Treebore wrote:
C&C marginalizes tactics? You should have played in our last Sunday C&C game. If it weren't for tactics and complete teamwork we would have died.
I think feats and such are crutches for people who can't come up with such ideas themselves. Thats another thing I like about C&C. You don't really need feats or skills. Just decide of it makes sense, then turn it into a SIEGE mechanic roll to see if luck is on your side....snip
When i say that C&C marginalizes tactical play, I do this as distinct from strategic play. Tactical play is all about the micro-scale decisions made about how to do something....five foot steps, use of terrain, offensive stance/defensive stance, maximizing one's advantage....what some have derisively called "roll playing". I've written about this on my site:
http://highadventuregames.wordpress.com ... mean-that/
Strategic play is more about the macro-scale decisions. The "who do I attack", "do I try to sneak up on them first", "do I even attack at all....or do I negotiate first", etc. type stuff.
Most of us prefer a nice mix of the two....we just often will disagree as to what "nice" means and in what context.
One of the potential problems (or features depending on your perspective and the context, of course) with deciding "what makes sense" is that without hard and fast rules, there can be disagreements. If you were counting on X granting a benefit of some sort and it actually doesn't (or worse yet imposes a penalty) because the GM, etc. disagrees as to what X means, you're going to feel hosed. If it happens often enough, your enjoyment of the game is hampered to some degree...particularly if you feel the ruling unfair or you misunderstood the situation.
People will differ in how often the above happens and in how much they care about it. If it doesn't happen often at your gaming table or if it doesn't matter to you much when it does, you're likely to be happier with a rules-lite system that de-emphasizes tactical play in favor of the strategic...and leans heavily on GM fiat.
If it happens often at your gaming table and/or if it completely dehinges the whole reason you come to the table, then you're more likely to want a bit more definition in the rules as to "what makes sense" so you can better understand how the game reality works.
Saying that Feats and skills are just crutches seems like a silly position. What the heck are classes then wheel chairs with those with so little imagination that they can't think of it for themselves? I'm just kidding around of course, but let's not remove anything that might be of value from the game designer's toolbox please. Not everyone is building the same kind of game....so not everyone needs the same kind of tool.
All that being said, I do feel that Feats are the least elegant part of the d20 system (mostly due to the tree/path structure and the need for prerequisite feats), but that is just my personal preference.
So, essentially I agree with you about D&D's feats for you and me. However, I do see what they can do for other people's games....people who have a differing creative agenda than you or I, Treebore.
Wow, that really turned into a wind-bag of a rant.....Sorry, its been a hell of a long day. Thanks for listening to me de-stressing. I hope it all comes across as I intended.
Best,
~AoB
EDIT: Hey, I made Hobgoblin with this post....go figure!
_________________
~Adaen of Bridgewater,
www.highadventuregames.com
