Will-O'-Wisp

[alcyone]

A recent encounter had me running to look at the C&C Will-O'-Wisp. Bad form I suppose, but curiosity got the best of me.

It's always been a mean monster, of course. The C&C version is far meaner than either the 1e or SRD versions. Since it never loses invisibility (effectively 'greater invisibility' in 3.5 terms), even the couple of spells that could affect it can't even target it!

In 1e it has a limit on how many rounds it can stay invisible, and becomes visible on attack. In 3.5, it is invisible as the spell, so again, visible on attack.

Someone was having a very bad day while writing the M&T!

[nwelte1]

Come on! It made for a fun encounter. No one died. Just sent you all running and effectively divided the party.

[alcyone]

Oh, totally. You ran it fine; in fact, you made the wisps occasionally visible, and even graciously allowed Faerie Fire to work. Your record remains impeccable.

I am only wondering who micturated in the cheerios of whoever made the C&C version. Why list what spells can affect it if they actually can't?

[serleran]

One seems to forget in AD&D, invisibility can be countered with exceptional intelligence. Or, in C&C terms, once something is "known" to be present, a save can be allowed to be able to "track" the thing. It's not quite the same as being able to "see" the monster, but it does allow for such things as attacking... especially with a spell that cannot miss.

[alcyone]

Yeah. I was just going by Magic Missile, it says you must be able to see your target. Though under the TARGETED SPELLS section there is a helpful "in most cases" before "must be able to see or touch the target", but further implies the exact rules are under the spell itself.

Did you write up the Will O' Wisp, Serl?

[Arduin]

One seems to forget in AD&D, invisibility can be countered with exceptional intelligence. Or, in C&C terms, once something is "known" to be present, a save can be allowed to be able to "track" the thing. It's not quite the same as being able to "see" the monster, but it does allow for such things as attacking... especially with a spell that cannot miss.

Only area effect spells. Not ones where you actually have to be able to see the target...

[mbeacom]

As a DM, I'd probably highlight the feature that describes them as "cold, pulling the moisture out of the air they pass through, creating a mist where ever they go."

This is injected as a "however" right after they are described as invisible to the naked eye. To me, this means that even though you can't see them precisely, you can actually see where they are if you are paying attention (to the mist they create) and know what to look for. In this case, I would allow Magic Missile to work as written. That's how I would play it personally. To each their own.

[Arduin]

As a DM, I'd probably highlight the feature that describes them as "cold, pulling the moisture out of the air they pass through, creating a mist where ever they go."

This is injected as a "however" right after they are described as invisible to the naked eye. To me, this means that even though you can't see them precisely, you can actually see where they are if you are paying attention (to the mist they create) and know what to look for. In this case, I would allow Magic Missile to work as written. That's how I would play it personally. To each their own.

As written, "As long as the caster can see the target". You couldn't hit it with MM...

[nwelte1]

As a DM, I'd probably highlight the feature that describes them as "cold, pulling the moisture out of the air they pass through, creating a mist where ever they go."

Hmm... I missed this in the description, but like the result. Perhaps reduce the penalty slightly from the invisibility. Instead of -10 maybe -5.

Is the Wisp AC 29 including the effect of invisibility, or is that the natural AC?

[mbeacom]

As a DM, I'd probably highlight the feature that describes them as "cold, pulling the moisture out of the air they pass through, creating a mist where ever they go."

This is injected as a "however" right after they are described as invisible to the naked eye. To me, this means that even though you can't see them precisely, you can actually see where they are if you are paying attention (to the mist they create) and know what to look for. In this case, I would allow Magic Missile to work as written. That's how I would play it personally. To each their own.

As written, "As long as the caster can see the target". You couldn't hit it with MM...

What I mean to say is that, if this thing is giving off mist wherever it goes, even though it's technically invisible, you actually could see where it is for targeting purposes based on the mist it creates as it moves around. Basically, I'm saying I think they give you enough in the description of it to allow MM to work. If you combine that with the description of the monster that stats states pretty clearly that MM is one of the spells that affect it, I'd rule that the idea is to allow MM to be used against it. Similarly, if an invisible creature were showered in baking flour, thus enabling others to "see" it even while it is technically invisible, I'd allow MM to work. That's just how I would rule it personally.

[nwelte1]

As a DM, I'd probably highlight the feature that describes them as "cold, pulling the moisture out of the air they pass through, creating a mist where ever they go."

This is injected as a "however" right after they are described as invisible to the naked eye. To me, this means that even though you can't see them precisely, you can actually see where they are if you are paying attention (to the mist they create) and know what to look for. In this case, I would allow Magic Missile to work as written. That's how I would play it personally. To each their own.

As written, "As long as the caster can see the target". You couldn't hit it with MM...

What I mean to say is that, if this thing is giving off mist wherever it goes, even though it's technically invisible, you actually could see where it is for targeting purposes based on the mist it creates as it moves around. Basically, I'm saying I think they give you enough in the description of it to allow MM to work. If you combine that with the description of the monster that stats states pretty clearly that MM is one of the spells that affect it, I'd rule that the idea is to allow MM to be used against it. Similarly, if an invisible creature were showered in baking flour, thus enabling others to "see" it even while it is technically invisible, I'd allow MM to work. That's just how I would rule it personally.

Either way, I like the thought.

[Arduin]

What I mean to say is that, if this thing is giving off mist wherever it goes, even though it's technically invisible, you actually could see where it is for targeting purposes based on the mist it creates as it moves around. Basically, I'm saying I think they give you enough in the description of it to allow MM to work. If you combine that with the description of the monster that stats states pretty clearly that MM is one of the spells that affect it, I'd rule that the idea is to allow MM to be used against it. Similarly, if an invisible creature were showered in baking flour, thus enabling others to "see" it even while it is technically invisible, I'd allow MM to work. That's just how I would rule it personally.

You could house rule it as such. But, the MM spell doesn't work that way. Any more that watching an invisible persons foot imprints in sand would allow targeting with the spell. Per the rules (Magic Missile spell) you could only target the Will-o when it lights up.

[mbeacom]

What I mean to say is that, if this thing is giving off mist wherever it goes, even though it's technically invisible, you actually could see where it is for targeting purposes based on the mist it creates as it moves around. Basically, I'm saying I think they give you enough in the description of it to allow MM to work. If you combine that with the description of the monster that stats states pretty clearly that MM is one of the spells that affect it, I'd rule that the idea is to allow MM to be used against it. Similarly, if an invisible creature were showered in baking flour, thus enabling others to "see" it even while it is technically invisible, I'd allow MM to work. That's just how I would rule it personally.

You could house rule it as such. But, the MM spell doesn't work that way.

Hmm. I just tried it and it worked just fine. Your magic missile must work differently than mine.

[Dungeoneer]

What I mean to say is that, if this thing is giving off mist wherever it goes, even though it's technically invisible, you actually could see where it is for targeting purposes based on the mist it creates as it moves around. Basically, I'm saying I think they give you enough in the description of it to allow MM to work. If you combine that with the description of the monster that stats states pretty clearly that MM is one of the spells that affect it, I'd rule that the idea is to allow MM to be used against it. Similarly, if an invisible creature were showered in baking flour, thus enabling others to "see" it even while it is technically invisible, I'd allow MM to work. That's just how I would rule it personally.

This seems pretty plausible to me. That's how I'd handle this as well. I feel like something like this could just turn into an argument at the table and to be honest I doubt I'd be able to honestly put something out the party could potentially do zero about.

[Arduin]

What I mean to say is that, if this thing is giving off mist wherever it goes, even though it's technically invisible, you actually could see where it is for targeting purposes based on the mist it creates as it moves around. Basically, I'm saying I think they give you enough in the description of it to allow MM to work.

Incorrect. The wizard has to actually see what he wants to hit. You could be in a pitch black, 3' wide passage with an orc 5' in front of you and you couldn't hit it with a MM even though you know he's there. You don't "aim" like a missile weapon. Ya just need to reread the spell description.

[serleran]

One minor point -- M&T was written without a completed PHB; we had not even decided to full-blown use the SIEGE Engine, using a slightly different method for task resolution. Any dissimilitudes that result thereof are the product of guessing final rules, such as the near complete lack of "damage reduction" (for example, all elementals should have a +2 magic weapon requirement) and the ever-present SR "issue" which I, as the individual tasked with making it so, was specifically told to leave out -- mention it only and the details would be filled-in. Apparently, in many cases, this did not happen for whatever reason. Unfortunately, it is a painful process to reverse some of these decisions, some of which were made with the philosophy of "coach, don't tell" or "imply, don't specify" -- one that C&C is proud to bear.

Concerning the specifics of the will-o', it should be assumed it "flickers" after it has made an attack, and then resumes invisibility. That momentary glimpse of location, since the monster description itself trumps that of the spell, allows the magic missile attack to succeed whereas, against something else (like an invisible stalker, a thing with virtually the same M.O.), the spell fails. Whether you want to make it so the caster must have initiative before, or after, is up to you as the Castle Keeper... but, the spell should always work against this monster -- the monster entry says so.

[mbeacom]

What I mean to say is that, if this thing is giving off mist wherever it goes, even though it's technically invisible, you actually could see where it is for targeting purposes based on the mist it creates as it moves around. Basically, I'm saying I think they give you enough in the description of it to allow MM to work.

Incorrect. The wizard has to actually see what he wants to hit. You could be in a pitch black, 3' wide passage with an orc 5' in front of you and you couldn't hit it with a MM even though you know he's there. You don't "aim" like a missile weapon. Ya just need to reread the spell description.

That's the point I'm trying to make. Based on the monsters description, I'm ruling the wizard can see it. Seriously, I just tried it, and it worked.

[alcyone]

Whether you want to make it so the caster must have initiative before, or after, is up to you as the Castle Keeper... but, the spell should always work against this monster -- the monster entry says so.

Thanks!

[mbeacom]

Whether you want to make it so the caster must have initiative before, or after, is up to you as the Castle Keeper... but, the spell should always work against this monster -- the monster entry says so.

Thanks!

Yes, thanks for the input. This is one of the very reasons I love C&C so much. It's a game that has, as a foundational principle that CKs get to make these kind of rulings. The rules are your servant, not your master.

[Lord Dynel]

Whether you want to make it so the caster must have initiative before, or after, is up to you as the Castle Keeper... but, the spell should always work against this monster -- the monster entry says so.

Thanks!

Yes, thanks for the input. This is one of the very reasons I love C&C so much. It's a game that has, as a foundational principle that CKs get to make these kind of rulings. The rules are your servant, not your master.

Most games used to be this way. Sadly, the era of "player entitlement" reared its ugly head and the GM (in said games) is a shadow of his former self. I was just talking about this very subject the other day - many games these days have the GM sitting there and confirming die rolls against one chart or another. Sure, he's telling his story, but a lot of times it's within the context of the rules. Not every game, but many. C&C (like older editions of AD&D) has charts and results, but the GM had a much bigger role in determining the outcome of certain situations, especially when there wasn't hard rules in the books for them. Heck, maybe there were rules in the book for a particular situation, but the GM could easily rule on it and that was that. But I'm digressing, in a major way! Sorry!

The way serl describes the will-o-wisp, that it "flickers" is very similar to the 2e AD&D description of Improved Invisibility. When attacking, there's "shimmering" effect in 2E, that temporarily gives its position away, but any attackers still incur a penalty to hit the invisible creature. Now, in C&C, there is no penalty but the creature's AC is 29, which I think accurately represents the creature being invisible nearly all the time (except for those very brief moments of visibility). Whether serl drew inspiration from 2E or not is not for me to say, but I can see the similarity enough to know that it's an adjudication that makes sense (especially since he states not having a working C&C PHB at his disposal).

I would further rule (at my table) that if a wizard wanted to target it with a magic missile, he would have to declare that he's casting magic missile and that he's holding the release of the spell until the wisp "flickers" into existence. Since magic missile needs a target, this would be necessary, I'd rule. If he rolls worse than the wisp, he's probably SOL (since the wisp strikes first and then is gone), though I might allow him a CL1 Intelligence check to recall the spell before completing its casting (as not to waste it). Anyone striking at it with a weapon could strike at it's last known location, and that (to me) might benefit a low rolling initiative better (since they might have a better idea where it's at).

[mbeacom]

Whether you want to make it so the caster must have initiative before, or after, is up to you as the Castle Keeper... but, the spell should always work against this monster -- the monster entry says so.

Thanks!

Yes, thanks for the input. This is one of the very reasons I love C&C so much. It's a game that has, as a foundational principle that CKs get to make these kind of rulings. The rules are your servant, not your master.

Most games used to be this way. Sadly, the era of "player entitlement" reared its ugly head and the GM (in said games) is a shadow of his former self. I was just talking about this very subject the other day - many games these days have the GM sitting there and confirming die rolls against one chart or another. Sure, he's telling his story, but a lot of times it's within the context of the rules. Not every game, but many. C&C (like older editions of AD&D) has charts and results, but the GM had a much bigger role in determining the outcome of certain situations, especially when there wasn't hard rules in the books for them. Heck, maybe there were rules in the book for a particular situation, but the GM could easily rule on it and that was that. But I'm digressing, in a major way! Sorry!

The way serl describes the will-o-wisp, that it "flickers" is very similar to the 2e AD&D description of Improved Invisibility. When attacking, there's "shimmering" effect in 2E, that temporarily gives its position away, but any attackers still incur a penalty to hit the invisible creature. Now, in C&C, there is no penalty but the creature's AC is 29, which I think accurately represents the creature being invisible nearly all the time (except for those very brief moments of visibility). Whether serl drew inspiration from 2E or not is not for me to say, but I can see the similarity enough to know that it's an adjudication that makes sense (especially since he states not having a working C&C PHB at his disposal).

I would further rule (at my table) that if a wizard wanted to target it with a magic missile, he would have to declare that he's casting magic missile and that he's holding the release of the spell until the wisp "flickers" into existence. Since magic missile needs a target, this would be necessary, I'd rule. If he rolls worse than the wisp, he's probably SOL (since the wisp strikes first and then is gone), though I might allow him a CL1 Intelligence check to recall the spell before completing its casting (as not to waste it). Anyone striking at it with a weapon could strike at it's last known location, and that (to me) might benefit a low rolling initiative better (since they might have a better idea where it's at).

Agreed on the era of player entitlement. And while I'd not quite run the Will'o that way, I can see that as making sense. That's what's so great about C&C. The rules are clear, but there is still much left to interpretation for the players and GM in those spaces where our understandings of things differ. Arduin and myself make a good example. I consider the wording of the Will'o entry to allow MM to work (i.e. the caster can see it), based on the fact that the thing creates mist constantly wherever it moves (which I see as very different from just leaving footprints). Arduin would not rule this way. Both views are well within the rules. It's the beauty of a game like this. Arduin can't realistically define for me, what "see" means anymore than I can for him. This allows the rules to makes sense for each of us. I'm quite sure that the way I read the rules doesn't make sense to Arduin. Likewise, the way he reads it doesn't make sense to me. But we are both right. Because we are both reading the rules and applying our worldview to them. This allows for the rules at each of our tables to be subtly different but internally consistent. This is an awesome thing and very much of why RPGs are such a great medium.

[Lord Dynel]

Agreed on the era of player entitlement. And while I'd not quite run the Will'o that way, I can see that as making sense. That's what's so great about C&C. The rules are clear, but there is still much left to interpretation for the players and GM in those spaces where our understandings of things differ. Arduin and myself make a good example. I consider the wording of the Will'o entry to allow MM to work (i.e. the caster can see it), based on the fact that the thing creates mist constantly wherever it moves (which I see as very different from just leaving footprints). Arduin would not rule this way. Both views are well within the rules. It's the beauty of a game like this. Arduin can't realistically define for me, what "see" means anymore than I can for him. This allows the rules to makes sense for each of us. I'm quite sure that the way I read the rules doesn't make sense to Arduin. Likewise, the way he reads it doesn't make sense to me. But we are both right. Because we are both reading the rules and applying our worldview to them. This allows for the rules at each of our tables to be subtly different but internally consistent. This is an awesome thing and very much of why RPGs are such a great medium.

Yes, C&C makes it very easy to adjudicate just about anything that comes up during game play. The only downside that I can see to that is exactly that, what you mention above. I think that was one of the reasons there are rules for every stinkin' thing in later editions of D&D. I personally think that's the beauty of C&C, being able to rule how the CK logically sees fit. And I hope C&C never changes that. Sadly, I could also see a day when there are those calling for more codification within the rules to avoid situations like these. Hopefully that day never comes, of course.

Whether you can see the wisp because of the trail (which I don't agree with, because that totally negates the invisibility) or you can't and there's no way to see it or target it with magic missile (which I don't agree with, either, since the monster's description says it's affected by the spell), there's no "wrong" way to do it. Even if there is an established rule and you choose to ignore it, there's still no wrong way to do it. In the end, rule it how you want. Your table, your rules. As long as you don't seem like a tyrant to your players, that's what matters. Being a little bit of a tyrant is okay, though.

[mbeacom]

Agreed on the era of player entitlement. And while I'd not quite run the Will'o that way, I can see that as making sense. That's what's so great about C&C. The rules are clear, but there is still much left to interpretation for the players and GM in those spaces where our understandings of things differ. Arduin and myself make a good example. I consider the wording of the Will'o entry to allow MM to work (i.e. the caster can see it), based on the fact that the thing creates mist constantly wherever it moves (which I see as very different from just leaving footprints). Arduin would not rule this way. Both views are well within the rules. It's the beauty of a game like this. Arduin can't realistically define for me, what "see" means anymore than I can for him. This allows the rules to makes sense for each of us. I'm quite sure that the way I read the rules doesn't make sense to Arduin. Likewise, the way he reads it doesn't make sense to me. But we are both right. Because we are both reading the rules and applying our worldview to them. This allows for the rules at each of our tables to be subtly different but internally consistent. This is an awesome thing and very much of why RPGs are such a great medium.

Yes, C&C makes it very easy to adjudicate just about anything that comes up during game play. The only downside that I can see to that is exactly that, what you mention above. I think that was one of the reasons there are rules for every stinkin' thing in later editions of D&D. I personally think that's the beauty of C&C, being able to rule how the CK logically sees fit. And I hope C&C never changes that. Sadly, I could also see a day when there are those calling for more codification within the rules to avoid situations like these. Hopefully that day never comes, of course.

Whether you can see the wisp because of the trail (which I don't agree with, because that totally negates the invisibility) or you can't and there's no way to see it or target it with magic missile (which I don't agree with, either, since the monster's description says it's affected by the spell), there's no "wrong" way to do it. Even if there is an established rule and you choose to ignore it, there's still no wrong way to do it. In the end, rule it how you want. Your table, your rules. As long as you don't seem like a tyrant to your players, that's what matters. Being a little bit of a tyrant is okay, though.

There will always be people who want better codification and clarity. There's nothing wrong with that. And, thankfully, there are myriad games for those people. That's part of why I like C&C so much. It doesn't try to be a game for rules lawyers, and in fact, I think it probably frustrates them at times. The will'o is a great example. To me, if a creature is creating mist and vapors where ever it goes, I'd consider that something one could potentially see (in my imagination, I can see what it would look like). Certainly enough to target it with a spell. Imagine if you were a wizard and you thought you saw an enemy hiding in the bushes. In your mind, you clearly saw the darkened face of a goblin staring at you. Could you cast the spell? Would it just sit there like a dud because what you actually saw was a shadow that LOOKed like a goblin? Or would it go off and hit what you thought was your target? And, by no means does this concept negate its invisibility. Far from it. I think, for game purposes, it actually enhances the application of it. Makes it much more interesting. For example, someone who has never encountered a will'o would be completely oblivious to one that was nearby. But someone who has fought them repeatedly might know just what to look for. This might be a good use of the siege engine, a wisdom check to verify the ability to see/perceive it in the mist. The beauty of this particular monster is the very fact it leaves it open to some degree of interpretation. In this case, "what does it mean to see something?" and "how does MM actually work when some THINKS they see something (an illusion would be an interesting thought experiment). Your answers may be different than mine, but the game still works and we're both using a system that "makes sense" to us. It's a beautiful thing.

[Lord Dynel]

There will always be people who want better codification and clarity. There's nothing wrong with that. And, thankfully, there are myriad games for those people. That's part of why I like C&C so much. It doesn't try to be a game for rules lawyers, and in fact, I think it probably frustrates them at times.

I don't know if C&C specifically tries to not be a game for rules lawyers more than it just isn't by circumstance. Whether it frustrates them is no doubt, as I have one or two in my group that'll either quit outright when I break the news to them that the game is moving back to C&C or they'll try to lawyer it, which is a foolish venture, in my humble opinion. But yes, you're right, there are games out there for the more tactically-minded, rules heavy/crunchy lot, and there are games out there that less rely on DCs and feats to tell the player what their character can and can't do.

...will'o... creating mist and vapors where ever it goes... one could potentially see...enough to target it with a spell...

I won't comment too much on that part, as it's your opinion and bantering back opinions can be a tiring venture. I will, though skip to the last part, which was the point of why you restated your opinion (or at least, I think it was )

Your answers may be different than mine, but the game still works and we're both using a system that "makes sense" to us. It's a beautiful thing.

That's what matters, indeed. You have a different opinion than Arduin, and he has a different view from both you and I. I hope no one feels like their view is "wrong." At the same time, I hope no one feels their way is the "right" way and others are doing it wrong. The way that you, the CK, chooses to do it at your table is the only right way that matters.

[mbeacom]

I don't know if C&C specifically tries to not be a game for rules lawyers more than it just isn't by circumstance.

You may be right. I'm just going by the very frequent reference throughout the rules to the fact that the CK is the final arbiter and should change nearly anything he/she sees fit (while being careful of course!) and that the rules are the servant, not the master. It seems clear, to me at least (and admittedly, I'm crazy) that this game is made to be interpreted, bent, altered, flexed and intermingled with the ideas of the CK and group. So as to provide fun without the rigidity that a rules lawyer generally demands. I have to think such a design is intentional. But, yes, I'm willing to consider that I might be off base and that the trolls had no intention of making a game that works so well to bend to the will of those who play it. If that is indeed the case, then they are one lucky bunch because their design is coincidentally very well suited to such a style of play.

[Traveller]

@mbeacom: You forgot folded, spindled, and mutilated.

Clarity in the rules is important. Wording something properly is important. This is why I sought to nail down all the little things when editing 5th. I missed stuff, which is to be expected. However, adding rules is NEVER a good thing. By adding rules you take away referee choice. Changing rules simply for the sake of change is not a good thing either.

Dynel, I'm sure your rules lawyer friends are going to have a field day trying to rules lawyer encumbrance, since that changed a bit. Or perhaps they'll try to rules lawyer their way out of a Maze spell. That also changed a little bit.

[mbeacom]

@mbeacom: You forgot folded, spindled, and mutilated.

Clarity in the rules is important. Wording something properly is important. This is why I sought to nail down all the little things when editing 5th. I missed stuff, which is to be expected. However, adding rules is NEVER a good thing. By adding rules you take away referee choice. Changing rules simply for the sake of change is not a good thing either.

Dynel, I'm sure your rules lawyer friends are going to have a field day trying to rules lawyer encumbrance, since that changed a bit. Or perhaps they'll try to rules lawyer their way out of a Maze spell. That also changed a little bit.

I very much agree. And thanks for doing a great job on 5th. It looks really clean from what I've read. Clarity is super important and I don't think that clarity needs take away things like referee choice. You can be clear and still leave things open to interpretation. C&C does a great job of striking that balance IMO. In fact, I've recently converted another 4E group to C&C. One thing 4E attempts is to avoid any and all rules disagreements. They try hard to eliminate any potential for personal interpretation. While that seems like it would be good in some ways, it's also very limiting. It requires boiling each interaction with the rules to a mechanical expression. It makes the game feel like a series of codified choices, rather than a more free form imaginative experience. There is much less "you can do anything you can think of" and much more of "You can do anything the designers predicted you might want to try".
It's a very different game. I'm not bashing it, just drawing a distinction. And thus far, this group seems to be making the transition pretty well. After this conversation, I expect to be putting a few Will'os in the game, upcoming. It will be a while as they're still low level but I look forward to seeing how they handle it and how their imaginations paint that picture.

[Lord Dynel]

I don't know if C&C specifically tries to not be a game for rules lawyers more than it just isn't by circumstance.

You may be right. I'm just going by the very frequent reference throughout the rules to the fact that the CK is the final arbiter and should change nearly anything he/she sees fit (while being careful of course!) and that the rules are the servant, not the master. It seems clear, to me at least (and admittedly, I'm crazy) that this game is made to be interpreted, bent, altered, flexed and intermingled with the ideas of the CK and group. So as to provide fun without the rigidity that a rules lawyer generally demands.

You may have a point as well. In this era of games, maybe the Trolls were subtly reminding the rules lawyers of the world that this game wasn't going to be their cup of tea without some attitude modification.

Funny thing is, you mention those references about the CK being the final arbiter of the rules, etc. Did I miss all those references in Basic and the first two editions of Advanced D&D or were those just assumed? I guess that's a rhetorical question, because I'm guessing the latter. While there were some references of the DM having final say, it wasn't mentioned as much. I'm guessing the era didn't call for it. Since C&C tries to return to that era (and does a fantastic job) it does make sense to remind the reader (since they might go crazy looking for every little rule).

I like to think the Trolls didn't sit down to specifically give the rules lawyers of the world fits, more than they wanted to return to a time when the GM was in control of his own world and campaign. A world with less rigidity and more wonder where everything wasn't determined by the roll of a die. In those worlds, it seems less like we're a bunch a guys and gals sitting around a table talking about elves and dragons and rolling dice and more like we're the heroes of some fantastic world. Okay, maybe that's a little romanticized, but you know what I mean.

And Traveller, you did a great job with the errata. It's getting to the point where I don't even notice anything until it's pointed out. As far as encumbrance goes, I honestly haven't looked at it yet, but I'll have to get on top of it before the next game. The maze spell changed? That's interesting, I'll have to check that out, too.

[mbeacom]

I don't know if C&C specifically tries to not be a game for rules lawyers more than it just isn't by circumstance.

You may be right. I'm just going by the very frequent reference throughout the rules to the fact that the CK is the final arbiter and should change nearly anything he/she sees fit (while being careful of course!) and that the rules are the servant, not the master. It seems clear, to me at least (and admittedly, I'm crazy) that this game is made to be interpreted, bent, altered, flexed and intermingled with the ideas of the CK and group. So as to provide fun without the rigidity that a rules lawyer generally demands.

I like to think the Trolls didn't sit down to specifically give the rules lawyers of the world fits, more than they wanted to return to a time when the GM was in control of his own world and campaign. A world with less rigidity and more wonder where everything wasn't determined by the roll of a die.

I agree 100%. I don't think the trolls set out to upset anyone. If that's what I came across as saying, I apologize. I just meant that the game is the way it is on purpose. that they aschewed those types of design decisions because that's not the game they wanted to make. As you say, harkening back to an earlier age of gaming. So, perhaps the distinction is that yes it is coincidence that this type of game can be frustrating for rules lawyers, but it was not a coincidence that they designed the game the way they did.

[Lord Dynel]

I agree 100%. I don't think the trolls set out to upset anyone. If that's what I came across as saying, I apologize. I just meant that the game is the way it is on purpose. that they aschewed those types of design decisions because that's not the game they wanted to make. As you say, harkening back to an earlier age of gaming. So, perhaps the distinction is that yes it is coincidence that this type of game can be frustrating for rules lawyers, but it was not a coincidence that they designed the game the way they did.

No need to apologize. I think we're on the same page so it's all good.