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

[der_kluge]

Your character concept says "fast", so what does that have to do with two weapon fighting? Sounds like you want everything that DnD defines as "dexterity" but then want the strength bonuses as well.

I don't recall ever saying that. If I did, I would have put my 16 cha into str instead. TWF has a min dex requirement of 15. So, according to the rules for the feat, people with low dex can't do that. I equate high dex with fast. Hence, "fast" = two weapon fighting.

 

[der_kluge]

I disagree.Says you.

Well, that's a lot to absorb. I think you're making some assumptions about me that aren't necessarily true. I've only ever taken 1 prestige class. Most of my characters are single-class, with the exception of maybe a few levels of 1 other class. Count me in the crowd of folks who simply do not understand all the Fighter/Ranger/Barbarian/Order of the Bow Initiate half dragons of the world. That's a style of play I simply don't understand. I can respect the desire to play unique things, and I like having all the options available to me for the role-playing opportunities that those might present. Then there are those who simply enjoy creating mathematicaly advantages in the game. There's nothing wrong with wanting to "win" or be really powerful. It's a game, after all.

I think there is a fundamental difference here between wanting to add one layer after layer of crunch, and mechanics, and new whiz-bang things. But we're talking about a fighter. A human fighter. All I want to do is dual-wield and have it be as effective as a strong guy with an axe. I don't think you're argument really applies here. I'm arguing that C&C has gone a bit *too* far in the other direction. There is room for a simple ruleset that allows for variances in combat styles. Even by your argument there isn't really any reason to have an "illusionist" in the C&C rules, since you could basically produce the same kind of thing with a wizard. And the Knight is really just redundant to a fighter. Hell, just keep wizard, cleric, fighter, rogue. Everything else is just a pale imitation of the original 4. Pfeh.

The idea that all characters options must be equally viable is a gaming conceit I don't understand - it's one of the things that drives me absolutely up the wall with 3e D&D. Don't like the fact that your rapier-wielding swashbuckler or dagger-wielding knife-thrower or unarmed matial artist can't be the mechanical equal of the guy in plate mail with a longsword? Welcome to showbiz, kid.

It's a game. Games have rules. If you played a space shoot-em-up game, and you docked your ship at a space station, and were presented with an array of types of lasers to equip your ship with, and the only differentiating factor was the amount of damage it dealt, and whether it took up two slots or one in your ship, you'd want to maximize your ship for optimal effectiveness. Why choose a laser that did 1d6 damage when a laser that costs about the same does 1d8 damage? In such a world, people would simply stop selling any other kind of laser, and the 1d8 one would simply dominate the market. In C&C, only longswords would exist, and everything simply wouldn't get created. There's no statistical reason to equip one.
And yes, there should be balance. If, in a world with plate mail wearing fighters, no one could stop them in combat, because they were just so powerful, then guess what - everyone would become a plate-mail wielding fighter. At least those who wanted to do battle with them would. But our world has more variety than that. There are those who can survive by simply being faster than plate mail wearing fighters.

That said, in C&C, you absolutely can play this kind of character if you let go of your hang-ups regarding mechanics, as has been described for you numerous times in this thread already. As your GM I'd certainly consider that. I'm all for this kind of personalization, which is one of the strengths of a rules-lite game system, by the way...

I don't think this is a strength in this kind of system any more than in 3e. How do you account for the large number of PrCs and feats on the market? And I've also heard people agreeing with me. I don't think I'm being entirely unreasonable. Like I said. It's a freaking human fighter. I shouldn't be having this much difficulty getting to work the concept that I have. The rules *clearly* intend for a strength-based fighter, and any deviation from that simply is not as effective, and IMHO, it should be.

 

[der_kluge]

I like C&C better, because a more light system is what I need.

I run a game for 4 hours, once a week with 10 players.

10 players with 3.0 was a tad tedious, since I tend to DM on the fly. I mean, my campaign is basically written on the back of a napkin and I don't have a lot of prep time. Plus we were getting into battles that were taking an entire session, and not getting finished because our group is so large.

We have a simple crit houserule. All natural 20's do double damage. Everything is doubled.

Oh, so YOU'RE the guy hoarding all the players in Richmond. Send some of them our way, our group has 4 players, and the group I might be leaving will only have 3 (in Midlothian). Ironically, they're both playing C&C games. It seems to be very popular in this area.

 

[Akrasia]

...

In other words, he is currently caught on the horns of a dilemma which would be solved quite easily by either going rules-lighter or rules-heavier. ...

Given the description of the GM, and what he wants to accomplish in his game, the solution is clearly to go 'rules-lighter'.

Indeed, this kind of customization is one of the great virtues of C&C, IMO (i.e. the game can accommodate lots of tweaks and variants -- including players' ideas for their PCs -- without dragging out books of feats, etc.).

It seems counter-productive to play C&C and not capitalize on its inherent flexibility.

...
I am, however, waiting for Akrasia to point out that this is simply not true.

It is not necessarily untrue.

 

[National Acrobat]

Oh, so YOU'RE the guy hoarding all the players in Richmond. Send some of them our way, our group has 4 players, and the group I might be leaving will only have 3 (in Midlothian). Ironically, they're both playing C&C games. It seems to be very popular in this area.

Not my fault! I've been playing with the same bunch since 1989. Through 1st, 2nd and 3rd Edition, and Now C&C. The other guy in the group who GM's has started running C&C as well.

We're the guys who have about 30 minutes per week to prep for game time, and C&C fits us in that regard very well. I like it but that doesn't mean others will.

Simply put, I like playing 3E, I just won't dm it. The amount of time I need to prep it just isn't available.

 

[Akrasia]

... If, in a world with plate mail wearing fighters, no one could stop them in combat, because they were just so powerful, then guess what - everyone would become a plate-mail wielding fighter. At least those who wanted to do battle with them would.

Ummm ... yeah. A knight in plate mail on a warhorse was the tank of the Middle Ages.

But our world has more variety than that. There are those who can survive by simply being faster than plate mail wearing fighters.

No. Not during the Middle Ages. The knight in plate mail could pretty much beat out anything else.

The idea of the 'swashbuckler' (or lightly armoured duelist) only emerged as a viable archtype with rise of gunpowder, and the consequent decline in the utility of heavy armour.

Of course, in C&C (and D&D) we have crap like unarmed monks -- but really, they would have lasted two seconds against a real knight.

 

[Akrasia]

... The rules *clearly* intend for a strength-based fighter, and any deviation from that simply is not as effective, and IMHO, it should be.

There seem to be two possibilities here.

One, the GM could simply deny your demand. I, for one, would have no problem telling a player who wanted to play a weak, lightly armoured fighter in my pseudo-Dark Ages British setting that such a fighter simply would not be the equal of a strong, heavily armoured fighter. Similarly, I would have no problem telling a player that a martial artist monk is simply inappropriate as well.

Second, the GM could capitalize on the flexibility of the C&C rules in order to come up with a class variant that suited your 'vision'. This is not hard to do -- and in fact, I think that the CKG (whenever it comes out) will include some rules for customizing classes.

In either case, I think the issue in question has to do with you and the GM, and not with the C&C rules themselves.

 

[John Q. Mayhem]

I like C&C better, because a more light system is what I need.

I run a game for 4 hours, once a week with 10 players.

10 players with 3.0 was a tad tedious, since I tend to DM on the fly. I mean, my campaign is basically written on the back of a napkin and I don't have a lot of prep time. Plus we were getting into battles that were taking an entire session, and not getting finished because our group is so large.

Wow. Very impressive!

 

[Particle_Man]

Well if your DM allows the two weapon fighting feat, I assume he will allow the weapon finesse feat (if not, why not?). So spend the feats, and you get the "to hit" bonus from dex instead of str. Now all you are losing out on is damage, and only two points of damage at that, given that 16 and 11 only have a 2 point differential in C&C. Yet your second weapon is likely to do at least 2 damage even if it is a dagger. So all you really lose is the specific to hit penalty for two weapon fighting, and the ability to use a shield. Still likely weaker, but not incredibly bad.

I'd say suck it up and accept that fact that you will be somewhat less effective than a strong fighter. That's the way D&D fantasy is. That's the way C&C fantasy is. Most importantly, that's the way your Castle Keeper is.

On the up side, you are the fighter most likely to resist charms, illusions and the more dodgeable magics. This gives you a defensive edge, perhaps one that can be combined with roleplaying goodness.

Or else, with luck, your CK will adjust his campaign to account for your weakness.

 

[The Shaman]

Well, that's a lot to absorb. I think you're making some assumptions about me that aren't necessarily true.

Sorry, I meant to expand on "I disagree" and point you specifically to the example of the knight and the gladiator, two characters that were very different yet shared nearly identical mechanics. More and more I find myself taking exception when players argue that a character is "gimped" or "boring" without detailed mechanics to support the "concept."

I believe you can have very different character concepts without distinctive mechanics. It's a mindset and an attitude toward the game rather than numbers on a sheet of paper.

In C&C, only longswords would exist, and everything simply wouldn't get created. There's no statistical reason to equip one.

Perhaps game statistics is the only factor that affects player choices in the games you play, but that's certainly not true in mine, nor is it the only factor that influences my own characters. As GM I make cultural and political elements a factor in what's available to the characters - as a player I pick that which is best for the character, not necessarily what's best from a spreadsheet. It's a game, after all.

And yes, there should be balance. If, in a world with plate mail wearing fighters, no one could stop them in combat, because they were just so powerful, then guess what - everyone would become a plate-mail wielding fighter. At least those who wanted to do battle with them would.

Congratulations - you just described the most of the Middle Ages.

In a medieval fantasy game, that's exactly how it should be, IMHO.

A lightly-armed quick-moving fighter offers many advantages in the game - that doesn't mean they should inherently be able to go toe-to-toe with every opponent out there, again IMHO.

How do you account for the large number of PrCs and feats on the market?

The death-knell of imagination and originality, perhaps?

I'm exaggerating of course, but as I described in the other thread, when I GMed 1e I allowed the players make mutually agreed-upon tweaks to a character's class abilities to personalize them: we didn't rely on literally hundreds upon hundreds of pre-packaged "concepts" - we used our own ideas, instead of those handed to us. As I noted earlier, I think your suggestion of exchanging an AC bump for a lower hit die is a good idea – it’s exactly the kinds of adjustments I used to encourage, adjustments that didn’t require wholesale system changes.

And I've also heard people agreeing with me.

And so?

I don't think I'm being entirely unreasonable. Like I said. It's a freaking human fighter. I shouldn't be having this much difficulty getting to work the concept that I have. The rules *clearly* intend for a strength-based fighter, and any deviation from that simply is not as effective, and IMHO, it should be.

I’ve yet to see a compelling reason why, in this thread or in a couple of others where I’ve heard similar arguments for knife-throwers and barehand martial artists, exactly why “it should be.”

The whole Zorro-and-Musketeers thing has no relevance to a game with figures in plate mail: a light dueling weapon had no place on the battlefield in the 900s, the 1200s, or the 1400s – for that matter it had no place on the battlefield in the 1600s, either. The rapier was a gentleman’s weapon, not a soldier’s weapon – soldiers and marines carried swords like sabers and cutlasses, cutting and slashing weapons suitable for chaotic melee rather than light-weight, easily broken thrusting weapons that required precision (and more importantly, space) to use.

If you think the game should provide for swashbuckling swordsmen alongside lance-wielding knights in full plate, by all means, play it so when you are GM. However, I would suggest that if another GM disagrees with you, that you either find another game or accept it. In either case, it’s not a problem with C&C – it’s an issue of your own expectations, expectations which you have decided are reasonable but which in fact may not be universally shared.