Yes, i think helpful answers are better than berating the person that asked the question or insinuating they are some sort of rules lawyer with no concept of true role playing.
Maybe...just maybe...they have a life and no time to transfer one aspect of another games into other aspects. Maybe...just maybe...thats why they buy published game material.
The bottom line is some of the material seems sloppy and unclear.
When recruiting players that are used to complete & detailed rules w/o having to resort to material from 1975 it is a hard hurdle to jump in winning them over.
In my world...I can only make calls from personal experience. Yet in my experience I bought C&C material. I got 2 other players to buy the materials. Upon first impression it felt to them like that old time feel. Then little itsy bitsy items like oh I don't know...THE EXPERIENCE TABLE FOR ONE! Multiple typos for two. and the list goes on, they decided it was a quaint idea but opted for a game they deicded did not need house ruling to feel complete. long story short our game group is still feeding the corporate monster named Hasbro.
I like the aspect of getting away from 'That other game' and playing like I did when a kid on the porch. I love true role playing over roll playing. I like the entire concept of C&C. Yet when my books gather dust because others cannot see the merit thru issues already mentioned a thousand times then just what potential is the game reaching if it is never played in my circle of gamers? Sure some books were bought and a profit was made but it ended there.
I'm on board with C&C. I want others on board too. So please stop preaching to the choir and hear our voices as players with real concerns.
i wish to see Troll Lords succeed in the face of mega corporations just as much as the next guy.
I'm bringing to light issues I think that hinder such goals.
Please. let's keep the thread intended to improve our game and increase the fan base.
Thanks to those that bothered to give kind words of understanding and communication.
XP tables progression
-
gideon_thorne
- Maukling
- Posts: 6176
- Joined: Thu Mar 30, 2006 8:00 am
- Contact:
Well. I wish I could give better answers. As per my knowledge, its as I said. Davis has a rough outline of a methodology he uses to work out XP. Its nothing cohesive, not really anything solidly in x = y format and while it has a rough structure, its still largely subjective in nature.
If it helps, from what I understand everything is built off the fighters xp combat progression as a base and other ability costs are shoehorned in from there. Beyond that I don't have anything real to offer.
Whether or not Davis actually solidifies his method and wants to put it down as a chapter in a book is not really known to me at this point.
_________________
"We'll go out through the kitchen!" Tanis Half-Elven
Peter Bradley
If it helps, from what I understand everything is built off the fighters xp combat progression as a base and other ability costs are shoehorned in from there. Beyond that I don't have anything real to offer.
Whether or not Davis actually solidifies his method and wants to put it down as a chapter in a book is not really known to me at this point.
_________________
"We'll go out through the kitchen!" Tanis Half-Elven
Peter Bradley
"The accumulated filth of all their sex and murder will foam up about their waists and all the whores and politicians will look up and shout, 'Save us!' And I'll look down, and whisper 'No.' " ~Rorschach
It does seem that once again we're letting legitimate discussion drift into the personal animosity that derails the benefits of the discussion in the first place.
Traveller my friend, I don't necessarily disagree with much of your philosophy there, but you do sometimes go for the jugular - this forum is, after all, a discussion of rules to begin with. People who disagree with you aren't inherently evil because they do so lol - sometimes the way you say things is more imporant than what you are saying.
To the question of C&C being problematic because it needs to be "better playable out of the box - as written," I do see this as an iffy claim. Any fantasy RPG system suffers inherently from wanting a game that allows for myriad actions and choices for its players, yet wants for some form of structure to guide the flow of the action. It's not like Axis & Allies... you never see someone asking "hey, I've decided this Panzer unit is Rommel himself - I should get bonuses on my dice rolls" in that game, because players accept the rules structure based on the style of game it is.
But RPGs are different - and the moment one starts on the road of "needing" every rule to be 100% consistent and to cover all needs (of "realism," of practicality on the table, etc) then we head off into the realm of massive rule supplements and core revisions. That leads us to C&C 2.0, 3.0, 3.5, 4..... ugh. I'd much prefer to continue to have threads like these as the place to debate changes and errata.
So my 2 cents - for Joe, if you aren't getting players to accept C&C because of these (IMHO) small issues (i.e., just saying "here's my errata sheet and house rules that correct what I see as discrepencies"), then it's really more of an issue with what they as players are going to need and want out of their RPGs to begin with. TLG could drop everything to start creating a revision, but that would inherently change the whole idea behind it (again, just my opinion). Plus, you're NEVER gonna please everyone... there are things in the PhB (even in third printing) which I am less fond of (the encumberance system, some wonkiness in weapons lists)... I just change them.
I, too, wish Davis would visit the discussions on threads more often.... but then he's a bit busy most likely trying to keep the posts on the "where the heck is it" threads from multuplying too much....
Just remember, it's only a game, and being zealous for or against the importance of specific rules is dangerous.
May all your rolls hit their targets or achieve their goals!
_________________
John "Sir Seskis" Wright
Ilshara: Lands of Exile:
http://johnwright281.tripod.com/
High Squire of the C&C Society
www.cncsociety.org
Traveller my friend, I don't necessarily disagree with much of your philosophy there, but you do sometimes go for the jugular - this forum is, after all, a discussion of rules to begin with. People who disagree with you aren't inherently evil because they do so lol - sometimes the way you say things is more imporant than what you are saying.
To the question of C&C being problematic because it needs to be "better playable out of the box - as written," I do see this as an iffy claim. Any fantasy RPG system suffers inherently from wanting a game that allows for myriad actions and choices for its players, yet wants for some form of structure to guide the flow of the action. It's not like Axis & Allies... you never see someone asking "hey, I've decided this Panzer unit is Rommel himself - I should get bonuses on my dice rolls" in that game, because players accept the rules structure based on the style of game it is.
But RPGs are different - and the moment one starts on the road of "needing" every rule to be 100% consistent and to cover all needs (of "realism," of practicality on the table, etc) then we head off into the realm of massive rule supplements and core revisions. That leads us to C&C 2.0, 3.0, 3.5, 4..... ugh. I'd much prefer to continue to have threads like these as the place to debate changes and errata.
So my 2 cents - for Joe, if you aren't getting players to accept C&C because of these (IMHO) small issues (i.e., just saying "here's my errata sheet and house rules that correct what I see as discrepencies"), then it's really more of an issue with what they as players are going to need and want out of their RPGs to begin with. TLG could drop everything to start creating a revision, but that would inherently change the whole idea behind it (again, just my opinion). Plus, you're NEVER gonna please everyone... there are things in the PhB (even in third printing) which I am less fond of (the encumberance system, some wonkiness in weapons lists)... I just change them.
I, too, wish Davis would visit the discussions on threads more often.... but then he's a bit busy most likely trying to keep the posts on the "where the heck is it" threads from multuplying too much....
Just remember, it's only a game, and being zealous for or against the importance of specific rules is dangerous.
May all your rolls hit their targets or achieve their goals!
_________________
John "Sir Seskis" Wright
Ilshara: Lands of Exile:
http://johnwright281.tripod.com/
High Squire of the C&C Society
www.cncsociety.org
Joe wrote:
THE EXPERIENCE TABLE FOR ONE! Multiple typos for two. and the list goes on, they decided it was a quaint idea but opted for a game they deicded did not need house ruling to feel complete.
Joe, I don't know your players, so what can I say to their objections other than it must not be the game for them?
When I first started playing RPG's I couldn't have cared less for the mechanics. All I know is that I wanted to be the guy that grabs his sword, fights the monster, saves the town/maiden, and gets the treasure. I started with the board game, Dungeon! I didn't care why the Super-hero needed more gold (compared to the Elf and Hero) to win the game, all I wanted to do was play. When we left Dungeon! for the Moldvay Basic Set, the boundaries opened up, but the goal remained the same: to have fun in a pretend environment.
I find that today's gamer "looks under the hood" more often and while that can be good for augmenting or adding to the game, I don't know that it helps to assess the game, since "game balance" is not scientific. It is "felt" more than observed, IME. Is needing less XP to advance from level 9th to 10th than it did to advance from 8th to 9th really a breaking point when it was a part of the design, not an "error in product" as Witterquick stated?
I'm not looking for argument here. I'm just trying to see why it's that important when the reason for the game isn't to break out the microscope and account for every design decision. It's to have fun as I mentioned above. I fear (because it happened to me at the beginning of this decade as a 3/3.5e DM) that a certain style of gaming has "leavened the whole loaf" causing all of us to look under the hood instead of just gaming. Minutia just isn't fun to me. YMMV.
_________________
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
Psalm 73:26
"Knowledge, logic, reason, and common sense serve better than a dozen rule books."
"Rules not understood should have appropriate questions directed to the publisher; disputes with the Dungeon Master are another matter entirely. THE REFEREE IS THE FINAL ARBITER OF ALL AFFAIRS OF HIS OR HER CAMPAIGN."
-- E. Gary Gygax
"Knowledge, logic, reason, and common sense serve better than a dozen rule books."
"Rules not understood should have appropriate questions directed to the publisher; disputes with the Dungeon Master are another matter entirely. THE REFEREE IS THE FINAL ARBITER OF ALL AFFAIRS OF HIS OR HER CAMPAIGN."
-- E. Gary Gygax
-
Realmsbard
- Ungern
- Posts: 66
- Joined: Thu Aug 16, 2007 7:00 am
Omote wrote:
Well since the actual game designer does not get on these boards very often, and chooses not to answer these questions we're left with what we have. The response over and over has been "that's the way it is." What else is suppose to be said?
Personally, I see why people want to know how such a thing was developed, because these things have been talked about with RPGs ad nauseum for two+ decades.
Personally, *shrugs* I'm not sure what the fuss is all about.
-O
Methinks perchance you do not choose to see what the fuss is all about. shrugs
I agree that if you dont know you cant say. But it does not call for a smart aleck answer.
I like CnC. so much so I have all the books and mods available for the system. So I dont like it when the answer to a problem is if you dont like it play something else or go make up your game.
_________________
Listen to the song. For in the tale there may be truth.
moriarty777 wrote:
If tempers are starting to flare because of certain things being said in this thread, please... take a step back and relax. We're all here on the boards because of our love for the game and to help each other out when the situation arises.
Actually M, I have the luxury of not being annoyed or upset over this thread. However, I strongly disagree with the assertion that just because something is not as people expect it, the game is somehow broken or otherwise out of whack. That assertion has been made multiple times on this thread and each time, a solution has been presented that resolves the problem.
However, it seems resolving the problem isn't enough and people have to devolve into hyperbole because they're not getting the answers they want to hear.
John,
I do not pull punches, and will not sugar coat things for the benefit of the sensitive. I call it like it is, and have done so from the very first moment I stepped online. If people are offended by things, that is not my problem, but theirs. It very likely means I struck a nerve, but that's normal when I say things that people don't want to hear.
Just look at Joe's response.
Speaking of Joe, I must have missed that memo he sent out regarding not having a life.
That's alright though. In his post the reality of the situation presents itself. His players, enamored with d20 Fantasy and its kewl powerz and l33t skillz, rejected Castles & Crusades and he's upset with that. But is that really the fault of Castles & Crusades, or Joe's players?
_________________
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.
-
moriarty777
- Renegade Mage
- Posts: 3735
- Joined: Fri Jul 07, 2006 7:00 am
- Location: Montreal, Canada
Good points are being made... but sadly the game may be a really tough sell for some players depending where they're coming from.
The first question I have (for Joe) is have you and your players tried playing a game or two... or has it been more of a case of reading the PHB and comparing it to D&D 3.x?
The first time I ran a series of games for a group, the game unfortunately came to a grinding halt. I had 4 players and each came to the game with a different approach. Unfortunately with a small group it doesn't take much to get a campaign derailed.
One player fell in love with it immediately but missed about half the sessions due to real life issues (we had 5 or 6 total).
One player liked the simple mechanics of the game and, though it is not a replacement for 3.x, is an active and welcome player in my current campaign.
One player picked at a few things (being a older gamer) and it became necessary to quickly address certain issues at first but was genuinely interested in the game (or at least its mechanics).
One player took an immediate dislike to it and favored 3.x and kept on bringing the issue up (both outside and inside the game)
It simply boiled down to the problems that one player in particular brought to the game and how it affected the gameplay overall. There was no convincing that could be done. A 3.x campaign that was on a temporary hold (which made it possible to introduce C&C) was resumed and that was that.
I still have one active player from that group, and if there weren't schedule problems, I could have gotten another one. I know another group where the DM basically dumped 3.x in favor of C&C lock, stock, and barrel. He too had a couple of players that resisted it but he was luckier because they came around (after leaving for a few weeks) and gave it an honest try.
So... rule debates or clarifications aside, I've found that people who want to take issue with the game will find it easier to pick at it. In Joe's case, it is certainly unfortunate since he genuinely wants to play but is encountering resistance. There's no easy answer to that. The best you can hope for is how other CK's handle certain factors as they come up... like the EPP. In this case some people use a unified progression others tweak it... a lot use it as is.
Perhaps the best way to get over some of these issues is approach the players that brought it up and ask them, what would *they* propose instead?
M
_________________
"You face Death itself in the form of... 1d4 Tarrasques!"
Partner to Brave Halfling Publishing
http://www.arcanacreations.com
The first question I have (for Joe) is have you and your players tried playing a game or two... or has it been more of a case of reading the PHB and comparing it to D&D 3.x?
The first time I ran a series of games for a group, the game unfortunately came to a grinding halt. I had 4 players and each came to the game with a different approach. Unfortunately with a small group it doesn't take much to get a campaign derailed.
One player fell in love with it immediately but missed about half the sessions due to real life issues (we had 5 or 6 total).
One player liked the simple mechanics of the game and, though it is not a replacement for 3.x, is an active and welcome player in my current campaign.
One player picked at a few things (being a older gamer) and it became necessary to quickly address certain issues at first but was genuinely interested in the game (or at least its mechanics).
One player took an immediate dislike to it and favored 3.x and kept on bringing the issue up (both outside and inside the game)
It simply boiled down to the problems that one player in particular brought to the game and how it affected the gameplay overall. There was no convincing that could be done. A 3.x campaign that was on a temporary hold (which made it possible to introduce C&C) was resumed and that was that.
I still have one active player from that group, and if there weren't schedule problems, I could have gotten another one. I know another group where the DM basically dumped 3.x in favor of C&C lock, stock, and barrel. He too had a couple of players that resisted it but he was luckier because they came around (after leaving for a few weeks) and gave it an honest try.
So... rule debates or clarifications aside, I've found that people who want to take issue with the game will find it easier to pick at it. In Joe's case, it is certainly unfortunate since he genuinely wants to play but is encountering resistance. There's no easy answer to that. The best you can hope for is how other CK's handle certain factors as they come up... like the EPP. In this case some people use a unified progression others tweak it... a lot use it as is.
Perhaps the best way to get over some of these issues is approach the players that brought it up and ask them, what would *they* propose instead?
M
_________________
"You face Death itself in the form of... 1d4 Tarrasques!"
Partner to Brave Halfling Publishing
http://www.arcanacreations.com
Traveller wrote:
Actually M, I have the luxury of not being annoyed or upset over this thread. However, I strongly disagree with the assertion that just because something is not as people expect it, the game is somehow broken or otherwise out of whack. That assertion has been made multiple times on this thread and each time, a solution has been presented that resolves the problem.
However, it seems resolving the problem isn't enough and people have to devolve into hyperbole because they're not getting the answers they want to hear.
John,
I do not pull punches, and will not sugar coat things for the benefit of the sensitive. I call it like it is, and have done so from the very first moment I stepped online. If people are offended by things, that is not my problem, but theirs. It very likely means I struck a nerve, but that's normal when I say things that people don't want to hear.
Just look at Joe's response.
Speaking of Joe, I must have missed that memo he sent out regarding not having a life.
That's alright though. In his post the reality of the situation presents itself. His players, enamored with d20 Fantasy and its kewl powerz and l33t skillz, rejected Castles & Crusades and he's upset with that. But is that really the fault of Castles & Crusades, or Joe's players?
You know, "calling it like it is" comes across I as "I'm right, you're stupid..." If you note I am someone who AGREES with the points you are making, but your posts rub me the wrong way.... and you may say it's not your problem but everyone elses, but man... I look at this thread and the reason that Joe, Witterquick and Realmsbard's posts have become kind of angry is because they're opinions are being dismissed and told to go away.... and they are right that this is EXTREMELY unhelpful in promoting C&C and giving good advice on how to deal with resistant players. Moriarty is providing more positve thought.
I would add my 2 cents to others that one of the problems that is causing this particular issue is a desire for a "unified philosophy" in a game design, and Zudrak's post above covers this quite well... the reason you aren't going to get a detailed, specific reason for this particular quark is that it probably wasn't the subject of THAT intensive a "game philosophy" design process... (Trolls please correct me if I am mistaken). This was true in the past with RPG creation, and it's true today. I seem to recall EGG's statement about the descending/negative AC being more of a "well, it just kind of happened that way"
My apologies already for being a little angry above... but telling someone to "get a life" and get off a thread that's in a forum to discuss rules because they want to debate those rules just really doesn't sit well with me.
_________________
John "Sir Seskis" Wright
Ilshara: Lands of Exile:
http://johnwright281.tripod.com/
High Squire of the C&C Society
www.cncsociety.org
-
Omote
- Battle Stag
- Posts: 11560
- Joined: Wed May 03, 2006 7:00 am
- Location: The fairest view in the park, Ohio.
- Contact:
Realmsbard wrote:
Methinks perchance you do not choose to see what the fuss is all about. shrugs
I agree that if you dont know you cant say. But it does not call for a smart aleck answer.
I like CnC. so much so I have all the books and mods available for the system. So I dont like it when the answer to a problem is if you dont like it play something else or go make up your game.
You may be right in that I don't look for the fuss in lots of things. For years and years I played competative cardgames, lots of boardgames and RPGs and always considered the little itsy-bitsy details. True enough that I gave up that style of gaming a long time ago, however I'm hoping that in this last response you weren't claiming that I was being a smart aleck. I will assume no, because I wasn't trying to be at all.
I agree that a smart ass answer is not necessary, but you shouldn't take any answers given in these forums in the tone of "if you dont like it play something else." I can't say any of these posters have that type of mentality.
-O
_________________
> Omote's Advanced C&C stuff <
Duke Omote Landwehr, Holy Order of the FPQ ~ Prince of the Castles & Crusades Society
@-Duke Omote Landwehr, Holy Order of the FPQ ~ Prince of the Castles & Crusades Society-@
VAE VICTUS!
>> Omote's Advanced C&C stuff <<
VAE VICTUS!
>> Omote's Advanced C&C stuff <<
-
gideon_thorne
- Maukling
- Posts: 6176
- Joined: Thu Mar 30, 2006 8:00 am
- Contact:
seskis281 wrote:
I would add my 2 cents to others that one of the problems that is causing this particular issue is a desire for a "unified philosophy" in a game design, and Zudrak's post above covers this quite well... the reason you aren't going to get a detailed, specific reason for this particular quark is that it probably wasn't the subject of THAT intensive a "game philosophy" design process... (Trolls please correct me if I am mistaken).
Pretty much. More subjective than x=y. As I've mentioned a couple of times already.
_________________
"We'll go out through the kitchen!" Tanis Half-Elven
Peter Bradley
"The accumulated filth of all their sex and murder will foam up about their waists and all the whores and politicians will look up and shout, 'Save us!' And I'll look down, and whisper 'No.' " ~Rorschach
-
Realmsbard
- Ungern
- Posts: 66
- Joined: Thu Aug 16, 2007 7:00 am
Omote wrote:
You may be right in that I don't look for the fuss in lots of things. For years and years I played competative cardgames, lots of boardgames and RPGs and always considered the little itsy-bitsy details. True enough that I gave up that style of gaming a long time ago, however I'm hoping that in this last response you weren't claiming that I was being a smart aleck. I will assume no, because I wasn't trying to be at all.
I agree that a smart ass answer is not necessary, but you shouldn't take any answers given in these forums in the tone of "if you dont like it play something else." I can't say any of these posters have that type of mentality.
-O
No I didnt mean that you are a smart aleck, but it applies to some others and Im sure you know the ones I refer to. You have been more helpful than not.
In fact I should not have jumped on this thread to vent, but when I saw some of the terse remarks I couldnt help it. Its something thats been on my mind for some time.
Im sure that the questions asked by new timers get tiresome to answer over and over but where does a newbie turn for help. Unless worded just right searching is of little help. I havent played or gmed for about fourteen years so I guess I'm new too. I learn a lot from the answers given on this board. I only ask that questions be given more respect.
Thanks for your time; Realmsbard
_________________
Listen to the song. For in the tale there may be truth.
John,
I don't care what people think. They have their opinions, and are allowed those opinions, but those opinions cannot influence mine. In the end, the only opinion that truly matters is mine.
Now, as to the supposed problems, there are no problems except in perception. Since there is apparently an issue here that the xp progression needs to be consistent simply because thirty years of Dungeons & Dragons games had a consistent xp progression. This game is not Dungeons & Dragons. It is Castles & Crusades. It is its own game system, and does not have to follow the same rules that other game systems do. If it did, then why not play the other game systems?
Their problems have been addressed. Joe, Witterquick, and Realmsbard are simply not liking the answers they're getting. Since they're not liking the answers they're getting, the problem is theirs. Not mine.
If I'm wrong, I admit it. In this instance, I'm not wrong.
_________________
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.
I don't care what people think. They have their opinions, and are allowed those opinions, but those opinions cannot influence mine. In the end, the only opinion that truly matters is mine.
Now, as to the supposed problems, there are no problems except in perception. Since there is apparently an issue here that the xp progression needs to be consistent simply because thirty years of Dungeons & Dragons games had a consistent xp progression. This game is not Dungeons & Dragons. It is Castles & Crusades. It is its own game system, and does not have to follow the same rules that other game systems do. If it did, then why not play the other game systems?
Their problems have been addressed. Joe, Witterquick, and Realmsbard are simply not liking the answers they're getting. Since they're not liking the answers they're getting, the problem is theirs. Not mine.
If I'm wrong, I admit it. In this instance, I'm not wrong.
_________________
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.
Deleted.
Let sleeping dogs lie.
_________________
John "Sir Seskis" Wright
Ilshara: Lands of Exile:
http://johnwright281.tripod.com/
High Squire of the C&C Society
www.cncsociety.org
Let sleeping dogs lie.
_________________
John "Sir Seskis" Wright
Ilshara: Lands of Exile:
http://johnwright281.tripod.com/
High Squire of the C&C Society
www.cncsociety.org
-
gideon_thorne
- Maukling
- Posts: 6176
- Joined: Thu Mar 30, 2006 8:00 am
- Contact:
Well. Methinks everyone needs to take a step back from this thread for a few days and let the ruffled feathers settle.
There's no sense in letting ofttimes diverse modes of communication get the better of individual common sense. The trouble with the internet is that too many are too quick to jump to conclusions about the emotion behind a given paragraph of text.
So, for now, everyone just needs to let this particular argument go. I don't want to have to lock the thread, or use Steve's more drastic means of removing it entirely, unless really needed.
So any more posts, from anyone, that goes beyond the reasonable and either one of the above two options will be exercised.
_________________
"We'll go out through the kitchen!" Tanis Half-Elven
Peter Bradley
There's no sense in letting ofttimes diverse modes of communication get the better of individual common sense. The trouble with the internet is that too many are too quick to jump to conclusions about the emotion behind a given paragraph of text.
So, for now, everyone just needs to let this particular argument go. I don't want to have to lock the thread, or use Steve's more drastic means of removing it entirely, unless really needed.
So any more posts, from anyone, that goes beyond the reasonable and either one of the above two options will be exercised.
_________________
"We'll go out through the kitchen!" Tanis Half-Elven
Peter Bradley
"The accumulated filth of all their sex and murder will foam up about their waists and all the whores and politicians will look up and shout, 'Save us!' And I'll look down, and whisper 'No.' " ~Rorschach
How can one ever find truth if we cower from controversy?
I am not mad at anyone and am fully capable of putting a boot to those when I think it needed. This is NOT the case here.
I think you have made yourself and your philosophy perfectly clear.
I used to think in a similar manner. I even had my own honor system based on celtic tradition. It worked great for me in my mind but the real world never seemed to subcribe to my way of thinking. Eventually i found a way to remain true to myself and not (hopefully) offend everyone I came in contact with.
How one can have thoughts and beliefs completely autonomous to the rest of the world is beyond me but to each his own. that is a topic I am not qualified in.
Now, back to the topic at hand I will tell you where my exception lies so you can stop assuming to know. I am not asking a question so much as stating an observation. So perhaps an 'answer' is not exactly what I am looking for.
I also could care less about mechanics and more about 'feel'.
I want gamers to get on board and experience something I know is a better package than 'that other game' regardless of color art, feats, crunchy bits and all.
Yes, We have played a few sessions.
The bottom line is we have something here with great potential to tap the imagination and get us back to how it's supposed to 'feel'.
Yet due to some 'perceived' issues with the game and others preconceived notions about quality publishing & game balance, I find it difficult to 'share' this wonderful thing with others.
I honestly feel (opinion) that if these items were addressed and cleared up, that more converts will be won and the entire extended C&C family would prosper and grow.
As it stands now it holds a specialized niche.
Let's expand that niche.
Let's improve the product.
Let's pad the Trolls pockets.
Let's increase the fun and share the experience.
I am willing to ruffle feathers and have mine plucked if it means more fun for more people.
I am willing to be offended, insulted, kicked, and berated if it means improving on a good thing in the end.
I am not mad at anyone and am fully capable of putting a boot to those when I think it needed. This is NOT the case here.
Quote:
I don't care what people think. They have their opinions, and are allowed those opinions, but those opinions cannot influence mine. In the end, the only opinion that truly matters is mine.
I think you have made yourself and your philosophy perfectly clear.
I used to think in a similar manner. I even had my own honor system based on celtic tradition. It worked great for me in my mind but the real world never seemed to subcribe to my way of thinking. Eventually i found a way to remain true to myself and not (hopefully) offend everyone I came in contact with.
How one can have thoughts and beliefs completely autonomous to the rest of the world is beyond me but to each his own. that is a topic I am not qualified in.
Now, back to the topic at hand I will tell you where my exception lies so you can stop assuming to know. I am not asking a question so much as stating an observation. So perhaps an 'answer' is not exactly what I am looking for.
I also could care less about mechanics and more about 'feel'.
I want gamers to get on board and experience something I know is a better package than 'that other game' regardless of color art, feats, crunchy bits and all.
Yes, We have played a few sessions.
The bottom line is we have something here with great potential to tap the imagination and get us back to how it's supposed to 'feel'.
Yet due to some 'perceived' issues with the game and others preconceived notions about quality publishing & game balance, I find it difficult to 'share' this wonderful thing with others.
I honestly feel (opinion) that if these items were addressed and cleared up, that more converts will be won and the entire extended C&C family would prosper and grow.
As it stands now it holds a specialized niche.
Let's expand that niche.
Let's improve the product.
Let's pad the Trolls pockets.
Let's increase the fun and share the experience.
I am willing to ruffle feathers and have mine plucked if it means more fun for more people.
I am willing to be offended, insulted, kicked, and berated if it means improving on a good thing in the end.
-
gideon_thorne
- Maukling
- Posts: 6176
- Joined: Thu Mar 30, 2006 8:00 am
- Contact:
Well, addressing the heart of the matter, 'game balance' seems to be a no win scenario. I have yet to encounter any two or more gamers who have the same ideas on what 'balance' is.
The original question on the thread was. "Is there any reasoning to the xp tables."
Yes.
Followed by "Can it be explained in a clear manner."
Not really. I've asked myself a time or two. And I get a reply that is basically paraphrased "Well, I start with the fighter as a baseline, add and change up various abilities and then just sort of handwave the rest."
So, in short. There really isn't a clear, consistent. universally logical or objectively balanced method for xp generation.
_________________
"We'll go out through the kitchen!" Tanis Half-Elven
Peter Bradley
The original question on the thread was. "Is there any reasoning to the xp tables."
Yes.
Followed by "Can it be explained in a clear manner."
Not really. I've asked myself a time or two. And I get a reply that is basically paraphrased "Well, I start with the fighter as a baseline, add and change up various abilities and then just sort of handwave the rest."
So, in short. There really isn't a clear, consistent. universally logical or objectively balanced method for xp generation.
_________________
"We'll go out through the kitchen!" Tanis Half-Elven
Peter Bradley
"The accumulated filth of all their sex and murder will foam up about their waists and all the whores and politicians will look up and shout, 'Save us!' And I'll look down, and whisper 'No.' " ~Rorschach
gideon_thorne wrote:
I have yet to encounter any two or more gamers who have the same ideas on what 'balance' is.
True. While we all have similar ideas, etc. we will never agree 100% on balance. Again, that is because it is not scientific, but rather felt or sensed.
When I was first putting my C&C campaign together, I wrote a litany of options down on how to run the game and the setting. Then, my brother (with whom I have gamed since the beginning in 1981) came over and we hashed out what would option we would pick. While we didn't agree on everything, we did come to easy agreements on what would best serve our game to recapture the feel of AD&D.
_________________
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
Psalm 73:26
"Knowledge, logic, reason, and common sense serve better than a dozen rule books."
"Rules not understood should have appropriate questions directed to the publisher; disputes with the Dungeon Master are another matter entirely. THE REFEREE IS THE FINAL ARBITER OF ALL AFFAIRS OF HIS OR HER CAMPAIGN."
-- E. Gary Gygax
"Knowledge, logic, reason, and common sense serve better than a dozen rule books."
"Rules not understood should have appropriate questions directed to the publisher; disputes with the Dungeon Master are another matter entirely. THE REFEREE IS THE FINAL ARBITER OF ALL AFFAIRS OF HIS OR HER CAMPAIGN."
-- E. Gary Gygax
Joe wrote:
Yet due to some 'perceived' issues with the game and others preconceived notions about quality publishing & game balance, I find it difficult to 'share' this wonderful thing with others.
Joe, the reason you're having so much difficulty in showing others the game is because they've left their comfort zone. It's an issue of conditioning. They have become conditioned by that other game into believing that more crunch means a better game. You know that it simply isn't so. I know that it simply isn't so. Yet the perception remains.
Now, I agree (again!) that the prose in the book could be cleaned up to be more readable, even though it is understandable in its current form. One of the comments in the discussion regarding a revamp to the book on these forums was that Steve and Davis went for the High Gygaxian approach to language in writing it. I personally haven't noticed it and I've gone through the book with a fairly fine-toothed comb. If however, examples of High Gygaxian exist in the book in some space I've skipped, then that indeed impedes adoption of Castles & Crusades.
So, clean up the text to make it more readable for the average person. But, unless there's something truly broken within the mechanics, leave the mechanics be.
Peace?
_________________
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.
Which is why I said they took the High Gygaxian approach.
And honestly, given when OD&D was written (1973) and published (1974), while he most likely didn't partake, drug culture was very mature by that point.
_________________
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.
And honestly, given when OD&D was written (1973) and published (1974), while he most likely didn't partake, drug culture was very mature by that point.
_________________
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.
Joe wrote:
Zudrak,
I am interested in what you came up with.
care to share?
Argh. I began writing out an answer last night when AOL bumped me offline and vaporized my post. I will attempt to do it again this weekend, if I have a chance. I left my notebook by my home computer to remind me, Joe.
I need to get into the 21st century and abandon dial-up for broadband at home...
_________________
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
Psalm 73:26
"Knowledge, logic, reason, and common sense serve better than a dozen rule books."
"Rules not understood should have appropriate questions directed to the publisher; disputes with the Dungeon Master are another matter entirely. THE REFEREE IS THE FINAL ARBITER OF ALL AFFAIRS OF HIS OR HER CAMPAIGN."
-- E. Gary Gygax
"Knowledge, logic, reason, and common sense serve better than a dozen rule books."
"Rules not understood should have appropriate questions directed to the publisher; disputes with the Dungeon Master are another matter entirely. THE REFEREE IS THE FINAL ARBITER OF ALL AFFAIRS OF HIS OR HER CAMPAIGN."
-- E. Gary Gygax
Zudrak wrote:
Argh. I began writing out an answer last night when AOL bumped me offline and vaporized my post. I will attempt to do it again this weekend, if I have a chance. I left my notebook by my home computer to remind me, Joe.
I need to get into the 21st century and abandon dial-up for broadband at home...
At long last...
Here you are, Joe!
April 30, 2005
1) Comeliness (per the 1e UA)? No.
2) Racial/Class/Gender minimums & maximums, per the 1e PHB (pp. 9-13) for ability scores? Case by case basis.
3) Class and Class Level Limitations, per the 1e PHB (pp. 13-15) & 1e UA (pp. 7-9)? Case by case basis.
4) Generating Ability Scores? 4d6, drop the lowest, reroll 1's -OR- 2d6+6
5) Attribute Checks: Challenge Bases are always 18. Primes give a +6 bonus? No.
6) Substitute the four-path system (as seen on the C&C wiki) for Combat Dominance for Fighter class? No.
7) Allow Combat Dominance to stack with multiple attacks? Yes
8) All classes get a feat at 1st & 3rd level, then every 3 levels thereafter? No.
9) Fighters, Paladins, and Rangers attacks per round per the 1e PHB p. 25 or 1e UA p. 22 (not both)? [Using the UA rules means the UA p. 18 Weapon Specialization rules may be used]? No.
10) The Rogue class is called the Thief class and the Knight class is called the Cavalier class? Yes, No
11) Attribute modifiers: 20-21 = +4, 22-23 = +5, 24 = +6, 25 = +7? Yes.
12) Attribute scores and modifiers per the 1e PHB, including exceptional strength for fighters? No.
13) Class XP progression per the 1e PHB / 1e UA? No.
14) Multiclassing and Dual Classing per the 1e PHB and 1e UA? Yes.
15) Rangers and Monks get 2 HD at 1st level (If using 3e rule of 1st level HD is maxed, only one of the two HD for rangers and monks are maxed)? No.
16) Rogue backstabbing by level: 1-4 = x2. 5-8 = x3, 9-12 = x4, 13+ = x5 damage (Maximum is x5 damage)? Yes.
17) Rogue gets back attack damage when flanking a creature or sneak attacking? No.
18) Rogue armor use per 1e PHB, 1e PHB + 1e UA, or other sources? Other sources approved on case by case basis
19) When converting from 3.Xe to C&C, simply double any platinum or silver pieces? No, use BASH MAN's method found in this thread.
20) Languages per the 1e PHB (Using the Int Table to determine bonus languages)? Yes.
21) Combat round: 1 minute (1e), 6 seconds (3e), or 10 seconds (C&C)? 1 minute
22) Initiative: 1d6 per side (1e), 1d10 per side (2e), or d20 per individual (3e)? d20 per individual
23) Fighters' Combat Dominance grows every 4 levels (1 full HD @ 4th level, 2 HD @ 8th, 3 HD @ 12th, etc.)? Yes, per Peter Bradley's suggestion in 2005
24) Ability scores max @ 25, 30, 40, or 50? No
25) Starting at 4th level, a fighter may begin "splitting" his BtH (+4 @ 4th level) into two +2 attacks (at 5th level, the split is +3/+2)? No.
26) Player's Option: Skills & Powers (2e) in DM Option: High Level Campaigns (pp.142-179) for high-level characters? {b]Undecided[/b] (We'll get there when we get there -- Also, I never really played 2e so I don't know how this would go.)
27) Special Abilities for Rogues from 3.5e PHB (pp. 50-51) (Each ability will require some C&C tweaking)? No, if anything, add them to the list of Special Abilities for high-level characters in #26 above
28) BtH to follow 1e/2e/3e/3.5e/BD&D/RCD&D pattern instead of C&C progressions? No, but they will follow the chart/progression my brother and I put together and is reflected in this thread.
29) Fighters gain an extra attack every 10 levels after 10th? No, see #28 above.
30) Multiple attacks for other classes? Yes, per my brother's chart.
31) Two Weapon Fighting as per 1e DMG? Undecided
32) Dwarf Modifiers: +1 Con, -1 Charisma? Yes
33) Gnome Modifiers: +1 Int, -1 Strength? Yes, per C&C
34) Movement Rates:
a. Per 1e, then multiply by 10' for indoors, multiply by 10 yards for outdoors
b. Per 1e, always multiply by 10'
c. Per 2e, 1e movement, only half movement if you want to attack/cast a spell/use/etc.
d. Per 3e (1e x 2.5)
e. C&C (like 2e)
We are using 3e styled movement
35) Multiclass XP Progression: Per the 1e AD&D PHB
36) Languages for spell-casting, etc. per the 3/3.5e D&D PHB? Yes
_________________
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
Psalm 73:26
"Knowledge, logic, reason, and common sense serve better than a dozen rule books."
"Rules not understood should have appropriate questions directed to the publisher; disputes with the Dungeon Master are another matter entirely. THE REFEREE IS THE FINAL ARBITER OF ALL AFFAIRS OF HIS OR HER CAMPAIGN."
-- E. Gary Gygax
"Knowledge, logic, reason, and common sense serve better than a dozen rule books."
"Rules not understood should have appropriate questions directed to the publisher; disputes with the Dungeon Master are another matter entirely. THE REFEREE IS THE FINAL ARBITER OF ALL AFFAIRS OF HIS OR HER CAMPAIGN."
-- E. Gary Gygax
-
moriarty777
- Renegade Mage
- Posts: 3735
- Joined: Fri Jul 07, 2006 7:00 am
- Location: Montreal, Canada
Thanks for sharing Zudrak!
M
_________________
"You face Death itself in the form of... 1d4 Tarrasques!"
Partner to Brave Halfling Publishing
http://www.arcanacreations.com
M
_________________
"You face Death itself in the form of... 1d4 Tarrasques!"
Partner to Brave Halfling Publishing
http://www.arcanacreations.com
moriarty777 wrote:
Thanks for sharing Zudrak!
M
You're welcome. As long as that took to compose in typed form, I regret having played so many editions of the game.
I do hope it can help others in their decisions. I also hope that it shows that there are innumerable "ways" to play C&C, but we can all get along just fine with what we're given (in both senses of the phrase "get along just fine").
_________________
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
Psalm 73:26
"Knowledge, logic, reason, and common sense serve better than a dozen rule books."
"Rules not understood should have appropriate questions directed to the publisher; disputes with the Dungeon Master are another matter entirely. THE REFEREE IS THE FINAL ARBITER OF ALL AFFAIRS OF HIS OR HER CAMPAIGN."
-- E. Gary Gygax
"Knowledge, logic, reason, and common sense serve better than a dozen rule books."
"Rules not understood should have appropriate questions directed to the publisher; disputes with the Dungeon Master are another matter entirely. THE REFEREE IS THE FINAL ARBITER OF ALL AFFAIRS OF HIS OR HER CAMPAIGN."
-- E. Gary Gygax
I had absoloutly no problems with the xp chart. Really, all you need to fix a situation with xp is a couple of xp rewards a lagging player can earn. Examples; a wizard must complete a complex alchemical process, a cleric must write/research a respected theological paper, a barbarian must kill a wolf with a simple knife...ect. Most high xp classes use more magic items as well (more bonus xp). Problem solved in my book.