Troll Lord Games

Some gamers do.

If for example, you're non-prime in an ability, your saving throw is drastically different from that of a character with a prime score: by 6 points.

Ergo, some characters are severely vulnerable to certain monsters; without a charisma prime, a rogue doth naught dare enter 'monster X's lair' with the rest o' his party.

I think it could be a flaw, in comparison to the other big ticket RPGs out there. However, I think that it speaks to the design behind the game that non-prime ability checks are hard and as such, death can be handed out easily. Also, it encourages people to play to their classes' strengths. Although still, that thief may wind up failing their save vs. sleep and spend the encounter taking a snooze, regardless of how they play their character.

The source of your question stems from a contemporary style of gaming. You are making the assumption that all PC's will encounter baddies they are capable of defeating. In the spirit of old school gaming, C&C has stepped away from that style and focused on the gaming philosophy of populate a dungeon with baddies and let the PC's figure out *if* they can beat it.

IE- if a group of PC's encounters a banshee (who is capable of forcing a cha save or die throw from PC's), it is up to the PC's to figure out that they don't have the skill level to face the baddy and figure out another way to overcome the obstacle. Hopefully they will figure this out before they have to make the save or die check.

It took me awhile as well to understand the beauty behind the madness too. After digesting the world of cnc I have come to appreciate this style of gaming. Not every challenge must be met with the edge of a sword. Bilbo and the Dwarves did not attempt to cross blades with Smaug. They knew they were out classed. Likewise, The fellowship only attempted to fight the goblins in Moria until they were able to escape. They didn't stick around to fight till everyone was dead. In fact, Gandalf knew full well the Balrog was waiting in the mines but they delved none the less. Do you understand the point I am trying to make? In many modern games there is a philosophy that is spelled out very clearly in DnD 4e's dungeon master's guide. That philosophy is, 'Never throw an encounter at your PC's they can not overcome.' CnC has abandoned that philosophy. It is not a weakness, no more than being left-handed as opposed to right-handed is a weakness. It is just a difference.

Pour moi, I see some gamers focusing upon the variation amongst characters of similar level to be the issue, as opposed to the varying challenge levels of the encounters themselves; perhaps a difference o' 6 is too big a difference.

That opens up the whole "balance" thing that is central to lots of people - the idea that all characters must be "equalized" in their abilities - hence the design philosophy of 4e.

Slimy it's also helpful to remember the rules of C&C leave the application of adding levels to saves or other checks somewhat open to CK determination - sure, it's specific when it's a class skill you add levels, but I've always applied the idea of "levels" as representing experience, which I determine whether can be applied regardless of class in certain circumstances...

Example (taking from your thought), the straight human fighter, coming into the presence of an adult red dragon without CHA as a prime. By straight CL and check, the Fighter is pretty much doomed to fail against frightful presence (whilst the Paladin is actually empowered a bit by standing there against the evil dragon). However, after level 2 or 3 I'll make the determination as to whether they can apply their levels as experience with fear, and tell them to add that (conversely, even for characters with Primes sometimes I'll say "no levels" no matter the experience if it is a type of CON or pure reflex (DEX) save). Likewise I often will let characters add levels to certain WIS checks as they grow as adventurers when not Prime or class, but less often to INT checks (unless they've told me they're spending time reading up on the subject of X in their off-time )

So back to the fighter against the adult red - if he and the group are low level then their choice would probably be best to say "oops... let's find a way outta here without waking that thing!" less it end badly for everyone. But if the group is of a good level, say 8 or 9, then coming into presence means the CHA save and almost certainty that the fighter is going to miss their save and be at -2 on all rolls. I'd interpret that their experience with scary stuff allows them a greater "heroic" chance of beating that fear back, so when I ask them to roll their CHA save (likewise for those save or die situations) AND add their levels in this instance, so they do have increased chance of saving as a class and race normally at stark disadvantage here. The key to making this application fair is to always, if one is using more fluid level-adds to rolls, to make sure the CR adjusts appropriately - as Litzen mentioned the philosophy of C&C and other RPGs does actually want parties to pool their abilities in engaging their encounters, and being smart enough to look for other avenues (making a deal with the dragon for some task rather than fighting).

Of course, I also use crits in my house rules, so for saves I almost universally rule nat 20's as automatic saves too.

So I think it only becomes a flaw if we ignore the malleabilty of the C&C rules in the other parts of the save rules and situations.

This will be hard for players you talk with to wrap their heads around if they are strongly entrenched in the thought process of terms like "balance" and "broken" when one looks at an RPG.

Just my thoughts.

slimykuotoan wrote:Some gamers do.

If for example, you're non-prime in an ability, your saving throw is drastically different from that of a character with a prime score: by 6 points.

Ergo, some characters are severely vulnerable to certain monsters; without a charisma prime, a rogue doth naught dare enter 'monster X's lair' with the rest o' his party.

That is by design. Specifically. No character is a super hero in every area.

Most of the resistance from players will come from those that have mostly played Video Game style RPG's where, 1) if you encounter it there MUST be a way to defeat it. 2) and survive if you only play well enough.

C&C is NOT your younger siblings kiddie RPG. Life is rough. The life of an adventurer is 10X rougher. Just tell our players to change out of their Short Pants and well, man up.

slimykuotoan wrote:Pour moi, I see some gamers focusing upon the variation amongst characters of similar level to be the issue, as opposed to the varying challenge levels of the encounters themselves; perhaps a difference o' 6 is too big a difference.

In C&C different classes level at different rates. Under that type of system it would be illogical to compare 2 totally different classes by level. Once a player understands they shouldn't be trying to compare in that manner.

I personally see it as a feature, not a bug. The game was created with a pretty specific feel in mind, as far as I can tell. Balance between classes is NOT part of the deal, in fact balance is pretty firmly on the opposite side of the fence.

That is the sort of game I like and so I see the prime vs non-prime save disparity as a good thing which makes sense for the type of game I enjoy. It forces and reinforces teamwork and resource management between PCs with different strengths and weaknesses. It forces SMART decisions among characters, or at least attempts to do so.

I can understand this not being to the taste or enjoyment of everyone, especially players who have only ever played well balanced RPGs (4e D&D especially, but even 3.x and other d20 based games have the idea of balanced challenges as a pervasive concept). Or players who have, as their predominant fantasy gaming experience, video games in which you can save your progress and reboot after you die and then attempt to defeat the creature again and again until you succeed.

As others have said above, C&C provides for the CK to make whatever adjustments, changes, or additive house-rules deemed necessary, and even encourages the CK to run the game however one might see fit. That too is a feature, not a bug.

Its not a flaw, its what keeps high level play viable, instead of becoming the "automatic save machines" of every other edition of D&D. I guess some people think its fun and exciting to know your 90% likely to make every save your going to need to make, but I think its about as boring as watching paint dry.

I love the fact that C&C keeps the "excitement of failure" in our dice rolls at even the high levels.

Plus, as I have proven to myself many times over, I have a LOT of control over who has to make what save. After all, I chose who gets targeted. I also chose the CL, IE the level or HD of the opponents, so I have tons of control. So yeah, I have seen situations where it was practically impossible to actually succeed, but I have also seen where luck favored the player, despite the odds. So if anything, C&C emulates "adventuring" far more perfectly than any other edition of D&D has. Thats "adventuring" in a nutshell, surviving, despite the odds being against you. Or dying, because luck did not favor the foolish.

Hmm, thanks for your responses guys. I wonder if a prime 12, non-prime 16 would ease the differences, whilst not breaking the system.

slimykuotoan wrote:Hmm, thanks for your responses guys. I wonder if a prime 12, non-prime 16 would ease the differences, whilst not breaking the system.

You could do that an not break the system. There is also the 10/15 method.

R-

Yeah, I don't think it would "break" anything, but it would certainly change the "feel" of the game. If it didn't change the feel, people wouldn't do it. The real "problem" is, with the 18, the players actually feel threatened.

Like others, I see the 12/18 distinction as a feature, not a flaw. The standard SIEGE design protects niches, which ultimately reinforces the idea that C&C is a game about team-work and characters being truly good at some things and having Achilles heels in other areas.

If you want to affect a different feel, just play with the target numbers. To give more variation you could go with a 12/15/18 prime, secondary, tertiary split.

If you feel that 12 is too high as a baseline "challenging" task and 18 is too difficult: adjust the numbers to 10/15.

If you are a GM who likes having players roll a lot of dice, even for the simplest of tasks, then adjust the numbers even lower (e.g., 8, 10, 12).

The target numbers are not really that important. The best thing about SIEGE (in my opinion) is the simplicity of having a very easy, repeatable mechanism for resolving actions that does not require rules memorization, or worse, breaking the flow of the game to consult rule books to figure out whether a task succeeds or fails.

I am a big fan of the 12/15/18 split as opposed to the 12/18. In the 12/15/18 you pick 2 primes, 2 secondaries and 2 tertiaries. I feel it gives me more customization for PC's but does not change the feel of the game. After playing with the system for a long time, someone recommended to me I play the game as written before making changes. I pose the same challenge to you. Play the game as written first. You never know, you may like it.

jdizzy001 wrote:I am a big fan of the 12/15/18 split as opposed to the 12/18. In the 12/15/18 you pick 2 primes, 2 secondaries and 2 tertiaries. I feel it gives me more customization for PC's but does not change the feel of the game. After playing with the system for a long time, someone recommended to me I play the game as written before making changes. I pose the same challenge to you. Play the game as written first. You never know, you may like it.

In principle, I like 12/15/18 as well, but am currently still using 12/18 for precisely the reason described above.

I have been running C&C for going on two years using the standard SIEGE system and it has worked out just fine. One thing I have had to adjust though is limiting the sort of conditions that call for a dice roll. If you are coming from a dice-rolling heavy system, such as 3.x/PF, 12/18 SIEGE might be problematic. If you use the system as intended, it probably won't be an issue.

jdizzy001 wrote:I am a big fan of the 12/15/18 split as opposed to the 12/18. In the 12/15/18 you pick 2 primes, 2 secondaries and 2 tertiaries. I feel it gives me more customization for PC's but does not change the feel of the game. After playing with the system for a long time, someone recommended to me I play the game as written before making changes. I pose the same challenge to you. Play the game as written first. You never know, you may like it.

Slimy has been playing C&C almost as long as I have. In fact, we play RPG's together every Tuesday. Just right now we are playing Rifts, and he is preparing to run C&C with the new Haunted Highlands books.

Yeah, C&C has been my favorite system for fantasy fer many years fer sure, but I do remember complaints from players regarding the 'if you want to adventure alone or in a small group, the primes/ non-primes system can make things nigh impossible at times' argument.

Also, with the revamp o' D&D through the new fifth edition, I can envision many o' my future players shunning C&C in favour of it. Sorry, but that's my prediction, so I'm trying to think pre-emptively. I think perhaps the suggestions here, or a 12/16 prime/non-prime scale might help things, as well as perhaps future options books from the Trolls.

jdizzy001 wrote: In many modern games there is a philosophy that is spelled out very clearly in DnD 4e's dungeon master's guide. That philosophy is, 'Never throw an encounter at your PC's they can not overcome.'

The 4E DMG that says things like

"If every encounter gives the players a perfectly balanced challenge, the game can get stale. Once in a while, characters need an encounter that doesn't significantly tax their resources, or an encounter that makes them seriously scared for their characters' survival--or even makes them flee."

and

"Monsters that are more than eight levels higher than the characters can pretty easily kill a character, and in a group they have a chance of taking out the whole party. Use such overpowering encounters with great care. Players should enter the encounter with a clear sense of the danger they're facing, and have at least one good option for escaping with their lives--whether that's headlong flight or clever negotiation."

(All quotes from 4E DMG, p. 104)

That DMG?

slimykuotoan wrote:Some gamers do.

If for example, you're non-prime in an ability, your saving throw is drastically different from that of a character with a prime score: by 6 points.

Ergo, some characters are severely vulnerable to certain monsters; without a charisma prime, a rogue doth naught dare enter 'monster X's lair' with the rest o' his party.

I wouldn't say it is a flaw, but it is quite different in game effects if your memories are preconditioned for 1e (or even 3e) modules. It means that all PCs (and monsters) will have around 1/2 of their saves at a roughly 20% success chance (given similar levels etc. etc.). Especially as you get into the mid or high game, where you have to make a save or "ze game she is over for you", it has a noticeable effect.

AD&D saves meant that high level characters had decent saves against pretty much everything,as I vaguely recall. It all scaled with level more, so magic had less and less effect on you as you progressed. Which is why Conan was able to shrug off so many spells from the foul Thoth Amon. The mighty thewed barbarian should thank Crom R.E. Howard was not running C&C, where his first will save at a 20% success chance would have seen the end of the raven haired Cimmerian!

So it mostly comes down to flavour. If you like magic to be very powerful, C&C works fine. But if you try to run the 1e modules with it, which are based on the more generous saves of 1e, you may have some PC deaths you were not expecting

As people have suggested, changing the SIEGE base from 12/18 can change it somewhat. As I have stated before on these boards, although I love the easy mechanic of SIEGE, I do not think it should be tied into attributes. It should be tied into your class (e.g how 3e gives differing bonuses vs Ref/Will/Fort by class). In default C&C a save is d20 +level+attribute bonus+Prime bonus. Both are attribute bonuses, which I don't think is the best model. I think it should be d20+level+attribute bonus+(prime bonus if your class makes you prime for that).

Changing the universal TN to a flat 15, and granting only a +3 bonus, whether from an attribute prime, or a class prime, can also change the numbers.

But if you want to get that "Conan shrugs off the hold person" feel, you probably need 1e type saves

The other thing to keep in mind is that because of how saves work in C&C, you will see a lot of "smart" spell use. By that, I mean, players know that most big monsters are physical primes, crafty monsters are mental primes, so PC spell casters will tailor their spells to get that 20% save attempt, rather than a 50% save attempt. Similarly, crafty monsters facing an elven archer might assume a STR prime (required) and a DEX prime (to make archery easier), and elves only get 2 primes, so the NPC monster casts a CHA save on the poor (now ex) elf. This can also change how the game plays out.

Cool Aramis; very insightful post.

Aramis wrote:Changing the universal TN to a flat 15, and granting only a +3 bonus, whether from an attribute prime, or a class prime, can also change the numbers.

Hmm, this might be a workable idea...

If it is, it is basically the only one as it is the only thing people never stop complaining about. Unfortunately, it is also the "core element" of the system. The usual issue is perception of design, as noted before. That, and people are more used to "getting better" and this sort of curtails that... or so the loop goes.

Aramis wrote: But if you want to get that "Conan shrugs off the hold person" feel, you probably need 1e type saves

On this note you could probably switch to using the level of the spell/effect rather than the level of the spell caster as the CL.

Might be a simple option to consider if you want that, "Conan shrugs off the hold person" feel...