C&C 10th anniversary

[capmarvel]

Just curious if there are any "special" plans in 2014 for C&C's 10th Anniversary?

(and coincidentally it's D&D's 40th anniversary - so we know Next will be out)

[Traveller]

My thought for the 10th Anniversary is to see a near-complete rewrite of both the PHB and M&T. The system is sound and significant progress has been made in readability, but some things could be better explained. The CKG may be of help here...but I don't have a copy to test that statement.

[Relaxo]

I'd guess a better move would be something to draw in new players. Maybe a basic set, all in one 'starter box' type thing to make it easy for kids to jump right in.

or maybe that sort of thing has been done to death already. i dunno.

but I'm thinking more players will create a stronger future for the game and the hobby as a whole.

[capmarvel]

I suppose renting a ship and taking us all to the Caymen Islands on the worlds first "RPG Cruise" would be out of the question.

[tylermo]

Traveller, it's been awhile since I've seen your list of needed clarifications as you perceive them. That said, a buddy of mine recently pointed out a concern of his own. He challenged me to show him where the phb mentions anything about (in some circumstances) lowering the difficulty for Siege Engine checks. Other than a sentence on page 8 under "Atrribute Checks" stating, "Next, the castle keeper adds or subtracts the challenge level to the challenge class.", I'll be hanged if I can find anything else that properly conveys this to newbies. Largely as written, the Siege Engine shows that you can add 1-10 or more to the target numbers of 12 or 18. Most veterans know that reverse is true, but it doesn't appear to be in the rules as stated, outsidse of the aforementioned sentence on page 8. There is an example in the ckg that demonstrates lowering the the target number, but that's it. For somebody who only owns the phb, the assumption may be that (as written) the SE is difficult to succeed at. That's not a criticism...I loves me some Siege Engine. Would it be nice to see a tightening of the phb, as well as clarification of some things? Perhaps. Is there time, what with all of the other books on the anvil? That's another matter.

[Dracyian]

I suppose renting a ship and taking us all to the Caymen Islands on the worlds first "RPG Cruise" would be out of the question.

Lets just steal one, we can blame steve

[Omote]

I suppose renting a ship and taking us all to the Caymen Islands on the worlds first "RPG Cruise" would be out of the question.

Not in my estimation. Do it.

~O

[Dracyian]

I suppose renting a ship and taking us all to the Caymen Islands on the worlds first "RPG Cruise" would be out of the question.

Not in my estimation. Do it.

~O

Lets make a costume cruise, we already have a sombero toting Vader

[Omote]

The problem with gaming cruises are the distractions. I love them, but there are a host of distrations (booze, boobs, sun, fun, booze). Not much gaming tends to get accomplished.

~O

[Rigon]

The problem with gaming cruises are the distractions. I love them, but there are a host of distrations (booze, boobs, sun, fun, booze). Not much gaming tends to get accomplished.

~O

So, what you're saying is this cruise would be a hell of a lot like CotC? Sign me up!

R-

[mbeacom]

Traveller, it's been awhile since I've seen your list of needed clarifications as you perceive them. That said, a buddy of mine recently pointed out a concern of his own. He challenged me to show him where the phb mentions anything about (in some circumstances) lowering the difficulty for Siege Engine checks. Other than a sentence on page 8 under "Atrribute Checks" stating, "Next, the castle keeper adds or subtracts the challenge level to the challenge class.", I'll be hanged if I can find anything else that properly conveys this to newbies. Largely as written, the Siege Engine shows that you can add 1-10 or more to the target numbers of 12 or 18. Most veterans know that reverse is true, but it doesn't appear to be in the rules as stated, outsidse of the aforementioned sentence on page 8. There is an example in the ckg that demonstrates lowering the the target number, but that's it. For somebody who only owns the phb, the assumption may be that (as written) the SE is difficult to succeed at. That's not a criticism...I loves me some Siege Engine. Would it be nice to see a tightening of the phb, as well as clarification of some things? Perhaps. Is there time, what with all of the other books on the anvil? That's another matter.

I agree with this but come at it from another direction. I think perhaps some clarity could be added, not in how to alter the siege engine but in how it is meant to function. Can you have a CL of -1 or -5 to make checks easier? Sure. Could this be stated in the rules? Absolutely. Although, I think perhaps more in keeping with how the siege engine is supposed to work (as I understand it), it should be explained that any efforts you want to be easier than rolling a 12 with a prime stat, you should seriously consider just granting success or failure based on the narrative and how things are described and the situation at hand. If you want the player to succeed on an 8 or better for example, perhaps just allow it without a roll. I mean, if you're lowering the DC that much, it's pretty clear you want the thing to succeed right? I think this should be made more clear in how the siege engine works. If I recall correctly, there IS a statement somewhere in the PHB to the effect that, one should only engage the siege engine where it is decided there is a "significant chance" of failure. Otherwise, you should be adjudicating without the dice. If you're using the dice to resolve tasks that have only a small chance of failure, you're not doing the siege engine justice IMO.

[Dracyian]

Traveller, it's been awhile since I've seen your list of needed clarifications as you perceive them. That said, a buddy of mine recently pointed out a concern of his own. He challenged me to show him where the phb mentions anything about (in some circumstances) lowering the difficulty for Siege Engine checks. Other than a sentence on page 8 under "Atrribute Checks" stating, "Next, the castle keeper adds or subtracts the challenge level to the challenge class.", I'll be hanged if I can find anything else that properly conveys this to newbies. Largely as written, the Siege Engine shows that you can add 1-10 or more to the target numbers of 12 or 18. Most veterans know that reverse is true, but it doesn't appear to be in the rules as stated, outsidse of the aforementioned sentence on page 8. There is an example in the ckg that demonstrates lowering the the target number, but that's it. For somebody who only owns the phb, the assumption may be that (as written) the SE is difficult to succeed at. That's not a criticism...I loves me some Siege Engine. Would it be nice to see a tightening of the phb, as well as clarification of some things? Perhaps. Is there time, what with all of the other books on the anvil? That's another matter.

I agree with this but come at it from another direction. I think perhaps some clarity could be added, not in how to alter the siege engine but in how it is meant to function. Can you have a CL of -1 or -5 to make checks easier? Sure. Could this be stated in the rules? Absolutely. Although, I think perhaps more in keeping with how the siege engine is supposed to work (as I understand it), it should be explained that any efforts you want to be easier than rolling a 12 with a prime stat, you should seriously consider just granting success or failure based on the narrative and how things are described and the situation at hand. If you want the player to succeed on an 8 or better for example, perhaps just allow it without a roll. I mean, if you're lowering the DC that much, it's pretty clear you want the thing to succeed right? I think this should be made more clear in how the siege engine works. If I recall correctly, there IS a statement somewhere in the PHB to the effect that, one should only engage the siege engine where it is decided there is a "significant chance" of failure. Otherwise, you should be adjudicating without the dice. If you're using the dice to resolve tasks that have only a small chance of failure, you're not doing the siege engine justice IMO.

What about a breif section on, to quote Seskis, Roll-play vs Role-play and how to use the seige engine for both. Some people love to leave everything up to chance even if it is that 5% chance of ultimate failure vs 95% chance of flawless success. while other people enjoy the story of the game.

The problem with gaming cruises are the distractions. I love them, but there are a host of distrations (booze, boobs, sun, fun, booze). Not much gaming tends to get accomplished.

~O

Hold on this is a problem? I am confused, if you trade in movie debates, theater talk, and wild tangents for boobs, sun and one of the booze you will have the occasional friday night game I partake in, and have a damn good time at

[mbeacom]

What about a breif section on, to quote Seskis, Roll-play vs Role-play and how to use the seige engine for both. Some people love to leave everything up to chance even if it is that 5% chance of ultimate failure vs 95% chance of flawless success. while other people enjoy the story of the game.

I would have no problem with this conceptually, although I think it could potentially confuse the intended design of the siege engine which, as I understand it, is meant to be a resolution mechanic for those times where there is a significant chance of failure. If you want it to be easy but with dice, the resolution mechanic becomes less important. I understand that there are people who want to roll dice even when there is only a 5% chance of failure. Ultimately though, I think those people are going to be poorly served by C&C in so many ways that it becomes burdensome to attempt to describe how to use C&C to obtain those objectives (siege engine is but one). Just like you could include a section in the user manual of a skill saw on how to cut down a tree, IMO it may be better advice just to recommend a different tool.

[Sir Ironside]

My thought for the 10th Anniversary is to see a near-complete rewrite of both the PHB and M&T. The system is sound and significant progress has been made in readability, but some things could be better explained.

Very much this.

I don't see a problem with doing a rewrite to make the flagship books the best that they can be. The books will still be "backwards" compatible as it is just cleaning up errata, grammar/spelling mistakes and making rules more clear, streamlined, complete and compatible.

There is even an opportunity to spruce up the colouring mistakes or even just doing a new fresh layout for both books.

A GenCon release would be a good fit for the new look PHB and M&T.

Currently I have no reason to buy another set of PHB and M&T as the 4th print is fine with me. Releasing a 10th anniversary PHB and M&T, like the above suggestion, I'd be all over it.

There really is no excuse as the fans here have supplied "free" content editing for years and one could get a start with using that list as a basis for improving the PHB and M&T.

It's cool that there is so many new products coming out and the priorities get bumped around like bumping cars, but the PHB and M&T are C&C's first impression. Having a good one leads to purchasing other TLG products, having a bad one makes the customer put the books on their shelf and move onto other game companies. (I think it is even more important as the fantasy game genre is so swamped with different games you really need to stand out.)

[Arduin]

Can you have a CL of -1 or -5 to make checks easier? Sure. Could this be stated in the rules? Absolutely. Although, I think perhaps more in keeping with how the siege engine is supposed to work (as I understand it), it should be explained that any efforts you want to be easier than rolling a 12 with a prime stat, you should seriously consider just granting success or failure based on the narrative and how things are described and the situation at hand.

That's how I read the intent of the C&C designers.

[DeadReborn]

I'd guess a better move would be something to draw in new players. Maybe a basic set, all in one 'starter box' type thing to make it easy for kids to jump right in.

or maybe that sort of thing has been done to death already. i dunno.

but I'm thinking more players will create a stronger future for the game and the hobby as a whole.

This is something I would like to see as well. Akin to Pathfinder's Beginner Box perhaps?

[Troll Lord]

Well, apparently we can't wait until the 10th anniversary for the 6th printing as the 5th is selling out. We might make it through the beginning of the year. Interestingly enough, the same is happening on the other two main books MT and CKG. So we have reprintings in the near future. The PH will go first and as we can't be without a flagship product for six months, we are looking at an early spring release of the 6th. Not sure on the CKG (getting rate of sales on that from Todd now), nor MT but they won't be far off.

As always what we would LIKE to do is limited by what we have the manpower to do. For instance coloring the CKG and MT is the next logical step, but Peter can't do all that and then some.

However, for the guts of the PH.....though I know you guys have talked about clarifications here and there, I haven't been following the discussions very much (I'm a different kind of gaming animal and do not like too much clarified) so what I would like to do is have a list of these suggested clarifications put up somewhere that I can see.

With that in mind I will start a list in the shortly or such and put some instructions up what we would like to hear from you guys.

At the very least, the PH coloring issue will be addressed.

But as for the actual 10th anniversary, which is next Gencon as that is when the white box debuted at Gencon '04, we've given it some thought, but haven't settled on any concrete plans yet. We are leaning heavily toward a black box, same size as the original white box, different content.

Steve

[mbeacom]

Well, we can't wait until the 10th anniversary for the 6th printing. We might make it through the beginning of the year. And interestingly enough, this is on all three books: PH, MT and CKG. As we can't be without a flagship product for six months, we are looking at an early spring release of the 6th. Not sure on the CKG (getting rate of sales on that from Todd now), nor MT but they won't be far off.

As always what we would LIKE to do is limited by what we have the manpower to do. For instance coloring the CKG and MT is the next logical step, but Peter can't do all that and then some.

However, for the guts of the PH.....though I know you guys have talked about clarifications here and there, I haven't been following the discussions very much (I'm a different kind of gaming animal and do not like too much clarified) so what I would like to do is have a list of these suggested clarifications put up somewhere that I can see.



Steve

I'm in agreement with you Steve. I think much of the desire for "clarification" comes from peoples desire to have something work the way THEY think it should work. One thing is for sure, most requests for clarification are not universal. Just as soon as someone wants something clarified a certain way, someone else disagrees. In those cases, I would just leave things alone because the game works so well already. I'd hate to break anything.

[Troll Lord]

There are a few things we've run across, spells mostly, that need some clarification, but its pretty small stuff.

At any rate, I don't mean t to sound negative, any and all suggestions will be welcome. This has been a great community for a long time, and alot of you have been around since even before C&C!

Which is saying something!

Trollzah!
Steve

[mbeacom]

My apologies if my comment came off negative as well. I only meant to say that many requests for changes/updates/clarifications seem to have as much opposition as support. But on both sides, I think everyone is of good will and intention. That's the beauty of such a game, it can be interpreted differently and still works. This is an awesome community, one of the best to be sure and a large part of why I love and support the game.

[Traveller]

See, I'm not proposing anything that will break the game. When I say "a near total rewrite" my thought here is simply to make sure that the game is noob friendly, and by using the right language it's quite possible to accomplish this. I don't believe the game needs extensive clarification, though there are one or two areas in the PHB that could use a bit of work. An example is the AC of helms. Apparently some writers as well as players are adding the AC of the helm to the total AC and apparently ignoring the bullet point below the helms table stating that the AC of helms only applies to called shots to the head.

A little clarification regarding this in the armor class rules or the combat section would fix this problem, since the only other real alternatives are unlikely to happen.

As for a 10th Anniversary item, how about a new printing of the white box, but using the latest version of the rules as a basis of the text rather than the playtest version?

[Omote]

We are leaning heavily toward a black box, same size as the original white box, different content.

Black Box? I NEED THAT! I'm not sure what the different content will be, but if it's a basic-level C&C (that is different than White Box) that might be cool. Or, what about a properly formatted C&C PHB + M&T, all in one Black Box?! You could strip down the PHB and M&T into the most concise version of the game yet ~ maybe getting rid of most of the "fluff." Just stats... The "all crunch" version of C&C. Or, the long-delayed, ghost-like game of Sword & Sorcery all in THE BLACK BOX! How cool would that be? The rules are so rare they have been relegated to the "black box." Oh noes!

I love me some C&C digest-sized boxed sets. I look forward to this if it happens.

~O

[mbeacom]

How about some new digest copies. I love mine but they're getting worn out. Would prefer if they were laid out for digest too, rather than just shrinking the text, but I'll settle for the latest printing, shrunk.

[Christina Stiles]

10 Years? Yay! Let me know if I can help in the new year, Steve.

[Rigon]

We are leaning heavily toward a black box, same size as the original white box, different content.

Black Box? I NEED THAT! I'm not sure what the different content will be, but if it's a basic-level C&C (that is different than White Box) that might be cool. Or, what about a properly formatted C&C PHB + M&T, all in one Black Box?! You could strip down the PHB and M&T into the most concise version of the game yet ~ maybe getting rid of most of the "fluff." Just stats... The "all crunch" version of C&C. Or, the long-delayed, ghost-like game of Sword & Sorcery all in THE BLACK BOX! How cool would that be? The rules are so rare they have been relegated to the "black box." Oh noes!

I love me some C&C digest-sized boxed sets. I look forward to this if it happens.

~O

This. So much this.

R-

[Arduin]

See, I'm not proposing anything that will break the game. When I say "a near total rewrite" my thought here is simply to make sure that the game is noob friendly, and by using the right language it's quite possible to accomplish this.

I found that newbies, left to their own devices, stumble on the 12/18 portion of the Siege Engine.
I just explain that the Base is always 18 and you get to add 6 to your roll if the Challenge is against a Prime. DONE.

[mbeacom]

See, I'm not proposing anything that will break the game. When I say "a near total rewrite" my thought here is simply to make sure that the game is noob friendly, and by using the right language it's quite possible to accomplish this.

I found that newbies, left to their own devices, stumble on the 12/18 portion of the Siege Engine.
I just explain that the Base is always 18 and you get to add 6 to your roll if the Challenge is against a Prime. DONE.

That's what I thought at first myself. But since I've been running more and more groups I've had the opposite experience. When I've tried this, I kept getting complaints that there were too many different modifiers clunking up the works. Made the siege engine feel too crunchy. Add your attribute modifier, add your level (or not), add your prime, add situational modifiers etc. We've found it much easier just to announce your result and state "Prime" if its a prime stat. Let the DM compare it to the CB, rather than the player worry about it at all. Runs much smoother for me and my groups that way.

[Arduin]

That's what I thought at first myself. But since I've been running more and more groups I've had the opposite experience. When I've tried this, I kept getting complaints that there were too many different modifiers clunking up the works

Same # of steps. You just have a constant as a base.

Not only that, the player should have the mod total after each Attribute on the Char sheet anyway... Roll D20 and add that already totaled number. For a total of one step...

[Omote]

We've found it much easier just to announce your result and state "Prime" if its a prime stat. Let the DM compare it to the CB, rather than the player worry about it at all. Runs much smoother for me and my groups that way.

Interestingly enough, I have found this to be the opposite. I run for two groups, and each one didn't like the +6 version of calculating the outcome. I have the players do all the work, adding modifiers, and telling me (CK) how much they beat the roll by.

~O

[Buttmonkey]

See, I'm not proposing anything that will break the game. When I say "a near total rewrite" my thought here is simply to make sure that the game is noob friendly, and by using the right language it's quite possible to accomplish this.

I found that newbies, left to their own devices, stumble on the 12/18 portion of the Siege Engine.
I just explain that the Base is always 18 and you get to add 6 to your roll if the Challenge is against a Prime. DONE.

That's what I thought at first myself. But since I've been running more and more groups I've had the opposite experience. When I've tried this, I kept getting complaints that there were too many different modifiers clunking up the works. Made the siege engine feel too crunchy. Add your attribute modifier, add your level (or not), add your prime, add situational modifiers etc. We've found it much easier just to announce your result and state "Prime" if its a prime stat. Let the DM compare it to the CB, rather than the player worry about it at all. Runs much smoother for me and my groups that way.

I've had the same experience. I tried telling a player to add 6 to a SIEGE check if the attribute is prime and it just mucked everything up. He started confusing the attribute bonus with the +6 for prime. I found it worked much better to just tell them that a SIEGE check means they roll a d20, add any attribute bonus, add their level if I tell them to, and then tell me the total and whether the attribute is prime. Sadly, they seem to struggle with that plan so I have to remind them every session. It's tough teaching old dogs new tricks. They should get it eventually.