Moving to C&C... need help

[SavageRobby]

If we could leave the passive-aggressive hyperbole out of the discussion that would be great.

You mean like comments about intellectual honesty?


It is doublespeak in that the entire SIEGE system, once again (please pay attention) is based off DM adjudication - and that system is designed to cover everything from relatively mundane tasks such as swimming to swinging on a rope to more "feat-like" (to borrow a phrase) tasks like cleaving through an enemy, to maximizing a fireball's damage to whatever the player wants to do. You keep claiming (over and over and over and over) that because it isn't mechanically spelled out in black and white to your satisfaction, that it must house ruled. This is patently untrue. A rules framework is given for the DM to rule on each given situation, according to their discretion. That is far different than adding house rules.

In concept, this is no different than the "DM's best friend" modifier of -2 in the 3x DMG (IIRC) - the generic modified that gets applied at the DM's discretion, based on the circumstances. You want to run across a floor covered with banana peels? DM rules a -2 to your roll. That isn't spelled out in black and white in the rules, but the mechanic is present. According to your definition, however, even though one would be using the rule as presented in the rulebook to judge the situation and add the modifier, this would still be considering house ruling since the "-2 for a floor covered with banana peels" isn't in the rulebook. And that is simply nonsense.



Perhaps the point you're missing is that C&C isn't the McDonalds of RPGs like 3x is. Not everyone is supposed to have the same shared experience out of the box. It isn't designed like that. Different DMs are going to allow different actions with different difficulties and possibly even different mechanical effects. That isn't due to house ruling. Its due to DM discretion, a concept the game is built around - and one which you seem to want to totally ignore, equating it with house ruling.

 

[seskis281]

Please explain why that is doublespeak. I'm saying that there is a difference between rules which tell you how to adjudicate success and failure and rules which actually detail the mechanical effects of success and failure. To me that seems pretty straightforward. There is a significant difference between a rule that tells me "flip a coin to determine success (heads) or failure (tails)" and a rule that tells me "A success means your character lives, a failure means your character dies". C&C provides the first, but not the second for the use of the SIEGE engine that tankschmidt is talking about.

I'm also saying that such a distinction is important to most people when talking about how a game works "out of the box" rather than after individual players put their own spin on the rules. Individual tweaks won't be a shared experience, the actual rules contained in the book will be the only universal common ground for everyone who picks up the game. As a result, it seems important to acknowledge whether certain characteristics of a game under discussion derive from "out of the box" sources of "individual player input" sources. Telling people that "mechanic X replicates the effects of mechanic Y from this other game you are familiar with" is misleading. It implies that the presence of mechanic Y will be a shared experience amongst all games because it derives from an "out of the box" source. If the reality is that mechanic X is a simple resolution mechanic and the rulebook encourages you to use it in conjunction with mechanics imported from other games (such as mechanic Y) or created by you to expand on the base rules, it seems important to acknowledge that, because the presence of mechanic Y isn't likely to be a shared experience for everyone who picks up the game.

From the introduction to the C&C PHB: "Those playing should be able to add, discard, and change rules and ideas to fit their needs... expanding the game comes later, much like adding stories on a building."

To answer this point: the core intent and philosophy of the C&C system is to NOT present detailed, "out of the box" rules for every mechanic. The intent of the Siege mechanic was specifically developed by design to allow these variations and open-ended possibilities with actions or checks. Thus, the intent of allowing feats as actions undertaken are indeed inherently promoted within the mechanic, the details left to the imagination of the CK.

To use your analogy. If I am in a fight and the rule says "flip a coin to determine success or failure," and the situation at hand is a to the death fight, why need what you describe as mechanic Y to specify an outcome that is obvious from the circumstances?

The most important and saliant point here is that what is fairly new and unique about C&C as an RPG is that it not only says "its ok" to personalize and apply basic rules in a wildly varying way, it is meant from the start to be used this way. TLG and the creators of C&C created a hybrid of 1e flavor and ideas with d20 concepts and ideas, then said "take these building blocks (foundation) and make the game your own, your individual RPG experience." To say that a set of rules must be a "univeral, shared experience" takes us again to the philosophy that unless its written down, a player cannot do it.

Well, I and others who play this game have patiently said we apply the mechanic without a problem. I do think saying "most people want x, y, z" is really sort of placing what you want from a system as a little too universal.

 

[ST]

Treebore's example earlier on the page made it click for me.

The difference is, basically, granularity. One system has the special moves laid out, the other provides generalized rules for how to create special moves on the fly. Both approaches have their strengths and weaknesses.

I think it's interesting that if the player wants to do something that's not described by a pre-existing Feat, the way in which the situation would be resolved in both games would probably be more similar than different. (That is, a brief player/GM discussion, calculation of modifiers, a roll against some ability or skill, and announcement of the results.)

I really like the idea of using Feats as a resource in a game other than the one they were designed for, as kind of a list of "power stunts". I remember collecting games with extensive superpower lists when I was running the Marvel RPG, because they gave ideas of the kinds of unusual uses of powers the players might come up with.

 

[ST]

The most important and saliant point here is that what is fairly new and unique about C&C as an RPG is that it not only says "its ok" to personalize and apply basic rules in a wildly varying way, it is meant from the start to be used this way. TLG and the creators of C&C created a hybrid of 1e flavor and ideas with d20 concepts and ideas, then said "take these building blocks (foundation) and make the game your own, your individual RPG experience." To say that a set of rules must be a "univeral, shared experience" takes us again to the philosophy that unless its written down, a player cannot do it.

I agree with you, but I would like to point out that there are a number of games that work in this fashion. They just don't look anything like D&D. (For example, lots of games with goal-based resolution instead of task-based resolution basically treat everything as something like a SIEGE check.) I haven't played a game that uses the "universal, shared experience" ruleset technique in years, which rules out most of the traditional RPGs on offer, but leaves a lot of independent publisher's stuff, for instance.

I do agree that C&C is one of the only ones that offers this kind of flexibility while still staying very close to the general feel and playstyle of D&D 1e.

I'm glad we've hashed things out to the point where we're discussing the benefits and drawbacks of the different approaches -- I think it means we can drop the semantic arguments down a bit.

 

[seskis281]

I'm glad we've hashed things out to the point where we're discussing the benefits and drawbacks of the different approaches -- I think it means we can drop the semantic arguments down a bit.

Absolutely. I think it's good to hash out why some people don't respond to a particular system. For me, I find it extremely helpful to understand what others coming to my table as I use C&C may see or not see as I am running a game, so I can be more helpful in setting up what they should feel free to do. I'll be the first to admit, while I found the Siege mechanic in this respect easy to understand I will probably take time at start of next campaign to explain it a little more clearly to my mostly newbie (former 3.x) players group. For that alone, I think this thread has been successful.

I would offer apologies to the OP on how far afield the thread went from his original questions - Seems like that happens all too often on message boards.

Cheers and may your next roll be a nat 20 (if you use that mechanic of course....)

 

[rkwoodard]

the claims can grate

Hi,
Own C&C, have read it, have run it. It is an excellent system. But the Claims of everyone "has" all the action feats always grated on my nerves.

Here is my take

C&C's Siege Engine allows players to try any action

D&D has feats

But, just because action feats would fall by definintion under any action, does not = having feats.

But that is fine. I think C&C is great, and is great for specifically 2 groups, new players and DMs who will enjoy the 'lightness" of the system, and experienced groups who like building up rather than deconstructing. I rather deconstruct right now, but that is just me.

RK

 

[seskis281]

Hi,
Own C&C, have read it, have run it. It is an excellent system. But the Claims of everyone "has" all the action feats always grated on my nerves.

Here is my take

C&C's Siege Engine allows players to try any action

D&D has feats

But, just because action feats would fall by definintion under any action, does not = having feats.

But that is fine. I think C&C is great, and is great for specifically 2 groups, new players and DMs who will enjoy the 'lightness" of the system, and experienced groups who like building up rather than deconstructing. I rather deconstruct right now, but that is just me.

RK

Points taken. I think the Siege allowing any action and the d20/3.x feat system are distinct in that "feats," as defined here, are automatic to use after "acquiring" them. With Siege, just as is, there would always be a check still, and that is a legitimate distinction. Unless, of course, I as a CK say "your character has done that action successfully enough that you have 'learned' it as a basic part of your character." Again, this is of course part of the GM discretion.

I will also say that there are "feats" (which really aren't exactly that) that give bonuses to dex, con, etc. that aren't comparative because they aren't actions that can be checked with the Seige mechanic. So, in fairness, these "feats" aren't comparable, but then they aren't actions either. And bonuses can be handled easily as well.

 

[Treebore]

You mean like comments about intellectual honesty?


It is doublespeak in that the entire SIEGE system, once again (please pay attention) is based off DM adjudication - and that system is designed to cover everything from relatively mundane tasks such as swimming to swinging on a rope to more "feat-like" (to borrow a phrase) tasks like cleaving through an enemy, to maximizing a fireball's damage to whatever the player wants to do. You keep claiming (over and over and over and over) that because it isn't mechanically spelled out in black and white to your satisfaction, that it must house ruled. This is patently untrue. A rules framework is given for the DM to rule on each given situation, according to their discretion. That is far different than adding house rules.

In concept, this is no different than the "DM's best friend" modifier of -2 in the 3x DMG (IIRC) - the generic modified that gets applied at the DM's discretion, based on the circumstances. You want to run across a floor covered with banana peels? DM rules a -2 to your roll. That isn't spelled out in black and white in the rules, but the mechanic is present. According to your definition, however, even though one would be using the rule as presented in the rulebook to judge the situation and add the modifier, this would still be considering house ruling since the "-2 for a floor covered with banana peels" isn't in the rulebook. And that is simply nonsense.



Perhaps the point you're missing is that C&C isn't the McDonalds of RPGs like 3x is. Not everyone is supposed to have the same shared experience out of the box. It isn't designed like that. Different DMs are going to allow different actions with different difficulties and possibly even different mechanical effects. That isn't due to house ruling. Its due to DM discretion, a concept the game is built around - and one which you seem to want to totally ignore, equating it with house ruling.

Which is another reason why I like playing C&C as well as CKing it. In 3E everyone pretty much followed the rules, IE pretty much ran the same game, unless they used their own setting and adventures, still, mechanics wise, their game was the same as everyone elses.

In C&C I am again rediscovering the courtesy of playing in someone elses's game and keeping my "DM mouth shut", but most importantly, and the most fun thing to me, is seeing how the CK uses their creativity to adjudicate different game situtations, their house rules, etc... Which in turn strongly encourages "group participation" in deciding on such rules for our group will work. Which in turn inspires me with all the new ideas created and discussed.

There are advantages to having a completely unified rules set for everyone to use and follow, but with C&C we use the core mechanic (which, so far, keeps everything recognizable to new players who know the SIEGE mechanic) and then customize the game in how we interpret the SIEGE mechanic and what rules we write up or take from other RPG's.

So I guess I enjoy the dynamic creativity that C&C allows for in the mechanics themselves rather than just the original setting, adventure, or customized PrC or feats.

Not to mention how easy it is for me to not only use material from all the editions of D&D books I own, but from other systems as well. Such as Savage Worlds, EPICrpg, and Paladium, to name a few.

So, for me, and apaprently a significant number of TLG boards posters, C&C is pretty much gaming Nirvanna. We play how we want to.

 

[Ourph]

It is doublespeak in that the entire SIEGE system, once again (please pay attention) is based off DM adjudication - and that system is designed to cover everything from relatively mundane tasks such as swimming to swinging on a rope to more "feat-like" (to borrow a phrase) tasks like cleaving through an enemy, to maximizing a fireball's damage to whatever the player wants to do.

DM adjudication isn't a feature of the rulebooks or the SIEGE engine it is a feature of the individual DM. Claiming that the mechanical effects are an inherent part of the rules is much different than saying the mechanical effects are product of DM adjudication. See my comments about shared vs. individual experiences above.

You keep claiming (over and over and over and over) that because it isn't mechanically spelled out in black and white to your satisfaction, that it must house ruled. This is patently untrue. A rules framework is given for the DM to rule on each given situation, according to their discretion. That is far different than adding house rules.

Perhaps the term "house rule" is getting in the way here. It wasn't the term I used originally, but I have been using it since people who have been responding to me use it. I prefer the term "creative input". If the mechanical functions are inherent to the rules, they require no creative input. Incorporating the mechanical effects of feats into a C&C game isn't possible without creative input from somewhere other than the rulebooks, be it from the individual players or another game's rules. "DM discretion" is just another term for the process of evaluating and incorporating "creative input" from an outside source. The C&C rules give the DM permission ot use "discretion" what they do not provide is the required "creative input" to mimic the effects of feats in the game. That comes from a source outside the rules.

Perhaps the point you're missing is that C&C isn't the McDonalds of RPGs like 3x is. Not everyone is supposed to have the same shared experience out of the box.

I'm fairly certain I'm not missing any points. I feel that you and Treebore are missing a point I've raised several times, which is that I'm not criticizing C&C for not containing these rules, nor do I care whether C&C provides the same shared experience out of the box for every player. If you believe it doesn't and it shouldn't then we are actually in complete agreement. My objection to Treebore's assertion is that he originally claimed that C&C does provide a shared experience when it comes to covering the mechanical effects of feats in the game. I believe this is false. It's easy to incorporate those things into C&C if the DM decides to do so but it's false to say that the rules of C&C ensure that those elements will be present.

It isn't designed like that. Different DMs are going to allow different actions with different difficulties and possibly even different mechanical effects. That isn't due to house ruling. Its due to DM discretion, a concept the game is built around - and one which you seem to want to totally ignore, equating it with house ruling.

Again, "house rule" is probably a loaded term that implies formalized procedures which should be avoided here, because that's not necessarily what I'm talking about. Nevertheless, the mechanical functions of a game are defined by rules. If a DM is using "discretion" to incorporate a mechanical effect that isn't described in the rulebook, he has just created a new rule, even if the process was informal and the rule is only intended to apply for a specific situation. That's why they call it a "ruling" on an issue. I'm not ignoring anything, I completely understand that DM discretion is an inherent part of the SIEGE mechanic (as it is of most mechanics in most games). Nevertheless, it's misleading to extrapolate the effects of DM discretion too far in evaluation of the system. I'll go back to my original example. The BRP system used in Call of Cthulhu relies heavily on GM discretion as well, but it would be misrepresenting the system if I said "characters in Call of Cthulhu can build spaceships just like characters in Traveller". It's entirely possible, using the base rules and GM discretion, to have a game of Call of Cthulhu where the PCs build spaceships, but implying that the base, core rules of Call of Cthulhu (without significant creative input from some other source) allow characters to build spaceships in the same way that characters in Traveller can build spaceships stretches the bounds of credulity. It is a misleading statement unless it is qualified with the caveat about "significant creative input".

 

[SavageRobby]

Well, house rule is the term I'm objecting to, as is the characterization that - out of the box - C&C doesn't support the ability to do feat like actions. The rules clearly define the process on how to handle actions players would like to take that aren't detailed elsewhere. Its that simple.

Here is the crux, I believe:

It's easy to incorporate those things into C&C if the DM decides to do so but it's false to say that the rules of C&C ensure that those elements will be present.

I don't believe anyone stated categorically that those elements will always be present (except perhaps those trying to state it doesn't). It is pretty clear that the C&C proponents in this thread have stated that the rules support their inclusion - with no rule modifications necessary - if you and the DM want to include them. Some people do, and Treebore was simply stating (as he's done many times, in many different forums) that if you want to include feats or feat-like actions, then the SIEGE engine, as written, easily supports that.


If you want to qualify it as "creative input", sure, I'll buy that. DM discretion, creative input, feedback loop, whatever. The difference between the CoC example is that the SIEGE engine is designed specifically for creative input. That is the whole point, in fact. Instead of going the 3x route of handing the players a stack of mechanics and rules on how to implement them, C&C is designed to let the player describe the mechanic they want to achieve, and provide a framework for adjudicating it.


I think Tankschmidt said it well on page 1:

If having a feat means having some mechanical and unique definition on your character sheet, then you are right; C&C has no feats. If having a feat gives your character the ability to pull off a cool move, then C&C has all feats. We're just arguing minutia here.