Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Akrasia" data-source="post: 2326526" data-attributes="member: 23012">Sorry John, but this is complete rubbish.  (I thought it was complete rubbish when the original poster made a similar point, but bit my tongue at the time.)As an 'analytic philosopher' who spends much of his time explaining to freshmen the difference between valid and invalid formal arguments, and whose own work involves analyzing and presenting detailed arguments concerning political principles (sometimes drawing on decision theory, and empirical work in other disciplines, in doing so), I resist your categorization of people who like 'rules light' games as not being 'analytical' in nature.   I'm analytical to the point of being anal about it.  (And I know plenty of 'analytical' people who also prefer rules light systems.) <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f60e.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":cool:" title="Cool    :cool:"  data-smilie="6"data-shortname=":cool:" /> I think one's preferences for rules light versus rules heavy games simply has to do with what kinds of rules one thinks are appropriate for a certain genre.  I don't understand the demand for extremely detailed rules to simulate a world in which scantily clad barbarians kill gigantic flying lizards who can breathe fire. Now if we were playing Squad Commander, for example, realistic detailed rules would be entirely appropriate IMO.Well, they are 'guidelines' in exactly the same way that 3e DCs are guidelines.  In both systems, the final decision of what difficulty class to assign to a task belongs to the DM.  In C&C, though, there is less 'hand holding' (you dislike 'hand waving'; I dislike 'hand holding').Again, we are talking about the 'basic rules' for C&C here.  It is both (a.) easy to tweak a character so that two-weapon fighting is 'viable'; and (b.) the CKG will give 'official' rules for modifying classes in this way (for people who feel uncomfortable trusting their own judgement).What have you been drinking?   :\ There is already something like an AoO in the C&C rules -- namely, when someone flees combat, their opponent gets a 'free attack'.  I've been using that rule.This rule has existed in every version of D&D, btw.  Aside from that, I will be most interested to learn when exactly I've been using these 'de facto' AoOs.WFRP's system is fine IMO -- precisely because it lacks all the needless nuance of the 3e version of feats and skills.  The power scale is also completely different.  More generally, though, I don't have anything against skills and feats in principle.  I just don't like their implementation in 3e (speaking from a DM's perspective).This is simply untrue.  I am starting to wonder whether it has been a doppleganger showing up to our sessions.    :\ You keep saying this kind of thing, yet my experience, and the experience of the other players (as far as I can tell) runs contrary to this.C&C provides "clearly delineated rules on what some things take to accomplish".  You roll 1d20, add ability score bonus, add level [if appropriate], add prime bonus [if appropriate] and try to beat the TN [DC].How are those rules not clear???   :\ It is the same as 3e.  The only difference is that 3e provides a lot of additional guidelines (yes, guidelines) for the DM in assigning DCs.  Maybe you feel you need that kind of 'hand holding'.  I don't.As for the 'power to the players' point.  Ugh.  People always claim this.  I have yet to see this actually affect how I run my own games as a DM -- or how I played in games run by other DMs.  And frankly, given how much more work the DM has to do, I have no problem with the DM assigning DCs and encounters as he/she sees fit.  I wouldn't play with a DM I didn't trust to be fair, and I wouldn't want to 'limit' a DM that I did trust to be fair.Since when did players become spoiled children whose every 'concept' must be accommodated in every game?  It doesn't matter if we're playing C&C or 3e -- if the character concept doesn't fit my campaign setting, then tough luck.As for legitimate character concepts -- that is something to be worked out between the CK/DM and the player.If the modification is a mere tweak to an existing character class, how is it different from using feats, etc. to fine-tune an existing character class?  There is no real substantive difference here.  Ignoring which point?  I've tried to respond to your points. Sure, I understand that, and in fact sympathize with it.  But now I don't understand your earlier opposition to the 'customized character class' option in your comments above.I don't have a problem with 'agreeing to disagree'.  What bothers me, though, are some of the unfair or incorrect claims you're making about my game.  Some of these are the result, I think, of assumptions that you had about 'rules light' games prior to even starting our current C&C campaign (e.g. they are necessarily 'incomplete', they require 'hand waving' and 'DM fiat', etc.).  I don't think that these assumptions have turned out to be correct -- they certainly do not seem to be correct from my perspective as a CK.  So I am frustrated that you keep asserting them.In particular, you keep harping on the claim that rules light games like C&C require GMs to 'make up' rules or 'hand wave' things.  This is not true.  C&C provides all the rules necessary to play the game (at least all the rules I have needed so far).  I have yet to 'make up' a single rule (aside from house rules, which we all agree upon ahead of time).  What I have been doing -- and this is the system -- is assigning TNs (or DCs in 3e-speak) for different tasks, and letting characters try those tasks (if they want to).  That is not 'making up' a rule -- that is applying the rules of the game.In short, I don't see any difference in how I've been running the C&C campaign and how I ran the 3e campaign with respect to your concerns about 'hand waving' and 'ad hoc rulings'.   If anything, I rely on the rules more now.I am glad that we can agree to agree on this.   <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" /></blockquote>

Verification