Something we need to talk about...

[Balthock]

After reading some rather heated discussion in another thread, I feel that we need to get this out in the open and attempt to get some resolution of the issue that came up.

There is a tendency here to turn left at Albuquerque when someone posts a question about the rules.

I've only been using C&C for about three months. I've posted a number of things here and have personally, and seen others, have a tough time occasionally getting a DIRECT answer to a question.

By DIRECT, I mean an answer that is what the designers INTENDED. Almost every 'answer' to almost every question is "Do what you want to", "House-rule it" or simply "Change it till it feels right". That's all well and good, but isn't it usually inherent in game design for the creators to have a good reason for a specific 'rule'? Why do so many posts seem to be advice that suggests reinventing the wheel?

I appreciate the open architechture of C&C. It CAN be built to suit, but to my mind it doesn't have to be, nor should it. I think that C&C is perfectly playable out of the box.

The point I'm making is, that, it would be really nice to have a person/moderator/representative of TLG that could give an OFFICIAL answer to a RULE interpretation. Dragon magazine did this quite successfully years ago with columns like 'Sage Advice".

I realize that the Trolls, bless their black little hearts, are very busy writing/testing/editing/creating more 'stuff' for this product that we all appreciate, so they may not have the time, but dammit, even the flexibility of C&C has some rationale behind it's design and many people in here don't have the time or inclination to tinker with it to the degree that others do.

I understand that in some cases there may not be a truly "official" answer to a question because doing so would be so extremely complicated that it wouldn't actually be helpful, or might violate copyright or some mysterious NDA. But in many cases there is at least one simple, direct statement that could satisfy the poster. This is what I'm asking for. Many of the regular contributors and/or seasoned C&Cers post 'helpful' messages in response to an inquiry. I'm not saying I don't appreciate their input, but as noted above, too many times it simply doesn't ANSWER the question. It can make the poster feel as if he's 'just not getting it' or just downright stupid. This isn't productive.

We're here to make our own games better, and this would be better served if there were fewer personal interpretations and more "official" ones.

Please note that I'm not saying that we should stop sharing our own opinions, but the official word should come from TLG with the caveat that if their answer doesn't fit your game, they officially (grin) say you can change it!
_________________
Meet me at Stonehenge at Midnight. I'll bring the goat.

[Matthew]

Whilst I can appreciate the desire for an 'official' interpretation, I suspect that when you don't get one, it means that there isn't one. The rule was deliberately left open and the intention was for you to decide for yourself. It is sometimes a difficult design concept to accept, but it seems to be true in most cases.
_________________
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)

[Witterquick]

As one of the persons cited as having "angry" posts in the aforementioned thread, I don't need an official answer to rules queries (as a side note, I go back long enough to remember where there was a whole section in the letters from readers part of Dragon dedicated to people refuting Sage Advice), what I can do without is the ad hominem attacks that occur when a person suggests that it isn't "intentional" but perhaps a mistake.

And, since there are multiple reprints of the game, pages of errata sheets, etc. I think it is fair to have someone say "hey, this doesn't look right, is it?" without someone getting insulting, even if the rule is correct.

I have one final thing to say about Matthew's reference to a different philosophy of game design. I can respect a game that allows for a lot of CK-control over rules interpretations, but I can't help but think that somewhere down the line this would make the game difficult to manage in a multi-CK environment like a convention. I suppose the organizer could say, "hey, the CK at the table calls the shots." The good news is that despite dozens of rules questions, I haven't yet seen one that is some sort of major deal-breaker across the board.
_________________
http://strangequests.wordpress.com/

[CharlieRock]

It does seem like there is a rubber stamp response to a lot of rule questions. Sometimes this is because certain areas of the game were intentionally left open/out (like item creation, or a set-in-stone CL listing for tasks). Sometimes there isn't a really good reason for a rule (like why is it a 'roll-high' system or a d10 for intiative). So it can kind of become repetitive.

And sometimes a question gets asked a lot. My very first post (on these boards) was about something that had been addressed so many times I actually did feel silly when someone answered with a link to some errata page and there it was.

Quite a few of us post on other boards where C&C is regarded as some kind of bastard game system, and it leaves people feeling defensive. And sometimes, just sometimes, this rubs off here.

Maybe other times the matter in question is viewed as being inconsequential to the point of not needing a solution. Bottom line is TLG doesn't have a 'sage' posting here full time (though Serl, BashMan, Breakdaddy, Omote, and Gideon come gosh darn close). You could kind of say that your just as much the Sage as I am or anybody else here.

I would like nothing better then to have somebody explain rules like Treebore does with his stuff (but, be the 'official' book guy for it). It's up to us though.

Y'all could just ask me. I'm right all the time (just takes me a while to figure it out).
_________________
The Rock says ...

Know your roll!

[Fiffergrund]

Having been with C&C since day 1, I can confirm that there is indeed a reason (or a very contentious thought process) for everything that was done. Sometimes it was a good reason, and sometimes it was arbitrary.

If someone has a question about the intent of the rules or the original thought process behind them, I'd simply suggest making that clear in the question itself. Someone who knows will answer or at least give an educated guess as to why things are a certain way.

I agree that too much of "do what you want" can be pretty annoying. Yes, it's true, we all know C&C is flexible, but that gets tired when repeated a few dozen times as the answer for every question.
_________________
Sir Fiffergrund, Lord Marshal of the Castle and Crusade Society.

He Who Hides Behind The Elephant's Back

[moriarty777]

Now, I'm not berating anybody for wanting something official on a stance or issue but the game does derive benefit a lot from the fans. This did get me to what to point out a couple things though:

It's quite possible that with Crusader magazine starting a new direction, they could implement something like the old 'Sage Advice' column (for any of the powers that be that might be reading this).

At the same time, one thread that has been 'stickied' has been the Q&A With Serleran. In a sense, there's your Sage Advice right there. He was heavily involved with the creation of the game and, in this case, he literally wrote the book on monsters! I don't know how much more official you would want, but I think the reason the thread was 'stickied' in the first place was to help with some of these questions that pop up.

However, a lot of effort in my mind has been put forth by the fans. Notable efforts have been the Errata compilation done by Traveller in the past, or providing a missing map for a published module (as facilitated by the writer and another board member). This is more of a case of fans helping fans and sometimes you'll get a better and quicker response this way.

Sadly, the errata mentioned is not the outdated one found somewhere on the TLG site and the missing map alluded to is, as far as I know, still *officially* missing. At the same time, the Trolls do know that the fan community has contributed in this manner which might be why they haven't themselves. Besides, we all know how full their plates are at the moment.
I often try and be a 'voice of reason' whenever I can... I try to help my fellow Crusader the best I can. Oh... and to answer one question, the reason why a d10 is used for initiative may have something to do with that there are 10 seconds in a round. I too had always wondered that, and it was one of the regulars that clued me in.

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

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

[Matthew]

Witterquick wrote:
I have one final thing to say about Matthew's reference to a different philosophy of game design. I can respect a game that allows for a lot of CK-control over rules interpretations, but I can't help but think that somewhere down the line this would make the game difficult to manage in a multi-CK environment like a convention. I suppose the organizer could say, "hey, the CK at the table calls the shots." The good news is that despite dozens of rules questions, I haven't yet seen one that is some sort of major deal-breaker across the board.

Absolutely, that's the trade off for having a more open approach. The AD&D 2e Core Books had a more dualistic stance. Whilst the rules were open and intended to be heavily modified for private play, there were also the 'tournament' rules, which were used at conventions as a standard. Should C&C have more 'standard' rules and 'official' interpretations for use in tournament or conventional play? I think it will be a trade off. The more of those rulings there are, the less it will be perceived as an open game. Instead of asking the CK, the players refer to the 'official' answer and the CK may feel obligated to 'fall in line'.

Sure, the whole 'it's up to you' answer becomes tired after you have heard it a few times, but only if you actually want an official answer to a question that has no official answer.

In the case of whether Monsters add their Hit Dice to Saving Throws, for example, Serleran answered that Monsters always add their Hit Dice to Saving Throws, part of the explanation being that they don't have Attribute Modifiers. That's the official answer. I don't agree with it and I won't be using it, but am I therefore no longer playing Castles & Crusades? The accusation could certainly be levelled at me and the more instances where I rule differently from the 'official' method, the more I feel I am at variance with the game.

This is one of the key things that makes Castles & Crusades different from D20. When I ask a question on the boards, I'm generally not given an 'official' answer, but rather a discussion of the pros and cons of doing X, Y and Z. I prefer it that way, but I can appreciate that not everyone does.
_________________
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)

[Omote]

Best of luck to those who need hard answers. Fiff is right that many people can give an educated guess as to why certain rules are the way they are, but C&C was deisgned to be open. I would reckon that not even the game designers themselves can answer every question posed. This is simply because that the basic framework was all that was designed, with not further thought process devoted to certain rules topics.

It's interesting and quite fascinating that C&C has pulled up this type of discussion. I don;t think I've ever seen something like this before.

Just saying.

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

[CharlieRock]

moriarty777 wrote:
Oh... and to answer one question, the reason why a d10 is used for initiative may have something to do with that there are 10 seconds in a round. I too had always wondered that, and it was one of the regulars that clued me in.

M

That doesn't make a grand load of sense, but as good an answer as I'm due. That makes it seem like if I rolled a 3, then for the first seven seconds I did nothing then opened a can of whoopa ... hit somebody for one second then froze back up for the guy that rolled a 2.

But if somebody just said 'Hey, there's ten seconds in a round so let's roll d10 for initiative instead of a d6' then that's just as good a reason as me wanting to arbitrarily allow the fastest combatant to win intiative without rolling.
_________________
The Rock says ...

Know your roll!

[Fiffergrund]

Another reason for the d10, as I recall, is that the d20 was considered to provide too wide of a range of possible results, creating more complex recordkeeping for the CK each round. The d6, by contrast, probably didn't provide enough variance, so the d10 was taken as a middle ground.

Sieg and I lobbied for the lowly d12, but were overruled.
_________________
Sir Fiffergrund, Lord Marshal of the Castle and Crusade Society.

He Who Hides Behind The Elephant's Back

[CharlieRock]

Fiffergrund wrote:
Another reason for the d10, as I recall, is that the d20 was considered to provide too wide of a range of possible results, creating more complex recordkeeping for the CK each round. The d6, by contrast, probably didn't provide enough variance, so the d10 was taken as a middle ground.

Sieg and I lobbied for the lowly d12, but were overruled.

When I was CKing I tried to convince the team that we should go from fastest to slowest characters for initiatives (with tieing speeds rolling to break the tie). I was overruled. Vastly.
Like, every single player poopooed my idea.
_________________
The Rock says ...

Know your roll!

[DangerDwarf]

Fiffergrund wrote:
Sieg and I lobbied for the lowly d12, but were overruled.

d12 would have rocked. Best die ever.

[serleran]

You guys must remember that we developers are still bound by a NDA covering the development process. Only specific aspects of it have been lifted (like the rule of six,) so we are not allowed to discuss everything to the minute detail level that may be wanted. Maybe this is something the Trolls can do, but they have not (at least, I have never been told it is ok to talk about everything.) "Why" you ask this is: its simple - some of those discussions are CKG alternates, derivatives, or finding their way into other TLG projects, so revealing them now would be problematic.

Oh, and, we're all people here. People have opinions. Those opinions clash at times.

[CharlieRock]

serleran wrote:
People have opinions. Those opinions clash at times.

And when those opinions conflict with mine they are no longer opinions but 'wrong'.
_________________
The Rock says ...

Know your roll!

[gideon_thorne]

Actually, the "Sage Advice" column isn't a bad idea. I'll run it past the Crusader people and see what can be developed.
_________________
"We'll go out through the kitchen!" Tanis Half-Elven

Peter Bradley

[serleran]

Mac was supposed to do it, and then Davis, but it never happened. Maybe for the same reasons the Letters to the Editor never happened... just not enough interest in it.

[gideon_thorne]

If at first you don't succeed, try try again.

With someone who can devote full time to expanding the magazine now at the helm, better things can happen.
Positivity people, positivity!
_________________
"We'll go out through the kitchen!" Tanis Half-Elven

Peter Bradley

[Fiffergrund]

gideon_thorne wrote:
Actually, the "Sage Advice" column isn't a bad idea. I'll run it past the Crusader people and see what can be developed.

I'd write it. I'm already writing as it is, and that'd be no big deal for me.

Naturally it might be better long term to have someone else do it, but I'd be ok with doing it for a while.
_________________
Sir Fiffergrund, Lord Marshal of the Castle and Crusade Society.

He Who Hides Behind The Elephant's Back

[CharlieRock]

Sounded to me like gideon_thorne volunteered. Right?
_________________
The Rock says ...

Know your roll!

[gideon_thorne]

Fiffergrund wrote:
I'd write it. I'm already writing as it is, and that'd be no big deal for me.

Naturally it might be better long term to have someone else do it, but I'd be ok with doing it for a while.

There ya go folks.

What I suggest people do is this. Might come up with various short questions that are the most pressing and that can serve as a basis for a few articles.

The Logic of XP.

How, why and when critters add their HD.

Im sure folks can think of others.
_________________
"We'll go out through the kitchen!" Tanis Half-Elven

Peter Bradley

[gideon_thorne]

CharlieRock wrote:
Sounded to me like gideon_thorne volunteered. Right?

*chuckles* Don't look at me. I'm blindly incompetent when it comes to putting down coherent thought into article form.
_________________
"We'll go out through the kitchen!" Tanis Half-Elven

Peter Bradley

[Fiffergrund]

Back on topic, a bit:

One thing I noticed in the other thread dealt with a conflict between two sides: those that see something odd and assume it's a mistake, and those that understand those things aren't errors but design decisions.

People get their feathers ruffled when something that doesn't make sense at first glance is assumed to be a mistake or error, or worse a flaw in design. The vast majority of the time in C&C, things that look like they are handled differently from other games are that way on purpose, either because it was decided that there would be a departure from "how things are usually done", or there was a fundamental difference in philosophy that informed a decision.

With the XP table issue, I can see the assumption of error being made, when this was not at all the case.

So, while I appreciate the need for clarification about official reasoning, etc., it is also helpful not to jump to conclusions and keep an open mind about things that appear to be odd. It is far safer to assume that something odd is the product of a rational decision than an outright error.

People have invested a lot of time in the design of C&C and tagging something as a flaw just because it doesn't operate under the same assumptions as, say, D20 isn't fair. People this invested in the product don't like to hear that it's "broken" just because something looks funny and "that's not the way 3E+ did it." That's part of the reason the other thread got to that point.
_________________
Sir Fiffergrund, Lord Marshal of the Castle and Crusade Society.

He Who Hides Behind The Elephant's Back

[seskis281]

gideon_thorne wrote:
If at first you don't succeed, try try again.

With someone who can devote full time to expanding the magazine now at the helm, better things can happen.
Positivity people, positivity!

_________________
John "Sir Seskis" Wright

Ilshara: Lands of Exile:
http://johnwright281.tripod.com/

High Squire of the C&C Society
www.cncsociety.org

[Zudrak]

seskis281 wrote:

It's peanut butter jelly time...!
_________________
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

[DangerDwarf]

gideon_thorne wrote:
*chuckles* Don't look at me. I'm blindly incompetent when it comes to putting down coherent thought into article form.

I prefer my answers in pictogram.

[Camazotz]

I'd love to know what some of these questions are for which no official answers are forthcoming....(feel like poking a stick in a hornet's nest here, but curiosity, eh?)

Given how effectively C&C was written with the open-ended design, I've had a hard time not feeling comfortable coming up with my own rule mods, or just changing things to suit. In the course of doing so, I have noticed a couple of these oddities myself, which left me wondering what the design intent was, but it certainly didn't change my thought on the house rule process. An example:

My wife wanted to make a ranger dwarf. She's a C&C noob, converted at last, and so her vision was of a tough dwarf gal with two punch daggers and a habit of leaping at foes like that bald guy from Reign of Fire (but living longer, I suspect...maybe...)

It was at that time that I noticed that rangers did not have special perks, near as I can tell, for two-weapon fighting, unlike AD&D 2nd or 3rd edition. But as I studied the ranger, it occured to me that the class has an amalgamation of 1st, 2nd, and even a few 3rd edition traits. I imagined that the design process in playtesting the ranger was an eventual compromise of different ideas, but in the end the specialties in two-weapon style and/or archery didn't quite make the cut over the ranger's serious obession with killing humanoids, giants, and his pick-a-foe favorite.

So I reviewed the two-weapon combat rule, and realized that a -3/-6 restriction was awful. It felt slightly tougher than the very friendly -2/-4 modifier in 2nd edition, but wasn't as awful as the base rules in 3rd edition, which made it prohibitive without feats. My guess was a middle-of-the road compromise to make it an option, but one which sacrificed a lot of atatck chances for a slight gain on two hits. Since I always felt that 2nd edition AD&D's rule was aimed at making it easy to play Drizzt'Do Urden anyway, I could understand the logic....but in terms of payout, it made two-weapon style fighting in C&C a crippling effect for the most part, since unlike the 3E version, you don't have a feat to improve it. Buuuut....not entirely true, because while C&C doesn't have a feat system saying, "take this to be better at 2-wpn fighting," it has an even more important rule: "add it if you want."

Sooooo....I simply modded it. I left the -3/-6 penalty in place (because fighting with two weapons efficiently is a cinematic, not realistic trait), and let my wife trade out some "official" ranger coolness for improved skill in two-weapon fighting. Lose one existing ranger ability, and gain the style with a 0/-3 penalty. Later, she can lose the 6th level favored enemy trait, if she wants, and get a 0/0 penalty to her attacks, too (although I think she won't choose that option when the time comes). Simple answer, one which let her remain a ranger, but of the type she wanted.

Now, I imagine I'd love to read, some day, the thoughts on ranger design that went on. In my opinion, it's not that barbarians or fighters are underpowered or missing perks....rather, the ranger is overloaded with them and suffers from High Expectations....it's a class that everyone has some views and minimum requirements on. Just like the scenario I highlighted. But it's nice to know that the C&C rules are sufficiently moddable that I can make a change like that and not worry about how it affects play balance. I think, had a change like that cropped up in AD&D, it would have been harder to implement, and in 3E it seemed like any change I ever brought to the table caused the rules lawyers to go in to tail-diving spins of death.

Ummm....I forgot my point, but yeah, carry on! And let's get a Keeper's Advice ala Sage Advice for Crusader, one which can provide a sort of "official unofficial answers" column, or something.

[Matthew]

Camazotz wrote:
Since I always felt that 2nd edition AD&D's rule was aimed at making it easy to play Drizzt'Do Urden anyway, I could understand the logic....

Interestingly, this was recently asked of David Cook, who said that Drizzt didn't actually influence this particular design choice. That's not actually surprising, since the 2e core rules didn't allow a Scimitar to be used as an off hand weapon.

More importantly, of course, is the fact that Drizzt is plainly a 1e Unearthed Arcana inspired character (as Dark Elves can use two Weapon Fighting without penalty and with any One Handed Weapons as a racial trait) whose stats were first printed in The Savage Frontier, a year or so before 2e went into print.

On topic, I agree with the general thrust of what you're saying, more 'official rules' won't prevent people from House Ruling stuff, but it does create a 'default' where none existed before and new players may not ever think to go beyond that default.
_________________
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)

[Jonathan of White Haven]

serleran wrote:
You guys must remember that we developers are still bound by a NDA covering the development process. Only specific aspects of it have been lifted (like the rule of six,) so we are not allowed to discuss everything to the minute detail level that may be wanted. Maybe this is something the Trolls can do, but they have not (at least, I have never been told it is ok to talk about everything.) "Why" you ask this is: its simple - some of those discussions are CKG alternates, derivatives, or finding their way into other TLG projects, so revealing them now would be problematic.

Having held security clearances in the past, I fully understand that there are some things that you and the other TLG developers can not or will not talk about since they are covered by an NDA or six. There are things that, if I told you about them, I'd have to kill you and then go to prison for 10 years for talking about them. But not for killing you.
I think that what skerns is asking for (he's my CK, after all, and we've discussed this) is that someone, anyone directly connected to Troll Lord Games field and answer questions concerning what might be considered "hard and fast" rules that are presented in the PHB and/or M&T. Not exactly "why" a particular rule is thus and so, but "how" a particular rule works, such as in the recent thread concerning the "ranged" touch attack for the Acid Arrow spell. Even though Traveller answered the OP's question quickly and succinctly, the thread continued to muddle on for two additional pages, becoming more and more convoluted as people, myself included, added their opinions on how to apply the correct game mechanic. And, at some point during the ongoing discussion, the OP responded, saying that he was still confused, and probably so because of the opinions offered by people who had posted after Traveller had actually answered the question asked.

The simplest answer as to how a touch attack works appears on page 117 of the PHB. But nobody, Traverller and myself included, happened to mention this. (I looked it up ex post facto.) And it's actually quite clear and concise. So it goes.

serleran wrote:
Oh, and, we're all people here. People have opinions. Those opinions clash at times.

True enough. Most times, the opinions related are ones having to do with a question regarding something that isn't covered by the "canon" rules, and the various knowledgible CKs and players respond with descriptions on how they handle the item in their campaigns. Those descriptions are most often offered as suggestions. It's very rare that someone will respond that "this is the way it just has to be done."

I think that some sort of "Sage Advice" or ""Iron Rule" column in The Crusader would be welcome, especially for those people who don't have Internet access but do play and enjoy C&C. Even more so, perhaps an online forum here could be equally useful for those who need a quick answer to a question concerning a particular game mechanic. And no, I don't believe that this particular forum, with nobody connected with TLG directly assigned to answer such questions, is quite the venue that I envision. Maybe I'm asking for too much, and no such person is able to take enough of their obviously copious free time to take on the job.

But I am interested to see how far and in what direction this discussion goes. Perhaps some good will come of it.
_________________
"You don't understand, Beaufingle", said Lungwort cryptically. "You ARE dinner." -- M.M. Moamrath

[serleran]

Well, I try to answer questions as fast as I possibly can, but I like to argue, too... so, umm, I'm definitely not the right guy for "sage." Though, I do wonder who would know more about the monsters... hehe.

[Fiffergrund]

How about this:

I set up a new subforum under the Rules category, for official questions and answers. Anyone can post a question, but only those with "authority" can post responses. Naturally, this would be the Trolls, GT, Serleran, myself, Sieg, and a few others that can be considered experts on the material.

In our answers, we'd try to keep opinion out of it and stick to the letter whenever possible, informed by our understanding of the development of the rules.

It wouldn't be perfect - something I posted could be overridden by Steve, for example, but naturally his word and Davis's word would be surpreme. The rest of us would be able to cover most of the stuff.

Does this sound palatable?
_________________
Sir Fiffergrund, Lord Marshal of the Castle and Crusade Society.

He Who Hides Behind The Elephant's Back