Challenge Levels In 1st-3rd Level C&C?

[TheNewGuy]

Howdy,

I forgot to ask this earlier ...

I'm having trouble acquiring a solid sense of where to set Challenge Levels in a C&C game for 1st-level characters run by experienced players.

I realize that traps are best set at the level of the player(s), but the other sources of reference for setting "task-based" CLs (jumping, climbing, shouldering in doors, et cetera) are either very vague (e.g. The Players Handbook) or, worse, they are contradictory in their advice.

If the task CLs are consistently too low, there's no challenge, and the game will fail its audition due to player boredom.

If the task CLs are too high, the players will feel like C&C is a "killer game", where they can't succeed at anything, no matter what they do, and they'll get frustrated with it, then bored. Again, audition failed.

I also do NOT want to set CLs which will accidentally nullify a character's signature talents into uselessness.

The dextrous Rogue *should* have a fair chance to rope-swing acoss the chasm; the burly fighter *should* have a fair chance to break down a flimsy door. The dice rolling is brought in to heighten story tension, but the chance to succeed should be present.

I have a bunch of C&C modules on PDF, but again, they contradict each other when it comes to "task CLs".

The introductory adventure Assault on Blacktooth Ridge, for example, claims that all CLs should be only 0 or 1, and occasionally 2, but offers no explanation of this range, nor guidance on how or when to assign these numbers fairly -- or none that I could find.

The C&C conversion of The Mysterious Tower (designed for 4-6 players of levels 2-5) takes what looks like a fair approach -- at least on paper -- by setting all "task CLs" at 5; that is, the high end of the adventure level range. This way, as characters level up in play, they improve at meeting the tasks before them.

BUT

I'm dealing with 1st level characters, which means they're more fragile, by definition. Would setting all default task CLs to 3 break their sense of having a sporting chance -- especially toward the beginning of the adventure? Would it also basically rob them of any class or level bonuses which they should have available to them right from 1st level?

I'm interested in hearing people's opinions on this -- not just what you do, but why you handle things the way you do.

If I can't get this right, straight off, C&C's chances of surviving at my gaming table past the first adventure will dwindle alarmingly.

Thanks much,

TheNewGuy
_________________

_________________

_________________
________

"But if your hand touches metal, I swear by my pretty floral bonnet, I will end you"

[Treebore]

At first and second level CL0 is plenty enough of a challenge. That means they have roughly a 55% chance of failing, assuming no attribute bonus and only a +1 for their level. Which, BTW, is similar to the chance of 1st level PC's in 3E (DC 10 + whatever DC modifier).

The challenge is dealing with the other end. The Non Prime stuff. That is TN 18, and as you likely know means they will fail about 90% of the time even with a CL 0.

C&C is very definitely return to a "let the expert do it" kind of game. The thief will have to be the one looking for traps, the fighter will have to be the one to deal with overcoming STR based obstacles.

Also, don't be afraid to say something is so easy you actually give a CL of -3 instead of CL3, IE making it into a TN 9 or TN 15 check (12-3, or 18-3).

Now people don't like how "deadly" the TN 18 makes things. I can understand that. It is intimidating. Your character isn't a mini godling, he can actually fail at quit a lot of stuff. Surviving with him will actually be a serious challenge. Playing C&C is not for the ones who like a game to be "fair", but rather like it to be a real challenge. The TN of 18 actually makes C&C much more "realistic" than any previous version of D&D in that you are always far more likely to fail in many things and only likely to save or succeed in two or three "areas of expertise".

Those who claim to love "grim and gritty sword and sorcery" should love C&C.

Anyways, with C&C the CK really needs to "keep their eye on the ball" with regards to which characters have what Primes and really be careful to not throw too many challenges that play against their non Primes.

So the best thing to do during the early levels is to have most things just be straight up combat, with the enemies rarely, if ever, having spellcasters. Plus, when they do, you don't want those spellcasters using Sleep (unless the whole group is elves), or Web, etc... Or if you do have them use such spells have them place them stupidly so that the AoE limits the spells effect to only one or two of the PC's.

If you don't like that, then have them roll INT SIEGE checks. IF they fail they place the spell stupidly, if they make the check they place the spell for maximum effect. CL = the spell level being cast.

Thats all the advice I can think of right now.
_________________
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

[TheNewGuy]

Thanks, Tree, a lot of good information in your post -- just what I was hoping for ... Again, it's most appreciated, sir!

Treebore wrote:
Playing C&C is not for the ones who like a game to be "fair", but rather like it to be a real challenge. The TN of 18 actually makes C&C much more "realistic" than any previous version of D&D in that you are always far more likely to fail in many things and only likely to save or succeed in two or three "areas of expertise".

Hmm. Perhaps I should've used the word "appropriate" instead of "fair". I've noticed on these forums (and elsewhere) that whenever I use the word "fair", people seem to take exception to it -- as if I meant "dumbed down" or "lowest common denominator-ed" or "rendered harmless". Maybe the meaning of "fair" is shifting in modern North America?

All I meant by "fair" was "appropriate to the situation" -- a challenge which is neither artifically made too easy, nor artifically made too difficult -- simply appropriate to the circumstances at hand, you know?

And, for the record, I too like the C&C idea that everyone can attempt nearly any logical thing, in a pinch, but that only those skilled in the relevant area will be able to succeed often and well.

In any case, thanks for the clear counsel, Treebore. Much appreciated!

TheNewGuy
_________________

_________________

_________________
________

"But if your hand touches metal, I swear by my pretty floral bonnet, I will end you"

[BASH MAN]

Hey, this is Chris Rutkowsky. I actually did the C&C conversion of mysterious tower.

I don't think I set many CLs as high as 5... my general philosphy is that a CL higher than 0 is a more difficult than average task (using the CL 1-3 = easy suggestion in the PHB would mean that only great heroes (level 4+) ever succeed on easy tasks w/o just having lucky dice.

The way I translated things into CLs was using d20 system as a baseline, I assumed an "average task" was a DC 15 in d20 system-- which is just in between a 12 and 18 btw. So the difference between 15 and the listed DC became the CL in C&C. So a DC 13 climb check became a CL -2. A DC 17 balance check became a CL 2 Dex check, etc. It seems to work better when you assume that the easier than average tasks have a negative CL value.

I recomend that for Lv 1 characters you give a -3 to 0 as typical CLs, with 1 or 2 only for the really tough things. A fighter trying to force a door w/ STR should be a CL 0 check. Trying to force a barred reinforced door might be a 2.

This is the rubric I would use if I were you:

Quite Easy: -5 (means that non-primes will have a chance (still less than 50%) of success and primes will be very likely to succeed (75%)

Easy: -3 (30% for non-primes, and 65% prime)

Average: 0 (15% for non-primes, and 50% prime)

Tough: 1 (10% non prime, 45% prime)

Hard: 2 (5% non-prime-- just about "why bother" rolling difficulty-- and 40% prime-- only do this level of difficulty when you want them to fail).
_________________
Basic Action Games http://www.bashrpg.com

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

[Omote]

You could also easily say that very easy tasks dont even require a roll if the PCs are not under any pressure to perform. I also agree by setting CL at 0 for many tasks that are average level of difficulty.

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

[mordrene]

Also, dont be afraid to ask the player to explain how they are going to complete the task and assign a better CL, like -3 or -4. for example your burley fighter swinging on the rope. Have them explain to you how this is going to work. if they come up with something clever, reward them.

thats my 2 cents

[ThrorII]

Omote wrote:
You could also easily say that very easy tasks dont even require a roll if the PCs are not under any pressure to perform.

100% agree here. A SIEGE check should only be made if a reasonable chance of failure exists. I tend to prefer players to role play low challenges, telling me what/how they plan to accomplish it, and just rule on it on the fly. This is for simple challenges (swinging across a 5' pit trap, climbing an 8' wall, finding a concealed door in a room, behind a tapestry, etc). For challenges with a reasonable chance of failure ("difficult"), a SIEGE check at CL 0 is base. Assuming the challenge uses a prime attribute, and with no level adjustment, how about the following guidelines:

CL 0 Average challenge for characters "difficult"

CL 1-5 Very Difficult challenge for characters

CL 6-10 Heroic challenge for characters

CL 11-15 "Virtually impossible, but hell, give it a shot" (probably requires a natural 20)

If it is a SIEGE check where character level is added, as opposed to a straight Attribute check, and the check should against a prime attribute, I'd rule as follows:

CL 0 Average ("difficult") challenge for 1-3 level character

CL 1-5 Very difficult challenge for 1-3 level character/Average challenge for 4-6 level character

CL 6-10 Heroic challenge for 1-3 level character/Very Difficult challenge for 4-6 level character/Average challenge for 7-9 level character

CL 11-15 Virtually Impossible for 1-3 level character/Heroic challenge for 4-6 level character/Very Difficult for 7-9 level character/Average for 10-12 level character

CL 16-20 Virtually Impossible for 4-6 level character/Heroic challenge for 7-9 level character/Very Difficult ofr 10-12 level character

CL 21-25 Virtually Impossible for 7-9 level character/Heroic challenge for 10-12 level character

CL 26-30 Virtually impossible for 10-12 level character

I haven't playtested it all the way through, so I'm not sure

[serleran]

I am religiously opposed to the concept of a "zero difficulty." If it cannot be, reasonably, assigned something in the positive range, it does not need a check.

[TheNewGuy]

Many, many thanks to those who have posted thus far.

As you all know, I'm sure, players have an astonishing capacity for doing things you never expected. Hands up, everyone who's found themselves sitting behind the GM screen, dazedly blinking and thinking "WTF???!" based on some bizarre new bit of player contrivance. Thought so.
As such, I have to be ready to assign appropriste task CLs quickly and easily, as the need arises, or C&C play will falter at our game table, and may never return.

So, thanks again to everyone here for spelling out their rationales for assigning task CLs -- by understanding how the system works in practical play beforehard, I can ensure that it works properly when I use it also.

Cheers!

TheNewGuy
_________________

_________________

_________________
________

"But if your hand touches metal, I swear by my pretty floral bonnet, I will end you"

[phadeout]

serleran wrote:
I am religiously opposed to the concept of a "zero difficulty." If it cannot be, reasonably, assigned something in the positive range, it does not need a check.

I'd be happy with this, but only if using the 10/16 or 10/15 rule.

I find it can be hard to get numbers (using only positives) that give that nice 50/50% (can you make the jump? flip a coin!)
_________________
"If everyone was drunker, was beer cheaper? And if they were more drunk the further back one goes, is there a time when everyone was completely soused all of the time? And, could I go there?" -Davis Chenault

[TheNewGuy]

serleran wrote:
I am religiously opposed to the concept of a "zero difficulty." If it cannot be, reasonably, assigned something in the positive range, it does not need a check.

Sure ... if zero meant "no appreciable difficulty" under the C&C rules.

From what I'm reading here, though, a "zero check" for 1st level players is a way to test against moderate difficulty ... so I'm inclined to keep it as a means to test for success, as needed.

To be clear, I'm not a "roll for every situation" GM but, stepping away from pure percentage mechanics, sometimes the rolling of dice also serves as a "tension increasing device" for the storytelling, and players like to sweat a bit, with that feeling of having their fate literally in their hands, from time to time.

Hence my question.
Not trying to convince you of anything Serleran, just saying I don't think I can share your game religion in this repect.

Cheers,

TheNewGuy
_________________

_________________

_________________
________

"But if your hand touches metal, I swear by my pretty floral bonnet, I will end you"

[ThrorII]

serleran wrote:
I am religiously opposed to the concept of a "zero difficulty." If it cannot be, reasonably, assigned something in the positive range, it does not need a check.

In all actuality, its not "zero difficulty", you still have the Challenge Base off 12/18. Its just not modified for additional difficulty.

Everything has a base difficulty...whether its DC10, DC15, or CB 12/18.

[serleran]

Heh. Its not the math. Its the very concept of "zero difficulty." If its "zero difficulty," then its not difficult, at all... its literal, semantic. Its ideological. Has absolutely nothing to do with game mechanics, per se.

Seems we're viewing this particular case from two different angles.

[Treebore]

serleran wrote:
I am religiously opposed to the concept of a "zero difficulty." If it cannot be, reasonably, assigned something in the positive range, it does not need a check.

CL 0 is needed when you decide that only a 12 needs to be matched or beat for success. CL 1 makes it a 13.
_________________
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

[serleran]

Its got nothing to do with how it works, mechanically... its the concept itself.

"Zero difficulty" implies "no chance for challenge."

[TheNewGuy]

serleran wrote:
Heh. Its not the math. Its the very concept of "zero difficulty." If its "zero difficulty," then its not difficult, at all... its literal, semantic. Its ideological. Has absolutely nothing to do with game mechanics, per se.

Yes, yes Professor Serleran, "zero difficulty" is indeed a conceptual oxymoron.
I need practical counsel that will prevent me from becoming a moron CK, however ...

serleran wrote:
Seems we're viewing this particular case from two different angles.

Yes. By my calculations, yer comin' at it straight from the "weisenheimer" angle
TheNewGuy
_________________

_________________

_________________
________

"But if your hand touches metal, I swear by my pretty floral bonnet, I will end you"

[serleran]

Well, yeah, there is that.
Normal difficulty sounds better, and normal difficulty tends to range from negative to zero, depending on actions. You can even use positive difficulties above zero and grant situational bonuses based on solid roleplaying or descriptions.

[Treebore]

serleran wrote:
And your point?

Do you think I don't understand the SIEGE Engine?

Read what I've said: its got nothing to do with how it works, mechanically... its the concept itself.

"Zero difficulty" implies "no chance for challenge."

No, but you seem to want to make CL0 mean something it doesn't. OR your implying we don't know what CL0 means, or is somehow stupid if used.
_________________
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

[serleran]

Quote:
No, but you seem to want to make CL0 mean something it doesn't. OR your implying we don't know what CL0 means, or is somehow stupid if used.

Umm, no. But that is where I will leave it. If you feel I have offended you, or that I think you are stupid, then you've got the wrong serleran.

The game works just fine with CL0. And negatives, even.

[gideon_thorne]

TheNewGuy wrote:
The introductory adventure Assault on Blacktooth Ridge, for example, claims that all CLs should be only 0 or 1, and occasionally 2, but offers no explanation of this range, nor guidance on how or when to assign these numbers fairly -- or none that I could find.

Well, bear in mind that a CL for a module is an 'average' challenge. So a 1-2 means that all Challenges should average out to the 1-2 range. Even if one has a series of challenges that range from -5 to +5 the challenge should average out to a 1-2.

See, I see a CL 0 as an 'average', or mean difficulty. Folks who prattle on about how 55% is the difficulty for an even challenge bears this out. It doesn't spell that out in the books, but it makes more sense to me. That way, challenges can range from -20 to the +20 range.

Why would a challenge hit the -20 ranges? (rarely) Perhaps someone bungled a roll on setting a trap, and the amount they failed by is then the negative difficulty.

Just another thing to consider.
_________________
"We'll go out through the kitchen!" Tanis Half-Elven

Peter Bradley

[TheNewGuy]

gideon_thorne wrote:
Well, bear in mind that a CL for a module is an 'average' challenge. So a 1-2 means that all Challenges should average out to the 1-2 range. Even if one has a series of challenges that range from -5 to +5 the challenge should average out to a 1-2.

See, I see a CL 0 as an 'average', or mean difficulty. Folks who prattle on about how 55% is the difficulty for an even challenge bears this out. It doesn't spell that out in the books, but it makes more sense to me. That way, challenges can range from -20 to the +20 range.

Why would a challenge hit the -20 ranges? (rarely) Perhaps someone bungled a roll on setting a trap, and the amount they failed by is then the negative difficulty.

Just another thing to consider.

Thanks to all the input here, I now begin to understand how task CLs are meant to operate ... now
I feel for the poor schmoes who pick up C&C adventure modules "cold", like I did, and really don't understand the underlying system behind task CLs.

All the modules I bought in PDF had, basically, one line in them which said something like "the CL level in this module ranges fom x to y. CKs should alter this to suit their needs".

Hard to do when ya don't even know what your needs are yet
Just something to consider for future low-level modules; long-time C&Cers don't need to be told, but newbies may well need a little more information than they've gotten up `til now. The PHB, likewise, gives the topic fairly short shrift. If I hadn't come here, I might never have known how the CL task system was intended to work.

My opinions, anyway,

TheNewGuy
_________________

_________________

_________________
________

"But if your hand touches metal, I swear by my pretty floral bonnet, I will end you"

[Treebore]

TheNewGuy wrote:
Thanks to all the input here, I now begin to understand how task CLs are meant to operate ... now
I feel for the poor schmoes who pick up C&C adventure modules "cold", like I did, and really don't understand the underlying system behind task CLs.

All the modules I bought in PDF had, basically, one line in them which said something like "the CL level in this module ranges fom x to y. CKs should alter this to suit their needs".

Hard to do when ya don't even know what your needs are yet
Just something to consider for future low-level modules; long-time C&Cers don't need to be told, but newbies may well need a little more information than they've gotten up `til now. The PHB, likewise, gives the topic fairly short shrift. If I hadn't come here, I might never have known how the CL task system was intended to work.

My opinions, anyway,

TheNewGuy

Several of us have mentioned that the rules could use a more "basic" explanation to make things clearer, and easier to understand in the first place. Not with regards to just CL's either.

As far as I know such suggestions have not been implemented.
_________________
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

[TheNewGuy]

Treebore wrote:
Several of us have mentioned that the rules could use a more "basic" explanation to make things clearer, and easier to understand in the first place. Not with regards to just CL's either.

As far as I know such suggestions have not been implemented.

Hi Tree,

I suspect that this sort of guidance will eventually appear in the forthcoming Castle Keeper's Guide. It seems an appropriate place for it to appear, and won't require big changes to the PHB printings in the meantime. After all, CLs are more directly a CK concern anyway.

My point was only that, in any adventure modules designed for beginners which see release between now and the release of the CKG, it might be prudent to include a little more detail on adjudicating CLs (more than one line!) so that we don't leave any new folks confused and feeling abandoned.

In game systems, as in many other things, first impressions can shape reactions. Best to err on the side of caution when it comes to newbies.

Thanks for talking,

TheNewGuy
_________________

_________________

_________________
________

"But if your hand touches metal, I swear by my pretty floral bonnet, I will end you"

[Treebore]

TheNewGuy wrote:
Hi Tree,

I suspect that this sort of guidance will eventually appear in the forthcoming Castle Keeper's Guide. It seems an appropriate place for it to appear, and won't require big changes to the PHB printings in the meantime. After all, CLs are more directly a CK concern anyway.

My point was only that, in any adventure modules designed for beginners which see release between now and the release of the CKG, it might be prudent to include a little more detail on adjudicating CLs (more than one line!) so that we don't leave any new folks confused and feeling abandoned.

In game systems, as in many other things, first impressions can shape reactions. Best to err on the side of caution when it comes to newbies.

Thanks for talking,

TheNewGuy

The 4th printing is having some kind of "major changes" done to it, so I am hoping it will include some rewriting to better explain the rules aspects fo the game. This is because the PH is the "face" of C&C, the first one everyone looks at. So I think the changes need to be in the PH in order for it to help C&C the most in the future, not the CKG.

IF they don't do it in the PH, then yes, it should at least be in the CKG.
_________________
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