terms of a complete game, but there aren't any monsters or treasures.
I haven't played Savage Worlds or any other rules lite system, although I took a look at d20 lite at the same time I was looking at Castles & Crusades. Thus, I can't really compare it for relative quality. The draw, for me, is that it's still "D&D" in terms of its feel.
Post originally by Akrasia (ben) at 2005-03-07 09:27:55
Converted from Phorums BB System
The 2 for style seems a bit too harsh, given the quality of the art, the fine binding, etc.
While the formatting and typos are often problematic -- there is no getting around that fact -- the art is excellent. Indeed, I would say that the cover is perhaps the best I've seen in a long time for a FRPG product.
Taking into consideration the look of the product, balanced against the typos, I would say that a '3' would be most fair. A '2' seems rather low. (In my own review I gave a '4' for style, which was too generous in retrospect.)
Post originally by Akrasia (ben) at 2005-03-07 09:32:41
Converted from Phorums BB System
It appears that RPG.net treats "Castles & Crusades" as a different product than "Castles and Crusades" (due to the difference between the '&' and 'and'). Hence the other reviews for the C&C PHB do not appear in the right-hand column.
If you are looking for additional reviews of C&C, search under "Castles and Crusades".
Post originally by LarsDangly at 2005-03-07 10:03:41
Converted from Phorums BB System
I think the troll lords would have been better served by producing a book with more of the look and feel of the 1st edition AD&D hard backs. C&C really does not visually stand out from the flood of D20 books pulished over the last 5 years, even though it is an exceptional game. So, whether you think it should be a 2 or a 3, I agree this is the book's weak spot.
Post originally by Akrasia (ben) at 2005-03-07 10:22:51
Converted from Phorums BB System
I actually think that the look of the PHB -- and especially the cover -- *is* quite different from the bulk of WotC stuff. While not quite OAD&D, it certainly does not reek of 'dungeonpunk'.
But you might be right with respect to non-WotC d20 products.
Certainly a matte cover would have helped!
Still, the art is IMO quite good -- much better than most non-WotC products. That should have been taken into account.
Post originally by Fute at 2005-03-07 11:11:05
Converted from Phorums BB System
Good review!
My question. You wrote that C&C achieves its speed-of-play through the streamlining of player-side gewgaws and doo-dads. Couldn't you run a slimfast d20 with the same results? Will C&C encounter the same problems once it puts out rule supplements?
Linear Mode
