Abstract versus concrete in games (or, why rules-light systems suck)

[der_kluge]

Except that the d8 rapier is in keeping with C&C, the added threat range is new rule to C&C. Giving you a wider threat range means he has to rethink the threat range of all weapons. Changing the normal damage of the rapier means one change.

Yea, but if you look at the C&C rules by themselves, the weapons are broken, because without any other determining factor (even 2nd edition had weapon speed), there's no reason to choose a weapon for any other reason other than damage.

And all fighters have strength as a primary attribute. Dex isn't an option.

 

[der_kluge]

No, the rules representation of the weapons and classes are similar. If your fighter is defined by his rules representation, you're playing backwards, and no ruleset will ever be complex enough to make your character interesting.

But there comes a point where the rules don't support the character concept. Like, making a cleric who can pick pockets, or a wizard who can walk around in plate armor. Or, in my case, making a fighter who is a dex/speed based, rather than strength based. C&C makes it that all 3rd level fighters of the same strength have the same base to-hit. There's no variation. There's no fighting style differences, there's no mechanical differences. Oh sure, there could be personality differences, but we're not discussing that here.

I had a character concept, and I'm having a difficult time fitting it into the C&C mold. That's what this is about.

 

[S'mon]

Oh, he said I could have a d8 dmg rapier if I wanted one. I would have just preferred that I could have had a d6 dmg rapier with an 18-20 crit range on it.

Which is mechanically weaker and doesn't noticeably play to the strengths of your PC, as far as I can see. I understand not wanting a PC to be made ineffective because of RP choices, but that doesn't seem to be your concern.

 

[S'mon]

I had a character concept, and I'm having a difficult time fitting it into the C&C mold. That's what this is about.

Your character concept works fine in C&C, your only problem seems to be that you want her treated differently from other fighters. BTW Strength makes much less difference to combat effectiveness in C&C than in D&D 3e. Mind you if I were you I'd have put that 16 in STR and called her 'athletically muscular' - she only needs high CHA if you envisage her as an inspirational leader type.

 

[S'mon]

C&C makes it that all 3rd level fighters of the same strength have the same base to-hit. There's no variation. There's no fighting style differences, there's no mechanical differences. Oh sure, there could be personality differences, but we're not discussing that here.

Well, your problem seems to be that you want personality differences expressed mechanically, and C&C is not designed to support that. C&C is intended to minimise mechanics for faster gameplay and to allow concentration on personality.

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

But regardless of that, I can't let this thing get away again:No, the rules representation of the weapons and classes are similar. If your fighter is defined by his rules representation, you're playing backwards, and no ruleset will ever be complex enough to make your character interesting.

That's not true at all. I think 3.5 edition does a good represenation of making my character interesting. It means I have different abilties than other people. It means when I say "I am the ultimate sword fighter, I trained for years under the most skilled master in the world perfecting my art. I roll to hit, I hit ac 15." then my party member whose background is "I picked up a sword last week from the pawn shop, I learned how to fight in bars though." doesn't roll to hit and hit ac 15 as well because they rules don't reflect our backgrounds.

The rules system has to be complicated enough to at least notice the difference. If the rules encourage role playing by giving you a reason to have background, the more people will role play. If every 1st level fighter has the same abilties then they will all have the same background that reflects those abilities. I know almost all of my 2nd edition fighters all were 15 year old kids who barely knew how to wield a sword, because that's about the skill level you started at in those rules.

As for 'DM fiat', I stick by what I said before: it's a really bad DM whose own judgements are worse than those provided by a limited set of game rules written in advance of play, and a poor game where the players don't even trust the DM as much as some book.

Actually, I'd much prefer they use a book. A lot of DMs I've played under haven't read too many of them, which is why putting fiat in their hands is dangerous. Worse yet, the ones that HAVE read something so think they are an expert in subject they don't know all that well.

I now dread certain words coming out of DMs mouths while playing games with less rules and more DM fiat. Things like:

"Yes, he jumps 30 feet over the pit. I read in the Book of World Records that the longest jump made by a human is 35 feet. So, OBVIOUSLY a dwarf can do 30 with no problem."

"I fight in the SCA, so I know how real weapons work. It is perfectly possible to wield 2 longswords without any penalty at all and do full damage with both. It's the way I win all the time, it's easy. So, the enemy hits all of you before you can strike back at him."

"No, you don't see the enemy, you are using infravision, and he had mud on him. It makes you invisible to infravision, haven't you seen Predator?"

And they get worse from there. Every possible bad interpretation of reality has been stated by a DM I played under as FACT and then quoted something like "I'm the DM, I'm always right"

 

[der_kluge]

Well, your problem seems to be that you want personality differences expressed mechanically, and C&C is not designed to support that. C&C is intended to minimise mechanics for faster gameplay and to allow concentration on personality.

Where are you getting that? I want to create a dex-based fighter, in a system that seems to encourage only strength-based fighters. I want to wield a fast weapon in a system that only differentiates weapon by damage, not by speed or threat range. I don't see where personality comes into play there.

 

[Speaks With Stone]

Originally Posted by der_kluge
Where are you getting that? I want to create a dex-based fighter, in a system that seems to encourage only strength-based fighters. I want to wield a fast weapon in a system that only differentiates weapon by damage, not by speed or threat range. I don't see where personality comes into play there.


I think this is an interesting discussion. First I'll say, that I think that by focusing on mechanics you are missing the point of C&C. You can make your build with Str and describe all of your attacks as being speed and quickness. The mechanics don't have to change for you to get the picture in your head. Whether or not the mechanics model the exact behavior you want is not necessary in a game of make believe. The dice yield a result and whether you visualize it as one big smack in the head or several quick jabs makes no difference. I would say that you are trying to make the game fit your style which is more of the number crunching (as you described). It may be hard to let go of the numbers, but if you step back and visualize things as you want your style to be there need not be any rule change.

I say this coming from a long history of playing Rolemaster. In that system there was a forumla or chart for everything. For a long time I thought that the more detailed the skills and combat system, the more realistic, the more it was pre-charted, the better. I wanted that level of granularity because I felt it made better more rounded characters. Some characters could be great athletes, but if they didn't have ranks in jump or swim they were out of luck, no matter how many ranks of surfing, skiing, or pole vaulting they had. (I don't exaggerate - those were all skills in RM2.) I won't go into the crit charts, but I will say that we moved to 3E when it came out with every expectation that it would be less fulfilling as the character designs and skill sets were so limiting.

In fact, the opposite happened. I found that I could make more interesting characters by not focusing on the details of skills and so on. Instead I had enough mechanics to keep me satisfied, but not so much that I was bogged down by them.

The point?

I think my point is that everyone has a comfort level and yours may varry at different times. I would suggest that you just embrace the system you are playing and not try to monkey with it. If you don't like it after a while, then go back to 3E or 3.5. You may find that if you are freed from having any reason or support for the number crunching that you find other aspects to enjoy in the game. If not, at least you know where you'd rather be playing.

Shew, that took longer than I expected. Sorry for the long post.

Since then I have

 

[I'm A Banana]

I think Speaks with Stone also speaks with good advice, here.

The dice yield a result. How you explain that result in C&C is largely up to you. "Strength" can represent speed as easily as it can represent strength. It can represent magical aptitude, size, endurance, accuracy, or anything else as well.

 

[der_kluge]

The point?

Use the Force, der_kluge?

I think that's what you're trying to say. "let go, der_kluge"
Yea, I can see your point, I'm just not sure I entirely agree.

In C&C, Str is a primary attribute for fighters. That gives me good saves against constriction and paralysis (IIRC). There's nothing about my 19 year old female that would enable her to bust out of the talons of a giant hideous snake, or the claws of a giant dragon. That's a clear mechanical aspect of the system that violates what my character is.

If you want abstraction, drop the entire concept of "class". Or, play d20 modern. I'd be a quick hero, and not a strong hero. But I don't have that. I have a label, and it's not really working for me as well as I'd like.