C&C designers: Why no thieves, cavaliers, or magic-users

Yamo · Post by **Yamo** » Thu Mar 13, 2008 8:04 pm

It seems odd to go after the "old-school" vibe while keeping WotC's unfortunate rechristening of the thief and MU. And "cavalier" not only sounds cooler than "knight", it's more old-school, too.

Mostly, I'm just tired of having to explain that there are no "rogues" in my campaign, goddamit! And you're not a "wizard" at first level, so quit saying so before a real wizard comes along and drops a meteor swarm on you!

Treebore · Post by **Treebore** » Thu Mar 13, 2008 8:19 pm

To me there is no real difference between "thief" and "rogue", I never bought into the 3E "political correctness" campaign of what "rogue" means.

I have always referred to Magic Users as "Magic User", "wizard", "mage", etc...

So using any of the terms is "old school" to me.
_________________
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 · Post by **serleran** » Thu Mar 13, 2008 8:38 pm

There is a separate forum, called Keeper Advice, for these questions.

gideon_thorne · Post by **gideon_thorne** » Thu Mar 13, 2008 8:43 pm

Recognition. When dealing with the OGL, using familiar terms with the current and new audiences, is prudent.

Explaining to players that there are no 'rogues' seems kinda counterproductive to a fantasy setting. There are rogues in every fantasy setting, some are just called thieves since they are those who tend to not recognize personal property values.
As for Cavalier, its a French term that not everyone would recognize. But everyone knows what a Knight is.
_________________
"We'll go out through the kitchen!" Tanis Half-Elven

Peter Bradley

sieg · Post by **sieg** » Thu Mar 13, 2008 8:44 pm

...don't get me started!
Personally, I'd have been happier if C&C had gone that route but I understand why the decision was made to go this way. Note "understand" does not equate to "like".

"Rogue" instead of "Thief" to make the class less antisocial; MU's confusion of "But if I use a magic sword I'M a Magic User aren't I?" and "Knight" because of....well, I dont' know. Probably something to do with copyright but who knows?

I do know that in the C&C version of the Canting Crew Gary had planned to introduce a Thief class and he NEVER did the "Rogue" bit.

Well, except for Gord the Rogue but that's a whole different kettle of fish. Like my Thief usually introduces himself as a member of the "Locksmith & Carpender's Guild".
But yeah I'd have preferred the OS class names. And level titles...
_________________
Always remember, as a first principle of all D&D: playing BtB is not now, never was and never will be old school.- Tim Kask, Dragonsfoot

gideon_thorne · Post by **gideon_thorne** » Thu Mar 13, 2008 8:46 pm

sieg wrote:
"Rogue" instead of "Thief" to make the class less antisocial; MU's confusion of "But if I use a magic sword I'M a Magic User aren't I?" and "Knight" because of....well, I dont' know. Probably something to do with copyright but who knows?

The phrase your looking for is 'trade dress'.
_________________
"We'll go out through the kitchen!" Tanis Half-Elven

Peter Bradley

moriarty777 · Post by **moriarty777** » Thu Mar 13, 2008 9:56 pm

Personally, I don't mind it... in fact in some cases, I rather like it.

When I played AD&D, I had more than a couple of thief characters that preferred to be called rogues anyway. Let's face it, all thieves may be rogues but not all rogues are thieves.

Magic-Users? Well they were also called Wizards in AD&D 2nd Edition. Then again, I never called them magic-users or wizards... we always called them mages. However, I find that I like using the term wizard as opposed to magic-user since there are other magic-using classes in C&C such as the illusionist.

As for Cavaliers... well harder to justify. I like the Knight as it appears in C&C, but the distinction between someone who was 'knighted' as someone is a knight class is a bit different. Then again, the same thing can be said of a Barbarian and what clearly is a 'Berserker' in the C&C Player's Handbook.

It's all in good fun!

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

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

Omote · Post by **Omote** » Thu Mar 13, 2008 9:59 pm

I never minded the term Rogue over thief anyways. I have played several thief characters back in the day who were nothing but un-thief-like.

Now level titles... oh, delicious.

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

BLOOD AXE · Post by **BLOOD AXE** » Thu Mar 13, 2008 11:59 pm

Personally,like the names. If you don't like the names, just use different ones in your campaign.

Harry Joy · Post by **Harry Joy** » Fri Mar 14, 2008 12:10 am

Omote wrote:
I never minded the term Rogue over thief anyways. I have played several thief characters back in the day who were nothing but un-thief-like.

Ditto.

Beyond the political correctness, which is something that seems foisted upon the decision to use the name Rogue and not the original intent, a Thief is only one particular thing, one archetype. A Rogue is many things, and often has the same talents and/or motivations but different style and modus operandi.

Then there's... Thief - belongs in jail. Rogue - lovable.

Stuie · Post by **Stuie** » Fri Mar 14, 2008 12:32 am

My character is a Thief. :shrug:
_________________
Laudir Agus Mir

magehammer · Post by **magehammer** » Fri Mar 14, 2008 12:37 am

Stuie: A halfling thief I hope.
_________________
If you are looking for something to read:
http://bit.ly/QOfso

Visit magehammer's Keep on the Weblands at http://magehammer.googlepages.com

Tadhg · Post by **Tadhg** » Fri Mar 14, 2008 12:54 am

I'm OK with any and all usage. I mix the names frequently.

To me MU is too broad. Many classes are MUs - druids, illusionists, clerics and bards (1E)

Some oddities - under MU's titles - you have a wizard.

Rogue is also too broad. Heh, under titles (again), a first lvl thief is a rogue. I'd have it the other way.

And personally, I like the halfling rogue/thief as a . . . burglar!

Fun thread.

_________________
Count Rhuveinus - Lejendary Keeper of Castle Franqueforte

"Enjoy a 'world' where the fantastic is fact and magic really works!" ~ Gary Gygax

"By the pricking of my thumbs, Something wicked this way comes:" - Macbeth

magehammer · Post by **magehammer** » Fri Mar 14, 2008 12:56 am

"Burgle" is halfling for "borrow"

_________________
If you are looking for something to read:
http://bit.ly/QOfso

Visit magehammer's Keep on the Weblands at http://magehammer.googlepages.com

Omote · Post by **Omote** » Fri Mar 14, 2008 1:04 am

However, I point to the fact that according to Steve the upcoming CANTING CREW book for C&C has the thief class within it's pages... according to the description that was given a long time ago though.

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

Telhawk · Post by **Telhawk** » Fri Mar 14, 2008 1:47 am

It's an interesting - if moot - point. I certainly hold true to the idea that Messers Chenault, Doyel and Golden wouldn't have a problem with it if you "renamed" a class in your game; just as long as it's understood that it goes no further than that.

Personally, I was rather pleased with the name change from magic-user to wizard - the former just seemed a little too generic for me. Thief to rogue is so close in definition - from my point of view, anyway - as to be almost immaterial. And the word "cavalier" was, again, from my experience, linked with too many pejoratives to sum up the nature of the class. I'm perfectly happy with knight, although I always felt that should have been the title for high-level paladins.

Also, re level titles, Jungger has been intent on re-introducing those into our campaign (which we resume tomorrow after a far-too-long gap); once more, those are a neat little bit of fluff that add just a touch of style. Neat.

serleran · Post by **serleran** » Fri Mar 14, 2008 2:12 am

Quote:
However, I point to the fact that according to Steve the upcoming CANTING CREW book for C&C has the thief class within it's pages...

That's not exactly surprising.

anonymous · Post by **anonymous** » Fri Mar 14, 2008 11:04 am

As I see it Rogue is the archytype WITHIN which a charater can assume the occupational tendencies of 'thief' as they could 'tomb raider' and so on... I personally like to allow some fine tuning of the Rogue class i.e. drop cant or decipher text and pick up survival and so on to further this adaptability of the rogue archytype.

Matthew · Post by **Matthew** » Fri Mar 14, 2008 12:01 pm

Do characters refer to one another by class designation in game? If not, then it doesn't really matter what you call them, as far as I can see. It certainly makes no difference to me.
_________________
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)

Yamo · Post by **Yamo** » Fri Mar 14, 2008 12:36 pm

Matthew wrote:
Do characters refer to one another by class designation in game?

Of course! In my games, anyway.

This is a surprisingly liberal crowd as far as such things go. I get the feeling I'd see some much different responses on other sites frequented by "retro-D&D" enthusiasts.

Matthew · Post by **Matthew** » Fri Mar 14, 2008 1:08 pm

Right, well there's your problem right there.
Oh, yeah, this sort of question comes up on Dragonsfoot from time to time and there are plenty of posts there about Rogue being an unacceptable term for describing a Thief. Mostly that's bound up in the hate for all things D20. Much like the 'Great' appellation for Sword, though, I prefer to reclaim terms used by D20 than excise them from my games.
_________________
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)

Yamo · Post by **Yamo** » Fri Mar 14, 2008 1:54 pm

I guess I'm part of that crowd as far as that goes. I don't even like being reminded that WotC's game exists at all. When compelled to discuss it, I literally will not call it by the Name that they happen to own the legal rights to.

Post by **Fiffergrund** » Fri Mar 14, 2008 2:11 pm

While C&C is definitely old-school in its overall approach to the fantasy RPG genre, I believe a crucial factor was ensuring the highest degree of appeal/portability with gamers using other systems. Whether we like it or not, from the late 80's until the present, the terms have been "Rogue" and "Wizard." There are a LOT of gamers out there who cut their teeth on those terms, and may see them in the same light as I see "Magic-User" and "Thief".

When the opportunity to win a convert arises, the last thing the game needs to do is present itself as incompatible by refusing to speak the language. It's hard to vouch for C&C's innovations if a conscious choice is made to use nomenclature not used since the early 80's. Like it or not, some people would see that as a sign the game designers haven't been innovative.

In the end, it's a true "tomato/tomahto" situation, but I think the importance of nomenclature on attracting buyers is often overlooked in favor of nostalgia. At some point, our preferences clash with what is best for the game. We're all fortunate that in C&C's case, we're simply talking about what classes are named, and not far more fundamental changes.
_________________
Sir Fiffergrund, Lord Marshal of the Castle and Crusade Society.

He Who Hides Behind The Elephant's Back

Aladar · Post by **Aladar** » Fri Mar 14, 2008 2:35 pm

As a certain hobbit once said, "I'm not a thief, I'm er... a scout".
_________________
Lord Aladar

Warden of the Welk Wood

Baron of the Castles & Crusades Society

The Poster formerly known as Alwyn

Senior Gamer - Member of the Senior RPG Tour

"NEMO ME IMPUNE LACESSIT - At least not in Yu Gi Oh"
http://www.cncsociety.org/

Fizz · Post by **Fizz** » Fri Mar 14, 2008 2:48 pm

moriarty777 wrote:
When I played AD&D, I had more than a couple of thief characters that preferred to be called rogues anyway. Let's face it, all thieves may be rogues but not all rogues are thieves.

Of course, in C&C, the description for the rogue specifically says they are the `ultimate thieves'.

-Fizz

Matthew · Post by **Matthew** » Fri Mar 14, 2008 2:50 pm

Yamo wrote:
I guess I'm part of that crowd as far as that goes. I don't even like being reminded that WotC's game exists at all. When compelled to discuss it, I literally will not call it by the Name that they happen to own the legal rights to.

I can understand that, though it's worth pointing out that 'Rogue' and 'Wizard' were AD&D 2e innovations as was the 'Great Scimitar' and that all such terms predate the creation of any RPG. Reappropriating the language is, for me, a way of further pushing the memory of D20 out of my game.
Of course, if I really wanted to go old school (and sometimes I do), I'd be referring to 'Fighters' as 'Fighting Men' (and sometimes I do).
_________________
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 · Post by **serleran** » Fri Mar 14, 2008 2:57 pm

I miss Superheroes.

Omote · Post by **Omote** » Fri Mar 14, 2008 3:01 pm

10th level fighters?

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

anglefish · Post by **anglefish** » Sun Mar 16, 2008 8:12 pm

All I know in my old school days was that it was so hard to play an "Adventurer," because everyone expected you to pick their pockets anytime their backs were turned.

Even if you focused on traps and dungeon scouting.

Later I figured out that the class name Thief made for a great excuse for more "honest" character classes to do a pre-emptive strike on my PC.

Treebore · Post by **Treebore** » Sun Mar 16, 2008 8:54 pm

anglefish wrote:
All I know in my old school days was that it was so hard to play an "Adventurer," because everyone expected you to pick their pockets anytime their backs were turned.

Even if you focused on traps and dungeon scouting.

Later I figured out that the class name Thief made for a great excuse for more "honest" character classes to do a pre-emptive strike on my PC.

Yeah, I hated meta gamers with preconceived stereo types of thieves. I only "stole" from the party in the very rare occurances where I found treasures by myself. I didn't consider it stealing since they were too stupid to look where I looked.

They also thought I was stealing all the time because I had significantly more gold than them. In one case they cried so much about it the DM and I finally broke down and told them that all those notes we passed back and forth were me breaking into nobles houses and such while they went around buying stuff. Then they found out the Ranger had been my "back up muscle" in case things went wrong.

To me the thief is the consumate money maker in games.
_________________
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

Troll Lord Games

C&C designers: Why no thieves, cavaliers, or magic-users

C&C designers: Why no thieves, cavaliers, or magic-users

Re: C&C designers: Why no thieves, cavaliers, or magic-u