Lack of Skills, Feats, etc. in C&C

[Ansbach]

Hi all, so I am brand new to C&C and like the overall concept, but am slightly concerned about the "lack of individualism" in not having a feat or skill system.

I have read a ton of the threads on this forum and I "get it" in terms of feats and skills are restrictions, not choices. However, what I never see mentioned is that those restricitons also help individualize PCs by providing them with further speciailization. It also seems to take away from some of the roleplaying aspect when a character can be equally good at everything covered by a single ability score and is not really able to specialize in an area. Two different characters both take Charisma as Prime and they are equally good at everything from diplomacy to performing, as an example.

I guess what I am saying is that by not having tough choices to make, the character creation system seems limited. I guess that's the trade off for complexity, though?

Also, I understand that I could just add feats and skills, and that several others already do so - but at that point aren't I pretty close back to the 3.5 system that I am trying to get away from?

Seems to be a Catch-22. But the main thing is I haven't actually played C&C yet, so I'm looking for insight in to how it all works out during actual play...

[Matthew]

My experience of it is that on the surface both characters with Charisma as a prime are equally good, but in practice they need not be. When you build a character by investing skill points and feats into discrete skills you are 'casting in stone' that character's abilities, as you say. In Castles & Crusades, the Castle Keeper may take into account other aspects when setting the difficulty of a given task.

So, for example, if both a Level 3 Fighter and a Level 3 Rogue have Charisma as a Prime and both have Charisma 13, then they may roll 1D20 and add 4 when attempting to barter over the price of a weapon (given that the CK wants to randomise the result). At first glance, it would seem the base difficulty would be 12 for both of them (given 'normal' circumstances), but it is at this point that the CK may take into account their backgrounds. Perhaps the Fighter is a Knight and has never had to barter for anything in his life, whilst the Rogue previously worked as a Merchant. The CK would surely take this into account when setting the difficulty. In this way characters are individualised without having to spend discrete 'character building resources'.

Of course, if you consider the maths problem of assigning skill points and feats to their greatest benefit be part of the fun, then you're boned.
That's my understanding of the situation, anyway.
_________________
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)

[serleran]

Backgrounds, in-play actions, and personalities... those are how you do "feats and skills" in a game that doesn't have them. For example, you have a Charisma prime Knight and I have a Charisma Prime Rogue. I'm better than you will ever be at lying. Why? It fits the concept of a Rogue, and goes against some of the basic principles of Chivalry. Do I need a "skill" for it? No. I just need a CK that understands the archetypes, the attributes, and the SIEGE Engine. Now, if we get a little more less obvious, and have... say, a Intelligence Prime Ranger and an Intelligence Prime Fighter. Who is better at making wood barrels? The higher-level one (assuming a check was ever needed, which falls back on understanding the SIEGE Engine;) the "skill" is not something either would be prone to do, based solely off class. So... we introduce backgrounds. Now we've got a fighter who's the son of a hooper. He's better than the Ranger at barrel-making. And then, we get some in-game actions... a Dexterity Prime Cleric and a Dexterity Prime Barbarian are trying to walk across a rope, but the Barbarian has spent some adventures earlier with the Rogue learning some balance tricks, and even went to a Monk Order to study, and the CK allowed it, but didn't give anything... so, when it comes to it, the Barbarian is better than the Cleric because he's got some rudimentary training.

This stuff doesn't take hard-and-fast rules. If you really want that kind of thing, just allow a PC to have a small list of minor bonuses to certain actions.

[Matthew]

Hey, it looks like I do understand...
_________________
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)

[gideon_thorne]

Here's a method that adds more ability diversity to C&C.

It can be run either as percentages or the +1 per level/per ability one gets via the core game.

Instead of having every ability go up by one have the player assign a 'pool' of ability points (1 point per class ability) to the class abilities as desired.

Its still the same net advancement, but with more individual ability advancement.
Here is another method for background for characters. As noted, it can give a great deal of customization of characters, at a cost.

The M&T book also has a method of magic item creation that can be adapted to develop 'costs' for cross ability customization and breaking up archetypes.

Feats and such may help to 'individualize' the numbers. But only a player can individualize a character. Once one has chosen a feat or skill, one is locked in to that narrow focus of advancement. One can accomplish exactly the same thing without feats as one can with them, with a little game master cooperation.

Say your character has, as a background, growing up in the local smithy. Being a human, the blacksmith trade has taught him to develop certain abilities. These can be represented by the Primes of STR, DEX and CON. The ability to understand and manipulate the properties of the metal shaping craft (str) the skills needed to create various objects (dex) and the endurance to work long hours wielding heavy tools (con).

Being able to create a given item certainly requires a bit of knowledge and understanding of its most effective use as well.

From that base seed, one can slowly develop a character who can go in a variety of directions ranging from a simple smith to a siege engineer. It all depends on how the player chooses to work the characters story. All without using a single feat or background skill to lock the character into a pre defined shape.

This way, both the desire of the player and the unpredictable nature of the game can shape the character in unexpected ways.
_________________
"We'll go out through the kitchen!" Tanis Half-Elven

Peter Bradley

[Omote]

gideon_thorne wrote:
Feats and such may help to 'individualize' the numbers. But only a player can individualize a character. Once one has chosen a feat or skill, one is locked in to that narrow focus of advancement. One can accomplish exactly the same thing without feats as one can with them, with a little game master cooperation.

While I use "feats" and skills in my C&C games, the statement above is the epitome of true.

-O
_________________
> Omote's Advanced C&C stuff <
Duke Omote Landwehr, Holy Order of the FPQ ~ Prince of the Castles & Crusades Society

[gideon_thorne]

Omote wrote:
While I use "feats" and skills in my C&C games, the statement above is the epitome of true.

-O

Well, take the oft comment upon Archery idea. Folks often talk about how there is no mechanical way to accomplish trick shots and the like.

Well, here's one in line with the Siege Engine.

Make any 'bonus' a random Siege check. The challenge can be a variety of add ons having to do with concealment, size of target and so forth. This is the number one rolls against to see if the character can use their 'faculty' for archery, knowledge of windage, skill at targeting, and so forth.

Should the character roll the check successfully, the number they beat the roll by can then be the bonus which the player can add to the characters attack roll. Thats one way of looking at it at least.

Critical success (rolling a natural 20), perhaps a doubling of the result and critical failure (rolling a 1), bow breakage perhaps? can also have its effects.

Assuming a Dex prime fighter, perhaps with Int as well, one can have a character adept at all manner of archery craft. Including bowyer/fletcher, perhaps a bit of smithing to make arrow heads, some leather work to make a quiver and so forth.

I also like the idea of 'Strength' bows. Ie, the type of bow that requires a certain amount of physical strength to wield properly. Me being a big fan of the Ulysees story and all.

But these wouldn't need to be written down as a defined skill set. One could just note 'archery' with a series of related knowledges that can be as detailed, or not, as the character and CK chooses.
_________________
"We'll go out through the kitchen!" Tanis Half-Elven

Peter Bradley

[moriarty777]

You know, I was just talking to a game store owner about some of these very things. First off, he loves C&C ... especially the SIEGE mechanic / simplified skill system in C&C compared to 3.x and he doesn't have a problem with most of the classes with C&C. Always nice to have a LGS owner who is C&C friendly!

I found that he uses some basic (or modified) FEATs but it has nothing to do with 'individualizing' a character. It has more to do with giving a class, like the Fighter, something to better help the class 'measure-up' compared to other classes, like the wizard at high levels. I should point out that he was doing a game where some of the characters were 15th level.

I like the basic philosophy of the FEAT, or a system of Talents and Flaws, but haven't found something that I fell in love with to try and implement them into my C&C game. I played AD&D for years before coming to 3rd edition, and I think certain aspects of 3rd edition might have spoiled us.
M
_________________
"You face Death itself in the form of... 1d4 Tarrasques!"

Partner to Brave Halfling Publishing
http://www.arcanacreations.com

[Witterquick]

Where I sometimes look askance at the SIEGE engine is adding levels to checks. An eighth level wizard gets to add his level to strength checks, for example, despite the fact that there is nothing in his background, class, or stats to suggest he should be getting any kind of bonus. Moveover, as the PC's advance in levels, the stat bonuses, which represent inherent physical, mental, and social aptitude decline in importance.
_________________
http://strangequests.wordpress.com/

[gideon_thorne]

Witterquick wrote:
Where I sometimes look askance at the SIEGE engine is adding levels to checks. An eighth level wizard gets to add his level to strength checks, for example, despite the fact that there is nothing in his background, class, or stats to suggest he should be getting any kind of bonus. Moveover, as the PC's advance in levels, the stat bonuses, which represent inherent physical, mental, and social aptitude decline in importance.

I can think of a movie where a 'wizard' like character DaVinci, used an interpretation of a STR check to open a door.

"I shall go down in history as a man who opened a door!"

In this case, a "STR" check suggested a means to apply strength a bit differently.
And, naturally, as one grows in experience, natural aptitude would decline in importance, while still being a factor.
_________________
"We'll go out through the kitchen!" Tanis Half-Elven

Peter Bradley

[moriarty777]

Witterquick wrote:
Where I sometimes look askance at the SIEGE engine is adding levels to checks. An eighth level wizard gets to add his level to strength checks, for example, despite the fact that there is nothing in his background, class, or stats to suggest he should be getting any kind of bonus. Moveover, as the PC's advance in levels, the stat bonuses, which represent inherent physical, mental, and social aptitude decline in importance.

I wouldn't allow the wizard to add his level for a Strength check. You add level when it factors into 'skill' or 'experience' of some sort. If the check has to do something with strength and athletics in some form of competition, I might allow it for a class that trains in a manner that lends itself to the skill check. In that way, certain 'raw' ability checks which are not related to skill will have their respective attribute bonuses remain relevant... no matter how high level they are.

On the flip side, a saving throw is different and increases in level the same way hit points do.

M
_________________
"You face Death itself in the form of... 1d4 Tarrasques!"

Partner to Brave Halfling Publishing
http://www.arcanacreations.com

[moriarty777]

gideon_thorne wrote:
I can think of a movie where a 'wizard' like character DaVinci, used an interpretation of a STR check to open a door.

"I shall go down in history as a man who opened a door!"

In this case, a "STR" check suggested a means to apply strength a bit differently.
And, naturally, as one grows in experience, natural aptitude would decline in importance, while still being a factor.

Ah... well that might be different, and a player that uses that imaginative BS to rationalize something like this will go far in my game! That also would promote creativity and probably would necessitate some form of roleplay and vivid description of what is being attempted.

M
_________________
"You face Death itself in the form of... 1d4 Tarrasques!"

Partner to Brave Halfling Publishing
http://www.arcanacreations.com

[gideon_thorne]

moriarty777 wrote:
That also would promote creativity and probably would necessitate some form of roleplay and vivid description of what is being attempted.

M

Exactly.
There's a method to my mad rambles.
_________________
"We'll go out through the kitchen!" Tanis Half-Elven

Peter Bradley

[Fizz]

I am certainly one who has professed the `feats are restrictions' theory in the past. However, not all feats are created equally.

A feat like, say Weapon Focus, doesn't exclude anyone else from using that weapon. It just makes you a bit better. I'm ok with that.

But many (half or more?) of 3E feats don't provide bonuses, they change rules or let you do things that others can't even attempt. Those are the ones i'll rip.

Imc, i replace both the skills and feats system with a simplfied version of 2nd Ed's proficiency system. It allows some customization of characters without getting bogged down in excessive rules or telling anyone what they can't attempt.

C&C is quite friendly to added extras. So you can decide what rules (feats, skills, etc) you like best and make it work for you.

-Fizz

[Treebore]

Lots of good suggestions.

How does it stay C&C and not become a reimagined 3e? Limitations. IE don't adapt 500,000 feats to C&C. Adapt maybe a dozen. Or limit it the way I do, make any "feat" open to PC's to attempt, and then after a certain number of successes doing that certain feat let them master it and award it as a character power.

The most common feats used in my games are: cleave, change spell energy,

extra attack, great cleave, maximize spell, and power attack.

I have also integrated 3E rules that make sense to me. For an example I allow Clerics to spontaneously cast heal spells and add their level to them. However their level only adds to the maximum, not exceed it. So a 7th level cleric automatically heals for 8 HP, not 1d8+5 up to a possible 13. I carry this over to potions too. So potions of cure light wounds in my game are not 1d8, they simply heal for 8 HP since Clerics have to be such a high level to make them, which I do like. The required high levels.

I don't have a problem with my game having lots of potions and scrolls. I have a problem with it having a lot of magic weapons, armor, and miscellaneous items. So I like the high level requirements of C&C, with the exception of scrolls and potions. I like them making scrolls from 1st level. IF you can inscribe a spell into a spell book, you can make a simple ink formula and write a scroll.

So the BIGGEST difference between C&C and 3E is that you are allowed, even encouraged, to take the rules and make them into what you and your group want.

The good thing about 3E is their rules are pretty sound, so when you adapt them they are a good "guideline" for rewriting them into how you want to use it in your game.

There are good rules in older editons too, just most of us have a ton of experience with the old editions to kno0w what rules were good and which weren't.

SKILLS: I have a heavily mutated version of 3E skills. To the point I would call it a similar idea, just done differently. Plus I never liked that cross class and synergy nonsense. You pick a skill and its yours, just as much as any other character that trains and practices it. Plus I use a base number fo 10 skills with INT adding in a little variety.

Anyhow, if you have not seen my house rules PM me and I'll be happy to send them to you. If you want to talk to me about how it works in play my SKYPE ID is Treebore.therubylord
_________________
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

[adaen]

The short and the skinny of it is that removing the programmed Feats/Skills from a game reduces player power (and increases GM power). Hard and fast rules put more deterministic power into the hands of the players. Lack of hard and fast rules requires GM fiat to arbitrate and therefore puts more deterministic power in the hands of the GM.

This is not a good or a bad thing. However, it should be recognized that it *is* a tradeoff.

~AoB
_________________
~Adaen of Bridgewater, www.highadventuregames.com

[Eisenmann]

I'm working on converting Star Wars Saga feats over for use in Siege.

For skills I use a meta-system to represent skills and other character aspects:
http://www.freeyabb.com/phpbb/viewtopic ... llordgames

It has worked out EXCEPTIONALLY well and has become a core part of my C&C games.

[CharlieRock]

Ansbach wrote:
However, what I never see mentioned is that those restricitons also help individualize PCs by providing them with further speciailization. It also seems to take away from some of the roleplaying aspect when a character can be equally good at everything covered by a single ability score and is not really able to specialize in an area.

Your character is not a series of game mechanics.Your character is not an optional role. Your character is an outgrowth of a part of yourself. You don't need to specialize. A stat does not make him or her individual. You do.

Take five minutes and role play a character with a stat score of ten. You decide what that ten means. Do it with somebody else. Just for a few minutes. I'd bet your characters are not identical. I'd bet a whole world.

Take a CK's view of it. Describe a roll of the dice. In terms of what a character could see. Let another CK describe it. Same roll, same number. Now your game will never be the same.

Did you scoff at that? When you read it. You already knew how to role-play? That's all we do.

You could say we specialize in it.
_________________
The Rock says ...

Know your roll!

[gideon_thorne]

*chuckles* Suffice it to say there are as many answers to the original question as there are means to 'individualize' the characters without mechanics...

If the previous answers don't amply demonstrate the flexibility inherent in rules minimal systems, I don't know what will.
_________________
"We'll go out through the kitchen!" Tanis Half-Elven

Peter Bradley

[adaen]

I think it is important to remember that many people want capabilistic differentiation between characters. C&C, as written, has only limited support for this (i.e., character classes, primes, and to a lesser extent, attribute bonuses). For many, that is enough...for some, not so.

The thing with C&C is that it is easy to add bits and peices. If one misses Feats, they can be added in (some as is, some with modifications). If you miss skills or other wise feel that Seige Checks with just the 6 stats are not enough for definition of capabilities, add in "Areas of Expertise" (or whatever James Bond/Top Secret called them).

Not everyone wants this capabilistic information to be all defined (and in fact want an even more minimalist system), others want as much as possible to be defined, and most are somewhere in the middle.

~AoB
_________________
~Adaen of Bridgewater, www.highadventuregames.com

[Harry Joy]

When our DM first suggested C&C, my primary beef was "How on earth will my character grow?". Now, many many months later, and my current character is 2nd level, on the cusp of third, I've realised that my best-case scenario from over a year ago has come true - that this character, in two levels, has grown more and developed more than any 3.x character could ever hope to progress by 2nd level. Without leveling, he has gotten better at his basic class skills, and has taken on a more detailed personality than my last two 3.x characters combined.

[Buttmonkey]

Personally, I don't think I'd want to play C&C with a skills set. If I wanted to play a skills-based game, I'd be playing Lejendary Adventures. I dropped out of RPGing around when 2E came out and pretty much skipped the entire skills/feat thing with D&D. I guess that makes me old-fashioned. Back in my day, we didn't need no stinking skills and feats to have fun. We had classes and levels and we liked it! Adding on skills strikes me as a pain in the ass I don't need.

[adaen]

Buttmonkey wrote:
Personally, I don't think I'd want to play C&C with a skills set. ---snip---Adding on skills strikes me as a pain in the ass I don't need.

Different strokes for different folks. That's what makes C&C work so well. That being said, there's skill systems and then there's Skill Systems. The gambit being tracking each skill point-by-point ala D&D 3.x (which has its place) or just using the Seige Checks as written (which are akin to very broad skill groups).

An intermediate of those two options would be to record "exceptions" to the you only get to treat it as a prime and add your level if it is a class skill (or makes sense) rule. What I mean by that is to write down some of the "what makes sense" so that players know they can rely on it somewhat.

For example, even if I am a Fighter with a CHA prime, if I was raised in a merchant family, I should be able draw on that background during haggling....esp. for weapons. Writing that down in an "Areas of Knowledge" listing to formalize it a bit can be helpful for players to better understand the capabilities of their specific character.

YMMV.

~AoB
_________________
~Adaen of Bridgewater, www.highadventuregames.com

[Omote]

I agree, and I love skill systems. One of the reasons I fell in love with C&C is because of the ease you could transplant skill systems, or even invent you own.

One of the joys of playing regular C&C (as opposed to C&C white Box, which hasa charm of it's own) has been turing C&C into a more skills based system for me and my players. The base C&Cgame does everything else so well, we wanted to skill-it-up as it were to make our games a bit more indepth. And we're still loving it.
-O
_________________
> Omote's Advanced C&C stuff <
Duke Omote Landwehr, Holy Order of the FPQ ~ Prince of the Castles & Crusades Society

[gideon_thorne]

One of the criticisms of C&C is its very openness. Ironic that it was a design feature.

Instead of telling folks how they must play, which is a paradigm of several systems, C&C encourages one to make the game their own.

Just as OD&D did back in the 70's.

It also should be noted that Advanced D&D was specifically designed for play during convention tournaments so folks would have a common set of assumptions to work from.

Its funny the fact that I hear folks talk about what version of D&D C&C is 'like the most'. Some folks think OD&D, some AD&D 1e, some 2e, some think D&D 3e light. Just goes to show that the design intent of C&C works rather well; Wherein it can be made into whatever someones edition preference is.
_________________
"We'll go out through the kitchen!" Tanis Half-Elven

Peter Bradley

[NulSyn]

Buttmonkey wrote:
I dropped out of RPGing around when 2E came out and pretty much skipped the entire skills/feat thing with D&D.

To be honest, I wish this had happened to me. In my own personal experience 3rd edition warped my sense of rping. I am still working on repairing the damage.

[Zudrak]

NulSyn wrote:
To be honest, I wish this had happened to me. In my own personal experience 3rd edition warped my sense of rping. I am still working on repairing the damage.

Agreed. I took 10 years off from 1990-2000 and our group went with 3e instead of digging out my old books from my parents' attic (truth be told I went to a now-defunct gaming store and the guy there sold me on 3e after I told him I'd not gamed in 10 years).

My brother and I took a weekend and went digging a couple years later to help us find the elusive "feel" that we sensed was missing from the experience. C&C and our 1e collection have restored that good ol' feeling.
_________________
AD&D, Amish Dungeons & Dragons.

"Galstaff, ye are in a cornfield, when a moustachioed man approaches. What say ye?"

"I shun him."

-----

"Knowledge, logic, reason, and common sense serve better than a dozen rule books."

-- E. Gary Gygax

[Treebore]

I find it sad that people think feats are what "individualizes" a person. Skills do to an extent, but personality is the biggest "individualization" of any person. Still, humans are far more alike than they are different.

So the best way to individualize anyone, character or real human being, is through their personality. Skills and feats do not make an individual, because anyone else can have or learn those skills/feats. The only thing that cannot be completely copied is the individual personality.

Game mechanics do not cover that, and I would never play a game that tried to do 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

[serleran]

Treebore, man, buddy... you need to try the game called Sensitivity. Its not a RPG as we think of them, generally, but it is a "psychology therapy game" and is designed to do exactly what you just described... create whole new personalities. Pretty odd game, really, but for the dollar I spent at Goodwill for it, I'm pretty happy. Hehe.

[adaen]

Treebore wrote:
I find it sad that people think feats are what "individualizes" a person. Skills do to an extent, but personality is the biggest "individualization" of any person. Still, humans are far more alike than they are different.

So the best way to individualize anyone, character or real human being, is through their personality. Skills and feats do not make an individual, because anyone else can have or learn those skills/feats. The only thing that cannot be completely copied is the individual personality.

Game mechanics do not cover that, and I would never play a game that tried to do it.

It is not that feats are the only thing that "individualizes" characters, but mechanical differences in capabilities can provide for a very rich tactical gaming experience. Some like their roleplaying games to have a rich tactical aspect to them. Some like to minimze the tactical aspect of their gaming...C&C, as written, maginalizes player tactics (or places their effects into the realm of GM fiat....something that is at odds with a strong tactical agenda).

If making characters capabilistically different is not at all important, then there would really be no need for character classes either. Right?

The answer is that it is of varying importance to different people and gaming groups, depending on their playing agenda. How crunchy do they want to be? How much do they want to have to trust that their understanding of a tactical situation (and any benefits or penalties) is the same as the understanding that their GM has? These things are important. There is no *right* answer, but these things ought to be considered when (or if) one is retooling the default system.

Best to All,

~AoB
_________________
~Adaen of Bridgewater, www.highadventuregames.com