Lack of Skills, Feats, etc. in C&C

[adaen]

skerns wrote:
It's a ROLEplaying, not a RULEplaying, or ROLLplaying game.

Dude, what exactly does that mean?
_________________
~Adaen of Bridgewater, www.highadventuregames.com

[adaen]

jfall wrote:
...snip...

adaen, maybe I'm dense but, I'm not comprehending how your system emulates skills. I've read your earlier thread (via link in previous post) and have gone over each of your posts in this thread, but still, no joy.

That would assume that my system is fully matured and actually in play (alas, not yet....free time is fairly scarce in these parts for the time being).

The way I would use skills for C&C would go something like this:

1) Allow standard Seige Engine checks for character abilities as written

2) Allow certain areas of knowledge (that may not be standard for your class, but are a part of the characters background, concept, whatever). Depending on how relevant they were to the character in actual play, I would allow for the character to add either their level or half their level to the Seige check.

3) For all my defending of them, I'm really not all that fond of D&D 3.x feat system. I would allow special abilities and would treat them like any other special ability that's already attached to a class. Perhaps making a custom class by swiping out an exisiting ability for another.

4) I may also allow for the "purchase" of additional abilities with XPs or increasing an existing class's XP cost progression for abilities that scale with level.

That's really about it. My C&C game will likely be online with somewhat casual players who don't want a heavy system, so I'll keep in pretty simple. In person games, I have crunchier heavier options in development (some of my HAGUS projects, Aega Mythea, and esp. Shadows of Reality are heavier/more involved).

I hope this helps. My defense of non-C&C stuff is based on my distaste for the "one true way" mentality which is really nothing more than "fanboy-ism" to my mind. I like C&C, but does it do everything well? No. It does what I need it to do for certain applications well. For other applications, there are better options.

~AoB
_________________
~Adaen of Bridgewater, www.highadventuregames.com

[Traveller]

adaen wrote:
Dude, what exactly does that mean?

In a nutshell, the rules should not get in the way of the role playing. That is what I believe he means.

Now, I don't use feats or skills in C&C. I'm not adverse to using skills even though I do not use them, especially as Basic Role Playing system games like RuneQuest and Elric! are two of my favorites and both are skill based. Of course, you also cannot forget Traveller in any discussion of skill-based systems. But feats? NO WAY IN HELL. A feat's only purpose is to give an Everquest/World of Warcraft feel to what should be a classic fantasy experience.

Of course, that's my opinion. There are plenty of C&C gamers who use subsets of feats and they have no problems. The feats they use though don't promote that video game feel that using the entire raft of feats in d20 Fantasy would. I simply don't believe feats are necessary or even desirable in this game.
_________________
NOTE TO ALL: If you don't like something I've said, PM me and tell me to my face, then give me a chance to set things right before you call a moderator.
My small homage to E.G.G.

[adaen]

That really doesn't help too much and I suppose I'm trolling a bit. Let me explain.

The whole "roll/rule-playing" comparison to "true role-playing" as is typically implied when these terms are bandied about is crap. Its basically saying that if you like a system-heavy game like HERO/GURPS/Age of Heroes/d20/etc., that focuses on tactical, detail-specific rules that are explicit (and therefore lessen the power of GM-fiat), that you're doing something other than "true role-playing". I think that implication is a bunch of crap.

There are merits to both rules light systems like C&C AND rules heavy systems like d20/Rolemaster/HERO/GURPS/what-have-you. They do different things well....and both of them are equally role-playing.

Speaking in character, substituting player social skills/intelligence/etc. for character skill in the same does not define what is roleplaying. Its a big tent and there are lots of ways to roleplay.

Telling the GM, "My guy asks around about the Overlord" and making a roll to see the result is every bit as valid as telling the GM, "I approach the lone traveler at the bar and say "Greetings Friend, I see you're from the capital. What news from the Court of Overlord Malhauven?"

I'm just anti "One-true-way-ism". One person saying "the rules are getting in the way" may have a different agenda in playing than one who says, "the rules are enforcing a strong tactical environment for our roleplaying game (complete with tactical 5' steps to avoid Attacks of Opp, etc.)". Both positions are valid.
_________________
~Adaen of Bridgewater, www.highadventuregames.com

[BASH MAN]

Well in BD&D for years, we all had very individualized characters.

1. We used weapon mastery rules

2. We used the skill proficiencies option

3. We used GURPS advantages & disadvantages! Essentially the list was taylored so that it could not step on the toes of another class-- so you couldn't take levels in Magical aptitude, and some didn't fit D&D (every D&D character has "high pain threshold") but for others, it worked great-- and a lot more fun than the feat system (which I like the call the ever expanding list of things characters who don't have them cannot ever do)

So I made a halfling-- that was his race AND his class. But I wanted a halfling wilderness scout who had a pet wolf. So I took Bow as my most skilled weapon (when I got another weapon slot), took the right skills (like survival, etc), and used my disadvantages (fear of crowds-- he hated being in large cities, and glutton, because he's a halfling, and of course loyalty to the Five Shires) to buy advantages (Animal Empathy, Plant Empathy) that fit the character. With Animal Empathy, the DM let me begin with a pet wolf. So I had a halfling ranger type, who fired a bow from wolf-back-- instead of a generic halfling.

When I started to run C&C with the same crowd, I used the same rules. Btw-- Nobody had to take advantages or disadvantages--- you paid for your advantages by taking disadvantages.
_________________
Basic Action Games http://www.bashrpg.com

Check us out for free demos and downloads or visit us onFacebook.

[Zudrak]

Treebore wrote:
This is what it means when they "earn" the feat defined ability, they noo longer roll a SIEGE check to attempt to cleave, power attack, change the energy type fo the spell, etc...

Before awarding it they have to make a SIEGE check, with the CL typically being the HD of the opponent they are making it against.

So a 6HD/lvl opponent would be CL 6 for a total TN of 18.

After I say they have mastered it I award it and they no longer roll to make the attempt, they just do it, and go straight to a roll to hit, when called for like cleaves.

In the case of spells, to change energy type (fire to ice, etc...) I just have the CL=spell level. For something like maximizing damage CL=spell level+3.

So to maximize spell damage of a fireball would be CL 3+3 for total CL of 6. so total TN of 18.

One thing I do in addition, these individual abilities are only good against creatures no more than 3 HD/lvls above the character. So if the PC is 10th level and fighting a 14 HD dragon they would have to once again roll SIEGE checks. On 13th level or lower they just perform the action without a SIEGE check.

If not I'll try and word it differently.

Got it. I grok it now. I don't know why that didn't sink in yesterday. I must not have had enough hot tea. (Yes, I am English-blooded and love the Avengers movie just for all the tea they drink in the first 20 minutes!)
_________________
AD&D, Amish Dungeons & Dragons.

"Galstaff, ye are in a cornfield, when a moustachioed man approaches. What say ye?"

"I shun him."

-----

"Knowledge, logic, reason, and common sense serve better than a dozen rule books."

-- E. Gary Gygax

[Balthock]

adaen wrote:
Dude, what exactly does that mean?

Quote:
In a nutshell, the rules should not get in the way of the role playing. That is what I believe he means.

That's pretty much it!

First, I want to mention that we do this (play these games) for FUN, right?

So whatever it takes to make it fun is acceptable. Some of us need a lot of detail, which may be the campaign setting, or a very rich rule set may provide the anchor for our style of play.

On the tactical versus strategic aspect, I think that takes out (much, anyway) of the ROLEplay aspect of this type of gaming. Miniatures games like Warhammer 40K may be better suited to this gaming need.

We use minis in our game, but they are more of a visual aid than a tactical one.

At a local comics/game shop, I've watched 3rd ed. games with a stack of 8-10 ($20-40 each, hmmm, cash cow?) books beside EACH player! That's a RULEplaying game. In my opinion the only person at the table that needs ALL (or some fraction of) the material MIGHT be the GameMaster. In those games, the entire table seemed to spend more time leafing through their books than they did actually playing. Not a good time, IMO.

I've seen games where each player had HUGE piles of dice that actually get rolled regularly. I've never been able to figure out why you'd need 20d20. How can you possibly have that many attacks in one round? Letting the dice dictate the ebb and flow of the game is obviously...

My point is, what we're tallking about is a ROLEplaying game. It's purpose is to become a different CHARACTER, to let out that inner actor in all of us.

Books and dice aren't REQUIRED to accomplish that. Neither are stats/ skills/feats/ or much else other than the desire to try the above sentence.

One of the best roleplaying experiences I ever had included a SINLGE die roll during the ENTIRE 7 1/2 hour session.

If you want/need/enjoy using books/rules/dice go for it! It all comes down to how you need to play to achieve the result you're after.

That's the appeal of C&C for my group and I, it's flexibility. It provides (for us) a familiar, but streamlined framework for us to do what we've been doing since 1979.

As far as the whole "GM fiat" concern, maybe my game is not the norm, but I rarely fall back on "that's my ruling" kinds of decision. My players work very well as a team, and rarely do something that needs that kind of decision. If it does come up, I will refer to the rulebook (if necessary) and read aloud the pertinent info, and let my players give their interpretation then make a decision using their input if possilbe.

This may seem like gaming by committee, but it works much better (and faster) than you might think.
_________________
Meet me at Stonehenge at Midnight. I'll bring the goat.

[Fizz]

adaen wrote:
There are merits to both rules light systems like C&C AND rules heavy systems like d20/Rolemaster/HERO/GURPS/what-have-you. They do different things well....and both of them are equally role-playing.

I think you're correct that heavy-rules systems don't preclude role-playing, but in my experience (3.5E in particular) that's what has happened. People end up focusing not on the story or character development, but rather on getting that next new power, and it becomes a pure manipulation of numbers.

I'm not saying everyone is like this- i've played with some good roleplayers in 3E. I'm not saying it's not possible.

But i think rules-heavy system (3.5E at least) is more likely to produce players who rely on numerical crutches and care more about min-maxing numbers, trying to `win' the game rather than taking a part in a story.

-Fizz

[Omote]

Fizz wrote:
I think you're correct that heavy-rules systems don't preclude role-playing, but in my experience (3.5E in particular) that's what has happened. People end up focusing not on the story or character development, but rather on getting that next new power, and it becomes a pure manipulation of numbers.

I'm not saying everyone is like this- i've played with some good roleplayers in 3E. I'm not saying it's not possible.

But i think rules-heavy system (3.5E at least) is more likely to produce players who rely on numerical crutches and care more about min-maxing numbers, trying to `win' the game rather than taking a part in a story.

-Fizz

I agree. As I have experienced this first hand with about 10-11 players, players who used to be decent to extraordinary in their role playing. v3.5 with it's numbers fixation makes for lazy role players. -OR-, from personal experience, I have so much stuff to keep track of I loose my place in listening to the DM and can't role play because there is so much paperwork involved (try playing a high level Cleric with a few prestige classes in v3.5, and see how hard it is to focus on the game vesus keeping track of paperwork).

-O
_________________
> Omote's Advanced C&C stuff <
Duke Omote Landwehr, Holy Order of the FPQ ~ Prince of the Castles & Crusades Society

[CharlieRock]

BASH MAN wrote:
Well in BD&D for years, we all had very individualized characters.

1. We used weapon mastery rules

2. We used the skill proficiencies option

3. We used GURPS advantages & disadvantages! Essentially the list was taylored so that it could not step on the toes of another class-- so you couldn't take levels in Magical aptitude, and some didn't fit D&D (every D&D character has "high pain threshold") but for others, it worked great-- and a lot more fun than the feat system (which I like the call the ever expanding list of things characters who don't have them cannot ever do)

We are using weapon mastery rules here, too. That was one of my favorite parts from BD&D, and since I was the first CK in our team I introduced it and now everyone looks at it as belonging in C&C.

One thing I have always liked about GURPS was the quirk disadvantages. When I CKd I awarded XP to people based on how many/often I saw quirks during play.

Another system I borrowed from was the XP system Chronicles of Ramlar used. Each character has a personal goal, and we're all looking out for chances to advance towards that goal. Like a character 'story' the player was writing during the game. CoR uses a wheel to track progress towards this goal. When the wheel fills up, you advance an xp 'level'.

What we do is make our own wheels and each slice has a note. Mine is to build a castle. So one slice is to acquire land and/or title. Another slice is funding construction. Another slice is staffing. One slice is making my banner symbol, and the last one is attracting settlers and businesses to the area.

Yeah, it's cliched. But to me it individualizes my character from my buddy's who is out to promote his character's religion. Or the guy that is determined to right all the wrongs he comes across.
_________________
The Rock says ...

Know your roll!

[adaen]

skerns wrote:
My point is, what we're tallking about is a ROLEplaying game. It's purpose is to become a different CHARACTER, to let out that inner actor in all of us.

This is a big point in which we differ, I think. I do not equate letting out my inner actor with Roleplaying. I do enjoy that as an aspect of my games. However, I do not consider those who are looking at the game as a strategic/tactical exercize with social interaction and some story telling and absolutely *no acting* as doing something other than roleplaying.

I have a broader definition of what I consider to be roleplaying. The use of the hackneyed "ruleplaying" and "rollplaying" terms does a disservice to our hobby in my opinion. Those terms were coined (originally) as attempt to cleverly, and derisively label play that depends upon heavier rules implementation as somehow inferior to "true role-playing" which is all about getting into the character.

Now, the terms have come to mean a lot of things to a lot of people....Its hard to know what is meant by the way they're used.

~AoB
_________________
~Adaen of Bridgewater, www.highadventuregames.com

[Treebore]

Traveller wrote:
That's pretty much it!

First, I want to mention that we do this (play these games) for FUN, right?

So whatever it takes to make it fun is acceptable. Some of us need a lot of detail, which may be the campaign setting, or a very rich rule set may provide the anchor for our style of play.

On the tactical versus strategic aspect, I think that takes out (much, anyway) of the ROLEplay aspect of this type of gaming. Miniatures games like Warhammer 40K may be better suited to this gaming need.

We use minis in our game, but they are more of a visual aid than a tactical one.

At a local comics/game shop, I've watched 3rd ed. games with a stack of 8-10 ($20-40 each, hmmm, cash cow?) books beside EACH player! That's a RULEplaying game. In my opinion the only person at the table that needs ALL (or some fraction of) the material MIGHT be the GameMaster. In those games, the entire table seemed to spend more time leafing through their books than they did actually playing. Not a good time, IMO.

I've seen games where each player had HUGE piles of dice that actually get rolled regularly. I've never been able to figure out why you'd need 20d20. How can you possibly have that many attacks in one round? Letting the dice dictate the ebb and flow of the game is obviously...

My point is, what we're tallking about is a ROLEplaying game. It's purpose is to become a different CHARACTER, to let out that inner actor in all of us.

Books and dice aren't REQUIRED to accomplish that. Neither are stats/ skills/feats/ or much else other than the desire to try the above sentence.

One of the best roleplaying experiences I ever had included a SINLGE die roll during the ENTIRE 7 1/2 hour session.

If you want/need/enjoy using books/rules/dice go for it! It all comes down to how you need to play to achieve the result you're after.

That's the appeal of C&C for my group and I, it's flexibility. It provides (for us) a familiar, but streamlined framework for us to do what we've been doing since 1979.

As far as the whole "GM fiat" concern, maybe my game is not the norm, but I rarely fall back on "that's my ruling" kinds of decision. My players work very well as a team, and rarely do something that needs that kind of decision. If it does come up, I will refer to the rulebook (if necessary) and read aloud the pertinent info, and let my players give their interpretation then make a decision using their input if possilbe.

This may seem like gaming by committee, but it works much better (and faster) than you might think.

I agree with what your saying, however I see few and far between players who know how to do what your talking about. To be honest I am not great at doing it and I have been gaming for well over two decades non stop.

Plus I acted in high school plays, I was even Macbeth. I would find it easier, and have, when two or more of us at the table "get into character".

So what I have come to see the rules as being are tools to help the many who do not know how to, or simply don't wish to get into, ROLE playing.

Many are simply very uncomfortable with it, so am I unless I have at least one other at the table to "play off of".

For them having the dice decide most, or everything, about their character is enough.

Which is just another reason why I love C&C. It works for some, and when it doesn't I can refer them to 3E rules, etc...

The skills and "feats" I use just help people flesh out the character concept they have in mind, and then the mechanics allow the character to be "roll" played because the player doesn't like to "role" play.

Thats how I see it anyways.
_________________
The Ruby Lord, Earl of the Society

Next Con I am attending: http://www.neoncon.com/

My House Rules: http://www.freeyabb.com/phpbb/viewtopic ... llordgames

[Treebore]

adaen wrote:
That would assume that my system is fully matured and actually in play (alas, not yet....free time is fairly scarce in these parts for the time being).

The way I would use skills for C&C would go something like this:

1) Allow standard Seige Engine checks for character abilities as written

2) Allow certain areas of knowledge (that may not be standard for your class, but are a part of the characters background, concept, whatever). Depending on how

relevant they were to the character in actual play, I would allow for the character to add either their level or half their level to the Seige check.

3) For all my defending of them, I'm really not all that fond of D&D 3.x feat system. I would allow special abilities and would treat them like any other special ability that's already attached to a class. Perhaps making a custom class by swiping out an exisiting ability for another.

4) I may also allow for the "purchase" of additional abilities with XPs or increasing an existing class's XP cost progression for abilities that scale with level.

That's really about it. My C&C game will likely be online with somewhat casual players who don't want a heavy system, so I'll keep in pretty simple. In person games, I have crunchier heavier options in development (some of my HAGUS projects, Aega Mythea, and esp. Shadows of Reality are heavier/more involved).

I hope this helps. My defense of non-C&C stuff is based on my distaste for the "one true way" mentality which is really nothing more than "fanboy-ism" to my mind. I like C&C, but does it do everything well? No. It does what I need it to do for certain applications well. For other applications, there are better options.

~AoB

The only "true way" in C&C is "your own true way". So even though it may sound like we are saying "there is only one true way", it is because we are talking about "our own true way".

So the way I run C&C is "my own true way", so I talk about it as "the one true way". However all I am doing is just putting out there how I do it, because this site is all about sharing our ideas.

So it definitely can seem like we are saying there is only "one true way", but we are really saying there are tons of ways to do things and this is how I put it all together to be "my one true way".
_________________
The Ruby Lord, Earl of the Society

Next Con I am attending: http://www.neoncon.com/

My House Rules: http://www.freeyabb.com/phpbb/viewtopic ... llordgames

[Zudrak]

Treebore wrote:
The only "true way" in C&C is "your own true way". So even though it may sound like we are saying "there is only one true way", it is because we are talking about "our own true way".

So the way I run C&C is "my own true way", so I talk about it as "the one true way". However all I am doing is just putting out there how I do it, because this site is all about sharing our ideas.

So it definitely can seem like we are saying there is only "one true way", but we are really saying there are tons of ways to do things and this is how I put it all together to be "my one true way".

Well said.
_________________
AD&D, Amish Dungeons & Dragons.

"Galstaff, ye are in a cornfield, when a moustachioed man approaches. What say ye?"

"I shun him."

-----

"Knowledge, logic, reason, and common sense serve better than a dozen rule books."

-- E. Gary Gygax

[jfall]

I've used the terms roll play and role play in the past as well... but in all honesty, I agree w/ adaen. I do think that we're needlessly fracturing a hobby that needs no interior conflicts. It's all dependent upon the type of players.

Now, in lieu of the above, I'd have to say that after many years of gaming, from RCD&D on through 3.5, I think that a preponderance of rules seem to suggest a system of "allowed - not allowed" or "right and wrong" when a player attempts to do something in character.

I would rather come to a table knowing that you can make up rules to fit a situation (IF needed) rather than worry that you're breaking such and such a rule in said situation. It's a bit less constrictive coming from a more "generalized" set of rules than a myriad of minutia.

I remember a few years back while playing a 3.0 game, a buddy of ours had a girlfriend who wanted to play. She had never played a RPG in her life. She played a few session and then gave it up. When asked why, she said, every time I did something I was afraid I'd break a rule in one of those 20 or so books you guys have sitting there...

When we told her that she didn't need to worry about it and that she should leave the rules up to us she responded with; Well then I feel like I'm the only one playing at the table.

And I'll certainly say this, after years of playing 3.X, I've become a different kind of gamer. Playing C&C the first time was sort of like gaming w/out a "net". It was an odd feeling to be sure.
Now please take all this w/ a grain of salt. This is all based on my perceptions and is in no way meant to offend anyone.
_________________
`Twas brillig, and the slithy toves

Did gyre and gimble in the wabe:

All mimsy were the borogoves,

And the mome raths outgrabe.'

Lewis Carroll

[adaen]

jfall wrote:
I've used the terms roll play and role play in the past as well... but in all honesty, I agree w/ adaen. I do think that we're needlessly fracturing a hobby that needs no interior conflicts. It's all dependent upon the type of players.

...snip....

Now please take all this w/ a grain of salt. This is all based on my perceptions and is in no way meant to offend anyone.

Thanks J. For a bit, I was feeling like maybe I was being a jerk by proselytizing on this, but even those who don't agree with me have ranged from extremely civil to down right friendly. To be sure, I think this discussion has been a feather in the cap of these boards on the tolerance of differing ideas.

On some boards, I may have been tared and feathered by this point. I am finding again and again on the C&C boards that what appear to be irreconcilable differences arise....and then rather than drawing lines in the sand and duking it out, people are reasonable and look for common ground. I think we've found a lot of that...mostly in a core concept that I always talk about on my page: Fun. We're all about the fun on the HAG page and I see that here.

It warms my heart, even after the holidays.
Thanks All,

~AoB
_________________
~Adaen of Bridgewater, www.highadventuregames.com

[Balthock]

skerns wrote:
I agree with what your saying, however I see few and far between players who know how to do what your talking about. To be honest I am not great at doing it and I have been gaming for well over two decades non stop.

Plus I acted in high school plays, I was even Macbeth. I would find it easier, and have, when two or more of us at the table "get into character".

So what I have come to see the rules as being are tools to help the many who do not know how to, or simply don't wish to get into, ROLE playing.

Many are simply very uncomfortable with it, so am I unless I have at least one other at the table to "play off of".

For them having the dice decide most, or everything, about their character is enough.

Which is just another reason why I love C&C. It works for some, and when it doesn't I can refer them to 3E rules, etc...

The skills and "feats" I use just help people flesh out the character concept they have in mind, and then the mechanics allow the character to be "roll" played because the player doesn't like to "role" play.

Thats how I see it anyways.

From your comments, and others in this and other threads, I apparently am a very lucky CK (and former player). The core group of people I've been doing this with for almost 30 years (with a break) are amongst the best roleplayers I've ever met. I participated in, or observed, hundreds if not thousands of roleplaying sessions of one game or another.

The people I started playing AD&D with and several that I still do, are seemingly the best amateur actors I've ever been around. These players can inhabit the character they play more quickly and completely than just about all the others I've ever seen.

One of my players is the only one I've ever seen that can play two characters at once, and have an argument between the two and keep it in the right order, and make valid points with both, AND have it come out roll-on-the-floor paralytically funny all at the same time!! It's a joy to behold (sometimes)!

I play these games for the ROLEplay. I hate to keep using the term, and adaen is right, the terms are ill-defined at best. but they are useful.

I played in a few 'power' games, and hated it. The roleplay nerds(?) that spent all the time they weren't actually 'playing' analyzing the rules and doing complex and arcane math (remember me, the guy that's bad at math?) to determine the optimal stats slash class to use to maximize the probablilites in their favor. Then they spend the entire session proving their knowledge of the rules is deeper than the guy running the game. Way to kill my buzz, dudes.

I've also played with the RaNGers, the ones that roll some bizarre mix of dice (a d12 and a d20) and seemed to follow some strange octal/binary system of result decoding. ROLL. "I throw the party cleric into the Vampires grasp". WTF? Are you on the funny pipeweed?

Obviously I prefer a more hapy medium, one where the rules don't have to checked every melee round, one where the dice don't dictate the results, and one where the players and the gamemaster have fun.

I award XP if you can make me bust out laughing.
_________________
Meet me at Stonehenge at Midnight. I'll bring the goat.

[Balthock]

adaen wrote:
Thanks J. For a bit, I was feeling like maybe I was being a jerk by proselytizing on this, but even those who don't agree with me have ranged from extremely civil to down right friendly. To be sure, I think this discussion has been a feather in the cap of these boards on the tolerance of differing ideas.

On some boards, I may have been tared and feathered by this point. I am finding again and again on the C&C boards that what appear to be irreconcilable differences arise....and then rather than drawing lines in the sand and duking it out, people are reasonable and look for common ground. I think we've found a lot of that...mostly in a core concept that I always talk about on my page: Fun. We're all about the fun on the HAG page and I see that here.

It warms my heart, even after the holidays.

Thanks All,

~AoB

adaen,

I wanted to let you know I wasn't intentionally trying throw your roll/role/rule terms back in your face. Actually it was the first time I'd heard the terms differentiated like that. I must have been away from the hobby when they first popped up, but they certainly are an accurate description of the different methods of play (if used neutrally, anyway).

AS I've stated previously in this thread, I play these games for fun. I found v3.whatever of the Wizards version of AD&D to be playable, if unfamiliar since I started out in a slightly (I think) bastardized version of 1st Edition. I played lots of other games as well, always coming back to AD&D. Dance with the one what brung ya', I guess.

I didn't intend to disparage your comments regarding skills/feats. I tried, maybe unsuccessfully, to point out that I can do without them.

As I mentioned in a previous post, we grafted them from 3rd into the 1st game I'm curently running. It turned out to be a bad idea. None of my players had ever played 3rd. One of them, Johnathan of White Haven on these forums, has played NeverWinter Nights 1 and 2 which are (loosely) based on 3rd, so he had a passing familiarity with skills/feats, but only in a PC game context. He helped me extensively in the adaptation of the skills system we implemented. The rest of the players just couldn't wrap their heads around how it was supposed to work, and the extra bookwork was a real pain for them.

Then we found C&C which simplified much that we struggled with.

it all comes down to what you've done before, what you want to do, and how you want to get there. It's all good, as long as you have fun doing it.

Scott
_________________
Meet me at Stonehenge at Midnight. I'll bring the goat.

[adaen]

No offense taken, skerns.

To be honest, I am leaning more heavily toward lighter systems like C&C that include a lot of GM fiat of late....especially when I GM. I'm also interested in games that give the players (as distinct from the player known as the GM) authorial control during the game (like FATE).

The last 10-15 years (or longer perhaps) have brought us games in which the GM does not always have the final say, that have explicit checks to the GM's power (other than players quiting), that have explicit meta-game elements (like The Riddle of Steel's Spiritual Attributes), etc. Although many of these ideas were considered blasphemy back in the early 80's when I started playing, these type of games can be a lot of fun and I'm all about fun.

C&C is pretty steeped in "old school" gaming, which is fun too, but it tends to preclude these other elements (unless special efforts are made to include them).

All that being said, the only D&D I've been playing of late is 3.26 (as we call our melded 3/3.5 game)....and we do focus on all the crap that most proponents of C&C are trying to avoid. Remembering to "Cast Defensively" to avoid an Attack of Opportunity, moving in 5' steps while engaged, Cleave, Power Attack, etc. are huge parts of our game and we like it that way. Enjoying one style of play does not preclude my enjoyment of the other(s).

Best,

~AoB
_________________
~Adaen of Bridgewater, www.highadventuregames.com

[Kos]

I didn't realize how little I needed feats/skills/bullrushes ect. until I found this game. My players could barely remember to use them anyway, and I can cover them as they arise. I really like the sleek engine that is C&C.

[Lucifer_Draconus]

Two of my Favorite systems to play are Skill-based/focused ones (Rolemaster & Palladium).But as future CK,I want a Rules lite system...

C&C is my choice of system to run.That said I still like to have Skills & Abilities.Unlike RM/Palladium I don't think there's a need for a Skill to cover all areas of expertise.Such as running or climbing..they need no skill to do.Where as swimming or specialized climbing (rappelling/Caving)

would.I'd require training & xp cost to get post-chargen skills n' abilities.

Character's would start off with Skills n' abilities based on background concept plus a a few optional hobby SnA's of player choice (with in reason).

I like Exalted style abilities..the whole cinamantic/Anime/Wuxia influenced thing.But it'd be tied to primes & Char. concept.Like treebore stated ,they'd be able to try a "feat".If they successfully pulled it off ..say three times,they'ed have earned it.

Iam Who Iam
_________________
Let me wet my blade with your blood.

RIP Gary Gygax you will be missed.

[old school gamer]

gideon_thorne wrote:
I can think of a movie where a 'wizard' like character DaVinci, used an interpretation of a STR check to open a door.

"I shall go down in history as a man who opened a door!"

In this case, a "STR" check suggested a means to apply strength a bit differently.
And, naturally, as one grows in experience, natural aptitude would decline in importance, while still being a factor.

That movie would be Everafter with Drew Barrymore. Cool movie IMO.

[old school gamer]

I have to admit that when D&D 3E came out I was impressed with all the options it created for me. I always felt that earlier versions of D&D were too restrictive. Then after about 5 years of playing first 3E and 3.5 I felt that I had had enough of the of all the splatbooks and complete this and complete that. Then on top of that I was running a rather long standing Champions/Hero System game that was steadily getting more complicated and more work and then play.

So one day I am cruising the web and I stumble upon C&C, I think I was looking up something on castles, went the FLGS and bought a copy of Castles and Crusades. I fell in love with it. In its own simple way it actually allowed for more flexiblity. It took away all the things I didn't like about D&D and put back what I liked.

Unfortunately one my most vocal players finds that he cannot specialize his character enough in C&C because there is on feat of skill system for him so he refuses to play. But then he's a self-confessed powergamer so there you are.

So we are playing Star Wars Saga right now which is a more streamlined version of D20. And everyone likes it. But still I don't see myself doing any fantasy that isn't C&C.

[Treebore]

old school gamer wrote:
I have to admit that when D&D 3E came out I was impressed with all the options it created for me. I always felt that earlier versions of D&D were too restrictive. Then after about 5 years of playing first 3E and 3.5 I felt that I had had enough of the of all the splatbooks and complete this and complete that. Then on top of that I was running a rather long standing Champions/Hero System game that was steadily getting more complicated and more work and then play.

So one day I am cruising the web and I stumble upon C&C, I think I was looking up something on castles, went the FLGS and bought a copy of Castles and Crusades. I fell in love with it. In its own simple way it actually allowed for more flexiblity. It took away all the things I didn't like about D&D and put back what I liked.

Unfortunately one my most vocal players finds that he cannot specialize his character enough in C&C because there is on feat of skill system for him so he refuses to play. But then he's a self-confessed powergamer so there you are.

So we are playing Star Wars Saga right now which is a more streamlined version of D20. And everyone likes it. But still I don't see myself doing any fantasy that isn't C&C.

When are people going to get that the SIEGE engine allows characters to attempt to do anything the Ck is willing to allow? It astounds me how much people demand things be written in black and white for them. Whats so hard about, "If you think of it, I'll tell you what TN you have to beat to do it."?
_________________
The Ruby Lord, Earl of the Society

Next Con I am attending: http://www.neoncon.com/

My House Rules: http://www.freeyabb.com/phpbb/viewtopic ... llordgames

[adaen]

Treebore wrote:
When are people going to get that the SIEGE engine allows characters to attempt to do anything the Ck is willing to allow? It astounds me how much people demand things be written in black and white for them. Whats so hard about, "If you think of it, I'll tell you what TN you have to beat to do it."?

It may not be that they don't understand it, but rather, it is not what they want. C&C gives a lot of power to the GM and relies a lot on GM fiat (whatever the GM feels is best at this point in time). Hard coded rules give more power to the players (non-GM players). They allow for a more concrete set of expectations with which to work. There are many reasons why this may be attractive to players.

It likely has nothing to do with laziness, shallowness, name-your-negative-descriptor, but more to do with the agenda they bring to the table. The "why" they get their game on, so to speak.

~AoB

Ed: Note this was post number eleventy-one for me.....for all you Tolkien Geeks
_________________
~Adaen of Bridgewater, www.highadventuregames.com

[Arazmus]

moriarty777 wrote:
I played AD&D for years before coming to 3rd edition, and I think certain aspects of 3rd edition might have spoiled us.
M

or rather spoiled itself.
_________________
I'll tell you what I do like though: a killer, a dyed-in-the-wool killer. Cold blooded, clean, methodical and thorough. ~Zorg

[anglefish]

I have players that loved 3.5, so I have dealt with some of this already.
A lot of these players like having "stuff" to do. They either want a menu of specialties they can offer the group, or they want a guarantee that what they built the character for will go off on a consistent basis. This is the guidelines that I offered my "3.5ivers" to help them make the switch to CnC. (Though they still like to yank my chain about feats and stuff once in a while.) There are 13 classes ... and class and half rules: For my group, the class and a half has helped those who felt that their PC didn't "do enough." So now I have a fighter who makes poisons and a Rogue who has more hit points so he can be a front liner on occasion. Depending on what d20 rules you've seen in the past, anything beyond the fab four is really a repackaged class anyway. (With the right 3rd party bonus feats, almost any fighter could be a ranger/monk/barbarian clone.)
Cool meta/overlay rules that provide a class or the party more "stuff" to do: I tweaked the Crafting Item rules to be used by the Assassin's Poison ability as an alchemy ability. Recipes help give bonuses to make cool items (tenderfoot bag) and the like. Sure the Wizard, Illusionist or the Druid could do it better, but none of those players are interested in doing it. The skill is also a good back up when other party members fail their spellcraft checks. I also have a few rule sets for getting powers or items from other sources, such as falling meteors or Chaos at a price.
Can you do it? Make a roll to find out: As discussed, combat maneuvers and other feat like abilities can be a SIEGE roll. I only kibosh this when the player ends up doing the same thing over and over (see the guarantee comment above.) Eventually word gets around about the PC's new "trick" and urban antagonist expect it (as would happen in real life). In CnC, players can then change up their game and tactics.
When stepping on an active PC class ability, others don't get class abilities to do the same: Fighters only get class abilities to pick a lock when the Rogue is not playing for the night. (And if I hadn't let the Druid use class levels for tracking checks, the party would still be lost in the same woods back at level 1.)
Class levels are a privilege, not a right: Why should I give you class levels for this SIEGE check? Is it in your background? Are you taking extra time? Have you become an apprentice to some master of the craft in question?
In my next post, I'll get into some metagame reasons why I fell out of love with feats.

[anglefish]

For me, feats were cool, but a slippery slope that always landed in the same place.

1.) PC creation time: Feats added a ton of time to making characters for the group. I myself was usually done quickly, usually because I based my character on a story concept. Others would spend time combing through all the books looking for the best +1,+2,+1, etc. stacking effect they could wring out of a feat/class/Prestige Class/item combo. In my groups, that was half the party.

As a GM, I had to spend a ton of time approving feat choices, usually who would bring me the PC in stages so they could slip those killer combos in. "Well, you did approve all these feats at one time or another."

And dude, I just wanted to start playing.

2.) Bookkeeping: At higher levels, tracking NPC and PC feat was too much a chore for my limited play time. And the combos made got extreme enough that it was a binary effect. Severe damage or nothing.

3.) Repeated pleas to "respec:" I also constantly had players beg to redo their characters to take advantage of newly printed feats and classes.

Why was I the bad guy because they bought the book first without asking if I'd approve it?

[Fiffergrund]

Harrumph harrumph grumble *feats* grumble grumble bellyache *skills* argh gnash wail blecccch.

Ok, I feel better now. I got my anti-feat/skill freak on.
_________________
Sir Fiffergrund, Lord Marshal of the Castle and Crusade Society.

He Who Hides Behind The Elephant's Back

[serleran]

Are you skilled at defeat?
_________________
If it matters, leave a message at the beep.
Serl's Corner