Moving to C&C... need help

[seskis281]

So let's sum up the basic gist here:

It has to do with definition of "feat."

Definition One - A "feat" is a codified, playtested and specified action or character ability that is clearly defined in the rules and must be added "on-paper" to the character record per those rules. These feats are written, and as such can be "universally understood" by all who read said rules.

Definition Two - A "feat" is any extraordinary or special action that can occur even when the rules do not specifically name or detail them, nor require them to be defined or mechanically explained. These "feats" are more nebulous and require understanding only in individual games and gaming groups, although the assumption of their possibility is considered "understood" in the mechanics of the system.

Some argue that both essentially achieve the same thing in gameplay, others disagree.

Some believe definition one to be essentially exclusive of the term "feat" and are ... hmm... a little heated? - at those who disagree and who feel that "feat" as a term is more nebulous and merely represents any extraordinary, special action or ability by a character.

Have I missed anything here?

Shall we adjourn?

(Plays "Funeral Dirge for a Thread")

Sine die

Although I have an idea for a separate thread....

 

[Ourph]

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.

Stating that "in C&C, all characters have all feats" is, at best, an unclear statement of that sentiment. When it was pointed out that feats can only be replicated by the SIEGE engine if the DM and players draw on sources outside the rules to supply the mechanical effects Treebore didn't acknowledge the distinction or clarify his earlier statements, he reasserted that the statement was 100% accurate. I agree with your above analysis of the function of the SIEGE mechanic completely, but I still think the claim that "in C&C, all characters have all feats" is misleading and is directly contradictory to the description of the SIEGE mechanic you outline above.

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 have no problem with creative input being a central part of the rules. My problem is with the assertion that heavy reliance on creative input is somehow equivalent to concrete rules. It does C&C no good to mislead people into thinking they're going to get feats (a mechanic with specific features which include, among other things, concrete enumeration of mechanical effects) when C&C doesn't provide and never intended to provide that kind of mechanic. The problem with tankschmidt's analysis is that he makes it sound as if the rules support those "cool moves" equally in all games. The fact that incorporation of those "cool moves" depends entirely on DM discretion changes the picture drastically. When a customer buys C&C, they are not buying a DM, they are buying a rulebook. So unless tankschmidt can guarantee that every person who runs a C&C game is going to allow every one of those "cool moves" he's speaking about, his assertion is, at best, wildly optimisitic.

I think the CoC example is quite accurate. There is a level of "creative input" where you are incorporating so much additional data into the play of the game (beyond what the rules provide) that describing the core rules as being adequate on their own to handle that play experience strains the bounds of credulity. I would place building spaceships in Call of Cthulhu and incorporating ALL the mechanical effects of ALL 3e D&D feats into a C&C game at the same level. Both require so much creative input from the DM and players that claiming the core rules alone provide enough information to support a game that uses those options is misleading.

 

[Hairfoot]

Regarding the SIEGE engine, in another thread Jack Daniel said he found it worked better if the PCs receive a +1 to ablilities every three levels, rather than at each one, because characters begin to get superpowered at around 8th level with that huge bonus.

I haven't run a high level C&C game yet, but I can see his point. On the other hand, most D&D PCs will receive a +1 per level to their most important abilities as well. However, this is ranged against opposed D20 checks, rather than set challenge values.

Opinions on slowing down the level bonuses?

 

[Dragon-Slayer]

C&C is just a game for GMs who like to run a fast and easy roleplaying game and not stress over a zillion books full of rules. Two books and a handful of modules or a notebook (and your dice) is all you need to get a game off and rolling in a few minutes. Easy, compact and stress free. No need to look up rules constantly, just hop into the game world and roleplay. Some groups like this, some would rather focus on being told what they can and cannot do, just different tastes.

 

[kaomera]

Regarding the SIEGE engine, in another thread Jack Daniel said he found it worked better if the PCs receive a +1 to ablilities every three levels, rather than at each one, because characters begin to get superpowered at around 8th level with that huge bonus.

I haven't run a high level C&C game yet, but I can see his point. On the other hand, most D&D PCs will receive a +1 per level to their most important abilities as well. However, this is ranged against opposed D20 checks, rather than set challenge values.

Opinions on slowing down the level bonuses?

The SIEGE engine is designed around "opposed checks" too, although usually only the PC actually rolls the dice, vs. 12 or 18 + NPC level / dungeon level. If PCs and NPCs (and inanimate obstacles) where both getting +1/3 that might work, but it would slow down the progression quite a bit. While C&C levels go up "as far as you want", IMHO it works better in the (levels) 1-12 or so area, and with fewer (if any) additional bonuses I don't think you'll see huge bonuses.

 

[Treebore]

Since the CL's scale with the level of the opponents I don't have this "super power" problem. It stays balanced.

Meaning 8th level characters fight 8 to 10 HD creatures/NPc's, so the CL's are in the 8 to 10 range. IE equal to the characters bonus.

So checks at 10th level, against their opponents, stay just as challenging as they were at first level. Other things, such as swinging from chandeliers, becomes easier for higher level characters, which makes sense to me.

 

[Grimstaff]

I think Ourph is just winding you up Treebore. Unless he really doesn't get the whole idea of not needing a specific rule to do something in an RPG. But I think he's just being contrary. I'm sure if you ignore him he'll find a good "Radiant Servant vs. Alienist" discussion to waste time in and leave you alone.

I'll make this real simple for anyone who still doesn't get it:
If you like loose rules, play C&C.
If you like rigorously defined rules, do not play C&C.

Hope that helps.

 

[Hairfoot]

The SIEGE engine is designed around "opposed checks" too, although usually only the PC actually rolls the dice, vs. 12 or 18 + NPC level / dungeon level.

Except success is more likely (and more predictable) since the opponent has no hope of getting a +20 bonus to its score, which may defeat a PC with a much higher base bonus.

 

[Treebore]

I think Ourph is just winding you up Treebore. Unless he really doesn't get the whole idea of not needing a specific rule to do something in an RPG. But I think he's just being contrary. I'm sure if you ignore him he'll find a good "Radiant Servant vs. Alienist" discussion to waste time in and leave you alone.

I'll make this real simple for anyone who still doesn't get it:
If you like loose rules, play C&C.
If you like rigorously defined rules, do not play C&C.

Hope that helps.

Not anymore, I just skip over his posts.

 

[Ourph]

I think Ourph is just winding you up Treebore. Unless he really doesn't get the whole idea of not needing a specific rule to do something in an RPG.

Ummmm.... yes you do. The "specific" rule may not be written in the rulebook or even written down in a house rules document, but if you are following a process or incorporating some mechanical or numerical effect, you are using a rule.