Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="buzz" data-source="post: 2392186" data-attributes="member: 6777">My issue is that, as described (because I'm really not trying to pick on C&C specifically; I don't know enough about it, but am going on what has been explained to me), it seems like the C&C (or fiat) method doesn't really tell me anything about the capabilties of my PC. If, as soneome else mentioned, the TNs in C&C are generally going to be level-appropriate, and the TN for that jump is going to remain essentially "50% chance for your PC to do something heroic" no matter what level the PC is or what his stats are, then why does my PC even have a Str stat to begin with? How am I supposed to know anything about my PC when all of the numbers on the sheet are wholly subject to GM fiat? How does that help me make a decision when my turn comes up? Every turn becomes a game of 20 questions with the GM.I mean, it seems like what really makes a difference in C&C specificaly is whether a stat is a prime or not; that has a much bigger effect than the range of bonuses a stat can provide. On top of this, it seems like TNs will be "level-appropriate", yet also highly variable at a GM's whimsy.So, why isn't each stat just listed with a value of "good" or "bad", and why do PCs level up? If the GM is always going to just make the TN whatever it needs to be so that my PC's chances are 50/50, why the heck do I even need to be keeping track of as many numbers as the rules say I do? Apparently, my PC will never get to a point where I can be confident in their ability to accomplish a task, becasue any given task can be set at whtever TN the GM wants.In D&D, this is not the case, becasue the numbers on my sheet mean something, and I have some assurance that the DM doesn't just make up DCs whole cloth. Sure, the DM is the one drawing out the battlefield, and thus can rig things so that even a 10' jump is impossible. But the DM isn't always just "rigging things". Most often, he's just drawing a map. Being able to look at that map and have a concrete idea of how the numbers on my sheet interact with that map helps me as a player. He also is working within a framework we both understand.E.g., when my barbairan was 1st-level, his Jump skill wasn't so high that he'd be using a half-fallen dining table as a ramp to leap 15' at a satyr crouched behind a chair on the other side of the room. At 11th level, though, I know he can do this barring very unusual circumstances. The decision whether he can is not entirely up to the DM. If it were, then there would be no point to tracking ranks, and my skill should just be listed as "good"/"bad".It could be entirely my preference, yes. <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=":)" />I guess my main point goes back to what I was saying about narrative games. IMO, "lite" games works best when any pretense of simulationism is thrown out the window. If you're going to put numbers on a character sheet that supposedly track objective qualities (strength, level of skill, weight), those numbers should have meaning and relate to the task. I don't see the point of making a roll based on Str when the TN is based on narrative importance. That's a disconnect for me.This is why I keep coming back to the pseudo-HeroQuest example of my idea of a good "lite" RPG. The numbers on the HQ sheet are all narrative assessments, becasue that's what the GM uses to set up tasks; the frame of reference is the same. That appeals to me.Buffy, which I like, has sort of a disconnect. PCs have a Strength stat, but the GM is still working in a pretty narrative mode. Thankfully, Buffy has Drama Points, which allow the players to make the same sort of "narrative assessment" of a situation. GM: "This is a really important scene, so you're hard pressed to get past that vamp." Player: "Yes, it is important, so I'll spend a Drama Point to make sure I dust him."I guess my position basically comes down to: I like good RPGs. <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=":)" /> "Good" will be determined how said game fits my sensibilities (duh). I like "rules-sufficient" (or "robust" as Psion would have it <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=":)" /> ) and don't like "rules-insufficient". Many "lite" RPGs don't appeal to me becasue they feel like the latter. As a player, I'm rolling all these stats and tracking numbers and using abilties that are listed as having some concrete metric, but then when I play, it all goes out the window and I have to rely on my GM to tell me what my PC can do.</blockquote>

Verification