Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="JohnSnow" data-source="post: 2326008" data-attributes="member: 32164">Like I said, this is a matter of opinion.This isn't tactics versus immersion, it's what degree of rules you feel are "necessary" for resolution of events versus at what level they become "intrusive."Maybe it's a "right brain" - "left brain" thing. Those who lean towards "creative" or "philosophical" would probably prefer fewer rules and making up rules for every situation. On the other hand, those who lean more towards the "analytical" or "technical" probably prefer a more codified set of rules.Personally, I would rather have rules I don't use (or invoke only rarely) than need rules I don't have. Now, more specifically.So you're saying is that most of the C&C "rules" are "really more like guidelines than actual rules..." Gotcha.Yup, I saw the two-weapon fighting rules. C&C (at least so far) doesn't allow for a character who trains in two-weapon fighting. Now, I suppose you could argue that a character just naturally gets "better" at it (as reflected in their increasing BAB). Okay. I get it. You hate attacks of opportunity. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f609.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=";)" title="Wink    ;)"  data-smilie="2"data-shortname=";)" />The funny thing is that I've seen you "houserule" what looks awfully like an AoO into at least a few of our combats while we were playing C&C. Now, of course, you don't call it an AoO because as you said, you hate AoOs, but for all intents and purposes, that's what it is.Personally, I just don't find AoOs nearly as annoying as you. I also like MOST of the feat system, although I can see where there's room for improvement in it. Warhammer, interestingly enough, HAS both a highly customized skill system and a feat system, it just calls them "talents" instead of "feats."So we've come all the way back around to where we started. In C&C, the CK controls EVERYTHING, including not only what the players can accomplish, but even what they're allowed to try. Now I realize that in some sense, the referee always controls the game (sets difficulty modifiers, etc.), but with clearly delineated rules on what some things take to accomplish, D&D seems to put more control into the hands of the players.Potentially available isn't the same as available. Telling me that I can add a rule to a game is definitely not the same as it being present. From the CK's perspective, there's no difference. From the player's perspective, the difference is enormous. One CK says "ok" but another says "no dice." Where's my character concept if the CK doesn't want to "complicate" his game with "extra rules" for it?As an example, Gareth is a two-weapon fighting feint monkey. He was conceived (in my mind) as a sort of swashbuckling Grey Mouser type. Without the ability to feint and fight effectively with two weapons, he just doesn't have the same "feel." Should a character be more than his stats and combat style? Sure, I suppose. But are you telling me that I should be able to "imagine" a difference between combat styles that are mechanically identical? For instance, I could (as someone suggested) buy a great sword, call it a "longsword and dagger," call strength "dex" and describe a high-str, greatsword wielding ranger as a "dextrous rogue wielding a longsword and dagger." Every hit is a 2d6 with roughly the same minimum (2), mean (7) and maximum (12) damage. I could even put primes in both Str and Dex, even if I focused on the str. Mechanically, it's fine. But thematically, I have a real problem with it. That's not a "lack of imagination" it's just wanting clear association between a character concept and its "rules interpretation." I understand that some sort of "custom class" could be whipped up, but I don't think a system should need a non-standard custom class to cover as basic a character concept as a swashbuckling fighter-rogue.I understand where you're coming from on this, but I think you're deliberately ignoring my point (or more accurately, concluding that if I were DMing, I'd see things your way). I certainly understand your preference for C&C (and so I suppose it's problematic to be discussing this on a thread that says "rules-light systems suck"). It's just that my preference leans toward a more "customizable" character system. Obviously, as a DM, I'd prefer a game that was easier to prepare (after all, who wouldn't?).Personally, I've never found the 3.5 combat system to be that onerous. Now I grant, in practice, I might "guesstimate" the DC rather than doing all the math for every situation, but that's expected! Statting up NPCs is another matter, but that's more of an issue I have with the "pseudo-point-buy" system of "character wealth by level" combined with the minor issues I have with the skill system.Like I said, we'll just have to agree to disagree. You'll never convince me that C&C is "the system" and I'll never talk you out of your dislike of 3e. However, I'm perfectly happy to play C&C as long as someone else is the CK (and they're open to working to make all concepts "work" in the system). It just means I'll have to be even pickier about who I'll play with as a CK (you obviously, I have no problem with). You made an excellent point when this came up months ago that I agree with - the choice of system is up to the GM, because he does the most work. That's a good system to stick with.</blockquote>

Verification