Moving to C&C... need help

[thedungeondelver]

Like Chris (as quoted above) I had the task of converting AD&D to CASTLES & CRUSADES. I pretty much never had to alter my thinking even a little bit - armor class changes and...really, that's about it.

I put together an ad-hoc multiclassing system based on what I have been using for years with other fantasy games for the "tournament" characters that were included with the original source material provided me by Mr. Gygax. There was little to no mental effort involved in making the "changes" (such as they were).

I just had to watch my P's and Q's when approaching "name" spells and famous place names.

 

[Treebore]

Fine... Hairfoot describes the mechanical requirements and effects of a Whirlwind Attack-like action in his post above.


How do you handle the same thing in your game?

If you handle it exactly the same as Hairfoot, you are introducing mechanics that go beyond those specifically written in the C&C rules, because Hairfoot's methods aren't detailed in the rulebooks.

If you handle it differently you have just proven that adjudicating the mechanical effects of a feat in C&C is not inherently covered by the SIEGE mechanic, otherwise everyone who plays C&C would handle it the same way.

Which is it?


The SIEGE mechanic is no more or less than a universal resolution mechanic. 3e has one (d20 + modifiers vs. target number), all the old Chaosium games have one (d100 to roll under a skill or ability number), Prince Valiant has one (flip a coin to decide all issues left to chance), Amber diceless has one (compare one of three scores for your character vs. the same score of his opponent, higher score wins). Universal mechanics have been around for quite some time and are hardly unique to C&C.

I think I see where we are miscommunicating. The SIEGE engine is more universal, or maybe I should say simpler, is that you do not need additional rules for feats or skills using the SIEGE. You establish Primes, and then all saves and actions are resolved on the Prime/Non-Prime basis versus a challenge level that modifies the base 12/18. Thats the SIEGE engine. Thats how C&C works. Right there. No feats or skills are needed to add depth.

Player wants to accomplish some task, crazy (like whirlwind) or not, the CL is often equal to the HD of the opponent (using it this way represents the NPC trying to mess you up). In the case of a trap the CL is equal to the level of who made it.

To save versus spells CL is equal to the HD of the spellcaster.

To jump over a wall or table is totallly up to how difficult the CK thinks the CL should be.


See how the SDIEGE mechanic handles the variety?

Like I said, whne you really understand how the SIEGE engine can adapt to be used, you don't need skill lists or feats.

I think what bothers most people is they read the examples given for using SIEGE checks they don't "see" how mutable it is to every situation you run up against in the game.

To the point where the only things I look up anymore are the specifics of spells, magic items, and to determine treasure hoards. Occassionally to refresh my memory on what classes can do.

So that is why I prefer C&C over 3E.
The SIEGE engine allows me to allow any character to perform any feat like action, non feat like action, a skill based action, all without pages of codified rules that tell me when things can be done or applied, or not. ITs "Is it Prime or nonPrime? It is" TN 12 plus CL 8, so beat a 20. It isn't? OK TN 18 plus CL 8, so beat a 26." Or, "You want to push that 4 ton rectangular boulder off to the side? Um, no, your not Hercules."

Once you "get" the SIEGE engine its really that simple.

 

[seskis281]

As I read through some of this thread a thought strikes me -

There really are two schools of thought at play here (and no, I will NOT use "old" or "new" here lol) - one that likes RPG systems to give very basic mechanics and asks that individual GMs take the burden of tailoring/interpreting specific circumstances as they go, and another school of thought that believes that the clarity of specific rules for specific instances should appear "on the page," which necessitates a rule-intensive RPG system.

I'll say this - I don't think there is a right or wrong here, just differences in tastes. Like Treebore and Tank I am a proponent for C&C, my game system of choice, and I echo the things they have said. That's not to say there won't be people who come from the 2nd school of thought who will not find C&C attractive, and would not enjoy the necessity of the GM (CK in C&C) undertaking the burden of figuring out what to do in situations like the whirlwind mentioned above. That's cool - there are plenty of d20 systems to play, and I for one won't begrudge anyone who prefers 3.x if that's their taste. There are also plenty of people from the rules-lite school who just won't like some specifics of C&C that are too "unified," or similar to d20, and so there's always 1E, OD&D, OSRIC, etc.

To the OP - I think Treebore got you directed to the TLG boards and I think people have probably answered, but I will add that I think Greyhawk would be easier to jump into with C&C, Eberron would take more work and thought as it's geared in a very crunch-heavy way towards 3.5.

 

[Moggthegob]

I understand itll be achore or take creativity but i love the setting too much becus of the niche it fills being my favorite point in history. My first thing in c&C will be converting Temple of Elemental Evil and Keep on the Borderlands. SO I think itll go good

 

[seskis281]

I understand itll be achore or take creativity but i love the setting too much becus of the niche it fills being my favorite point in history. My first thing in c&C will be converting Temple of Elemental Evil and Keep on the Borderlands. SO I think itll go good

Sounds like you are approaching the task with an excellent creative mindset, and so I would think you can make it work too! Welcome to the Crusade and, if your C&C Eberron is a success please let us know how it runs!

 

[Treebore]

I understand itll be achore or take creativity but i love the setting too much becus of the niche it fills being my favorite point in history. My first thing in c&C will be converting Temple of Elemental Evil and Keep on the Borderlands. SO I think itll go good

Definitely good basics with which to "learn the ropes" of C&C. It should be a blast, for everyone.

 

[Moggthegob]

Sounds like you are approaching the task with an excellent creative mindset, and so I would think you can make it work too! Welcome to the Crusade and, if your C&C Eberron is a success please let us know how it runs!

Hey it couldnt possibly take more time and creativitiy than prepping a cabal of wizards to run a campaign around( i did it once and i have reused the materials dozens of times and with good reason. 6 13th-7th level wizards take a little while to flesh out). Plus I have ap assion for eberron. Since ih ave two different groups I will try to run The Forgotten Forge once i Have a feel for C&C. I will be starting Keep on the Borderlands wednsday however...

 

[Treebore]

As I read through some of this thread a thought strikes me -

There really are two schools of thought at play here (and no, I will NOT use "old" or "new" here lol) - one that likes RPG systems to give very basic mechanics and asks that individual GMs take the burden of tailoring/interpreting specific circumstances as they go, and another school of thought that believes that the clarity of specific rules for specific instances should appear "on the page," which necessitates a rule-intensive RPG system.

I'll say this - I don't think there is a right or wrong here, just differences in tastes. Like Treebore and Tank I am a proponent for C&C, my game system of choice, and I echo the things they have said. That's not to say there won't be people who come from the 2nd school of thought who will not find C&C attractive, and would not enjoy the necessity of the GM (CK in C&C) undertaking the burden of figuring out what to do in situations like the whirlwind mentioned above. That's cool - there are plenty of d20 systems to play, and I for one won't begrudge anyone who prefers 3.x if that's their taste. There are also plenty of people from the rules-lite school who just won't like some specifics of C&C that are too "unified," or similar to d20, and so there's always 1E, OD&D, OSRIC, etc.

To the OP - I think Treebore got you directed to the TLG boards and I think people have probably answered, but I will add that I think Greyhawk would be easier to jump into with C&C, Eberron would take more work and thought as it's geared in a very crunch-heavy way towards 3.5.

I think your right, I feel that the SIEGE engine and C&C gives me all the guidelines I need to run my game and rule on every situation.. Then again, I also have 22 years of constant gaming experience, I understand game mechanics and "odds" (statistical liklihood of things happening), and have game mastered over a dozen game systems, and played two dozen+ more.

So sometimes I just wonder if my experience combined with knowing the liklihood of certain things happening just allows me to take something like C&C and just run with it.

Still, that doesn't seem right either. I beleive most everyone here on ENWorld a pretty experienced gamers, and have run many different systems.

So I am leaning towards the "two schools" being right. There are plenty of people who are far more comfortable in a clearly defined environment than a loosely defined one. There are people like me, who hates highly regimented and controlled environments (I hated the military because of this), and C&C definitely feels right for me because it does make me feel like am free to go in whichever direction I want, and I get there how I want to get there.

I definitely did, and do, not like how 3E told me how to do everything, from how to build my character to how to adjudicate every move made in the game, I like rolling up a simple character with simple abilities, and then play him the way I want to play him. Not be retricted to a "feat chain" or skill progression.

I definitely like C&C and having my character develop from how I play him, and having my players characters develop the same way. What my character does, what he shows interest in, how he fights, what he studies, what he experiences is what my character becomes.

Definitely much more "real" for me. Then again, I know there are a lot of DM's who don't know how to allow that kind of "growth" to happen, let alone help it happen.

But that is what C&C allows and helps me to do. So I love it. It does it better than 1E or 2E ever did, but those editions did an excellent job. Just C&C does it even better, because of the SIEGE engine.

 

[Ourph]

I think I see where we are miscommunicating. The SIEGE engine is more universal, or maybe I should say simpler, is that you do not need additional rules for feats or skills using the SIEGE.

I notice you didn't answer my question. Does that mean you don't have an answer or that you just don't want to share it?

Either way, I'm not sure it makes a difference. The C&C rules provide the mechanical process for making a SIEGE check, but they unquestionably don't provide the mechanical effects of making a successful SIEGE check to do a "whirlwind attack" or any other feat-like action. Therefore either the GM or the player is making up those mechanical effects as an add-on to the rules. The process of creating those additional rules may be a very organic, subtle process between the player and GM in a game where there is a lot of trust between members of the group, but it is still, unquestionably, happening. Call it "doing anything you can imagine" if you wish, but anytime you do "anything you can imagine" and that anything has a mechanical effect in-game you are creating additional rules.

The Call of Cthulhu rules can be used (easily) to handle a PC designing and building a spaceship, but claiming that the Call of Cthulhu rules are just as good at handling spaceship building as (for example) Traveller is ridiculous. Equally ridiculous is claiming that C&C has rules which are just as good at handling the mechanical effects of a Power Attack or Empowered Spell as the equivalent rules in D&D. C&C provides a rule that let's the GM determine whether a character is capable of performing such actions, but provides no guidance on adjudicating the actual mechanical effects of those actions.

 

[seskis281]

Man, Ourph, you seem pretty hell-bent on proving that because you don't like C&C that it's a crappy system and no one should like it....

Trust me there are plenty of us who enjoy it. Your question - how does the siege mechanic allow for individualized actions in a game has been answered over and over - the CK (GM) decides how. If you abhore houseruling and on the fly GMing, that's cool... but to disparage the system and its players/fans because some of us LIKE this over the "rule-for-every-little-instance-on-the-paper" approaches borders a little on the obsessive... ok, trying to play nice here... but the OP started the thread essentially with the premise that he likes the system and was asking for help on setting choice, so that begs the question.... why hang out on this thread other than to attempt to tell C&Cers that "they're wrong?"

For the record, I can pull out my Moldvay Basic and Expert set and run an excellent game. I can pull out my 1e or 2e books and have a great game. I can pull out my 3.0 books and run a good game. I can pull out the incredibly wonky James Bond RPG from the 80's and have fun.

My advice is simple - find the system closest to what you like and go with it, by all means... as a C&C devotee I won't criticize anyone who has fun with any system. Or (shudder, shudder)... you can always make your own system.