Woah there. I'm all for willing a suspension of disbelief but I have to give my players some rules. They really wouldn't like it if combat was subjective.
CK: Nah, you miss.
Player: I rolled a 20!
CK: Yeah, but you still miss. (Thinks: It wouldn't be right if he died now).
Player: Huh. I'm off.
Combat must be objective, as the players can clearly see what is going on and understand the mechanics of it. Yes, my rolls remain hidden but at least the players feel in control.
The rest of it can be (and should be) purely subjective, with the illusion of being objective.
It has already been said that C&C is what you make of it, and how you interpret it. I have taken on board all that has been said here and will be tweaking my interpretation of the game.
As Ed Murray once said, 'Good night. And good luck.'
C&C - Seige Engine Mechanic Analysis
Combat_Kyle wrote:
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.
Again, this has nothing to do with trying to contrain C&C into 'an iron clad die rolling system'...quite the opposite in fact.
Showing examples of how modifiers to the SEIGE Engine mechanic could be implemented outside of the Challenge Level of +1 to +20 (or more), as listed in the rulebook, opens the system up to new possiblities rather than constraining it.
There's nothing min/max or munchkin about that - so I don't see where that comes into play either.
Edit to add:
If you look at the way the SEIGE Engine mechanic is presented in the rulebook, you'll see the basis behind the charts in the first post of this discussion.
As written, a first level character making an attribute check on an attribute that is not Prime, and with no attribute bonus, only has a 15% chance of success at any action.
A first level character making an attribute check on an attribute that is Prime, with no attribute bonus, has a 45% chance of success.
From reading other discussions, it seems like most Castle Keepers are adding modifiers to attribute checks outside of the Challenge Level added to the Challenge Base anyway....so why is it a bad thing to request that the possibility of modifiers (and some examples showing how modifiers can work) be illustrated in the Castle Keepers guide, or future printings of the PHB ?
babbage wrote:
The rest of it can be (and should be) purely subjective, with the illusion of being objective.
Why? I appreciate that is the style of game that you may prefer, but what about someone who wants to play a non-combat character? Suddenly his opportunity for an objective experience are gone.
Subjective combat can be very fun, as many systems can demonstrate (FUDGE for example, or Amber), but that may not be what you are looking for.
Many games have made a choice to provide different systems for resolving combat and non-combat actions. Some go even further in creating different systems beyond that for even other types of resolution. But why? Why shouldn't the core system of the game be able to handle all actions? It is one mechanic to learn and one mechanic to judge.
The SIEGE mechanic can handle both subjective and objective situations, as demonstrated by its application from a combat and non-combat PoV. That said, there should be nothing wrong with determining what some common guidelines for assessing challenge levels might be and allowing new players to gain an understanding of how the core mechnic of the game works.
_________________
Legendsmiths presents: Narosia * Sea of Tears, a complete fantasy setting for HERO System
BeZurKur wrote:
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.
During the C&C playtest, I was certainly under the impression that the C&C rules were designed to bring a style of old-school gaming to the modern gaming world utilizing the OGL.
That said, everyone who played 'old-school' probably played it differently.
I was involved in AD&D games where the DM would make a ton of rolls behind the DM screen after deciding on an arbitrary % chance, or 2 in 6 chance, or the like for some action to succeed.
I was involved in other AD&D games where narrative, DM fiat, and player decision were used to determine a lot of the elements where dice rolls could have been used.
While the whole point of this thread was to initially illustrate that the C&C mechanic was not designed to be used in a similar fashion to the D&D 3.5 / D20 ruleset, who is to say that there is only one proper way to play C&C ?
Don't you think that simply showing the option of modifiers, and how they can be utilized to expand the SEIGE Engine mechanic - outside of Challenge Levels (without a need to impact your personal campaign at all) - would be a good thing for the game - simply because it might appeal to gamers who would otherwise see it as limited ?
I feel I have to correct an incorrect inference or two.
I did NOT say it was the style of game I prefer. In fact, I said 'They really wouldn't like it', implying my players prefer a particular style of play.
Perhaps it's just me, but I can't recall ever playing a non-combat character and knowing everything (or even just some of it) was objective. How could it be? There were no skills, only spells, stats and saving throws. Non-weapon proficiencies only really appeared in 2e - and even then they were still optional - and still, mostly, subjective. I didn't particularly care as I had full trust in my DM at the time. I knew he would be telling a story, setting some challenges and risks - commensurate with the reward.
C&C, however you slice it, is a subjective game. The CK is King, the story is second and the dice rolling a distant third. If you're looking for a defining rule to cover all eventualities - we're back in 3e territory. Which is precisely where (I am assuming) most of us don't want to be.
We are all here to play a game. Some of us like to analyze the minutiae of rules, some of us like to abandon all sense of rules or rolls, and some of us like to feel that there are some boundaries but not care unduly about where they might be.
I took the time to re-read my PHB and found that the mechanic as described in the player's section is perfectly adequate. It says nothing about what can and cannot be added or subtracted, merely that the DM will assign a Challenge Level. I would assume any player reading this would believe that a check based on his prime states would be more likely to succeed than a non-prime one - as it has been proved to be. The rule in that section needs no further explanation.
In the CK section, there are numerous examples of when and when not to use the rolls. I also believe the authors have gone out of their way to state, categorically, that the rules, checks and dice rolls are flexible and should never get in the way of the narrative.
For me, this is all I need. I know where I stand both as a player and a CK. As always though, 'your mileage may vary'.
Having gone through all of these ideas I still believe, and will continue to believe, that I will only use the mechanic when there is a significant chance of failure, or failure would have some direct impact on the narrative.
Truly, thank you all for your comments. I, however, am moving on. I have only a few weeks to get my campaign world in order before my players arrive.
8)
I did NOT say it was the style of game I prefer. In fact, I said 'They really wouldn't like it', implying my players prefer a particular style of play.
Perhaps it's just me, but I can't recall ever playing a non-combat character and knowing everything (or even just some of it) was objective. How could it be? There were no skills, only spells, stats and saving throws. Non-weapon proficiencies only really appeared in 2e - and even then they were still optional - and still, mostly, subjective. I didn't particularly care as I had full trust in my DM at the time. I knew he would be telling a story, setting some challenges and risks - commensurate with the reward.
C&C, however you slice it, is a subjective game. The CK is King, the story is second and the dice rolling a distant third. If you're looking for a defining rule to cover all eventualities - we're back in 3e territory. Which is precisely where (I am assuming) most of us don't want to be.
We are all here to play a game. Some of us like to analyze the minutiae of rules, some of us like to abandon all sense of rules or rolls, and some of us like to feel that there are some boundaries but not care unduly about where they might be.
I took the time to re-read my PHB and found that the mechanic as described in the player's section is perfectly adequate. It says nothing about what can and cannot be added or subtracted, merely that the DM will assign a Challenge Level. I would assume any player reading this would believe that a check based on his prime states would be more likely to succeed than a non-prime one - as it has been proved to be. The rule in that section needs no further explanation.
In the CK section, there are numerous examples of when and when not to use the rolls. I also believe the authors have gone out of their way to state, categorically, that the rules, checks and dice rolls are flexible and should never get in the way of the narrative.
For me, this is all I need. I know where I stand both as a player and a CK. As always though, 'your mileage may vary'.
Having gone through all of these ideas I still believe, and will continue to believe, that I will only use the mechanic when there is a significant chance of failure, or failure would have some direct impact on the narrative.
Truly, thank you all for your comments. I, however, am moving on. I have only a few weeks to get my campaign world in order before my players arrive.
8)
Babbage,
I don't disagree.
Melkor came up with some cool analysis, I just hope I never find a need to apply it in my games.
I don't disagree.
Melkor came up with some cool analysis, I just hope I never find a need to apply it in my games.
Since its 20,000 I suggest "Captain Nemo" as his title. Beyond the obvious connection, he is one who sails on his own terms and ignores those he doesn't agree with...confident in his journey and goals.
Sounds obvious to me! -Gm Michael
Grand Knight Commander of the Society.
Sounds obvious to me! -Gm Michael
Grand Knight Commander of the Society.
-
DangerDwarf
- Maukling
- Posts: 5284
- Joined: Sat May 27, 2006 7:00 am
- Location: East Texas
babbage wrote:
I took the time to re-read my PHB and found that the mechanic as described in the player's section is perfectly adequate.
I wholeheartedly agree Babbage.
The charts, graphs, power point presentations, etc.....
While neat to look at as an overview, do not give the full picture of C&C gameplay.
I use the rules as is, with the minor exception of 1 houserule (1 added a VERY simple critical hit system). There are a few areas down the road I may take a look at AFTER I have actually CK'd regularly at that level and see if any tweaks need to be made.
I finally reread 105-120. I think, in general, the SIEGE mechanic is actually quite clear, even with regard to adding levels. I think what I was looking for is on P117 with regards to Situational Modifiers. In the discussion about SIEGE it alludes to the parallel between CC and AC. The Situational Modifiers are fairly open ended, but the guidelines for how to assess them are actually spot on for the type of thing I was talking about.
It seems pretty clear that such modifiers were part of the original intent of the system, even for non-combat actions. I think it is just more of a clarification than anything. And more to the point, I think that is the exact level of detail, including examples, that is appropriate to frame the SIEGE mechanic and provide the flexibility I'm looking for without being entirely chaotically subjective.
Thank you all for helping me understanding the system and how it should be played.
_________________
Legendsmiths presents: Narosia * Sea of Tears, a complete fantasy setting for HERO System
It seems pretty clear that such modifiers were part of the original intent of the system, even for non-combat actions. I think it is just more of a clarification than anything. And more to the point, I think that is the exact level of detail, including examples, that is appropriate to frame the SIEGE mechanic and provide the flexibility I'm looking for without being entirely chaotically subjective.
Thank you all for helping me understanding the system and how it should be played.
_________________
Legendsmiths presents: Narosia * Sea of Tears, a complete fantasy setting for HERO System
EDIT: Ah man, Mudpyr8, you responded while I was typing and enjoying my milk with cookies! Well, I'm glad you found an answer: below then are just some more thoughts since I already posted them.
Man there is a lot to respond to. Mudpyr8 and Melkor, I gladly invite you to discuss with me how I use the SIEGE engine and why I dont like set modifiers. However, if you quote me, please allow me room to answer one at a time. These are involved detailed questions that require attention to detail. So, lets please rewind. Ill address Mudpyr8 concerns after my post and lets take it from there.
Mudpyr8:
You like the solution of the fighter climbing the rope but ask: 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?
Id say in numerous places, but mostly in the section, The Rules are your Servant, Not your Master. In it, the rules stress: the rules must bend to the desires and needs of the players, and, These rules are designed to be amended, changed, adjusted, added to, and customized in order best serve the wants of the players
There are a couple of things about that. First, notice it says players in the plural. The rules encourage a collaborative ruling. This is not about the CK and his ruling (something you hinted to) but about everyone using Drama to enhance the fun. Also, although it doesnt specify what to do in the case of a rope and a band of goblins, I wouldnt want it too. Hero has gone that route and thats why the 5ed revised is the volume it is and a special book, The Ultimate Skill, has been released at Gen Con (I think.)
Again, this is not a dig at Hero. Its how they rather handle the situation. C&C suggests that the rules bend to the players. If they list suggested values or formulas, that becomes another layer you must force around the imagination. With each suggested rule or chart the rules become stiffer. When we say, its whatever you like, we are not trying to be rude or unhelpful, its just that that is really the answer! If your vision has circumstantial modifiers that give bonuses, cool it works. If I were to play in your game, Id probably notice there are more rolls than the games I run, but as long as I still contribute to the story and not at the mercy of dice, Id be all right with it.
Now lets return to our growing band of adventurers being chased by goblins. It consists of a thief, ranger, fighter, and wizard. IF it were my game, it might go something like this:
CK: The thief and the ranger climb the rope and make it to the top. It wasnt easy with the goblins chasing you, but you make it all right. Everyone else is going to need to make a Dex check.
Fighter: Hey, cant I use my strength instead? It takes a lot of upper strength to climb a rope.
CK: Yeah, okay, that makes sense.
Wizard: How about Galstaff my wizard? He was raised in the mountains and is a woodsy wizard.
CK: Sure, if you selected Str or Dex as primes, you can default to either.
Wizard: Well, uhm no, I picked Wis and Cha.
CK: Sorry then. Galstaff stuck closer to sea level while in the woods. You need a 19 or better. Roll em guys!
I dont see a problem with the above. The thief and ranger make it; the fighter has about a 50% chance, and the scholarly wizard has 10%. If he had selected Str or Dex as prime, hed have about a 40% chance of success. That would be an example of rules that bend to the desires and needs of the imagination and how Rules are your Servant, Not your Master! Could another CK adjudicate differently? Probably, but as long as everyone has fun, there should be no problem. Maybe he has a chart he made of circumstantial modifiers: great! The above is how I would use the SIEGE rules.
You also mention that the book should go into more detail about how to use the SIEGE engine. I cant argue with that. More elucidation is always better. I would argue however, against a set method. That would be contrary to the design of player collaboration and more to one persons vision. As you see in my example above, I would use more Karma and Drama and less manipulation of Fortune, thus a table of modifiers is a turn off for me.
Man there is a lot to respond to. Mudpyr8 and Melkor, I gladly invite you to discuss with me how I use the SIEGE engine and why I dont like set modifiers. However, if you quote me, please allow me room to answer one at a time. These are involved detailed questions that require attention to detail. So, lets please rewind. Ill address Mudpyr8 concerns after my post and lets take it from there.
Mudpyr8:
You like the solution of the fighter climbing the rope but ask: 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?
Id say in numerous places, but mostly in the section, The Rules are your Servant, Not your Master. In it, the rules stress: the rules must bend to the desires and needs of the players, and, These rules are designed to be amended, changed, adjusted, added to, and customized in order best serve the wants of the players
There are a couple of things about that. First, notice it says players in the plural. The rules encourage a collaborative ruling. This is not about the CK and his ruling (something you hinted to) but about everyone using Drama to enhance the fun. Also, although it doesnt specify what to do in the case of a rope and a band of goblins, I wouldnt want it too. Hero has gone that route and thats why the 5ed revised is the volume it is and a special book, The Ultimate Skill, has been released at Gen Con (I think.)
Again, this is not a dig at Hero. Its how they rather handle the situation. C&C suggests that the rules bend to the players. If they list suggested values or formulas, that becomes another layer you must force around the imagination. With each suggested rule or chart the rules become stiffer. When we say, its whatever you like, we are not trying to be rude or unhelpful, its just that that is really the answer! If your vision has circumstantial modifiers that give bonuses, cool it works. If I were to play in your game, Id probably notice there are more rolls than the games I run, but as long as I still contribute to the story and not at the mercy of dice, Id be all right with it.
Now lets return to our growing band of adventurers being chased by goblins. It consists of a thief, ranger, fighter, and wizard. IF it were my game, it might go something like this:
CK: The thief and the ranger climb the rope and make it to the top. It wasnt easy with the goblins chasing you, but you make it all right. Everyone else is going to need to make a Dex check.
Fighter: Hey, cant I use my strength instead? It takes a lot of upper strength to climb a rope.
CK: Yeah, okay, that makes sense.
Wizard: How about Galstaff my wizard? He was raised in the mountains and is a woodsy wizard.
CK: Sure, if you selected Str or Dex as primes, you can default to either.
Wizard: Well, uhm no, I picked Wis and Cha.
CK: Sorry then. Galstaff stuck closer to sea level while in the woods. You need a 19 or better. Roll em guys!
I dont see a problem with the above. The thief and ranger make it; the fighter has about a 50% chance, and the scholarly wizard has 10%. If he had selected Str or Dex as prime, hed have about a 40% chance of success. That would be an example of rules that bend to the desires and needs of the imagination and how Rules are your Servant, Not your Master! Could another CK adjudicate differently? Probably, but as long as everyone has fun, there should be no problem. Maybe he has a chart he made of circumstantial modifiers: great! The above is how I would use the SIEGE rules.
You also mention that the book should go into more detail about how to use the SIEGE engine. I cant argue with that. More elucidation is always better. I would argue however, against a set method. That would be contrary to the design of player collaboration and more to one persons vision. As you see in my example above, I would use more Karma and Drama and less manipulation of Fortune, thus a table of modifiers is a turn off for me.
Thanks for the comments, BeZurKur. I realize there is the section about how the rules are your servant and not your master but, to be honest, that section exists in about every RPG on the market. What I was looking for was a little more concrete about IF one were to acknowledge a player's ideas what are the suggested values for how far to adjust the odds if we are already in a rolling situation.
That answer, for me at least, lies in the Situational Modifiers section of combat. I think for those of us coming to the game for the first time seeing that section in the discussion about CC would set a perfect tone for the game. They aren't set modifiers or anything of that nature.
I would do it like this: Take the full text of Situational Modifiers and put it next to the discussion about Attribute Checks, generalizing it for all actions, combat and non-combat. Then, in the combat section, keep the section about situational modifiers but condense it to one sentece that says, "For a detailed discussion of Sit Mods see page XXX. Here are some common examples of Sit Mods as applies to combat ."
That's it. It's a matter of presentation and doesn't go off the deep end with senseless detail - I think that would be the wrong way to go.
On to Hero for a moment. The interesting thing about Hero is the existense of that detail does not complicate the game. Most Hero players (and I say that playing at 5 or more cons a year) don't worry about the detail. It's usually a roll - how much did you make it by - and either "that's enough" or "oooh, so close". The Hero mechanic is simple and easy to judge without any amount of detail and books like The Ultimate Skill really don't impact that style of play. What books like that do, and the main rulebook in general, is to detail as many situations as possible so that if you WANT to treat a situation objectively that guidance is there. If you want to run your game completely subjectively, and there is ample treatment of that play style in the rules, you absolutely can and the system doesn't change.
If someone were to publish, under OGL which they certainly could, a set of objective guidelines to task resolution in C&C it wouldn't impact your game one bit. But for those players seeking a simpler set of rules and a great gaming experience in C&C such guidelines might make that even better. Perhaps it will solve some disputes between the players or give the CK a few more ideas on how to handle situations he knows nothing about, and for young gamemasters that is a very important tool.
I think it is important for players to understand their chances of success and why. I think your wizard example is a good one - the player obviously thinks based on his character's background that he should have a better chance of climbing than you do. Once you have informed him of his odds perhaps he will choose a different course of action. If you keep those odds from him without indicating to him that the climb is extremely difficult for him, I think that is unfair to his character - no one is stupid enough to attempt a climb like that if they don't have the skill. Run and hide, creative use of spells, something - anything, but giving yourself a 10% to live, unless there is no other choice, just isn't something someone would do. That's why, at least in a general sense, the players have to have some sense of how difficult a task is because there character would have some sense of it.
I think you and I are on the same page - fundamentally we are debating how much guidance should be in the book. I actually think there are enough examples in the book - its that section on Sit Mods that I was looking for, found, and simply think should be in the general section rather than just the combat section.
_________________
Legendsmiths presents: Narosia * Sea of Tears, a complete fantasy setting for HERO System
That answer, for me at least, lies in the Situational Modifiers section of combat. I think for those of us coming to the game for the first time seeing that section in the discussion about CC would set a perfect tone for the game. They aren't set modifiers or anything of that nature.
I would do it like this: Take the full text of Situational Modifiers and put it next to the discussion about Attribute Checks, generalizing it for all actions, combat and non-combat. Then, in the combat section, keep the section about situational modifiers but condense it to one sentece that says, "For a detailed discussion of Sit Mods see page XXX. Here are some common examples of Sit Mods as applies to combat ."
That's it. It's a matter of presentation and doesn't go off the deep end with senseless detail - I think that would be the wrong way to go.
On to Hero for a moment. The interesting thing about Hero is the existense of that detail does not complicate the game. Most Hero players (and I say that playing at 5 or more cons a year) don't worry about the detail. It's usually a roll - how much did you make it by - and either "that's enough" or "oooh, so close". The Hero mechanic is simple and easy to judge without any amount of detail and books like The Ultimate Skill really don't impact that style of play. What books like that do, and the main rulebook in general, is to detail as many situations as possible so that if you WANT to treat a situation objectively that guidance is there. If you want to run your game completely subjectively, and there is ample treatment of that play style in the rules, you absolutely can and the system doesn't change.
If someone were to publish, under OGL which they certainly could, a set of objective guidelines to task resolution in C&C it wouldn't impact your game one bit. But for those players seeking a simpler set of rules and a great gaming experience in C&C such guidelines might make that even better. Perhaps it will solve some disputes between the players or give the CK a few more ideas on how to handle situations he knows nothing about, and for young gamemasters that is a very important tool.
I think it is important for players to understand their chances of success and why. I think your wizard example is a good one - the player obviously thinks based on his character's background that he should have a better chance of climbing than you do. Once you have informed him of his odds perhaps he will choose a different course of action. If you keep those odds from him without indicating to him that the climb is extremely difficult for him, I think that is unfair to his character - no one is stupid enough to attempt a climb like that if they don't have the skill. Run and hide, creative use of spells, something - anything, but giving yourself a 10% to live, unless there is no other choice, just isn't something someone would do. That's why, at least in a general sense, the players have to have some sense of how difficult a task is because there character would have some sense of it.
I think you and I are on the same page - fundamentally we are debating how much guidance should be in the book. I actually think there are enough examples in the book - its that section on Sit Mods that I was looking for, found, and simply think should be in the general section rather than just the combat section.
_________________
Legendsmiths presents: Narosia * Sea of Tears, a complete fantasy setting for HERO System
I agree we are more on the same page than not. Where were not, I attribute to stylistic differences that do not impact the game much. Im going to comment on a few of the points. I think I understand where youre coming from and hope to make clear where I am.
Youre right that every game includes the obligatory this is only a guideline section, but as I read C&C it felt different. The stress on it and tone permeates virtually every page. It made me consider what old school gaming is and I realized it wasnt in the rules, but more in the lack of them, and thus the room for interpretation. Every player at the table (the GM is a player too) contributes to that interpretation. I believe other people felt that tone as well just look at all the house rules players already came up with. (Quick aside: House rules can be just as limiting to the imagination as official rules. Thats why the few I use build on the elements of Drama and Karma, and less on Fortune. For an example of a house rule of mine, check this thread.)
On Hero, I am familiar with the phenomenon where the GM calls for the roll and then says, Yeah, you made it. I know Hero: Ive played it since 1ed and those charts are ingrained in my mind. Its usually those times when the GM says, made it, that I look to the roll and think, No he didnt. One of two things happened: either the failure of Fortune did not measure up to the importance of the GMs Drama or the interruption to actually stop the game and find the ruling isnt worth stopping the flow. In either case, those moments the rules as presented were seen as an obstacle. Rules are tools for the game: theyre supposed to make it easier, not harder. At those cons where Ive played Hero and the GM resorts to the above, I often wonder why he opted to play Hero when there are games that tailor to that style of play and the rules help instead of hinder. I run a Hero game where we game the rules and it is a lot of fun. I keep two Hero rulebooks and the Combat Handbook at the table. We all knew what the game was about, agreed to it, and enjoy playing it. For neither better nor worse, C&C is not Hero or vice-versa.
Your suggestion on moving the combat modifiers to include them as situational modifiers puts too much emphasis on making it the correct way to handle it. If they were to do that, Id ask that they also present the more dramatic way of adjudicating and show the pros and cons of both. However, I wonder if that exposition on the theory of RPG might scare away the new gamer. I don't mind that you are comfortable with situational modifiers, but I'm not keen on that being given more credence as the method to use in the rulebook. A lot of people like the crunchiness of concrete modifiers; I prefer a smoother texture for my games. C&C as portrayed in the rulebook delivers.
BTW, in case if you havent already, I strongly suggest reading this essay, System Does Matter, by Rod Edwards. This guy is an extraordinary game designer who has put his thoughts on role-playing and gaming in articulate essays that I still have not come to fully understand, but do so a little more every time I apply what I do get into my games. I recommend them to anyone who doesnt mind putting some serious thought into his game.
Youre right that every game includes the obligatory this is only a guideline section, but as I read C&C it felt different. The stress on it and tone permeates virtually every page. It made me consider what old school gaming is and I realized it wasnt in the rules, but more in the lack of them, and thus the room for interpretation. Every player at the table (the GM is a player too) contributes to that interpretation. I believe other people felt that tone as well just look at all the house rules players already came up with. (Quick aside: House rules can be just as limiting to the imagination as official rules. Thats why the few I use build on the elements of Drama and Karma, and less on Fortune. For an example of a house rule of mine, check this thread.)
On Hero, I am familiar with the phenomenon where the GM calls for the roll and then says, Yeah, you made it. I know Hero: Ive played it since 1ed and those charts are ingrained in my mind. Its usually those times when the GM says, made it, that I look to the roll and think, No he didnt. One of two things happened: either the failure of Fortune did not measure up to the importance of the GMs Drama or the interruption to actually stop the game and find the ruling isnt worth stopping the flow. In either case, those moments the rules as presented were seen as an obstacle. Rules are tools for the game: theyre supposed to make it easier, not harder. At those cons where Ive played Hero and the GM resorts to the above, I often wonder why he opted to play Hero when there are games that tailor to that style of play and the rules help instead of hinder. I run a Hero game where we game the rules and it is a lot of fun. I keep two Hero rulebooks and the Combat Handbook at the table. We all knew what the game was about, agreed to it, and enjoy playing it. For neither better nor worse, C&C is not Hero or vice-versa.
Your suggestion on moving the combat modifiers to include them as situational modifiers puts too much emphasis on making it the correct way to handle it. If they were to do that, Id ask that they also present the more dramatic way of adjudicating and show the pros and cons of both. However, I wonder if that exposition on the theory of RPG might scare away the new gamer. I don't mind that you are comfortable with situational modifiers, but I'm not keen on that being given more credence as the method to use in the rulebook. A lot of people like the crunchiness of concrete modifiers; I prefer a smoother texture for my games. C&C as portrayed in the rulebook delivers.
BTW, in case if you havent already, I strongly suggest reading this essay, System Does Matter, by Rod Edwards. This guy is an extraordinary game designer who has put his thoughts on role-playing and gaming in articulate essays that I still have not come to fully understand, but do so a little more every time I apply what I do get into my games. I recommend them to anyone who doesnt mind putting some serious thought into his game.
BeZurKur -
To clarify, you are in favor of the SEIGE Engine mechanic as it is currently presented in the book:
D20 + Character Level (if applicable) +/- Attribute Modifier (if applicable) => than Challenge Base (12/18) + Challenge Level (+1 to +20 or more)
Instead of:
D20 + Character Level (if applicable) +/- Attribute Modifier (if applicable) + Other modifiers* => than Challenge Base (12/18) + Challenge Level (+1 to +20 or more)
*where modifier suggestions are listed in the text to give the player some idea of how they are used (especially helfpful for new players & CKs).
Is that correct ?
To clarify, you are in favor of the SEIGE Engine mechanic as it is currently presented in the book:
D20 + Character Level (if applicable) +/- Attribute Modifier (if applicable) => than Challenge Base (12/18) + Challenge Level (+1 to +20 or more)
Instead of:
D20 + Character Level (if applicable) +/- Attribute Modifier (if applicable) + Other modifiers* => than Challenge Base (12/18) + Challenge Level (+1 to +20 or more)
*where modifier suggestions are listed in the text to give the player some idea of how they are used (especially helfpful for new players & CKs).
Is that correct ?
mudpyr8 wrote:
I finally reread 105-120. I think, in general, the SIEGE mechanic is actually quite clear, even with regard to adding levels. I think what I was looking for is on P117 with regards to Situational Modifiers. In the discussion about SIEGE it alludes to the parallel between CC and AC. The Situational Modifiers are fairly open ended, but the guidelines for how to assess them are actually spot on for the type of thing I was talking about.
It seems pretty clear that such modifiers were part of the original intent of the system, even for non-combat actions. I think it is just more of a clarification than anything. And more to the point, I think that is the exact level of detail, including examples, that is appropriate to frame the SIEGE mechanic and provide the flexibility I'm looking for without being entirely chaotically subjective.
Thank you all for helping me understanding the system and how it should be played.
P.117 does go a long way towards explaining that modifiers are up to the judgement of the CK, which captures the essence of what C&C should be about. That section is tailored to Combat, but could easily be worded in such a way that it is understood to clearly apply to all situations.
Unfortunately, P.117 states: "For tasks that are easy +/-5 modifier should be imposed. Difficult tasks would range from +/-6 to 10. and heroic acts would range from +/-11 or above".
For the purposes of Attribute Checks, the "difficulty" (as in Easy, Difficult, Heroic) are all factored into the Challenge Base + Challenge Level formula (with the Challenge Level actually being described in the book as a modifier based on the difficulty of the task instead of a modifier to the roll as it is illustrated on P.117).
That said, someone who has been gaming a while probably won't have a hard time using common sense to figure out that modifiers can be added to the character's roll (for actions that do require a roll outside of combat) after the Challenge Base + Challenge Level (difficulty) has been determined - to account for favorable conditions that add to the roll.
I believe that a simple explanation that this is a possibility, left to the CK's discretion, might especially help new players, or players coming to C&C from systems like D&D 3.5 / D20 who might be used to playing in a manner where dice are used to determine the outcome of the majority of character actions.
Sometimes it's difficult for people who never experienced how games were played in the 70's and 80's to 'get' that old-school gaming (which is what C&C was designed to emulate) generally required a lot more narrative and judgement because the rules didn't provide a way to handle many situations outside of combat.
C&C might even lose players from other systems when they read the rulebook without the background in 'old-school' gaming that some of us have, and see a structure where beginning characters can have only a baseline chance of success of 15% on actions that the rulebook deems "Easy".
Illustrating that C&C is designed to be played differently than D&D 3.5/D20 was the entire purpose behindy why I started this thread (and the similar threads on RPG.net and Dragonsfoot)...all with the hopes that it might help people enjoy their games of C&C more.
I think the inclusion of a better explanation of the SEIGE Engine mechanic, and how it can be modified (even that there is a possibility of doing so), would help accomplish the same goal, and I am hopeful said explanation might make an appearance in the CKG.
Anyway, thanks for the discussion folks. It's been eye-opening if for no other reason than seeing all of the different ways people are playing their own games of C&C. It reminds me a lot of the different nuances every gaming group had back in the days of AD&D & AD&D 2E.
I've got an old-school C&C goldenrod character sheet I am designing that is calling my attention away from spending so much time on this thread.
mudpyr8 wrote:
If someone were to publish, under OGL which they certainly could, a set of objective guidelines to task resolution in C&C it wouldn't impact your game one bit. But for those players seeking a simpler set of rules and a great gaming experience in C&C such guidelines might make that even better. Perhaps it will solve some disputes between the players or give the CK a few more ideas on how to handle situations he knows nothing about, and for young gamemasters that is a very important tool.
I would find this interesting...
Put a disclaimer at the begining stating these are mearly examples/guidlines and are not hard and fast rules...
_________________
And I'd be "toasty" if I were to read and digest the entire thread in one sitting!
_________________
Count Rhuveinus - Lejendary Keeper of Castle Franqueforte
"Enjoy a 'world' where the fantastic is fact and magic really works!" ~ Gary Gygax
"By the pricking of my thumbs, Something wicked this way comes:" - Macbeth
_________________
Count Rhuveinus - Lejendary Keeper of Castle Franqueforte
"Enjoy a 'world' where the fantastic is fact and magic really works!" ~ Gary Gygax
"By the pricking of my thumbs, Something wicked this way comes:" - Macbeth
Count Rhuveinus - Lejendary Keeper of Castle Franqueforte
"Enjoy a 'world' where the fantastic is fact and magic really works!" ~ Gary Gygax
"By the pricking of my thumbs, Something wicked this way comes:" - Macbeth
"Enjoy a 'world' where the fantastic is fact and magic really works!" ~ Gary Gygax
"By the pricking of my thumbs, Something wicked this way comes:" - Macbeth
Ser definitely has his good and bad days. So ignore him on his bad days and enjoy it when its a good day.
Me? I don't know. I have bad days, but I think I am pretty good at keeping it off of the boards, most of the time. 8)
Me? I don't know. I have bad days, but I think I am pretty good at keeping it off of the boards, most of the time. 8)
Since its 20,000 I suggest "Captain Nemo" as his title. Beyond the obvious connection, he is one who sails on his own terms and ignores those he doesn't agree with...confident in his journey and goals.
Sounds obvious to me! -Gm Michael
Grand Knight Commander of the Society.
Sounds obvious to me! -Gm Michael
Grand Knight Commander of the Society.
-
DangerDwarf
- Maukling
- Posts: 5284
- Joined: Sat May 27, 2006 7:00 am
- Location: East Texas
I'm increasing my post count as quick as I can! What is the next "title"? Dwarf Dicer?
Since its 20,000 I suggest "Captain Nemo" as his title. Beyond the obvious connection, he is one who sails on his own terms and ignores those he doesn't agree with...confident in his journey and goals.
Sounds obvious to me! -Gm Michael
Grand Knight Commander of the Society.
Sounds obvious to me! -Gm Michael
Grand Knight Commander of the Society.
-
Combat_Kyle
- Ulthal
- Posts: 737
- Joined: Mon May 01, 2006 7:00 am
- Location: St. Paul, MN
- Contact:
I must say this is the most friendly board I've ever been on, DF is a close second, but there are some crusty folk there who take things a bit to serious.
Man, I may have to change my avatar, this title does not match with my current.
_________________
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
Quote:
Yeah, but your board title taunts me daily.
I feel the need to avenge my clan.
Man, I may have to change my avatar, this title does not match with my current.
_________________
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
-
DangerDwarf
- Maukling
- Posts: 5284
- Joined: Sat May 27, 2006 7:00 am
- Location: East Texas
-
DangerDwarf
- Maukling
- Posts: 5284
- Joined: Sat May 27, 2006 7:00 am
- Location: East Texas