While its true that all difficulties should be positive (a negative difficulty is not, technically, difficult,) there is no rule stating a CK cannot apply circumstantial modifiers, or call for special cases. So, for example, if you absolutely must call for a check to climb a 45 degree incline with a rope, you can simply say: "you get a +15 bonus; +10 from the slope, and +5 from the rope -- you will fall if you fail by more than 10."
Everything is not supposed to a be a mechanic.
C&C - Seige Engine Mechanic Analysis
serleran wrote:
While its true that all difficulties should be positive (a negative difficulty is not, technically, difficult,) there is no rule stating a CK cannot apply circumstantial modifiers, or call for special cases. So, for example, if you absolutely must call for a check to climb a 45 degree incline with a rope, you can simply say: "you get a +15 bonus; +10 from the slope, and +5 from the rope -- you will fall if you fail by more than 10."
Everything is not supposed to a be a mechanic.
Wouldn't all of those modifiers factor into the Challenge Level instead of being added on top of it ?
P.110, the PHB states: "As a rule of thumb, a challenge level of 1 to 5 is adequate for easy tasks. For difficult tasks, a challenge level of 6 to 10 works well. For very difficult tasks, a challenge level of 11 to 15 suffices. Heroic actions require a challenge level of 15 to 20 or even higher.".
That would lead me to believe any modifier that made the task easier would be factored in to determining the challenge level of 1 to 5 based on the above for easy tasks.
Then again, page 8 of the rulebook under "Attribute Checks" states: "Castle Keeper adds or subtracts the challenge level to the challenge class." - which would seem to indicate that the challenge level could go either way.
Then it goes on to state: "This usually ranges between 0 and 10, but can go higher.".
So who knows negative, zero, positive ?
All I know is that an opposing character/monster's level or hit dice sets the Challenge Level for a lot of actions, and that starts at 1.
Modifiers apply either to a difficulty, or as a bonus to the roll. The net effect is: doesn't matter.
However, you can say: The difficulty is 30, but you get a +20, making the difficulty 10.
Or, you can say: The difficulty is 30, but you get a +20, making the difficulty 30.
The way it would work in "the formula" is like this:
d20 + Level + Attribute Modifier >= 12/18 + 10
d20 + Level + Attribute Modifier + 20 >= 12/18 + 30
If we assume the same variables (level = 10, attmod = 2) then we get:
d20 + 10 + 2 >= 12/18 + 10; Need 10 or 16 depending on Prime.
or
d20 + 10 + 2 + 20 >= 12/18 + 30; Need 10 or 16 depending on Prime.
There is a subtle difference in execution in that the latter does not permit a "negative difficulty."
Technically, the latter method should always be used. The difficulty should be constant, with "other modifiers" acting as a bonus to the roll. However, many find it simpler to adjust the difficulty instead which may be more intuitive.
Remember, the SIEGE Engine mechanic is:
d20 + Level (most often) + Attribute modifier (most often) + Other Bonuses >= 12/18 + Difficulty
"Other bonuses" are things like spells and magic items, or simply circumstances that might make things easier, or more problematic. However, if those were not there, the "difficulty" would remain what it is... these "others" just affect it, whether positively or negatively. That is key to understanding it. Difficulties are always static.
However, you can say: The difficulty is 30, but you get a +20, making the difficulty 10.
Or, you can say: The difficulty is 30, but you get a +20, making the difficulty 30.
The way it would work in "the formula" is like this:
d20 + Level + Attribute Modifier >= 12/18 + 10
d20 + Level + Attribute Modifier + 20 >= 12/18 + 30
If we assume the same variables (level = 10, attmod = 2) then we get:
d20 + 10 + 2 >= 12/18 + 10; Need 10 or 16 depending on Prime.
or
d20 + 10 + 2 + 20 >= 12/18 + 30; Need 10 or 16 depending on Prime.
There is a subtle difference in execution in that the latter does not permit a "negative difficulty."
Technically, the latter method should always be used. The difficulty should be constant, with "other modifiers" acting as a bonus to the roll. However, many find it simpler to adjust the difficulty instead which may be more intuitive.
Remember, the SIEGE Engine mechanic is:
d20 + Level (most often) + Attribute modifier (most often) + Other Bonuses >= 12/18 + Difficulty
"Other bonuses" are things like spells and magic items, or simply circumstances that might make things easier, or more problematic. However, if those were not there, the "difficulty" would remain what it is... these "others" just affect it, whether positively or negatively. That is key to understanding it. Difficulties are always static.
serleran wrote:
Remember, the SIEGE Engine mechanic is:
d20 + Level (most often) + Attribute modifier (most often) + Other Bonuses >= 12/18 + Difficulty
The "Other Bonuses" part is the part that's not mentioned in the rulebook (at least not anywhere that I read in association with the Attribute Checks section in the front of the book, and then the section expanding on that in the Castle Keeper's section).
That being the case, I was assuming that all of the "Other Bonuses" were figured into the Challenge Level which was added to the Challenge Base...and that the Challenge Level was always at least +1 for the easiest of tasks. In other words, no matter what bonuses applied to the roll, the lowest the Challenge Level would go would be +1.
Not that you have to play that way (in fact, doing so seems quite restrictive), but that's certainly how the book seems to be worded.
For example, if you are climbing a gentle slope with a rope, and not being rushed, wouldn't that be considered Challenge Level +1 ?
What would be considered something that would give the player a bonus to his roll as opposed to a change in Challenge Level ? A knotted rope would probably factor into the the ease of the climb, and reduce the Challenge Level instead of giving you a bonus to your roll...but since Challenge Levels technically start at +1...
I guess 'climbing claws' or magical climbing boots, or something like that would fall into the bonus category.
It's all semantics, but the terminology really does matter when the rulebook states that Challenge Level starts at +1 and goes up from there.
-
gideon_thorne
- Maukling
- Posts: 6176
- Joined: Thu Mar 30, 2006 8:00 am
- Contact:
Quote:
For example, if you are climbing a gentle slope with a rope, and not being rushed, wouldn't that be considered Challenge Level +1 ?
Not really. It would be considered a 'this is so simple you dont need to roll' situation.
_________________
"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:
Not really. It would be considered a 'this is so simple you dont need to roll' situation.
Zing.
I think my post above fully illustrates that I favor rolling only in dramatic circumstances:
Melkor wrote:
That said, if the characters weren't in a rush, and there were no circumstances that would actively hinder them (a severely wounded character, a character weak from poison, etc.), I would probably say that there would be no need for a roll, and just assume that they eventually were able to make the climb by helping one another out.
So the characters are getting shot at by goblins with shortbows, or the room is filling with poison gas, or rising water....or a whole slew of other possibilities....
That doesn't change the point of how the mechanic is illustrated to work in the rulebook (with the easiest Challenge Level starting at +1 and going up from there).
It would be nice to see it clarified via Serleran's formula below, with the 'Other Bonuses' mentioned with some examples:
d20 + Level (most often) + Attribute modifier (most often) + Other Bonuses >= 12/18 + Difficulty
I understand things a little better now. It seems the real challenge for the CK is to make a switch from objective challenges to subjective.
The point about "...that others would find impossible to climb..." does clarify the class abilities, and is probably a good guide. That leaves the fighter.
I have seen comments that seem to run counter to what I have read in the rules. The rules state that the challenge rating is from 0 to whatever, or 1 to whatever - either way, there is no reducing the challenge. However people have said they might give the challenge a -4 rating, making it easier.
Conceptually I see the 12/18 rule working fine. If the average challenge for a dramatically significant event is the level of the character, then this makes the average chance 45% (11+level vs. 12+challenge). If equipment or storytelling can modify the circumstances of that roll (e.g. rope), that also makes sense. The system is then assuming that a +0 task is the easiest task to perform. It also means that, in general, when you make a roll it is unlikely you are doing so against an easy challenge.
Here is my concern. The combat system is very objective - your choices of action, your modifiers, and what you are up against are all very clear and specific. The non-combat system is not nearly as objective. This provides a great amount of flexibility to how you can resolve actions but doesn't give the players any sense of what the challenges are or how they might be able to resolve them. Sure, a player can storytell his way through a challenge, and that's great if that player possesses the knowledge to make the story interesting, but part of the point of roleplaying is to play something that you are not and for your character to possess actionable knowledge that you do not.
That implies that the game is about telling stories up to the point where combat occurs at which point the story is told by the dice. I prefer to have the dice tell the story at all times, but without the game devolving into a big roll fest. It is interesting, to me at least, to post a challenge to the party and sit back to watch them figure it out.
Taking the cliff climbing example - let's add a gang of goblins chasing the party down. They used the cliff to descend into the dungeon but now have to run for their lives. They have no time to lose. The ranger and the thief shimmy on up the rope leaving the fighter behind. Assuming for a moment that the entier climb will be resolved with one roll, the fighter is presented with a DC 19 challenge (18 + 1 for minimum difficulty). He has no dex bonus, so he has a 10% chance of success. Now, in my mind the rope is a tool that makes such a climb an order of significance easier (the std. deviation on d20 is about 5), so I'd give him +5 for that - but here I run into an assessment issue. Climbing the cliff (lots of handholds) I think should be harder than +1, to what extent I don't know. Simply using a rope doesn't capture it either as using the rope AND being able to brace your feat against the wall is better than just using the rope - maybe +5 more for the combo.
The climb should be challenging but it shouldn't be impossible. If I were a fighter presented with a DC 19 and no bonuses I think I'd just turn around and fight. Another thing to consider with not revealing challenges to the players is that while the player doesn't necessarily know how difficult something is, the character likely does. He is at least sitting at the bottom with knowledge of what he has done in the past plus his own skills and can fairly tell whether or not he thinks he can do this or not.
I have seen several different opinions on how this climb should be handled. I can appreciate the flexibility, but I am hoping to get a little more concreate guidance. I'm not expecting a climbing skill table or anything like that, but some kind of advice as to how to assess the difficulty of any challenge, in general terms, and then how to determine if there are any bonuses that can help the characters get through it.
Thanks.
The point about "...that others would find impossible to climb..." does clarify the class abilities, and is probably a good guide. That leaves the fighter.
I have seen comments that seem to run counter to what I have read in the rules. The rules state that the challenge rating is from 0 to whatever, or 1 to whatever - either way, there is no reducing the challenge. However people have said they might give the challenge a -4 rating, making it easier.
Conceptually I see the 12/18 rule working fine. If the average challenge for a dramatically significant event is the level of the character, then this makes the average chance 45% (11+level vs. 12+challenge). If equipment or storytelling can modify the circumstances of that roll (e.g. rope), that also makes sense. The system is then assuming that a +0 task is the easiest task to perform. It also means that, in general, when you make a roll it is unlikely you are doing so against an easy challenge.
Here is my concern. The combat system is very objective - your choices of action, your modifiers, and what you are up against are all very clear and specific. The non-combat system is not nearly as objective. This provides a great amount of flexibility to how you can resolve actions but doesn't give the players any sense of what the challenges are or how they might be able to resolve them. Sure, a player can storytell his way through a challenge, and that's great if that player possesses the knowledge to make the story interesting, but part of the point of roleplaying is to play something that you are not and for your character to possess actionable knowledge that you do not.
That implies that the game is about telling stories up to the point where combat occurs at which point the story is told by the dice. I prefer to have the dice tell the story at all times, but without the game devolving into a big roll fest. It is interesting, to me at least, to post a challenge to the party and sit back to watch them figure it out.
Taking the cliff climbing example - let's add a gang of goblins chasing the party down. They used the cliff to descend into the dungeon but now have to run for their lives. They have no time to lose. The ranger and the thief shimmy on up the rope leaving the fighter behind. Assuming for a moment that the entier climb will be resolved with one roll, the fighter is presented with a DC 19 challenge (18 + 1 for minimum difficulty). He has no dex bonus, so he has a 10% chance of success. Now, in my mind the rope is a tool that makes such a climb an order of significance easier (the std. deviation on d20 is about 5), so I'd give him +5 for that - but here I run into an assessment issue. Climbing the cliff (lots of handholds) I think should be harder than +1, to what extent I don't know. Simply using a rope doesn't capture it either as using the rope AND being able to brace your feat against the wall is better than just using the rope - maybe +5 more for the combo.
The climb should be challenging but it shouldn't be impossible. If I were a fighter presented with a DC 19 and no bonuses I think I'd just turn around and fight. Another thing to consider with not revealing challenges to the players is that while the player doesn't necessarily know how difficult something is, the character likely does. He is at least sitting at the bottom with knowledge of what he has done in the past plus his own skills and can fairly tell whether or not he thinks he can do this or not.
I have seen several different opinions on how this climb should be handled. I can appreciate the flexibility, but I am hoping to get a little more concreate guidance. I'm not expecting a climbing skill table or anything like that, but some kind of advice as to how to assess the difficulty of any challenge, in general terms, and then how to determine if there are any bonuses that can help the characters get through it.
Thanks.
Melkor wrote:
It's all semantics, but the terminology really does matter when the rulebook states that Challenge Level starts at +1 and goes up from there.
As long winded as my previous post was, that's it in a nutshell. The rules make is sound like other than level bonus or stat bonus the challenge level is +1 or higher. If the book had stated that in addition to the challenge level there were "other bonuses" appropriate to the situation - done. I can play with that. The book however is very clear that things only get harder.
Tell me "other bonuses" that the GM can make up based on player in put and that is all I need to hear.
serleran wrote:
Whichever way you want to do it.
It doesn't matter in the end. One way works just as easily as the other.
No need to delve into the intricacies of an abstraction when three million paths lead to the same conclusion.
I disagree. The strength of a system is its foundation, and delving into the abstraction is useful in understanding that. I contend however that based on how the book is presented, they do not lead to the same conclusion. That's where I'm having a problem. I can't make something easier than +1 by the rules, but if the intent of the rules is that you can do so then that needs to be stated.
P.110, the PHB states: "As a rule of thumb, a challenge level of 1 to 5 is adequate for easy tasks. For difficult tasks, a challenge level of 6 to 10 works well. For very difficult tasks, a challenge level of 11 to 15 suffices. Heroic actions require a challenge level of 15 to 20 or even higher."
Those are solid guidelines. Open ended enough to work in any situation, but with some level of objectivity. If the players can then storytell how they are improving their odds, and the system suggested awarding bonuses based on those stories, I think it would work very well. The implication, as written, is that +1 is the easiest anything can be. And when your base chance is 10% that doesn't seem to jive.
Adding something like: Circumstances may increase a character's chance of success. Proper tools, effective use of the environment, complimentary abilities, or combinations of these (possibly greater than their sums) all contribute to a character's success. Common circumstances might warrant a +1 to +3 bonus, significant circumstances might be worth +4 to +8, and combinations might be worth an additional +1 to +5 on top of the individual circumstances (e.g. rope plus a wall to brace against). It is up to the player to take advantage of these circumstances - they should not be awarded unless the player involves them in the story.
If that is a reasonable way to think about the SIEGE mechanic, then I am all set.
If that is a reasonable way to think about the SIEGE mechanic, then I am all set.
Yeah, I think that the above is a reasonable way to think about the SIEGE mechanic. So why didn't they include? I think (pure speculation, mind you) that if they included it many players would interpret it that they should be rolling for it and thus make C&C into a roll-fest and have the game dominated by the luck of the dice -- an element I like to call Fortune.
However, what the player should consider is that easy tasks that require a task check begin at +1. A task easier than that is easy enough to NOT warrant a check. Where the CK draws the line is dependant on what abilities the characters have, such as the thief and rangers ability to scale (an element I call Karma) and the demands of the story or planning of the players (what I call Drama). I believe that the consideration of Karma and Drama is more central to the game than the paragraph you suggested. Although it is a reasonable way to look at it.
Now to return to your example, I like the inclusion of goblins to make a normally so-easy-I-don't-need-to-roll task now require a check. It sounds like you already have a good idea of what the target number should be but are just looking for a way that you can reverse engineer the rules to match that. (BTW: there's nothing wrong with that. It's just a combination of Drama and Fortune) I'm thinking that a close 50% chance will cause enough apprehension about making the climb, while still tempting enough to go for it. If that is the case, grant it. Say the rope does not give any bonuses to the climb, but what it will do for the fighter is allow him to throw finesse out the window and plod through the climb using Strenght as a prime. He now nees to score a 13 (12 for prime + 1 for task) and he gets to add his Strength bonus attribute plus level.
However, what the player should consider is that easy tasks that require a task check begin at +1. A task easier than that is easy enough to NOT warrant a check. Where the CK draws the line is dependant on what abilities the characters have, such as the thief and rangers ability to scale (an element I call Karma) and the demands of the story or planning of the players (what I call Drama). I believe that the consideration of Karma and Drama is more central to the game than the paragraph you suggested. Although it is a reasonable way to look at it.
Now to return to your example, I like the inclusion of goblins to make a normally so-easy-I-don't-need-to-roll task now require a check. It sounds like you already have a good idea of what the target number should be but are just looking for a way that you can reverse engineer the rules to match that. (BTW: there's nothing wrong with that. It's just a combination of Drama and Fortune) I'm thinking that a close 50% chance will cause enough apprehension about making the climb, while still tempting enough to go for it. If that is the case, grant it. Say the rope does not give any bonuses to the climb, but what it will do for the fighter is allow him to throw finesse out the window and plod through the climb using Strenght as a prime. He now nees to score a 13 (12 for prime + 1 for task) and he gets to add his Strength bonus attribute plus level.
mudpyr8 wrote:
Adding something like: Circumstances may increase a character's chance of success. Proper tools, effective use of the environment, complimentary abilities, or combinations of these (possibly greater than their sums) all contribute to a character's success. Common circumstances might warrant a +1 to +3 bonus, significant circumstances might be worth +4 to +8, and combinations might be worth an additional +1 to +5 on top of the individual circumstances (e.g. rope plus a wall to brace against). It is up to the player to take advantage of these circumstances - they should not be awarded unless the player involves them in the story.
If that is a reasonable way to think about the SIEGE mechanic, then I am all set.
Nice post mudpyr8. I agree 100%.
I am not complaining that the SEIGE mechanic is broken in anyway, on the contrary, the entire analysis that this thread is based on is my attempt at clarifying and enlightening CKs to the nuances of the system.
I am also not trying to be argumentative. Unfortunately, I think some folks have taken my analysis (or overanalysis as some may see it) and stance as an attack on a game system they love, which is not what this discussion is intended by me to be.
The rulebook, however, doesn't touch on the above 'other bonuses' in any way, and I think that can lead to some confusion - basically making it appear as if all factors are taken into account in the single Challenge Level modifier added to the Challenge Base, and stating that the Challenge Level starts at +1, and advances from there.
I'm glad that this thread may have clarified things for anyone reading it. I know it has done so for me.
I have read this forum and the one on DF. IMO, we have to remember the following...
1) There are minimum requirements - you may have strength as a prime, but if your strength ain't high enough, don't even think about lifting that boulder.
2) Rolls are only necessary if there is an element of failure. The ranger climbing up the cliff would have no problem, the wizard would have to be careful.
3) There are always modifiers. The intelligent wouldn't just try to bash the door down, they'd try to find some leverage.
Having said that, the 10/15 option is a good one. I like my players to succeed more often than they fail, prime or no prime. So a base 30% for an easy, non-prime task (save) is good for me - and a 55% easy, prime task also.
Good luck everyone, and let's be careful. It's an imaginary world out there. 8)
1) There are minimum requirements - you may have strength as a prime, but if your strength ain't high enough, don't even think about lifting that boulder.
2) Rolls are only necessary if there is an element of failure. The ranger climbing up the cliff would have no problem, the wizard would have to be careful.
3) There are always modifiers. The intelligent wouldn't just try to bash the door down, they'd try to find some leverage.
Having said that, the 10/15 option is a good one. I like my players to succeed more often than they fail, prime or no prime. So a base 30% for an easy, non-prime task (save) is good for me - and a 55% easy, prime task also.
Good luck everyone, and let's be careful. It's an imaginary world out there. 8)
In the end, I believe this is the boon and curse of C&C. It is really up to you and what works best with you and your players.
If your players are the kind that need auditing on everything they do, then by all means use 10/15 or 12/18 or whatever cummulation of numbers you need to.
If your players are more like mine, they dont care about what the DC is nor what they need to roll, but instead "trust" me that I'm doing a good job Cking. Then it leads to a different conclusion.
In the end, the important thing that I believe we should take from this discussion is -- consistency.
As long as you CK consistently, then you can use d4's for skill checks for all TLG cares... :p
As long as your players can "get a feeling" for a DC everytime they try something, you're doing your job as a CK.
_________________
Big Iron Vault Your friendly neighbourhood gaming magazine. Check out our new webcomic, The Heindrich Project!
If your players are the kind that need auditing on everything they do, then by all means use 10/15 or 12/18 or whatever cummulation of numbers you need to.
If your players are more like mine, they dont care about what the DC is nor what they need to roll, but instead "trust" me that I'm doing a good job Cking. Then it leads to a different conclusion.
In the end, the important thing that I believe we should take from this discussion is -- consistency.
As long as you CK consistently, then you can use d4's for skill checks for all TLG cares... :p
As long as your players can "get a feeling" for a DC everytime they try something, you're doing your job as a CK.
_________________
Big Iron Vault Your friendly neighbourhood gaming magazine. Check out our new webcomic, The Heindrich Project!
Like I said before: it does not matter if "other bonuses" are applied to the roll, or to the difficulty. If you prefer modifying the difficulty (as the PHB seems to state is the right way), then do that. Its probably more intuitive that way, since a "tool" or "circumstance" might make something easier to do.
I've only been clarifying, or trying, a subtle nuance, seemingly to no avail. Some are, seemingly, over-thinking the issue.
Anyway... have fun playing.
I've only been clarifying, or trying, a subtle nuance, seemingly to no avail. Some are, seemingly, over-thinking the issue.
Anyway... have fun playing.
BeZurKur wrote:
However, what the player should consider is that easy tasks that require a task check begin at +1. A task easier than that is easy enough to NOT warrant a check. Where the CK draws the line is dependant on what abilities the characters have, such as the thief and rangers ability to scale (an element I call Karma) and the demands of the story or planning of the players (what I call Drama). I believe that the consideration of Karma and Drama is more central to the game than the paragraph you suggested. Although it is a reasonable way to look at it.
That right there is the crux of my beef (whatever that means ). The task goes from automatic to 10% chance (with a +1 difficulty). That doesn't make any sense to me. What it says is that tasks where that character might have a 20% success are considered too easy to bother rolling, otherwise you have to roll when there is little chance for success. ???
I think Melkor and I are on the same page, but consistency is the important thing and I think that there isn't a consistent message.
It's okay if there are different ways of handling things. For example, in Hero there are at least 3 different ways to handle skill resolution. However, the system presents the baseline and then takes the time to detail the options, discuss the implications, and describe the style of play that results.
It's clear to me that some people enjoy minimizing the number of rolls in the game, while others want the rolls that do come up to be a little easier. What I haven't been able to gather from the rules is what the designers expect during play and what their intention was. I prefer to play games as intended before I start house ruling things because there is nothing worse than changing a rule that didn't need changing.
serleran wrote:
Like I said before: it does not matter if "other bonuses" are applied to the roll, or to the difficulty. If you prefer modifying the difficulty (as the PHB seems to state is the right way), then do that. Its probably more intuitive that way, since a "tool" or "circumstance" might make something easier to do.
Serleran, we are on the same page here, and I agree with what you said above.
To me, something that mentions the 'other bonuses' or 'optional bonuses' in the rulebook would clear things up a bit. As it's presented in the book now, it doesn't even seem to offer the option or possiblity - which tends to lend weight to the assertion that all modifiers are factored into the Challenge Level, and that the minimum modifier for the easiest of challenge levels still adds a +1 to total roll needed for a success.
That's all I am saying - I am not arguing the minutia that regardless of where the modifiers are tacked on, they all equal the same net result...rather, that as it's presented now, it's not worded as if you have the option of modifying the challenge level lower than a +1.
That doesn't make a lot of sense - and this discussion illustrates that. Unfortunately, it might be cause for confusion which could be cleared up with an example or two (in the CKG) that would show how a Castle Keeper can modify rolls after the Challenge Base + Challenge Level totals are determined.
serleran wrote:
Anyway... have fun playing.
I'm hoping to do just that starting next week with a new email campaign. I'll be running Dark Chateau for 3 players (2 characters each), and then moving on to the AD&D Slaver's Series or White Plume Mountain modules, using Yggsburgh as a base of operation for the characters.
My goal is to play some of the campaign via email, and as much as possible in person. I would eventually like to play through the entire G and D series, ending with Queen of the Demonweb Pits.
Ambitious, I know, but two of the players have never played any of the old AD&D modules, and really want to experience 'what all of the fuss is about'.
As I understant it, the SIEGE mechanic was designed to incorporate both sides of the opposed roll. The Challenge Level is subjective but on a negative scale - it only gets harder. There is no real mention of the other side - other than adding or not adding your level, and your stat bonus. So yes, some mention of situational modifiers would help.
You could argue that all tasks are easy - but you are then applying negative modifiers - 'no, the cliff is slippery; it's at a steep angle; there's a bit of an overhang; someone is shooting at you'. Which all make it harder.
Yes, you could then say - 'but he's using a rope; he's taken his armour off; he's done it before' and drop the difficulty. But we want the player to give us this info.
You could argue that all tasks are easy - but you are then applying negative modifiers - 'no, the cliff is slippery; it's at a steep angle; there's a bit of an overhang; someone is shooting at you'. Which all make it harder.
Yes, you could then say - 'but he's using a rope; he's taken his armour off; he's done it before' and drop the difficulty. But we want the player to give us this info.
serleran wrote:
Just so I understand, exactly... the point of contention is that the PHB does not mention that "other bonuses" can be applied?
This should be remedied, since it is rather obvious that such things can happen... or rather, should be able to happen.
Exactly. The PHB, as written, doesn't mention modifiers of any kind that apply outside of the challenge level. This, in turn, can lead to the interpretation that all modifiers are taken into account when the CK decides on the appropriate Challenge Level added to the Challenge Base.
Since the text seems to indicate that the EASIEST Challenge Level is +1 to +5, and if you assume that all modifiers the CK comes up with are factored into determining this Challenge Level, you run into situations like I illustrated on the charts I posted above.
A first level character, attempting any manner of action off of an attribute that isn't Prime, and with no attribute bonus to speak of, only has a 15% chance to succeed at the easiest of tasks - whatever they may be.
Of course, this goes back into what you ask for rolls for as a CK, and what you just assume to be successful...but considering the vastly different opinions CKs who play C&C are going to have, it would be good to illustrate in the rulebook that this isn't as cut and dry as it seems to be, and that modifiers can be factored in outside of the Challenge Level.
I've said -- and still believe -- that C&C is not suited for a game ruled by Fortune (i.e. luck of the dice.) D&D 3ed is and so is Hero. A lot of the "game" in those RPG's is to manipulate the Fortune, and for many it is very rewarding. I enjoy those games too, but it is not what I look for in C&C.
C&C rests more on the Karma (abilities of the classes) and Drama (demands of the story) than either Hero or 3ed D&D. Because of that, a lot in C&C is arbitrary and cannot be consistent: theyre opposite poles. It will be relatively consistent within the campaign, but less so as you switch CK's. However, THAT is the design philosophy of C&C. As a result, it is fluid and always delivers the campaign vision for the CK. I know Hero -- very well -- and I enjoy it. However, running C&C is vastly different to Hero. Mechanics wise, it really is as simple and elegant as the SIEGE engine.
Also, I disagree that the success for the fighter goes from automatic to 10%. I gave an example that works entirely within the SIEGE rules, without any house-rules, and yielded to about 50% success. What it did require was a Dramatic license, but that is what the SIEGE engine is for. Accept it and apply it. The game will run smoothly and quickly. I understand the desire for people to apply rules fixed in stone, but I don't agree with it -- not in this game.
C&C rests more on the Karma (abilities of the classes) and Drama (demands of the story) than either Hero or 3ed D&D. Because of that, a lot in C&C is arbitrary and cannot be consistent: theyre opposite poles. It will be relatively consistent within the campaign, but less so as you switch CK's. However, THAT is the design philosophy of C&C. As a result, it is fluid and always delivers the campaign vision for the CK. I know Hero -- very well -- and I enjoy it. However, running C&C is vastly different to Hero. Mechanics wise, it really is as simple and elegant as the SIEGE engine.
Also, I disagree that the success for the fighter goes from automatic to 10%. I gave an example that works entirely within the SIEGE rules, without any house-rules, and yielded to about 50% success. What it did require was a Dramatic license, but that is what the SIEGE engine is for. Accept it and apply it. The game will run smoothly and quickly. I understand the desire for people to apply rules fixed in stone, but I don't agree with it -- not in this game.
Melkor wrote:
Of course, this goes back into what you ask for rolls for as a CK, and what you just assume to be successful...but considering the vastly different opinions CKs who play C&C are going to have, it would be good to illustrate in the rulebook that this isn't as cut and dry as it seems to be, and that modifiers can be factored in outside of the Challenge Level.
Why? The only benefit to that is that campaigns across the board view everything the same. Yeah, it's consistent, but what if I don't agree with that perspective for my campaign? I'd then have to modify the existing charts to suit my needs. It would slow preparation and gameplay as I look things up -- revised or not.
I've used C&C for a gritty, realistic, fictional portrayal of Dark Age England. I'm also currently using it for a standard fantasy game. I've made no changes to the SIEGE engine and they both worked fine because I have the leeway to do so. I'm going to need you explain to me the benefit of doing so otherwise.
-
Combat_Kyle
- Ulthal
- Posts: 737
- Joined: Mon May 01, 2006 7:00 am
- Location: St. Paul, MN
- Contact:
I complete agree with you BeZurKur, C&C is an abstract system and should never fall victim to constraints of a iron clad die rolling system. Its about the stroytelling, role playing and fun. No need to min/max, munchkin in C& like there is in other games.
_________________
CK the CK
"My goddess touched me at an early age."
-Grikis Valmorgen, Paladin
The beginnings of my homebrew campaign world and info for my play by chat game:
http://kbdekker.googlepages.com/home
_________________
CK the CK
"My goddess touched me at an early age."
-Grikis Valmorgen, Paladin
The beginnings of my homebrew campaign world and info for my play by chat game:
http://kbdekker.googlepages.com/home
I'm not looking for rules set in stone, I'm looking for guidelines. Your example BeZurKur was a good one, but where in the explanation of the SIEGE mechanic does it suggest that if someone comes up with a dramatic solution that you might change the challenge to be based of their prime stat? If we were talking about a Wizard in that situation, he would still be of no help, unless you can dramatically explain why he could use his INT to climb a cliff. So, for that example, the success does go from automatic to 10% based on the rules as stated.
To be clear, I'm not arguing that the mechanic is broken. Far from it. What I am trying to say is that the intentions of the designers are not entirely clear based on the presentation of the rules.
All it would take would be a little more exploration of the SIEGE mechanic and how it is intended to be used, including how it should not be used, so that new players to C&C coming from years of playing Fortune ruled games and come to understand the shift they need to make in their game play.
Simply assuming that they should "get it" is short sighted and will result in a loss of potential players who "don't get it". Not everyone has the benefit of playing with a game's designers or it's master fans and has to learn this on their own. Perhaps they show up here in the forums asking questions, as I have, perhaps they set it on the shelf and call it a day.
This juxtaposition is further complicated by the fact that the game appears to be very similar to other Fortune based games and that will certainly be many people's initial reaction. Take the time to explain the subtleties and how the game should be played so everyone can know. It's great that you want to allow everyone to play the game in their own fashion, but at least establish a baseline of understanding.
I think C&C has a lot of potential and is on the right track in so many ways. I know that a 1 page discussion of the SIEGE mechanic (which the first time I saw that term was here, not in the book) and how it works in play, assessing difficulties, awarding other bonuses, and such would be outstanding, including paragraphs about when to roll and when not to roll.
Taking some time to detangle commone tropes (e.g. sneak vs. hide for non-rogues) might also be worthwhile. A handful of examples would go a long way to understanding how to create the C&C feel the designers intended.
To be clear, I'm not arguing that the mechanic is broken. Far from it. What I am trying to say is that the intentions of the designers are not entirely clear based on the presentation of the rules.
All it would take would be a little more exploration of the SIEGE mechanic and how it is intended to be used, including how it should not be used, so that new players to C&C coming from years of playing Fortune ruled games and come to understand the shift they need to make in their game play.
Simply assuming that they should "get it" is short sighted and will result in a loss of potential players who "don't get it". Not everyone has the benefit of playing with a game's designers or it's master fans and has to learn this on their own. Perhaps they show up here in the forums asking questions, as I have, perhaps they set it on the shelf and call it a day.
This juxtaposition is further complicated by the fact that the game appears to be very similar to other Fortune based games and that will certainly be many people's initial reaction. Take the time to explain the subtleties and how the game should be played so everyone can know. It's great that you want to allow everyone to play the game in their own fashion, but at least establish a baseline of understanding.
I think C&C has a lot of potential and is on the right track in so many ways. I know that a 1 page discussion of the SIEGE mechanic (which the first time I saw that term was here, not in the book) and how it works in play, assessing difficulties, awarding other bonuses, and such would be outstanding, including paragraphs about when to roll and when not to roll.
Taking some time to detangle commone tropes (e.g. sneak vs. hide for non-rogues) might also be worthwhile. A handful of examples would go a long way to understanding how to create the C&C feel the designers intended.
Why should combat be a special case? Is that the only time it is necessary to be objective? If the game is about storytelling, why bog it down with the complexity of detailed combat?
If you dont' agree with it, change it for YOUR campaign. At least within the community there will be a general agreement on how most situations should be adjudicated.
I don't think there should be a master chart with a myriad of modifiers. That runs counter to the feel of C&C, but it is pretty obvious from the postings here that many people are playing very different games. Are they having fun? I'm sure they are, and that ultimately is the point. I came here looking for guidance as to how the designers intended the system to be played and the most vocal response I am getting is "however you want - figure it out for yourself".
That's cool, I'm a smart guy, I can make the dice dance however I want to. If that is the designers' intent, to do it however I want, cool. I think that is a misguided approach to the market that wants a smooth, flexible game like this but might require a little time to explain how this style of play works before they give up on trying to make it work themselves.
I don't see how taking the time to explain how to fairly adjudicate a challenge would detract from your game, BeZurKur. Are you concerned your players would challenge your authority as a GM? I certainly don't need a rulebase to challenge my GM if I think he is being unfair, so I would think that if your games are running well now they would continue to do so. Not all gaming groups are lucky enough to have a confident and skilled GM and anything to help new players become BETTER players goes a long way to strengthening the customer base and ultimately the longevity of the game as a whole.
_________________
Legendsmiths presents: Narosia * Sea of Tears, a complete fantasy setting for HERO System
Quote:
Why? The only benefit to that is that campaigns across the board view everything the same. Yeah, it's consistent, but what if I don't agree with that perspective for my campaign? I'd then have to modify the existing charts to suit my needs. It would slow preparation and gameplay as I look things up -- revised or not.
If you dont' agree with it, change it for YOUR campaign. At least within the community there will be a general agreement on how most situations should be adjudicated.
I don't think there should be a master chart with a myriad of modifiers. That runs counter to the feel of C&C, but it is pretty obvious from the postings here that many people are playing very different games. Are they having fun? I'm sure they are, and that ultimately is the point. I came here looking for guidance as to how the designers intended the system to be played and the most vocal response I am getting is "however you want - figure it out for yourself".
That's cool, I'm a smart guy, I can make the dice dance however I want to. If that is the designers' intent, to do it however I want, cool. I think that is a misguided approach to the market that wants a smooth, flexible game like this but might require a little time to explain how this style of play works before they give up on trying to make it work themselves.
I don't see how taking the time to explain how to fairly adjudicate a challenge would detract from your game, BeZurKur. Are you concerned your players would challenge your authority as a GM? I certainly don't need a rulebase to challenge my GM if I think he is being unfair, so I would think that if your games are running well now they would continue to do so. Not all gaming groups are lucky enough to have a confident and skilled GM and anything to help new players become BETTER players goes a long way to strengthening the customer base and ultimately the longevity of the game as a whole.
_________________
Legendsmiths presents: Narosia * Sea of Tears, a complete fantasy setting for HERO System
Here's something else I noticed in comparing AD&D to C&C. I believe it was Fiffergrund who suggested using spell level instead of caster level as the challenge level.
AD&D level one fighter save against fireball 17
C&C counterpart 21
AD&D level 5 fighter - 14
C&C counterpart - 16
AD&D level 10 fighter - 11
C&C counterpart - 11
AD&D level 15 fighter - 7
C&C counterpart - 6
AD&D level 20 fighter (saves don't change after level 17) - 6
C&C counterpart 1
I think I'll be using this in my next game.
Edit/Delete Message
_________________
You face 99 beserkers, 99 beserkers, 99 beserkers, and 99 beserkers.
Will your stalwart band choose to Fight, Advance, or Run?
AD&D level one fighter save against fireball 17
C&C counterpart 21
AD&D level 5 fighter - 14
C&C counterpart - 16
AD&D level 10 fighter - 11
C&C counterpart - 11
AD&D level 15 fighter - 7
C&C counterpart - 6
AD&D level 20 fighter (saves don't change after level 17) - 6
C&C counterpart 1
I think I'll be using this in my next game.
Edit/Delete Message
_________________
You face 99 beserkers, 99 beserkers, 99 beserkers, and 99 beserkers.
Will your stalwart band choose to Fight, Advance, or Run?
BeZurKur wrote:
Why? The only benefit to that is that campaigns across the board view everything the same. Yeah, it's consistent, but what if I don't agree with that perspective for my campaign? I'd then have to modify the existing charts to suit my needs. It would slow preparation and gameplay as I look things up -- revised or not.
I've used C&C for a gritty, realistic, fictional portrayal of Dark Age England. I'm also currently using it for a standard fantasy game. I've made no changes to the SIEGE engine and they both worked fine because I have the leeway to do so. I'm going to need you explain to me the benefit of doing so otherwise.
What ?
I think you have completely misunderstood the intent of what I was getting at.
How will listing some examples of modifiers that can apply to various actions if the CK decides he wants to use them (but which fall outside of the Challenge Level) change how you play your game in any way ?
If anything, it will simply illustrate options for CKs who choose to use them without forcing you to change your play style.
Listing modifiers that can apply to rolls outside of the Challenge Level (as it is presented in the rulebook) doesn't change anything regarding consistency. You can choose to leave the mechanic exactly as it is, or use modifiers (as illustrated by Serleran's post above) to change the system to suit the needs of your campaign.