Troll Lord Games

Well, we just finished part three of a three part adventure, and I have to say, it was a smash success. The truth is, I've never been especially fond of the d20 system. I enjoyed BECMI and Cyclopedia, and 2e was almost perfect... but after that, I was done with D&D.

And, to be honest, I didn't play those very much. I had other games I much preferred.

But now there's C&C, and my mind has been changed! It's like they fixed everything that was ever wrong with D&D and put it into one compact package. Besides the rules as they are, I love how many rules there aren't: My group has had an immense amount of fun making up our own house rules for things like, say, criticals and stuff.

But one thing I'm not certain about, and I'm probably just overlooking it, is the rule, if there is one, on "trying again." I know older editions didn't let you try again until you went up a level (e.g. opening locks), but I think 3e does let you? I'm not really familiar with 3e rules, and C&C normally tries to emulate older editions anyway.

So, I'm sorry if this question has been asked before, but if someone can give us the "official" rule about this, it would be very helpful. In this adventure I wouldn't let them try again, because I figured that was probably the rule, and the adventure was still good. But if I'm doing it wrong, I'd like to know so I can do it right in the future.

In CnC you can house rule just about anything. Decide what you want, write it out, roll test it, get your group's head nod and roll with it.

My group is the most unlucky group in the Universe. Rolling 3 to 10 natural ones a night is common, sometimes even just one PC has made as many as three ones in a row! We have instituted "Luck Point" and "Hero Point" from the CKG. Anytime you make a crappy roll to hit or damage or even a save (not counting a one, we declare them to be "too bad, you must stick with them") you can expend one luck point to look into the "Red Box of Fate" which is a box with at least one of every dice in it. Shake it once, look and you're stuck with it. That is basically our do over... Since this systems makes the PCs a little bit "better than average" to challenge them I adjust with more powerful encounters. In the end its about having fun, everyone has the same chances, they do not have tons of luck points and they all get a kick out of "The Red Box of Fate" which as you know is just as likely not to help. We also let the luck points be +1 per point spent to anything if you declare their use in advance. So if I had 5 luck points and the big event of the night hinged on your PC making the called shot to the Cyclops eye that PC could expend all five points to get that much bonus to hit.

I don't believe there is anything in the rules about "trying again." If a PC fails at a roll, I don't typically allow do overs. If something is easy enough to accomplish with multiple tries, why bother with a roll to begin with? This leads to the heart of the system; only have the PCs roll when there is a significant chance of failure and where that success/failure matters.

R-

Yep. Common sense is the best rule in C&C. If you think it makes sense, do it. If not, don't. Like Rigon says, if they can eventually do it, given time, then why roll for it? Just say it gets done in X amount of time and move ahead. 3E was seriously broken with their "Take 20" rule, which assured success for anything that wasn't time sensitive. Which really made traps a non issue, for example.

Three replies, and they are consistent: C&C has no rules, but being able to re-roll failed rolls makes no sense.

One person has Luck Points, and to be honest, I've been considering putting those in myself. My other game is Savage Worlds, and I am forever stealing little bits of it to put in C&C. "Bennies" was one of the things I've been considering stealing. The only reason I haven't so far is because the game's been working quite well without them, and I didn't want to fix a thing that isn't broken.

Since other people do it, I might consider it, though. That's a good way of getting the occasional re-roll when you need it, on a nice metagaming level (which some may not like, but I do).

Yep, several of us use some type of "Luck Points" system, several others don't. I am speaking of those I have gamed with.

Man, I hate when PCs just try again and again, either moving from one PC to another or the same one rolling dice until luck favors them. I’ve been pretty lenient about this, but the more I think about it, the more it bugs me.

From now on, if a PC fails a roll, say to open a door, they jam it so that it can no longer be opened. Trying to smooth talk an NPC? One failure and they’re done talking.

Many of the class abilities do say how many times they may be attempted, and how often, though not all.

For instance, the rogue may listen once per round. Out of combat, they could retry until they hear something, though this might get them a wandering monster check.
Opening a lock can't be retried (for the same lock) until a level is gained. Disabling a trap can only be tried once (because you either succeed or trip it.)
Decipher Script can only be attempted once per writing. And so on.

This is all in 6th printing. I seem to recall this language was in earlier editions, certainly listening, because I had a player keep saying "I listen again."

Of course Rigon's comment should be applied most of the time. Decide how long it will take to get it right, and decide what happens while they are making noise/not paying attention to anything else, etc...

Treebore wrote:Yep. Common sense is the best rule in C&C. If you think it makes sense, do it. If not, don't. Like Rigon says, if they can eventually do it, given time, then why roll for it? Just say it gets done in X amount of time and move ahead. 3E was seriously broken with their "Take 20" rule, which assured success for anything that wasn't time sensitive. Which really made traps a non issue, for example.

Agreed. For example; you need to jump across a chasm. Most of the group can do it, but you have a dwarf in plate mail and a gnome archer who is portly. They would like some assistance. If you have all day, I hand-wave it and they find a way across, be it ropes and pitons; what have you. But if they come to the same chasm, being pursued by some trollish nasty, and they have little time; I require a roll. There is no time for do-overs.

Take trapped chests as another example. You may have all day to open it, but one false move and you get a needle under the fingernail! Ouch. NO do-over.

I do not do any re-rolls unless it is a task where the situation changes between rolls. Say if the there is an earthquake and the chasm gets smaller or the trollish creature rolls a 1 (critical fail), that gives more time to try again.

This whole question came up because I have newbies as players.

It was a simple affair, and I had a classic "trap" set up for them. Two chests: 1 old and junky, directly within their reach; and 1 shining like gleaming gold, kept behind a locked cage.

If they choose the junky one, the gold one disappears. If they choose the shiny one, the junky one disappears. But first they have to get to the shiny one. (They don't know the chest will disappear, though; they won't know that until they open one and the other disappears, so as far as they know, both are fair game).

So, since they were new to this trap, they did what the rest of us would probably never do: went for the shiny one. But the Rogue (the only one in our group) failed her lockpick save.

Our fighter, who broke his axe head busting down a heavy door earlier when she failed a roll (by rolling a 1 on his die) was not about to lose his next weapon, and so he said what anyone in this situation (who was new to gaming) would say: "Well, she'll just have to try again."

We spent the next ten minutes trying to explain that she couldn't "try again," and, like a lot of newbies, he didn't get it. She was there, the lock was there, the situation was unchanged. If he (the player) fails to do something, he tries again. So why can't our characters?

The only answer I had was, "Because it's a game, and that's the game rules. Without this rule in place, failure becomes meaningless, because if she continues trying, she'll eventually succeed. For the failure to matter in a game context, she either has to be able to do it or not."

He came back with, "Well, can she try it again with a penalty, to show how much trouble she's having with it?"

I said, "Some games do have that rule, but I don't think this one does. I'll ask the board later what they say about re-tries. Until then, we need to go by the rules as I know them."

He accepted the ruling, but I think he never quite understood it. Thus, I'm doing the research now.

P.S. In case anyone else doesn't know this classic bit, the junky chest has the good stuff. The golden one is either empty or has useless junk in it.

I think you handled the situation really well. Players are such pains in the ass.

The next time, you might try explaining it like this: "She can try it again, but it won't get her anywhere. The roll didn't just mean she failed a single attempt at it; it meant she is not capable of picking this particular lock. If she goes up in level and gets more training, she can take another crack at it to see if her improved skills make her competent enough to handle this particular lock."

Or, you could follow your player's suggestion and say the next check is at a -X penalty. I'd recommend using a fairly punishing scale of penalties for each attempt after a failure until the penalty is so massive there is no chance of success. Maybe start at -6, then move to -10, -15, and -20.

I have responded to players with "because the rules say so" or "because the module says so" or variations thereof, and I have usually regretted it later. Perhaps because of too much negative exposure to games where consistency was paramount, I chose consistency over flexibility.

I find flexibility usually is the better decision. And, because "because that is my ruling" is always an option available to you, you don't need "because rules" or "because module".

Also, even if the rule says you can't try again mechanically, doesn't necessarily mean the character can't try dramatically.

Not saying either way is wrong, just that in my experience, I think I discouraged fun when I didn't mean to because I wanted to nail a rule down.

Well, in the case of pick locks, you always have the option of the crowbar and/or sledgehammer to get the door open. The big advantage to being able to pick a lock is doing it quietly. When stealth doesn't matter, you can always bash it in.

In your case a failed lock pick attempt is just that, you try, no time limit and the lock is beyond your PICKING ABILITY, no "let's just keep trying until you get it" and you have to explain this to the players as trying to solve a riddle or work a math problem, if you can't, you can't, trying again and again and again every 6 seconds will not change the result. You have to go get schooling, go up a level, then with your new skill set, try again. Which is affectively a whole new encounter. NOW in this case, you can rule that Thieves have saws, crow bars, etc to then get a "second attempt" the break or cut through the lock.. this is NOT picking, but to me I use the same "skill" or class ability WITHOUT their DEX bonus. This is a special case. Any member of the party could also try to break the lock with the "right tools" assuming the tools (axe head, hammer, mace, etc.) are deemed by you the CK to be sufficient for the job. Now non-thieves breaking a lock do not get level bonus, only the thief does. Once you state that it is possible, then the roll and roll again until you succeed is just a matter of time and blows and noise to break the thing... a whole other matter. You could also give one strong guy with a hammer one attempt and if failed, then the lock is NOT breakable with the rolls. To me, I like to decide ahead its possible to break and let them hammer away until its done, worried about monsters hearing the noise... more fun for me that way.

My idea about luck points would have allowed, if done before the fact, a bonus to the pick, luck point per bonus to pick point, or after the fact, if not a natural one, to use the "red box of fate" to see if the box rolled differently than you did - a one time, one shot, ONE extra chance. So as you are wisely warned above by others this is NOT a try, try, try till you get it simply a "you could pay a point to see if fate bumps the dice up or down this one time." Key being one reroll if you pay (if you have) a luck point.

I think you did very well AND look at all this great conversation we all had... thanks, keep the questions coming, we all gain, we all learn, we all share.. WELCOME!

I have allowed 2nd tries in the past for lock picking, always simple chests or locked doors ~ because sometimes I want the party to find what's in the chest or behind the door. The rogue tries a pick and it doesn't work, he selects another and just maybe that one will work. Depending on how bad I want them to get into the chest, I might allow one more try. Although, I can't recall ever having a 3rd try.

Rhuvein wrote:I have allowed 2nd tries in the past for lock picking, always simple chests or locked doors ~ because sometimes I want the party to find what's in the chest or behind the door. The rogue tries a pick and it doesn't work, he selects another and just maybe that one will work. Depending on how bad I want them to get into the chest, I might allow one more try. Although, I can't recall ever having a 3rd try.

That reasoning can definitely work, since locks are far from standardized, which is why a Thief needs a nice selection of picks for lock picking. So you can say they failed due to using the wrong sized lock pick, and allow them additional tries. Its a finer level of granularity, but is realistic reasoning for allowing an additional try or two with a different sized Lock Pick. I definitely would not allow an unlimited number of tries, and I would also likely restrict that to locks of CL 5 and lower, if I were to allow retries, which I currently don't.

Treebore wrote:

Rhuvein wrote:I have allowed 2nd tries in the past for lock picking, always simple chests or locked doors ~ because sometimes I want the party to find what's in the chest or behind the door. The rogue tries a pick and it doesn't work, he selects another and just maybe that one will work. Depending on how bad I want them to get into the chest, I might allow one more try. Although, I can't recall ever having a 3rd try.

That reasoning can definitely work, since locks are far from standardized, which is why a Thief needs a nice selection of picks for lock picking. So you can say they failed due to using the wrong sized lock pick, and allow them additional tries. Its a finer level of granularity, but is realistic reasoning for allowing an additional try or two with a different sized Lock Pick. I definitely would not allow an unlimited number of tries, and I would also likely restrict that to locks of CL 5 and lower, if I were to allow retries, which I currently don't.

Yep, and now I recall my thread about a rogue's toolkit and what's in it . . lots of good stuff . . but a point which helps me sort of justify a 2nd try ~ the poor bastard has to buy it for 30 GPs. And a simple fail of what should be an easy open - ruins his f'ing day!!!

Treebore wrote:

Rhuvein wrote:I have allowed 2nd tries in the past for lock picking, always simple chests or locked doors ~ because sometimes I want the party to find what's in the chest or behind the door. The rogue tries a pick and it doesn't work, he selects another and just maybe that one will work. Depending on how bad I want them to get into the chest, I might allow one more try. Although, I can't recall ever having a 3rd try.

That reasoning can definitely work, since locks are far from standardized, which is why a Thief needs a nice selection of picks for lock picking. So you can say they failed due to using the wrong sized lock pick, and allow them additional tries. Its a finer level of granularity, but is realistic reasoning for allowing an additional try or two with a different sized Lock Pick. I definitely would not allow an unlimited number of tries, and I would also likely restrict that to locks of CL 5 and lower, if I were to allow retries, which I currently don't.

Back when I GMed, I didn't allow 2nd tries. However, I do like that reasoning. I'd argue there would be a negative modifier -to represent the building frustration. I remember watching a special on Navy fighter jocks. One of the pilots missed his landing on the carrier, went back in the pattern, missed his second. On the 3rd, he was panting, his uniform was soaked in sweat, and he was frazzled when he came around for his 3rd try. If I remember correctly, he stuck it on the 2nd arrester instead of the 3rd that he was aiming for, but he did land it. Afterward in the commentary, the CAG said the pilot was lucky and something to the effect that if they miss the first try it is doubtful they will make the 2nd. If they miss that one, they almost always end up in the drink ...

Treebore wrote:Well, in the case of pick locks, you always have the option of the crowbar and/or sledgehammer to get the door open. The big advantage to being able to pick a lock is doing it quietly. When stealth doesn't matter, you can always bash it in.

Rgr that, and great role playing opportunity there ... the rogue tries and bolos his roll. The fighter/barbarian chuckles and says 'here let me have a go at it' Pulls out an axe/mace/hammer and bam it is open ... the thief rolls his eyes and says 'well that is the easy way to do it'

That reminds me of a movie, a team of spies (or something like that) is trying to break into a room. They have split up but the team that ends up at the door doesn't have the B&E expert with them. They talk over the radio with the guy leading the group at the door keeps nodding and saying "yeah, um, what next, um, ok I think I got it" . He then kneels by the door looks at the lock steps back and Spartan kicks the door open. The B&E guy hears it over the radio and goes 'well, I guess that works too'. Yeah, that fits the role playing from my table back in the day.

Rhuvein wrote:I have allowed 2nd tries in the past for lock picking, always simple chests or locked doors ~ because sometimes I want the party to find what's in the chest or behind the door. The rogue tries a pick and it doesn't work, he selects another and just maybe that one will work. Depending on how bad I want them to get into the chest, I might allow one more try. Although, I can't recall ever having a 3rd try.

Hmm, that reminds me of a way I used to handle it in another game long ago.

I presumed that a lockpick set had a certain number of keys. The thief could try that many times, but on a critical failure, broke one key, and that door could not be opened.

From that point on, they could only roll the number of times equal to their new number of keys. When all the keys were gone, there was no more lockpicking until a new set could be acquired!

Ask the Castle Keeper.

"Can I try that again?"

"Sure, but the strain has made you more tired. Do so at a -1."

Or... "No, you failed to determine whether the creature has a weak spot. Staring at it longer isn't going to tell you more than you know now."

Trying again is, as it should be, highly dependent on what you're trying again. There should not be any hard rules for it.

serleran wrote:Ask the Castle Keeper.

"Can I try that again?"

"Sure, but the strain has made you more tired. Do so at a -1."

Or... "No, you failed to determine whether the creature has a weak spot. Staring at it longer isn't going to tell you more than you know now."

Trying again is, as it should be, highly dependent on what you're trying again. There should not be any hard rules for it.

serleran wrote:Ask the Castle Keeper.

"Can I try that again?"

"Sure, but the strain has made you more tired. Do so at a -1."

Or... "No, you failed to determine whether the creature has a weak spot. Staring at it longer isn't going to tell you more than you know now."

Trying again is, as it should be, highly dependent on what you're trying again. There should not be any hard rules for it.

This thread seems about dead, so reviving it with what I'm about to say, which is bound to ruffle some feathers, is probably ill-advised. But I never was one to take good advice, so here goes:

Serlan, that might work for my group. It might not.

The problem I have is consistency of application. It's fine if you break the above into, say, two catagories, e.g. Non-combat actions and combat actions. What you've suggested above is that combat actions cannot be tried again, and non-combat actions can be tried again, at a penalty for each attempt.

Okay, what you've actually suggested is that the DM makes it up based on the situation. The problem is, while C&C is seen as a rules-lite game in our group, it's not a no-rules game. In point of fact, it was the rules-lite aspect that was hardest to sell to my group. My wife, who had never played RPG's before I met her, came out on the side of "simulationist" before her very first game.

I sold her on C&C by, if you can believe this, first playing Big Eyes, Small Mouth with her and our son, so she could see how good I am at rules-lite games (having played T&T for over 20 years, I've become good at just deciding what happens without consulting rules in most cases). After seeing how BESM went, she was more willing to try C&C. She was still reluctant, but since C&C had more rules than BESM, it was a better choice.

Her constant complaint, and one echoed by the adults in my adult group in cases like this, is that if the application of rules isn't fair, then the players can never grasp how the physics of the world really works. Worse, I have to be sure that the application is fair to avoid accusations of partiality, since my wife is a player in our game. That means that if I'm not sure if a thing should work or not, and the rules don't specify, I need to rule against my wife in every case, so that if the same situation comes up with the other players and I rule against them, they don't cry, "Foul, it worked when your wife did it."

Of course, this can make home life uncomfortable, too. "Why is it every thing I try always fails? Should I just not try to do things anymore? Would it be best if I wasn't in your game?"

(Don't read that as my wife is "fussy." No one likes it when the DM picks on them and rules against them more than they do everyone else, but this is a common problem everywhere, for example, the child who has his mother for his school teacher).

So, sure, I'm fine with "pulling the answer out of my arse," as it were, but each decision creates a precedent, which is very important to my group. They're not "rules lawyers," but they feel that rules are there to keep the game fair for everyone, and to keep the physics of the world consistent. To that end, they want more rules.

I feel too many rules hamper the game and my creativity. To that end, I want less rules.

There's a happy medium. In my case, part of that medium is based around what can be re-tried and what cannot. In your posted example, that could work, but once we say it, it has to apply to every situation that matches the example content (i.e. combat versus non-combat).

You've answered your own question, at least in part, and explained why there cannot be hard rules.

Most combat actions can be attempted after failure -- swing the sword and miss? Attack again the next round. Loose and arrow and miss? Try again, providing one has another bit of ammunition. Swing a lit torch and miss; try again? Don't know -- did the torch go out? Do you have a rule for it?

Similar thing for non-combat actions. Some tasks can clearly be attempted numerous times until successful, or may in fact require multiple attempts... like bashing down a door or searching for a hidden one. Other things, like casing a target -- maybe not, maybe so.

The game logic is consistent as long as the Castle Keeper makes it so. The rules should never be a crutch. They should be a springboard.

But... if the fear is that internal consistency will be lost, there's an age-old fix for that: write it down.

But I might be missing the point. Personally, I like making up adjudications as needed, as opposed to relying on rules. I find rules are straitjackets.

I find its best to talk to your players and see what they think will work. So if it was something they were question, I'd simply ask them how they think it should go. We discuss any pro's and con's we can think of, then either go with what they thought, or go with whatever idea we developed through our discussion, or if we cannot come up with a resolution we can both agree upon, we go with how we want it.

Just last night I had players questioning how SR can allow creatures to walk through a Wall of Force, when they rolled their SR or less on a D20. The bottom line is, thats how I've done it since 1E AD&D. The only spells SR cannot work against once interacted with, are those that have a "permanent" duration. So once a Wall of Stone or Iron is created, its permanent, so SR will not work against it. Wall of Force, Wall of Thorns, etc... has a limited duration, so is a magical construct, so once the creature with SR interacts with it, they get the SR check. Conjured creatures are also real, despite having a limited duration, because the spells summon actual creatures for a limited period of time. So when Monster Summoning or Animal Summoning spells are used, a creatures SR has no effect on them when they attack. My players may not have liked my reasoning/logic/rules call, but they accepted it.

Treebore wrote:
...Just last night I had players questioning how SR can allow creatures to walk through a Wall of Force, when they rolled their SR or less on a D20. The bottom line is, thats how I've done it since 1E AD&D. The only spells SR cannot work against once interacted with, are those that have a "permanent" duration. So once a Wall of Stone or Iron is created, its permanent, so SR will not work against it. Wall of Force, Wall of Thorns, etc... has a limited duration, so is a magical construct, so once the creature with SR interacts with it, they get the SR check. ... My players may not have liked my reasoning/logic/rules call, but they accepted it.

Well, I didn't like it when the death knight walked through the wall of force, jumped across the room - landing gracefully on the table the Halfling failed to jump up on - and walloped the party's other paladin. However, it wasn't because of faulty reasoning/logic/rule call. It was because I figured very soon we would all be dead meat !

That said, I agree with tree that it is best to discuss it (preferably before hand) with the party and explain the call with concrete reasoning and explicit examples. That way the party has a bench mark to start from and knows what to expect in given general situations.

See, this is a reason that discussion is important. I would not allow SR to function against wall of force in that manner. It's not bad, just not for me. My players might enjoy it, though. I'd rather keep magic somewhat more mysterious. Maybe if there was a feyspot involved. Hmm. I'm going to have to consider it as an option.

Lurker wrote:
That said, I agree with tree that it is best to discuss it (preferably before hand) with the party and explain the call with concrete reasoning and explicit examples. That way the party has a bench mark to start from and knows what to expect in given general situations.

Given that most of the stuff (SR "MR" as an example) works similarly to AD&D I haven't had much to explain to my players in C&C. I can see if the players were too young and thus hadn't played AD&D having them read the PHB.

Arduin wrote:

Lurker wrote:
That said, I agree with tree that it is best to discuss it (preferably before hand) with the party and explain the call with concrete reasoning and explicit examples. That way the party has a bench mark to start from and knows what to expect in given general situations.

Given that most of the stuff (SR "MR" as an example) works similarly to AD&D I haven't had much to explain to my players in C&C. I can see if the players were too young and thus hadn't played AD&D having them read the PHB.

You can try, Arduin. My primary group is four adults: my wife, my brother, and my sister in law. We get together once or twice a month and do stuff as a group. Before November of last year, it was video games, movies, board games and card games. I had been talking to my wife about playing RPG's with me, and maybe later getting her son into them (he's 8 now, and he loves gaming about as much as I do... it got him into a whole new world of loving fantasy). She suggested asking the "group" if they'd give RPG's a chance. So I asked, and they said, "[Shrug] Sure, why not?"

I'm a long term player who has seen it all. My brother used to play 25+ years ago, but even then only sporadically. And neither of our wives even knew dice came in funny shapes until only very recently.

Getting them to read the rulebook? Not a chance. They come to the table ready to kill stuff and get stuff, and sometimes they even play their characters (our son, btw, stays in character beautifully... he and I roleplay together while Mom sits and and watches us, even though all three of us are playing).

So, yeah, the rules are all up to me. What's the proper way? What's the appropriate way? Whatever the book says. What if the book doesn't say? I get puzzled looks and head scratches. My wife is willing to bounce ideas with me, but the other two are just along for the ride.

KeyIXTheHermit wrote: Getting them to read the rulebook? Not a chance.

Yes, I've noticed that younger people are adverse to reading. In fact, most people we interview for jobs who are <40 yrs old (even college grads) have a reading comprehension level of ~6th grade (based on when I was in grade school).

This doesn't apply to foreigners as they tend to be more literate in English, as a 2nd language, than US born are.

To be fair, if you're not a hardcore fan of roleplaying games, the games are not exactly fun reading.

Now, me? I love 'em. I have hundreds of them, and I read them all the time, just for fun. I just grab one that looks good, sit down on the couch, open to a random page, and dig in.

My wife doesn't get it. It's like reading a technical manual to her. It's game rules. It's only something to read if we're going to be playing it, and then we need to know enough to play, and then we'll learn the rest as we need to. She doesn't sit down and read the rules to, say, Monopoly.

Of course, as I'm writing this, I realize that Scotty loved his technical manuals, so that's probably it exactly. We love them because of how much we're into them. We do read them for fun. For everyone else, they're homework. And long, difficult homework. The rules to Rummikub are four small pages that together don't make one big page. C&C is a whole, full book. And it's an easy one! Try to imagine that mindset and giving them, say, Rolemaster!