Converting to C&C and balancing the magic classes

[KeyIXTheHermit]

Thanks to everyone who answered my previous question about balance (or lack thereof) in the magic-using classes. Now I'd like to tell you why I asked, and get some feedback and suggestions:

We are currently playing a game in a fantasy homebrew setting. Because of reasons, I'm strongly thinking of converting to a different system for the remainder of the campaign. It's not necessary that the games match exactly, as I'm planning on writing some of the differences into the story (the truly evil and the insane know that "things are different now" for example).

So, now I just have to go about converting the elements so that the game is similar but not the same. Here's where my previous question came in, and where you can help.

The setting is low-magic, however, more correctly magic is simply rare. In that world, PC's can learn a spell or two, but never become true Wizards. True Wizards are a rare breed, and not available to PC's. Since C&C doesn't work that way at all, that will have to be changed completely. This isn't a big issue; only our thief has a spell, it's Invisibility, and she never uses it anyway.

Looking at the spell lists, now I have to decide what the Big Bad can do. So far, we've not seen him do any of the spells in C&C. He has started an apocalypse thanks to an ancient tome he uncovered, comprised of earthquakes and a plague which wiped out more than 80% of the human population. However, we haven't seen him cast a magic missile or fireball. So, at this point, he could have any spell list.

My gut instinct is he should have the Wizard spell list, but maybe it should be Illusionist (this is why I asked the question). Whichever list he gets, that list will become open only to characters of Evil alignment (it will be considered "Black" magic and require evil designs for the power to be used). I intend to open the other type to PC's, but it's important that it be less powerful than Black magic. Evil is more powerful in this setting; heroes exist, but they are inherently at a disadvantage in power level.

So, problem one: Which magic is more powerful and is Black, and which magic is less powerful and is "gray"?

=================================

Next is Cleric vs Druid. First off, this setting has no Gods or Goddesses. The closest thing this setting has to a religion is an "Earth" religion. In this Earth religion, the Earth is considered "female" (i.e. Mother Earth). In addition, all of the Earth religion followers (termed "Witches") are female. Males can believe in "Her" but "She" only graces her powers upon Women. This is, in fact, the main reason the Earth is considered "female"; She only blesses her "daughters" with power.

The reason for all the quotes is that even the Witches don't consider their Earth Mother to be an actual person. It's simply a force that exists, and has no actual personality, intelligence, or gender. Life springs from the Earth, as it does from the female, so the Earth is a Her.

Obviously, these Witches are virtually indistinguishable from Druids in C&C, so that's done. Now we're left with what to do with Clerics. The logical suggestion would be to ditch the class entirely, but as a further option, I could give the Cleric spell lists to the "good" magic Wizard. Then Wizard (or Illusionist) would be Black magic, and Cleric would be White magic, but it wouldn't come from a godly source... it would just be studied in the normal conventional sense.

Even if this is a good idea, I still don't know which magic should be evil, because I'm still uncertain which magic is more powerful. :-/

I should note that other game we play doesn't have Resurrection spells, which I'm quite fine with. However, it does have a "free re-roll" mechanic and requires dice roll saves before character death (which are weighted in favor of the players). The game claims to be deadly, because it lacks hit points and anyone can die in single hit, but honestly, C&C seems deadlier because -10 HP is dead, and there are no "free re-rolls" to save your bacon!

So, I don't really like the Resurrection spells, but I'm willing to consider them to balance the higher mortality rate of C&C. In that case, though, I'd really like to keep them out of PC hands. I don't know who would have access to resurrect the dead and give them true life, but it would be a rare thing. (Evil, of course, can create zombies; it's practically Black Magic 101).

So, there's my setup, what I'm trying to do, and the ideas I have. Suggestions and feedback based on how you view the classes would be helpful and appreciated.

My current thinking:
**Black Magic, Evil NPC's only: Wizard. Rename Sorcerer?
**Magic open to PC's: Illusionist. Rename Wizard? Allow healing spells, but otherwise power it down (no creating bridges that actually hold weight, for example).
** Divine Magic: Druid only. No cleric spell lists at all.

Some of you might see different ideas entirely, especially switching around Black Magic and "regular" magic.

[Buttmonkey]

I'm not sure I can be of help here, mostly due to different play style approaches, but I'll see what I can contribute. Some thoughts:

1. Why not just identify the game you are currently playing? It might make it easier for people to suggest conversion tips.

2. Personally, I think you are being overly mechanistic with the Big Bad's "spell list". Monsters are monsters. They don't have to play by the same rules as PCs. Why assign a spell list at all? You can just give the Big Bad whatever spell-like effects you want. Tying yourself to a spell list artificially restricts your freedom to create the monster/Big Bad you want. However, I see where you are going by trying to have PCs have access to similar spell abilities if they decide to be evil PCs. One possibility might be to restrict higher level spells to evil PCs and the highest level spells to your Big Bad. I personally don't like that approach since I don't define monsters and NPCs in terms of PC rules and limitations, but it might work for you.

3. Another option would be to go through the spell lists and just delete the spells you don't want good PCs to have access to. Fireballs and lightning bolts are Black Magic, etc. I think trying to perceive a balance or power level disparity between types of spells (i.e., wizard, cleric, etc.) is not viable.

[KeyIXTheHermit]

I'm not sure I can be of help here, mostly due to different play style approaches, but I'll see what I can contribute. Some thoughts:

1. Why not just identify the game you are currently playing? It might make it easier for people to suggest conversion tips.

2. Personally, I think you are being overly mechanistic with the Big Bad's "spell list". Monsters are monsters. They don't have to play by the same rules as PCs. Why assign a spell list at all? You can just give the Big Bad whatever spell-like effects you want. Tying yourself to a spell list artificially restricts your freedom to create the monster/Big Bad you want. However, I see where you are going by trying to have PCs have access to similar spell abilities if they decide to be evil PCs. One possibility might be to restrict higher level spells to evil PCs and the highest level spells to your Big Bad. I personally don't like that approach since I don't define monsters and NPCs in terms of PC rules and limitations, but it might work for you.

3. Another option would be to go through the spell lists and just delete the spells you don't want good PCs to have access to. Fireballs and lightning bolts are Black Magic, etc. I think trying to perceive a balance or power level disparity between types of spells (i.e., wizard, cleric, etc.) is not viable.

As is so famously posted on your own post, "Your efforts are greatly appreciated, Buttmonkey. Can't believe I said that with a straight face."

1) I hadn't named the game because I wasn't sure if I could or should. Someone asked on the CvD,WvI thread that preceded this thread, so I told them, and a discussion has been introduced there. We're playing Savage Worlds. I also discussed *why* I'm interested in converting; primarily that C&C is so much easier to run and implement (especially where monsters and NPC's are concerned), but also because we *do* like the game, and they're not the best fit. Players have more freedom to create their characters as they want, without regard for "classes," and that's just not what our current game is. In our game, Fighters fight but cannot cast magic, Thieves sneak around but don't fight well and can't cast magic, and Wizards can't fight worth a crap and aren't great at sneaking around (at least, not as great as Thieves) but can cast magic. Savage Worlds just doesn't work that way, and as long as the players understand that we're artificially limiting the rules in order to play a certain style of game, it works okay, but it would make more sense to play a game designed that way.

And, in fact, the Savage Worlds boards seem to agree with me. Every time I discuss this on any of their boards, they always tell me, "No, Savage Worlds is the easiest game ever made, so you're wrong about it being more complex" and "Maybe you're playing the wrong game; if you want a game built around classes, you should go play Pathfinder. And, btw, if you think SW is hard, try out Mathfinder to see what a hard game *really* is."

So, I listened, I pondered, and I agree.

FWIW, a month or so back I ran a one-shot using Savage Worlds in a different setting that didn't have the "limits." This one had laser-swords, blasters, airships, psions replacing magic, and a "Flash Gordon on Barsoom" vibe. Players could cast magic (psionics) and still fight like demons if they wanted to. The game was a "hit" and they asked me if I'd be willing to run it as the next campaign after we finish this one. That was the final nail in the coffin, though: I don't want to play Savage Worlds for six months on one campaign, and then play Savage Worlds for six months on another campaign, even if the setting is different. The game just isn't that varied. Everyone will use the same Edges, the same Attribute power-ups, etc. Even psionics is identical to magic: Magic Missile and Mind Bolt are both just the "Bolt" power, using the same Power Point cost.

So, for all of those reasons, converting the rest of the game to *anything* would be a good idea. And C&C is fun, so I'm looking forward to the idea of a lighter, faster game.

2) I hate it, but the GNS theory of gaming has got into my head. I grew up on Tunnels & Trolls, which nobody called "narrativist" back then, but it most certainly was (and is). However, my group right now are all new to gaming (I've introduced it to all three players, although I most commonly run with only two -- the third joins us on occasion), and despite my efforts, they seem naturally inclined to being "gamist," if not "simulationist." Believe me, I've tried, but they hate it when I just do my own thing off the cuff. "Games have rules, and without rules, we're just telling an improvised story... which is fine, but we're around the table to play a game. Thus, we need clear rules that we can rely on." This is their mantra.... especially my wife, who won't even move her figure an extra half-inch to make an attack, because it's "cheating." (No, not kidding, this actually happens).

So, yeah, I'd be willing to throw all the rules to the wind and literally just make up everything as I go... but first, I'd have to wrap my head around the idea that C&C is that type of game (and given that its parent game is not, that will require a leap for me), and then I'd have to convince the Missus. We've played story games where rules don't matter, btw... and she utterly hated them, feeling like she couldn't understand what her character can do. ("She can do anything." "Yeah, but what does that mean? And how do I know how likely an action is to succeed? You say I can do anything... does that include brain surgery? Am I likely to succeed if my character does brain surgery on another character?" This convo actually happened).

3) I will definitely do that, no matter what options I choose. I'm not sure if it's in C&C, but I know some d20 OGL games have a spell where the Wizard actually creates a small house, complete with a kitchen and alarms on the doors (I don't remember the name of the spell). I'm sorry, I find that moronic in the extreme (that is a personal opinion; it's not my intent to insult people who do like it, I just really don't). Even with Savage Worlds, the first thing I did was gut the Powers list of Powers that didn't fit the setting... although evil characters may still have access to those powers if it suits the character and the story. I know that's not "fair," but I figure the evil character did evil things to get those spells.

Note that I'm not disagreeing with any of your suggestions, Buttmonkey! I'm replying, and in #2 I explained why I'm being so pedantic about it all, but I am not disagreeing with your replies at all. They all make good and perfect sense.

Thanks for the suggestions!

[KeyIXTheHermit]

Addendum to the above:

True story: Right here on this very forum, all the way back in April of 2015, I posted the following in a thread called, "Move and Attack - How about Attack and Move?"

"One time she moved to an enemy and was literally half a square away (mathematically), and I told her to go ahead and attack... and she looked at me like I had grown a third head. I'm, like, "it's two and half feet. Your weapon can reach him. Your arm can extend. It's fine. Just attack." And she was totally against it, because it wasn't exact and therefore felt like cheating to her."

Two years later and that hasn't changed a bit!

[Treebore]

Addendum to the above:

True story: Right here on this very forum, all the way back in April of 2015, I posted the following in a thread called, "Move and Attack - How about Attack and Move?"

"One time she moved to an enemy and was literally half a square away (mathematically), and I told her to go ahead and attack... and she looked at me like I had grown a third head. I'm, like, "it's two and half feet. Your weapon can reach him. Your arm can extend. It's fine. Just attack." And she was totally against it, because it wasn't exact and therefore felt like cheating to her."

Two years later and that hasn't changed a bit!

Damn. No RPG comes even close to realistically recreating actual combat, all of them are all abstracted. The only difference is to what degree it is abstracted. Real combat is far more fluid, with far more going on. Maybe showing them a good fight sequence in a movie, or actual practice combat via youtube videos, and telling them how that would work with game mechancis, will help them see why you hadn't grown a third head.

[KeyIXTheHermit]

Ah, but therein lies her point, Tree. We've been through all this enough times, and I can tell you what she'd say, because she's said it (or some variant) often enough:

"And all of that would be relevant if we were watching a movie or having an actual practice combat, but we're not. We're playing a game. Games have rules and borders and an end zone. [Note: That's a Buffy quote. We both pop culture quote non-stop.] What makes this fun is that it's a game, and therefore has rules that helps me determine my actions. I wrote a book, and it had lots of combat, so I know how fights work. But this isn't a book. It's a game. [Note: This is true, she's self-published a book on Amazon that takes place in medieval Ireland but with magic and mythology, and she did TONS of research for it]. That said, I'll play it the way you want. You're the GM. But I just think if we're playing a game, it needs to have reliable rules that keep things fair and equal."

She's shown interest in GMing, and I push her to try it, but so far she's never found a rules set that she likes enough to invest her time in it (and I think she'd want one that I don't play; she did show a little interest in Vampire Dark Ages, but not enough to really get her into it).

[Treebore]

True, these are games, but they are games of imagination, not rigid and codified thought.

[KeyIXTheHermit]

Not disagreeing, just telling you the discussion that has come up since I first introduced the hobby to her. Mind you, I own dozens and dozens of different rpgs (and have even played a few of them!), so it's not like she only has, say, Rolemaster as her guide. She's seen everything from Tunnels & Trolls to Rolemaster (in terms of complexity) and all points in between.

She just likes precision. She latched onto the idea of "a storytelling game" immediately, but she really likes the "game" part the most. She wants to roll dice and use skills. She does the roleplaying, but she really comes alive when the dice come out. Diff'rent strokes for diff'rent folks, as they say, but as the GM I have to find a balance between what I like (free-wheeling play) and what the players like (precise rules that do not randomly change). Hey, no one ever said this stuff was easy!

[Buttmonkey]

2) I hate it, but the GNS theory of gaming has got into my head. I grew up on Tunnels & Trolls, which nobody called "narrativist" back then, but it most certainly was (and is). However, my group right now are all new to gaming (I've introduced it to all three players, although I most commonly run with only two -- the third joins us on occasion), and despite my efforts, they seem naturally inclined to being "gamist," if not "simulationist." Believe me, I've tried, but they hate it when I just do my own thing off the cuff. "Games have rules, and without rules, we're just telling an improvised story... which is fine, but we're around the table to play a game. Thus, we need clear rules that we can rely on." This is their mantra.... especially my wife, who won't even move her figure an extra half-inch to make an attack, because it's "cheating." (No, not kidding, this actually happens).

So, yeah, I'd be willing to throw all the rules to the wind and literally just make up everything as I go... but first, I'd have to wrap my head around the idea that C&C is that type of game (and given that its parent game is not, that will require a leap for me), and then I'd have to convince the Missus. We've played story games where rules don't matter, btw... and she utterly hated them, feeling like she couldn't understand what her character can do. ("She can do anything." "Yeah, but what does that mean? And how do I know how likely an action is to succeed? You say I can do anything... does that include brain surgery? Am I likely to succeed if my character does brain surgery on another character?" This convo actually happened).

You've confused me a little here. I understand why your players want rules that help them decide what they are capable of accomplishing (or at least understand the probability of success at any given action). However, I don't see how having rules defining how PCs work impinges on your ability to create a new monster (i.e., something made up completely by you, with whatever powers you want, and that does not appear in any published rule book). You mention that C&C is a game that allows you to make everything up as you go, but its parent game (I'm assuming you mean early edition D&D) is not such a game. I think, to a certain extent, both ends of that sentence are incorrect. Obviously, any group can play C&C however they want, so let's disregard the chaotic outliers as a trivial solution. A standard C&C game is going to be based on a framework of rules; it isn't freeform narrative play. You have classes, attributes, the SIEGE engine, bonuses to hit, etc. All of those rules provide the structure upon which the game is based. However, that structure leaves massive room for GM creativity. The game dies without that creativity. On the other end of things, I don't think D&D (at least 1E, B/X, and 0E) restricts GM creativity any more than C&C. Certainly, 0E doesn't. There are so few rules and monsters provided that the DM is forced to be creative. If you think D&D bars DMs from making stuff as they go along, try playing 0E with Tim Kask sometime. The rules are barely even a factor in how he runs his games and he was around from damn near the genesis of the hobby. He helped Gary codify the rules for AD&D. D&D at its roots is a loose system. I don't have copies of my 1E books with me at the moment, but I'd bet damn near everything I own that he prefaces the rule books with language saying to make the game your own and never let a player restrict the way you run your game by pointing to a rule Gary wrote in the books. To look at it from another perspective, once upon a time there were only a few monsters in the 0E books. DMs had to come up with their own. There were no rules saying what a new monster could or couldn't do. People just made them up and gave them whatever powers or abilities they wanted to. After a while, a bunch of the new monsters were added to the canon and the 1E Monster Manual was born.

Anyway, I'm not sure if that was helpful, so back to your game. I don't understand how the "rules matter" philosophy would require you to assign a specific spell list or specific spells as defined in the C&C PHB to your Big Bad. The rules don't define new monsters. The rules don't say monsters that cast spells have to be based on the same assumptions as PCs (e.g., that a bad guy arcane spell caster has to be created as a level X NPC wizard). A rakshasa can turn invisible. It just can. It isn't created as a level X wizard who therefore has the invisibility spell a certain number of times per day. It just is. In this case, it just is a rakshasa which is defined as something that can turn itself invisible. That doesn't violate the principle of "rules matter". PCs are defined as something having a class. Monsters are outside that paradigm. If you want your Big Bad to be capable of casting a certain spell, just write it up that the Big Bad can cast that spell as many times per day as you want it to. If you want to skip the spell, you can just say the Big Bad has the ability to create a spell-like effect however often you decide. That approach doesn't violate a single rule in any C&C book and is consistent with the philosophy of early D&D.

Now, I'll grant you that TLG has published material that include NPCs that have classes and levels. You can absolutely do that if you hate yourself and want to suffer whenever you create an NPC. The good news, again, is the rules do not require you to do that. Look at a stat block for (virtually?) any monster in the M&T. You won't see a place to put the monster's level or a place to specify the monster's class. Monsters have hit dice. Monsters have special attacks and special abilities. Fill in those spots for your NPC and you are good to go. You won't be screwing with your players or throwing out any rules. Nothing says a human or demihuman NPC can't be written up as a monster. I think it's a good idea to let new players to your game know that they should not assume NPCs are classed and statted out like PCs just so you avoid any pain in the ass bitching later, but that's not necessary.

On a corollary, take a look at setting challenge levels using the SIEGE engine in practice. Normally, you set the challenge level at the hit dice or level of the opposing creature. That doesn't work when the challenge level isn't based on an opponent with hit dice/level. For example, let's say you have to set the challenge level for a PC attempting to swim upstream in a strong current. Time for some GM fiat. You need to pick a challenge level. Odds are your player is doing something you didn't anticipate, so you didn't have the challenge level predetermined as part of your prep. You need to come up with an appropriate number while your player is staring at you expectantly and your other players are on the verge of looking at their cell phones. You need to act fast! From reading the books, you'd think the right move would be to think for a second about the appropriate challenge level. You'll remember the lingo on page 164 of the 6th printing PHB which tells us "As a rule of thumb, a challenge level of 1 to 5 is adequate for easy tasks. For difficult tasks, a challenge level of 6-10 works well." and so on. Then you'll have to figure out where in the 1-5 or 6-10 range (or higher range) you want. Then, assuming you don't get brain freeze at this point, you'll tell the player to roll and you'll see what happens. But is that how you should do it at the table in real life? Hell no! Talk to Steve Chenault sometime about how he actually runs the SIEGE engine. You shouldn't put yourself through that decision-making process at the table unless it's necessary. The first thing you do is tell the player to roll the SIEGE check. Most of the time, the roll will be so high or low that you don't even need to know the challenge level. Success or failure will be obvious. It's only in the marginal middle ground that you will actually need to come up with a challenge level in order to calculate the actual challenge class. Save yourself some headache and just start with the roll! Then you only go through the process of determining a challenge level if you end up with one of those marginal rolls. Yay! You've saved yourself the pain of calculating challenge levels on the fly at least half of the time (probably a much higher percentage, actually). Everything is easier when you become pragmatic. If you have rules-stickler players, there's no need to tell them you haven't calculated the challenge level yet. Tell them to roll and they'll assume you've already done it. Be pragmatic with the SIEGE engine. Similarly, be pragmatic when it comes to NPC design. NPCs are monsters. Life is good.

Back to your players. I imagine (from what you've described) one or more of your players might balk at being told NPCs are monsters without classes. "But how can I know what that bad guy wizard is capable of if you just ignore the rules for wizards?" or "Hey! That's not fair! A 5th level wizard can't cast that spell yet!" or some other nonsense might come back at you. Ask them this: Let's say you create a new monster called the Garglesnitch. Does the player know what it can do? How tough it is? Is it unfair for the GM to throw the dreaded Garglesnitch at the party? Of course, it isn't! Fantasy RPGs are all about facing new monsters. How boring would it be as a player to only face monsters from the Monster Manual they have already memorized? How boring would it be for the DM to be restricted to just the book monsters? Well, if your player can handle the stress of confronting the mysterious Garglesnitch, then your player can just as easily deal with uncertainty of facing the mysterious necromancer Herumple.

Take the pragmatic approach. NPCs are monsters. You'll still be following the rules, but you'll also be happy. Be a happy Castle Keeper.

[KeyIXTheHermit]

You've confused me a little here...

That was an incredibly well thought our reply, full of great tidbits and nuggets. I've only read it once, but after writing this I plan to go back and re-read it. I think a lot of your thoughts will be worked into my thoughts in the future... you said a lot of good stuff here.

Also, it's true, I don't really know how the "Big Boys" play. I've never played 0e with Tim Kask, nor am I likely ever to, so I don't really know these things. I've played with my friends since I was a teen (I'm entering my 5th decade now), and I've always had a lot of fun and it seems like people I've played with have had fun (they kept asking me to run more games, so I can only assume that they were enjoying themselves). I haven't been on the player side as often as I might wish because no one would run a game, I don't know any other gamers, and I have always just played with my friends. So what you tell me about gaming beyond my world I believe without reservation... you sound knowledgeable and like you're far more entrenched in gaming with other gamers than I am. I have only played with my friends, and they weren't gamers (I have NEVER been to a convention).

However, I would like to add, a lot of my ideas are well-ingrained from decades of thought and playing in certain ways, so I would ask of you, when I slip into old ways of thinking, don't think too bad of me, thinking, "I already answered all of this... why is it coming up again???" Just, if you will, feel free to bring up these points again, giving them time to digest in my mind.

Finally, here's my issue with my Big Bad: I have *always* (since Tunnels & Trolls) divided NPC's up into two-types. In T&T they were called "Monster Rated" and "Fully Rated." Savage Worlds already does this for me, as "Wild Cards" and "Extras." In other games that use other terms, I sometimes call them "Main Cast" and "Red Skirts" (a play on Star Trek's "Red Shirts" but I tend to play in Greek and Roman inspired settings). The Big Bad (and other important NPC's) are always created using the rules of the players. Sure, Orcs are AC 13, 4 HP, +1 Attack Bonus and GO! But the Captain of the Orc Guard has all six stats, a class, a level, and abilities equal to that level. Likewise, if the players meet a wandering "Druid," she will be treated exactly as a PC. She will have a level, a certain number of spells per day, etc. Her followers won't, but she will.

This is one of those peculiarities that I probably will not be able to shake, as it's been reinforced by decades of play. I can try, though.

You do bring some exciting new ideas to the table, and for that I thank you.

[Buttmonkey]

I don't think poorly of you. Just because I think I'm a gaming genius doesn't mean I know everything or that what works for me will work for you (although, to be fair, I do and it will).

I also wasn't trying to be cool and name-drop with the Tim Kask comment. I just got back from Gary Con (where you, too, can play with the Old Guard if you attend), so Tim was on the brain. Personally, I don't think I would enjoy playing more than a one-shot with Tim since he is too rules-loose for my comfort level, but he blew my mind when I played with him at Gary Con 1. It totally shifted the way I looked at RPGs and the importance of rules.

I do hope you try to writing up a Big Bad without a full PC-style chargen. I think you'll find it liberating if you give it a shot. But, if your players keep coming back, you must be doing something right.

[KeyIXTheHermit]

I don't think poorly of you.

I didn't mean now. I meant, specifically, when I ask the same questions in another post next month.

I also wasn't trying to be cool and name-drop with the Tim Kask comment.

That's not how I took it all. I was just noting that I haven't had any of those experiences. I mean, I'm "friends" with several bigwigs on Facebook, but I've never gamed with any of them. I hope this doesn't come off snotty sounding (Edit: I really don't mean this negatively, just expressing a personal opinion), but I really don't see game designers as celebs the way some people do, so I'm really not impressed by them. I mean, cool, they made games and got them published. But I'd be just as impressed by meeting George Parker or Milton Bradley (if they were still alive). As game designers, those two have definitely changed the landscape of gaming!

But that doesn't mean that I don't respect their gaming ideas. Playing D&D with Gary Gygax would be like playing Monopoly with Charles Darrow, and I'd be lying if I said that wouldn't be cool.

[Rigon]

I think you may want to look at Victorious. It's a Victorian "Powers" game based off of the SIEGE Engine (the heart of C&C), but you could use it to play a classless version of C&C that would fit into a lower magic genre. I've "twisted" V to set up for a Star Wars game I plan on running sometime down the road.

R-

[Treebore]

I think you may want to look at Victorious. It's a Victorian "Powers" game based off of the SIEGE Engine (the heart of C&C), but you could use it to play a classless version of C&C that would fit into a lower magic genre. I've "twisted" V to set up for a Star Wars game I plan on running sometime down the road.

R-

Hmmmm... Good point. The custom character building rules in Victorious could definitely be adapted to work more like character building in games like SW work.

[KeyIXTheHermit]

I suspect I would really dig a "generic universal" SIEGE Engine game, too. If they don't have one of those out yet, I'd sure be interested in it when they do. Not that I want to play every game with the same set of rules (I don't), but a great set of rules that can be used for anything you can imagine is always a great thing, especially if it's easy to play and put to use.

I loved both GURPS and Hero in theory, but both were too complex for my tastes (specifically character creation). The speed and simplicity of C&C in a system that can be used for anything? Sign me up!

Until then, sure, I'll google up Victorious and see what it's about. I'm not into Victorian stuff (and I hate steampunk), but anything by these guys has my attention.

[Tadhg]

Playing D&D with Gary Gygax would be like playing Monopoly with Charles Darrow, and I'd be lying if I said that wouldn't be cool.

Yep, just slightly better X some weird trillions . . ;-D

Or like playing Star Wars and Obi-wan is the DM and you as players are Luke, Leah, Chewie, Han . . et. al.

[KeyIXTheHermit]

Or like playing Star Wars and Obi-wan is the DM and you as players are Luke, Leah, Chewie, Han . . et. al.

Nah, that would be like playing Monopoly and the other players actually are a Thimble, a Car, a Wheelbarrow, and with an actual dog as the Banker.

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/56 ... 997f1d.jpg


Now, a game of Star Wars RPG and George Lucas is the GM? Heck yeah, I'd be there.