Troll Lord Games

While reading through "Notes From the Managing Editor" in Crusader #14 I came across a call for a Siege Engine explanation. While Mr. Ward is waiting for an unnamed product before putting together such an article I figured we could get started right here. I've been a big fan of the mechanic ever since I first got a taste of it during playtesting...so let's talk Siege!

At heart, the siege engine is very simple but once you start to play around with it you find it can be pretty flexible and even a bit confusing. I think some of this stems from the roll less design philosophy of C&C as overuse of the siege engine can wear it down a bit.

Older D&D-type rpgs called for attribute checks far more often than does C&C. Performing actions that were well within your ability to do by virtue of your attribute score was common while C&C only calls for a check if you try to do something above and beyond (like lifting more than your strength indicates you can or toppling a heavy statue that should be beyond your ability to move).

This gives incredible flexibility to the CK but calls for a great deal of responsibility as well. Not only must the CK, often times, assign an arbitrary challenge level for a task but he must also decide if a check is required or even allowed (can the non-prime str 6 wizard even attempt to break down the heavy wooden door).

The siege engine can also cause a bit of confusion since it allows for double dipping. By that I mean both challenge level and modifiers can be set/added for any given check. When making checks that require an arbitrary challenge level (not based on hit die or level) the PHB suggests the CK set the level based on circumstances. Jumping a wide gap (beyond what you could normally jump) while unarmored is simple enough and would be a challenge level 1 while jumping the same gap in armor might require a challenge level of 2.

However, in several places (rogue/assassin abilities and surprise rolls for example) the CK is encouraged to add modifiers to the attribute check. So what happens when a rogue wants to climb a wall wearing heavy armor (assuming the check is allowed)? Is the challenge level set high along with the negative modifiers to the character's check? What happens when a group of clumsy orcs are waiting in ambush for the party in the dark of night? Should the challenge level reflect these things or modifiers to the roll...or both?

The tricky part here is...it's left up to each CK to decide on his own. For the heck of it, here's what I do:

If the check is against a set challenge level (set by hit die or level) I don't adjust it but I will add modifiers to the roll. In the ambush example above I would base the challenge level on the orc's hit dice but give the party a bonus to the check due to the clumsy nature of the ambush. However, I might also apply a penalty for the lighting conditions.

If, on the other hand, the check requires me to come up with an arbitrary challenge level I don't use modifiers other than level and attribute. When attempting to jump a gap that would normally be beyond the character I set the challenge level based on the situation (room to run, weight carried, encumbrance, etc). In this case any modifiers (other than attribute and level) simply serve to make the challenge level higher or lower.

In the case of assassin/rogue skills I do make an exception. In such cases I always use their special armor penalty rules, even when checking against an arbitrary challenge class. For example, if an assassin is trying to make a difficult climb which required a check (and was wearing heavy armor) I would determine the challenge class based on the situation and apply the armor penalty to the roll. When making checks with difficulties based on hit die/level this doesn't require anything special as I use modifiers anyway. This encourages rogues and assassins to stay away from heavier armors as their training focuses so much on stealth and the ability to move both quickly and dexterously.

Having said all that, there are dozens of ways one could change what I do (to the point of doing something totally different). Modifiers could be removed altogether and challenge level could rule the day. Or the opposite. The CK could always use both in any given situation, etc. And this is just one facet of the siege engine.

Other aspects of the mechanic can (and have time and again) be easily changed (or even interpreted differently). The target numbers of 12/18 can be replaced with only 18 and a +6 to prime checks, a middle ground of 15 can be added to the mechanic, attribute checks can be called for more often than suggested, etc.

None of which is really an explanation of the mechanic but more a primer for what I hope will be an interesting discussion. The siege engine can be confusing since so much is left to the CK and, I personally believe, since it is designed to be used far less often than traditional rpg mechanics. But from this confusion and chaos is born one of the most flexible, creative and story friendly game mechanics I have ever seen.
_________________
Baron Greymoor
Troll Lord Games
Castles & Crusades Society

An interesting essay, but I think it is a mistake to compare the system to unnamed "Older D&D-type rpgs", as people's experiences tend to vary as to that. Much easier to set it up as contrasting with D20/3e/4e, as a much greater portion of the audience at which this is presumably aimed are familiar with those rather overbearing mechanics.
_________________
It is a joyful thing indeed to hold intimate converse with a man after ones own heart, chatting without reserve about things of interest or the fleeting topics of the world; but such, alas, are few and far between.

Yoshida Kenko (1283-1350)

Matthew wrote:
An interesting essay, but I think it is a mistake to compare the system to unnamed "Older D&D-type rpgs", as people's experiences tend to vary as to that. Much easier to set it up as contrasting with D20/3e/4e, as a much greater portion of the audience at which this is presumably aimed are familiar with those rather overbearing mechanics.

Please do. I was writing from my own experiences in the hopes of encouraging others to do the same.
_________________
Baron Greymoor
Troll Lord Games
Castles & Crusades Society

Rogues climb walls. Therefore I wouldn't set any CL at all unless there were unusual circumstances, such as the wall being wet or slimy, or the rogue being drunk. The effect of setting CLs in all circumstances will simply be to dissuade low level PCs from attempting to use their abilities.

Jackal wrote:
The tricky part here is...it's left up to each CK to decide on his own.

And that's why I love it!

One more time. I didn't catch that, Dr Rotwang! Heh. Not your fault, the boards are being silly.

Anyway, I agree that the setting of a challenge level should be done only when necessary. The issue comes when people feel there should be one, and others do not -- that is the core flexibility.
_________________
If it matters, leave a message at the beep.
Serl's Corner

On page 110 the following is found:

"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. When in doubt, err on the low side since it never

hurts a game to have a character succeed in something difficult."

So even though things can seem arbitrary, it is a trade off to having to have a rule for everything. A trade off I am very happy with.

Even so its only "arbitrary" in that the CK has to have the ability to consistently judge if its "easy", "difficult", "Very Difficult", or "Heroic". Then they have to be able to judge if it will fall in the high or low ends of each of these levels of difficulty.

Like if a thief was wearing plate mail, for some reason, and wanted to climb a wall it would definitely fall in the range of difficult to very difficult. So 6 to 15. Well, the AC value of Plate Mail is +7. So I could use that. I could also add further penalties. Like maybe add the full EV value of the armor, especially since theives aren't "qualified" to wear it in the first place. So that is an EV of 4. So a total of 11, putting it into the "very difficult" range. They would have to be a 3rd level thief, or a 1st level thief with a DEX of 17, and have that DEX as Prime, to even have a chance of succeeding.

I think that is pretty reasonable "arbitrary" decision. Plus its as complex a question I want to make it, since I even looked up the EV after deciding to take weight into account.

I often even go so far as to ask my players what they think, after telling them what I am taking into account, and why I am doing so. That way they can tell me things I may not be taking into account that could favor them and reduce the final CL I assign. They often bring up things I could take into account to make it even more difficult/impossible.

So the SIEGE engine is very flexible and very powerful. I have never seen it "break down" though. That has always ended up being a failure on my part, because seeing how to determine a CL is not always clearly evident. In those situations I just decide on what range I want it to fall in, Easy to Heroic, and then where in that specific range I want it to fall, high or low, or even average/middle, and go with it.

If it really bugs me I'll think on it later, likely solicit feed back from my players, and then decide on how to handle similar rulings like that from then on.

So yes, it can be confusing/ambiguous/etc... but I have found it having more to do with my not having to think for myself due to having everything answered for me in 3E, and going back to making such decisions for myself like I did in my 2E and earlier games.

Something I like much better than having to search through pages of rules to find how I am to "properly adjudicate" such a thing within the rules.

"Good enough" flows much faster than, "Hold on! I need to look up the exact wording to make sure I am doing it precisely correct!" than was so often the mental attitude of 3E, and other games I can mention.

So I go on with C&C and appreciate the challenge of learning to trust my judgment, solicit the feedback of my players, and just playing the game. I have definitely gotten much better at it, and much more comfortable with it, over the last 3 years, and find I hate games where I have to worry about what the rules say about everything.
_________________
The Ruby Lord, Earl of the Society

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

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

The rogue class suffers a -1 penalty (or +1 difficulty if you prefer) for each point of armour above 12. Plate is therefore -5. No other monkeying around is necessary, unless you think you really need to change the rules for some reason.

Back in the old days of D&D, a 1st level thief sucked at everything apart from climbing walls. For that, there was an 85% chance of success. Set a CL of only 3 for wall climbing and a 1st level rogue in C&C and assuming +1 in the attribute, that's success on 14+ and a fall on 9 or lower - a 35% chance of success compared to a 45% chance of falling off on the initial roll. Applying the typical CL therefore effectively bans low level rogues from climbing walls even if in no armour.

Actually, that's not right - it's an eventual 50/50 chance of climbing or falling because the rogue adds his or her level. Still very risky.

Treebore wrote:
On page 110 the following is found:

"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. When in doubt, err on the low side since it never

hurts a game to have a character succeed in something difficult."

So even though things can seem arbitrary, it is a trade off to having to have a rule for everything. A trade off I am very happy with.

Even so its only "arbitrary" in that the CK has to have the ability to consistently judge if its "easy", "difficult", "Very Difficult", or "Heroic". Then they have to be able to judge if it will fall in the high or low ends of each of these levels of difficulty.

Like if a thief was wearing plate mail, for some reason, and wanted to climb a wall it would definitely fall in the range of difficult to very difficult. So 6 to 15. Well, the AC value of Plate Mail is +7. So I could use that. I could also add further penalties. Like maybe add the full EV value of the armor, especially since theives aren't "qualified" to wear it in the first place. So that is an EV of 4. So a total of 11, putting it into the "very difficult" range. They would have to be a 3rd level thief, or a 1st level thief with a DEX of 17, and have that DEX as Prime, to even have a chance of succeeding.

I think that is pretty reasonable "arbitrary" decision. Plus its as complex a question I want to make it, since I even looked up the EV after deciding to take weight into account.

I often even go so far as to ask my players what they think, after telling them what I am taking into account, and why I am doing so. That way they can tell me things I may not be taking into account that could favor them and reduce the final CL I assign. They often bring up things I could take into account to make it even more difficult/impossible.

So the SIEGE engine is very flexible and very powerful. I have never seen it "break down" though. That has always ended up being a failure on my part, because seeing how to determine a CL is not always clearly evident. In those situations I just decide on what range I want it to fall in, Easy to Heroic, and then where in that specific range I want it to fall, high or low, or even average/middle, and go with it.

If it really bugs me I'll think on it later, likely solicit feed back from my players, and then decide on how to handle similar rulings like that from then on.

So yes, it can be confusing/ambiguous/etc... but I have found it having more to do with my not having to think for myself due to having everything answered for me in 3E, and going back to making such decisions for myself like I did in my 2E and earlier games.

Something I like much better than having to search through pages of rules to find how I am to "properly adjudicate" such a thing within the rules.

"Good enough" flows much faster than, "Hold on! I need to look up the exact wording to make sure I am doing it precisely correct!" than was so often the mental attitude of 3E, and other games I can mention.

So I go on with C&C and appreciate the challenge of learning to trust my judgment, solicit the feedback of my players, and just playing the game. I have definitely gotten much better at it, and much more comfortable with it, over the last 3 years, and find I hate games where I have to worry about what the rules say about everything.

You'll have to forgive my use of the word arbitrary. I tend to use the "based on individual discretion and preference" definition and not the "chosen or determined at random" definition. So that's how my original post should read, not as if the setting of a non-hit die challenge level was totally at random. Just that the CK is called upon to use his individual discretion in setting such a challenge level.

As for breaking down, I've seen it. But in all fairness it's not unique to the Siege Engine. Any game mechanic I've ever seen breaks down to some degree if used "too much." The classic example from 2e is the str 18/00 warrior failing to break down a door, while the str 6 mage does it with ease. I find the more you use the Siege Engine to determine every little action the more it begins to break down. Using a game mechanic to determine if something extraordinary can be done works out well most of the time. Using the same game mechanic to determine the outcome of normal actions causes more oddities to come up. Of course, if one doesn't mind these oddities then there is no problem at all.

Actually, from what you posted, we're of very similar mind regarding the Siege Engine and the flow of game play.
_________________
Baron Greymoor
Troll Lord Games
Castles & Crusades Society

Sieg owes me money or something. Don't trust him he'll....Oh, you said SIEGE.
_________________
The Lord of Ravens
My blog

See, that is what I meant by it not being a failure of the SIEGE engine, but a failure of mine. I now only have a roll made if lives are on the line or they are crafting an item I want them to have trouble crafting and other similar reasons.

IF it isn't "important" in terms of what the results mean to the campaign I go with it as being automatically successful.

So it doesn't break down for me, because I don't force it to break by over using it.
_________________
The Ruby Lord, Earl of the Society

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

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

Personally, I seldom throw dices. I ask the players what they want to do and I determine if they succeed. For instance, if a player wants to search a room, I ask him where he searches exactly. If there is something to find, I say to him that he finds something. If there is nothing to find, he finds nothing ... Very simple!

In brief, I do not throw dices for simple tasks. But for certain actions, I nearly always use dices, notably for class skills, like find/remove traps, or for saving throws.

We can therefore play complete game sessions without throwing dices (except for battles of course).

My current Castle Keeper asks for rolls a lot of the time, and for things that probably might not be asked for if I were running -- that's fine. It has led to some really funny results, and some much more intense drama when a roll is successful against the odds. I would still rather the rolls be more limited, but that is likely because my views on what the characters can do are higher.
_________________
If it matters, leave a message at the beep.
Serl's Corner

Treebore wrote:
See, that is what I meant by it not being a failure of the SIEGE engine, but a failure of mine. I now only have a roll made if lives are on the line or they are crafting an item I want them to have trouble crafting and other similar reasons.

IF it isn't "important" in terms of what the results mean to the campaign I go with it as being automatically successful.

So it doesn't break down for me, because I don't force it to break by over using it.

I wouldn't call that a failure but then that's me.
_________________
Baron Greymoor
Troll Lord Games
Castles & Crusades Society

Well, the breakage I think you were mentioning is a result of the CK over using the mechanics. So if you limit them to use only when the outcome is of significance to the game, then you lessen how much it gets broken by over use.

Otherwise, decide however you wish. There are times I'll think, "What are the odds of that working?" If I think 1 in 6, 1 in 10, 50/50, whatever, then I'll roll the appropriate dice and go with it. Or if I think they are likely to do it because it is so routine, why bother?

So I think simply avoiding over use of the mechanic, and using a dice that more accurately reflects the odds with greater accuracy, helps prevent making the mechanic feel "broken". Assuming I really get what your definition is to begin with.
_________________
The Ruby Lord, Earl of the Society

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

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