Liitle Birds: The Game Breaks Down? The Math is off?

[trechriron]

After posting across various forums, I've seen some complaints. Basically, that the math is wonky and things break down at 5th+ level. After reading, I'm not seeing it. Are these complaints from angry competency-porn entitled players or is there more to it? Debunk all the rumors and sass-talk for me. Is everyone house-ruling C&C to "fit better"?

[Treebore]

Typically its because they don't like how non Primes actually make characters have actual weak areas. So they often tweak the 12/18 to something less "severe". That is one area I have not house ruled, I like characters having weak area's, not being all powerful. I like players having characters in the 10th+ level range and remaining afraid of any spell or effect that is a non Prime save for them.

[Treebore]

Oh, another part is not liking the CL of spell saves scaling with the level of the caster. Again, I like high level characters staying afraid of spells. I got tired of saves occurring 90% percent of the time right around 2004. I think adrenaline rushes from being afraid of just how unlikely you are to make your save, all the way up to 20th level and beyond , is a good thing. Obviously, others don't agree, so tweak things to their satisfaction, or move to other games that give them the safety nets they want in place to begin with.

I find that having a "Luck" system has more than adequately off set most of the lethality, and still has you giving up something tangible to not fail, die, etc...

[serleran]

It depends what one means and is going for. C&C is not on the scale of high level play survivability that AD&D is. Nor is it true that challenges are equal for all levels -- that is, an 18th level fighter does not always encounter 18th level magic-users (and woe to him when he does!!) so the "unchanging state of roughly 50% success rate" applies only when difficulty remains static. High level challenges should be as rare as the characters encountering them.

[mgtremaine]

As Treebore stated is generally about how Siege works versus how AD&D saves worked for Higher levels. (IE roll a 2 you save!). One point most non-C&C players missed is that a lot of the "save or suck" spells got taken out. Notice Neutralize Poison is not reversible in C&C. So you don't get a 4th level Cleric save or suck spell.

Beyond that it's just what you want from your challenges. The main group DM for is about 9-12th level now and its been fine. (the old AD&D sweet spot)

-MIke

[Omote]

After posting across various forums, I've seen some complaints. Basically, that the math is wonky and things break down at 5th+ level. After reading, I'm not seeing it. Are these complaints from angry competency-porn entitled players or is there more to it? Debunk all the rumors and sass-talk for me. Is everyone house-ruling C&C to "fit better"?

What does "math is wonky and things break down" mean? Crusaders have seen this statement for the better part of 10+ years, and the answer is quite simple: C&C saves/skill checks do not work like typical older versions of D&D. Many people compare the two games, because they both feel exactly like D&D. However, when it comes to saving throws, in older versions of D&D the saves (or skill checks in some cases) get easier as the characters advance to higher and higher levels. With C&C, when going up against challenges of equal or higher level than the the characters, the saves never get easier per se, they remain difficult because the CHALLENGE LEVEL (CL) scales with the level/HD of the opponent. This is a fundamental difference between the two games that a lot of grognards can't get behind, or flat out do not like.

Personally, I love the Siege Engine, and how it scales. I happen to play with a handful of players that only like high-level adventures. Back in the D&D days of yore, high-level PCs made those saving throws with incredible and statistical ease. The challenge even from other high-level spell casters was much easier, and IMO made DMing more difficult because there were generally few who could challenge high-level party members. That was D&D.

In C&C, the threat of strong opponents never lessens the danger from spells and special attacks because the Siege Engine scales. I freaking LOVE that! I high level spell caster in C&C doesn't necessarily have to worry about a fighter only having the roll a 5+ on his saving throw to shrug off some massive spell barrage. C&C is dangerous, and the enemies can be terrible to behold regardless of the experience level of the C&C party.

YMMV, but C&C made high-level D&D dangerous, and fun again.

~O

[trechriron]

... {awesome words} ...

~O

OK, see? That's what I'm talking about! That explains it perfectly. I was reading the book and not understanding why people were critical. I too really dig how this works and agree with the C&C method.

[finarvyn]

Glad you like C&C. It's one of my favorites as well.

As far as game scaling goes, I try to keep in mind that all games have the same basic problems. You start with a dice range (perhaps a d20 or 2d6 or whatever) and find that when you put in too many bonuses you go outside of the range. Happened with OD&D in the 1970's, still happens with modern games designed forty years later. (Actually, I encountered this to a large extent in wargames designed in the 1960's which used a single d6 roll on a Combat Resolution Table.)

This is honestly one of the reasons that I prefer low-level play to high-level play for most RPGs. The numbers work better, there are fewer resources to track as a player, and it's easier to gauge what PC's can do as a gamemaster. Win for everyone, in my book.

I think that the SIEGE engine scales better than most, as explained so eloquently by Omote above.

[Litzen Tallister]

Glad you like C&C. It's one of my favorites as well.

As far as game scaling goes, I try to keep in mind that all games have the same basic problems. You start with a dice range (perhaps a d20 or 2d6 or whatever) and find that when you put in too many bonuses you go outside of the range. Happened with OD&D in the 1970's, still happens with modern games designed forty years later. (Actually, I encountered this to a large extent in wargames designed in the 1960's which used a single d6 roll on a Combat Resolution Table.)

This is honestly one of the reasons that I prefer low-level play to high-level play for most RPGs. The numbers work better, there are fewer resources to track as a player, and it's easier to gauge what PC's can do as a gamemaster. Win for everyone, in my book.

I think that the SIEGE engine scales better than most, as explained so eloquently by Omote above.

I agree about the low-level play often being often more enjoyable than higher-level play. There's less to keep track of on the table at any given time, as you mentioned. Also, from a PC side, each new ability or improvement represents a greater achievement than at later levels. Playing a spellcaster, if I have 4 spells, getting 1 new spell represents a greater percentage of gain. At higher levels, when a getting 1 new spell out of 15, it doesn't present nearly the same degree of awesome. Granted, I haven't gotten to high levels in any of my C&C play, but the degree of difficulty/that there is no point at which success is assured is one of the big attractions.

[pawndream]

For what it's worth, I haven't noticed any issues with SIEGE engine over the four years I have been playing C&C. The only slight tweak I have made to the rules as written (RAW) is that I treat all class skills as prime checks, regardless of whether the character has a prime in the associated ability and always add the character's level to skill checks. I think this slightly varies from RAW and honestly the only reason I handle it this way is because I like to keep things simple at the table.

I think one of the main reasons some players might have taken issue with SIEGE is due to their familiarity with other systems, where skill checks are made quite often...even for easy/mundane tasks. In C&C, the expectation is skill checks will limited to only those times where everything is on the line and there is a significant penalty for failure.

[Julian Grimm]

C&C suffers the same problem AD&D and post-2000 D&D both have; after a certain level the bonus bloat gets too high and can create certain headaches for a DM. However, C&C is the easiest to fix as it only take a couple pen strokes to get things in line. The three adjustments I have used in the past are: 1) You can only use 1/2 your level as a bonus to a check instead of your level. 2) Use the Prime/Secondary/Tertiary system from the CKG (along with adjustment 1) and 3) Throw out SIEGE altogether and use a target number system in a range of 12-21 (12/15/18/21) with level bonuses how you see fit. In all honestly option 2 is what I use the most.

But is it broken, or is the math off? Not really, C&C just suffers from a design problem that is persistent in most D20 based games.