Troll Lord Games

Good video that illustrates the differences between the two "philosophies".

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wshcr5B8cKg

Thoughts? Is C&C (and other similar games) to be likened to a boat with many holes in it, as he so thoughtfully compares?

Well, I obviously don't agree with him, since I am here, on the C&C boards. I would much rather take a set of rules that has holes in it, and plug them however I wish, and turn it into what I consider is a perfect game for my tastes, preferences, etc... You can do that with the simpler "Old School Games".

This guy is obviously happy with 3.5 rules or Pathfinder. I am not. All the rules made my brain feel like it was going to melt, and we had to stop our games to look up rules FAR more than we ever had to to do an "on the spot ruling" in an old school game. So while he is apparently happy with looking up those rules all the time, I got sick of it. So here I am. While I can see and understand his attraction to having everything spelled out for him, and having to stop your games to look up any number of rules for 5 to 10 minutes at a time, I am obviously far happier with my C&C and the House Rules I and my players have taken the time to create.

The only problem I still have is having to look up the frikkin spells, which I don't see how any RPG can get rid of. Aside from that, I have made C&C into my perfect game, for me, and how I like things to run and play out. I never could have done that with 3.5 or Pathfinder. Both of which I obviously like to some degree, since I own at least 100 products of each, several hundred for 3E, but I have always been comfortable coming up with my own fixes to rules or the lack of the rules. AD&D and Traveller got me comfortable with that very early on in my gaming.

So yeah, give me the freedom to house rule a system based upon my copious amounts of gaming experience any day. I seem to be successful at doing what I want to do, which is run a game that is fun enough to keep players coming back for more every week or two, for many years. So I'm good with C&C or any "Old School" rules set. The newer, more complete, rules system seems too much like being a big mass of chains and shackles to me. That make my brain feel likes its going to melt down. No thanks, been there, done that, not doing it again.

Weird, no sound for me. But I can hear Katy Perry blast off!

Treebore wrote:
This guy is obviously happy with 3.5 rules or Pathfinder. I am not. All the rules made my brain feel like it was going to melt, and we had to stop our games to look up rules FAR more than we ever had to to do an "on the spot ruling" in an old school game. So while he is apparently happy with looking up those rules all the time, I got sick of it. So here I am. While I can see and understand his attraction to having everything spelled out for him, and having to stop your games to look up any number of rules for 5 to 10 minutes at a time, I am obviously far happier with my C&C and the House Rules I and my players have taken the time to create.

Stopping a game to look up rules repeatedly is not my favorite thing either and the idea that their lack is a "hole" strikes me as a way of denigrating the role of the DM/GM/CK, the person whose job it is to essentially be the patching to those holes. I haven't played Pathfinder (though have started the slow process of reading through it), but played some 3rd edition and a good deal of 4th edition and found rule systems with every minutiae spelled out in the rules to take some of the narrative tools away from the DM/GM. The holes give room for story and ruling and high adventure, simply because it was put forward in the right way.

Treebore wrote:So yeah, give me the freedom to house rule a system based upon my copious amounts of gaming experience any day. I seem to be successful at doing what I want to do, which is run a game that is fun enough to keep players coming back for more every week or two, for many years. So I'm good with C&C or any "Old School" rules set. The newer, more complete, rules system seems too much like being a big mass of chains and shackles to me. That make my brain feel likes its going to melt down. No thanks, been there, done that, not doing it again.

This.

R-

Rhuvein wrote:Weird, no sound for me. But I can hear Katy Perry blast off!

How many Robitussin and rye whiskey have you had?

I have yet to watch the video, but I'm in full agreement regarding the beauty of C&C. Maybe I have to reference the occasional rule, class ability, and spells. Spells would be the worst of it. Then again as Tree said, that's in any game. A local game store is under new ownership, and I'm fairly certain two of my new players will see it the same way. We'll know for sure next week.

I dont view c&c as an old school game. Sure, it has the old school feel which drew me to it, but the game itself is pretty new and refreshing. This stems from the one rule to rule them all philosophy (seige checks). With the exception to the attack system, which is a traditional d20 roll, everything in cnc is resolved with a seige check. This takes out all the guess work. The gentlemen in the video wants a quote "turn key game" that he doesnt have to invent rules all the time, which I think is a good thing, and I would argue that cnc does that in a simpler, and frankly better, way than most of the other d20 clones out there.

I watched the video, and at first I wanted to turn it off but I listened all the way through. To be fair, he is right, there is a philosophy here and you are usually in one camp or the other. He makes a lot of good points. One is that if you make a "ruling" one day, then some time later you make a different ruling on the same situation. I can understand the desire for consistency. Ok, so write you house rules down. Turn-key? Ok, I get that too.

Filling in the gaps, I think is ok. I like doing that. What I have a problem with is poor editing and/or rules that say one thing on one page and then something different on another. I hate conflicting rules or unclear wording that lends itself to every interpretation. To me, a good rule set is coherent, clear and interprets one way. The holes in the boat, I can patch myself.

Snoring Rock wrote:To me, a good rule set is coherent, clear and interprets one way.

I have to disagree, SR. I think the best rules are the ones that can be interpreted in different ways. I don't want the rules telling me it has to be this way and no other. I had my fill of that in 3e. I want to look at a rule and think, it could go this way or it could go this other way and then make up my mind how it should go for me. Not for the author of the rules. Plus, it allows for some great discussions on message boards, which promotes deeper thinking about the game mechanics, which leads to better understanding of how I want to run my games, which leads to better games for my players. When a rule is only able to be interpreted one way, a player will brow beat a CK into only using it that way. That takes away from running the game, in my opinion.

R-

Rigon wrote:

Snoring Rock wrote:To me, a good rule set is coherent, clear and interprets one way.

I have to disagree, SR. I think the best rules are the ones that can be interpreted in different ways. I don't want the rules telling me it has to be this way and no other. I had my fill of that in 3e. I want to look at a rule and think, it could go this way or it could go this other way and then make up my mind how it should go for me. Not for the author of the rules. Plus, it allows for some great discussions on message boards, which promotes deeper thinking about the game mechanics, which leads to better understanding of how I want to run my games, which leads to better games for my players. When a rule is only able to be interpreted one way, a player will brow beat a CK into only using it that way. That takes away from running the game, in my opinion.

R-

Agreed, but I get the other argument at my table. When it is not defined, and what I mean by that is in one chapter incorporeal is defined as one thing, and then in another is get a new definition; and that leads my players to argue for it in the way that suits them best. If it was spelled out as intended in both places, my table would be quieter.

I get what you say, but an example would be the HD for Rune Marks. No one really knows if it is 6 or 8. I have ruled on it, but wish I had not had to. That make sense?

The guy in this video points out different approaches to thinking and I can respect him for that. I disagree in his "old-school-ness" He looks like he is only old enough to have cut his teeth on 2e. I know a lot of guys here are 2e fans. I am not. So here are all these different takes and approaches. Old school to him is 2e I think. Old school to me is white box and ready ref sheets. Liked AD&D best.

White box was "complete" to us. Err, looking back, I disagree now. It was NOT complete. So I see what he says but at some point you have to say "enough rules!" What is your rules level tolerance/need?

But yeah I see your point.

I get what you're saying, SR, on the consistency and typos. If it is defined as this in this book, it should be defined the same way in the next ever. That just doesn't mean that the interpretation should be limited to one view.

So, basically, we agree in spirit, not terminology.

R-

Completeness is subjective.

I would be fine with a game that had nothing more than how to create characters. Most others would want more. Some want as much as possible detailed.

It comes down to how fluid is your imagination.

Kayolan wrote:
Thoughts? Is C&C (and other similar games) to be likened to a boat with many holes in it, as he so thoughtfully compares?

Not really. It can seem that way to kids (take the one who made the video) who came late to the P&P RPG scene and lack perspective on the products due to lack of broad experience. The saddest is people like this who never REALLY got to learn to DM/GM but were straight-jacketed by a system like 3.x

Recently I had someone explain it like this; that 3.x (more so with Pathfinder) took some of the DMing away from the DM and allowed the DM to concentrate on the creatures and not worry about rulings on the rest. The "power" was taken from the DM and given, in part, to the players. It is a different style.

I can see that. The thing I hated back in the day, was the "us against the DM" style of play. You had players that instead of seeing the DM as a referee (EGG used that reference) and world-builder and arbiter, saw the DM as the enemy on the other side of the table. It was about beating the rules and the setting, even if it meant breaking it.

It was the younger guys mostly, who thought that way too. So the more hard and fast rules that were set up and both understood them, the more protection the DM had against having his hard work destroyed. I am not sure why, but I feel the same about the "new gamers" we call Pathfinder enthusiasts. I know, this does not include everyone and I have unfairly generalized.

What Rigon eluded to above is that the players can use the "rules" as weapons. "But the rules on page..." "Yeah but on page...." "You cant do that, the rules say...."

Snoring Rock wrote: Agreed, but I get the other argument at my table. When it is not defined, and what I mean by that is in one chapter incorporeal is defined as one thing, and then in another is get a new definition; and that leads my players to argue for it in the way that suits them best.

You allow players to argue with your rulings at the table??? BIG mistake.

Rigon wrote:I get what you're saying, SR, on the consistency and typos. If it is defined as this in this book, it should be defined the same way in the next ever. That just doesn't mean that the interpretation should be limited to one view.

So, basically, we agree in spirit, not terminology.

R-

I think so. I played D&D for a long time, skipping 2e; my group and I thought it was too "munchkin". In fact, as I remember it, the name "munchkin" became part of D&D terminology about the time "kits" were being published. I stopped playing in the late 80's; marriage, school, job, kids, life just got in the way. About the time 3.0 came out my friends pushed me to play again. The problem was, they wanted to go play 2e and I was having none of that. They purchased the PHB and MM for me for my birthday so I felt compelled. Just a matter of taste. ONe man's munchkin is another man's game.

Once we got into it, it was really hard to turn back. The players loved those feats and ways to customize characters. Pathfinder came along and having invested so much in 3.x I was not even looking at 4e. I happened upon C&C and well, I found a home.

The fact is, OD&D is too unfinished for me. Like the guy in the video, I saw a game in OD&D or Basic D&D that was unfinished and I saw holes in it. I am sure my old-school brethren I started with back in the day, would disagree. I liked AD&D but did not like 2e. Too much glitter was sprinkled on it for me. The same goes for every other iteration of the game. It depends on your taste. I will not knock those who like Pathfinder, I did once too. There are different levels of "finished-ness" and you get to decide what is good for you and your group. What would the world be without all those flavors right?

For me, OD&D was unfinished. Pathfinder is a bit too finished. I will stick where I am.

Rigon, go check out the Aihrde thread. I have a question for you.

Snoring Rock wrote:Rigon, go check out the Aihrde thread. I have a question for you.

I went, but didn't see anything.

R-

Rigon wrote:

Snoring Rock wrote:Rigon, go check out the Aihrde thread. I have a question for you.

I went, but didn't see anything.

R-

Its up now, I gave my 2 cents as well.

Aramis wrote:

Rhuvein wrote:Weird, no sound for me. But I can hear Katy Perry blast off!

How many Robitussin and rye whiskey have you had?

Just 2!

Hmm, I think we may have invented a great drink/name for 2015! Well done!

I think the game is complete. Not perfectly, not exactly and not WOTCy! But just right.

Per Tree, Rigon and serleran posts, et. al.

Still can't get sound on that video!

There's one thing the guy brought up that frankly baffles me. He notes that the problem with making 'rulings' (house rules) is that you as DM could make a ruling one way, then forget to rite it down, then make a ruling another way later on out of forgetfulness.

My reply:

1. Whenever the above has happened to me, a player at my table will usually remind me of the prior ruling. I then either change the ruling back to the original precedent or explain that there are mitigating factors that cause a different result.

or...

2. Nobody reminds me because nobody else remembers and the game continues on.

So long as the game is progressing and everyone's having fun....what's the problem?

DM Mike, He of the "DM Fiat"

I was baffled because when I make such rulings I write them down and add them to my House Rules document to make sure I remember how I decided to handle it the next time it comes up.

When my wife Liz got home from work I mentioned this thread and the video to her. Her reply was to point out that in real life most things aren't consistent. Fall out of a plane two miles up with no parachute? Auto-kill? But there are records of one woman who did just that and fully recovered. Ships can't sink in a calm sea? Methane gas bubbles do that. Even physics have exceptions that, while rare, put 'reality' up for grabs.

So, a 'rule for everything' and 'consistency' doesn't even work all the time in Real Life(tm)!


Mike

DMMike wrote:When my wife Liz got home from work I mentioned this thread and the video to her. Her reply was to point out that in real life most things aren't consistent. Fall out of a plane two miles up with no parachute? Auto-kill? But there are records of one woman who did just that and fully recovered. Ships can't sink in a calm sea? Methane gas bubbles do that. Even physics have exceptions that, while rare, put 'reality' up for grabs.

So, a 'rule for everything' and 'consistency' doesn't even work all the time in Real Life(tm)!


Mike

Real life sucks. We should kick it's arse.

R-

The main problem I have with 3.5/Pathfinder is all the feat options. They make the monster stat blocks way too convoluted for my tastes, at least they do at higher levels. When I first looked at the M&T book for C&C and saw the simple 1e-style stat blocks, I almost had a nerd-gasm! (Unfortunately, I can't find a group to join....pause for sympathy...)

Something that bothered me about this video: He says that it appears to him that there are two camps, the ones who prefer a rules-lite game and those that play out of nostalgia. But he neglects the camp that I belong in, those that don't play out of nostalgia or necessarily because of easy rules but who actually enjoy the games on their own merits and haven't stopped playing the older games. He is obviously too heavily biased towards Pathfinder to make a clear and concise case for those that still play the older games. For him, it's either because I'm looking for rules-liteness or I'm just being nostalgic.

I feel like this guy in the video posted is pretty myopic about games and who plays them or why. When he says "people are doomed to play a thousand different games" because "the rules are incomplete", he says it like its a bad thing and I think that's a must for any game I want to play. I want a game that conforms to the desire/style/aesthetic of the CK and group, not a game that forces a certain style of play or adjudication. To me, the opposite of "dooms to have different games" would be to have a sterile sameness that would be totally undesirable. I don't ever write down my rulings because inconsistency is not an issue in my games. I'm the CK. I listen, apply my understanding of the game world and the situation and make a call.

He says he has to "stop his game" to make a ruling. This makes no sense. I would have to stop my games to look up rules. I make rulings on the fly constantly, without stopping the game. That's the entire point of making rulings, to keep the game going. I've never met anyone who can look up rules faster than they could simply make a ruling. This makes me think this guy is subconsciously torpedoing a gameplay style he just doesn't understand. It also reinforces for me, the idea that the evolution of the game through the editions wasn't designed by people who liked the current version but by people who were dissatisfied with it. They weren't improving it, they were "fixing" it. And while I'll grant the early game could use improvement, it wasn't actually broken. Which explains why over time, people who play modern games have gotten further and further from the sensibilities of people who prefer classic games. I listen to this guy and all I here is "your rock and roll is crap because my acid house is awesome". Or, "I've already listened to The Beatles, The Who, Zeppelin, and Elvis, why would I ever go back to that when I can listen to modern masters like Adonis, Armondo and Phuture. I'll keep my rock and roll thank you very much. You can have your acid house.

mbeacom wrote: He says he has to "stop his game" to make a ruling. This makes no sense. I would have to stop my games to look up rules. I make rulings on the fly constantly, without stopping the game. That's the entire point of making rulings, to keep the game going. I've never met anyone who can look up rules faster than they could simply make a ruling. This makes me think this guy is subconsciously torpedoing a gameplay style he just doesn't understand.

Don't be too hard on the guy. We were all somewhat incompetent GM's there in the beginning of getting into the hobby.