Troll Lord Games

It's me again. Back from another Facebook discussion with my friend. This dovetails with the previous siege engine thread. He's going to run a C&C one shot for us next month. Here are his thoughts for your consideration...

Should difficulty be based on hit dice? Is a hill giant really harder to sneak by than a hound dog? Easy, average, and hard should be absolutes, not relative to level. A 10th level character should be better at hard tasks than a 1st level character, and a hard should be an absolute quality, not a relative one. More to come...

For every roll, a player add 1/2 level + attribute mod + difficulty modifier(detailed below). The GM determines if the task is easy, moderate, hard, or absurd difficulty. If it's eay, he gets +2 to the roll, moderate, no modifier, hard -2 to the roll, absurd -4 to the roll. If these modifiers seem a little generous, try -3 and -6 for hard and absurd instead. The target number is always 12 or 18.

My friend continues...

You can do saving throwsthis way too, if you want. Lower level wizards are easy, within one level either way is moderate, higher is hard, and "archmages" are absurd. Or, you can do them as detailed in the book. Never really had a problem with the way Siege worked for saving throws, except that it made hard saving throws a little "too" hard. The alternate method gives people a bit more of a shot at making saving throws and we end up getting fewer charmed/stunned/dominated/
held fighters. There's no need to decide on numerical value, just "is this easy, moderate, or hard" and go.

I'm anxious to hear your views. We'll play it his way next month. One of my other friends will probably want dex mod added to the d10 initiative roll. He's just that way.

tylermo wrote: Should difficulty be based on hit dice? Is a hill giant really harder to sneak by than a hound dog? Easy, average, and hard should be absolutes, not relative to level. A 10th level character should be better at hard tasks than a 1st level character, and a hard should be an absolute quality, not a relative one.

Well, I'm coming at this as a player only (haven't CK'd yet), but I would say this is still in the general spirit of the SIEGE engine. It's kind of like how you don't add the PC's level if it's a check that falls under another character's class ability: level is supposed to reflect experience, so if it seems that the creature / character being acted against doesn't have the relevant experience, then don't add it, and use a general difficulty modifier instead. For example, if I were trying to sneak by a rogue, I'd use his level as a CL, but if I were trying to sneak by a monster that isn't exactly the subtle type, I'd just assign a CL based on the difficulty of the circumstances (lighting, whether there are crunchy leaves underfoot, etc.).

My understanding of using HD as CL is that higher HD critters are A) stronger, smarter, more experienced and therefore, more observant, wise, cunning, etc. aka more difficult to "beat"
b) it's just faster and easier overall... no charts, easy math, fast, fun, furious! (oh wait...)
But yes, fun and fast... more story less rules lawyering.

didn't really read your friends' suggestions, but that's not to say they wouldn't work or are wrong.

My advise? try to get him to dive into the deep end of the pool and embrace Siege fully... RAW no house rules yet. Give it say, 10 battles worth of effort before deciding it's broken.
I used to love my d% tables, but it's all a distraction, the DM is first and foremost storyteller and entertainer, so the rules are secondary, so why not have as few as possible? More than say, Twerps, but whatever.

Yes, for some, the FUN is the scads of rules. But try to get him to really try it. It's like he's saying it's yucky without tasting it yet.

tylermo wrote: Should difficulty be based on hit dice? Is a hill giant really harder to sneak by than a hound dog? Easy, average, and hard should be absolutes, not relative to level. A 10th level character should be better at hard tasks than a 1st level character, and a hard should be an absolute quality, not a relative one.

Why?

That is really the only question. If the answer is because he says so then... It's his game he can do whatever he wants but I don't find his argument compelling at all.

A Hill Giant is harder because it is meant to be. It is a game of challenges to overcome, but it is after all a game. I'll say that again, it is after all a "Fantasy Game". Those who insist on realism and logical physics and all that other stuff are just talking for the sake of talking. Roll the dice, have some fun.

-Mike

I hear we're either playing an altered version of C&C and/or D&D/Labrynth Lord. My friend is a competent gm from the early 80's, and I'm sure he'll keep things simple and fun. As for Labrynth Lord...I'll save that for a new thread.