Moving to C&C... need help

[Ourph]

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....

There isn't one instance in this thread or any other where I've stated or even implied that anyone is wrong for liking C&C. Please refrain from misrepresenting my comments in this way.

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.

I'm sorry, that is neither an answer to my question nor an accurate summation of the question itself.

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

First, I don't abhor houseruling, I do it quite often. B/X D&D is my D&D "flavor" of choice and there's not a single thing about my RPG preferences that prevents me from understanding the appeal of a rules lite game when it is done well. Second, I've never disparaged "players/fans" of C&C. If you are "trying to play nice here" it might be best to stop falsely accusing me of violating the rules of conduct. If you feel that I really have stepped over the line in any of my comments, please report the post to a moderator. I will happily edit or remove and apologize for anything I've posted which a moderator deems inappropriate.

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?"

The subject of the thread diverged from the original subject long before I posted. I'm continuing to post because Treebore and others are continuing to respond to my comments. It's called "having a conversation" and as far as I know it's something that is allowed and even encouraged here at ENWorld.

I understand that you disagree with me on several levels concerning the C&C rules, but the answer isn't to passive-aggressively tell me to "shut up and go away". If you aren't interested in what I have to say, please feel free to add me to your Ignore List.

 

[seskis281]

Whoa - if I breached civility I do apologize, but man... such a reaction.

Ok, so in the spirit of conversation -

I do it quite often. B/X D&D is my D&D "flavor"

How do you apply whirlwind in B/X?

 

[Moggthegob]

well well I must say I like C&C for the factthat sometimes my players want to break the frame that D&D provides and it is going to be one of the secondary choices in my campaign that will provide agreat break after the intricacies ofourhigh level game. Its about not burning out more than anything else.

 

[seskis281]

well well I must say I like C&C for the factthat sometimes my players want to break the frame that D&D provides and it is going to be one of the secondary choices in my campaign that will provide agreat break after the intricacies ofourhigh level game. Its about not burning out more than anything else.

Again sound like you've got a good approach - no reason at all not to use multiple systems/rule-sets for differing needs of your group.

 

[slimykuotoan]

The SIEGE mechanic is no more or less than a universal resolution mechanic.

I agree, and I think that's why C&C appeals so much to me; it's amazing how creative players can be when they're free to operate 'out of the box'.

Just the other night the group I was CKing was c forced to make camp next to a monster threat and suffered from fatigue and damage, etc.

The barbarian in the group asked: "I have con as a prime, can I make a SEIGE check to remian awake throughout the night."

Me the CK: "Uh...yeah...yeah you certainly can!"

I guess that's a difference in gaming style; I like the openess of C&C.

As a side note, I wonder if C&C would be as attractive to new players without previous fantasy roleplaying experience?

Would they be as creative, or would they flounder around in the dark?

 

[Philotomy Jurament]

As a side note, I wonder if C&C would be as attractive to new players without previous fantasy roleplaying experience?

Would they be as creative, or would they flounder around in the dark?

I think they'd be creative. Usually, a new player will just tell you what he wants to do, without filtering it through the "system." You get some interesting actions that way: people trying to set enemies cloaks on fire with torches instead of drawing a weapon, and stuff like that.

 

[seskis281]

Would they be as creative, or would they flounder around in the dark?

A legitimate question - I guess it depends on the individual.

Thinking a little more on it, I think I have an example of how the Siege mechanic works when using it as an applicator of feat-like endeavours:

Part of the basics of the Siege engine is the CK-defined Base Challenge Rating. When a player asks to do something, such as "charge in and in whirlwind attack multiple opponents," simply utilize the base check at early levels and 1st attempts. Set the Base CR according to who's doing it - i.e. the fighter trying it versus the illusionist (the latter should be exceedingly high).

After a few levels and successful uses of a particular "feat" (using that term to simply describe the individual action), allow that move to become a standard part of the character's repetoire as if they have "learned it," and roll primarily for critical failure from that point on only.

Then simply set the parameters of the move - i.e. you may attack up to 4 opponents within your reach of the whirlwind, -1 against 1st target, -2 against second, -3 against third, and damage is 75% against 1st target, 50% against 2nd, and 25% for last two potential targets.

It would take me all of a minute max to do that - and I think the key would be to have players think on "specialty" actions or "feats" they want to develop for their characters (I had a wizard wanted to wield two wands like guns from his belt... ok, this didn't exist in the rules - and that was 3.0 - so I did something similar where he'd try it, and it took lots of messed up rounds and levels before he succeeded a few times and it became his trademark combat move). If there's good communication, then the CK (GM) can take a few minutes before sessions to set up conditions like the one I exampled here.

 

[Irda Ranger]

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.

Given how C&C works, whether Hairfoot or Treebore allow their players to do "something that resembles the D&D 3.x feat 'Whirlwind Attack'" in the exact same way is immaterial, because as long as they're using a SIEGE Engine check. Because as long as they're both using a SIEGE Engine check, they're both doing it "the same way."

I think you're stuck on the idea that there's only "one correct way" to do a "Whirlwind Attack." In D&D 3, that's a correct assumption. The "one correct way" is the Feat description. In C&C, that is not a correct assumption. I wish to focus on your use of the word "inherantly." Whirlwind Attack is inherently covered by the C&C's SIEGE Engine. However, it is not specifically described. There is no sentence or chart anywhere in the book that says "this is the CL of a Whirlwind Attack, and this is the effect."

But see my next point.

The SIEGE mechanic is no more or less than a universal resolution mechanic. ... Universal mechanics have been around for quite some time and are hardly unique to C&C.

Both correct.

Look, if PC's can "do stuff" that looks, smells and quacks like a Whirlwind Attack, why make such a fuss? When Treebore says C&C characters can "perform Feat-like actions", that's an accurate statement. For someone whose frame of reference is from D&D 3e, I think it's perfectly fair to say that "Players have access to the SIEGE Engine mechanic, which adjudicates any non-class-skill action they can imagine, including ones that D&D 3e might call a 'Feat.'" They can also try stuff that D&D 3e does not allow for.

The "two schools" is correct. D&D takes the approach of "All actions are forbidden, unless your character sheet (skill, feat, class ability, etc.) says you can." C&C takes the approach of "All actions are permitted, unless they are specifically reserved for another class' core ability (Inspiring presence, wizard spells, etc.)" The first approach provides certainty, consistency and clarity (as well as the knowledge that every activity you attempt has been well playtested), while the latter system provides more freedom of action. I don't think either system is better, just different strokes for different folks.

 

[seskis281]

The first approach provides certainty, consistency and clarity (as well as the knowledge that every activity you attempt has been well playtested), while the latter system provides more freedom of action. I don't think either system is better, just different strokes for different folks.

Precisely, and I have no problem with anyone who says "I like more specific and complex rule-sets, and the clarity of well-tested mechanics, so I'm not wild about C&C." Perfectly fine, and a legitimate RPG philosophy. If you have fun, play it!

Actually, to me, ALL systems are free because I've never felt constrained to play any system "as is," although I have had players who could not handle this approach. I played 3.0 for years before switching to C&C. I modified both, but on the scale my tastes moved me closer to C&C (so much less scaling up) than 3.0 (a lot of scaling down). As Irda said, not "better," just a better fit for me .

Cheers

 

[ST]

I'm going to try to explain the original concept from scratch, because I don't think we're talking about it directly any more.

The thread was originally asking how you could handle Feats -- which are character-specific, optional rules denoting special abilities -- into the C&C rules. (Think of a Feat like a card in Magic, kind of. It's something special you can do, mechanically, because you hold that card.)

The responses were mostly along the lines of "Oh, you can handle those abilities without adding character-specific, optional rules", which is not the same thing as "Yes, the system supports character-specific, optional rules".

I don't think anybody ever questioned whether or not you could have a character *do* something that would be a Feat in D&D -- any system will let you do anything, to an extent, even if you just have to houserule it. But does C&C have a system for letting you "bolt on" extra rules that apply to your character because of his specific training, no. You can have special training, and do stuff with it, but it doesn't add a modular rule (a Feat).

Hope this clarifies things. When people are talking about the "two schools" way of looking at it, that's good -- they work differently, and if how they work matters to you, choose based on that -- but obviously both will handle play just fine.