Moving to C&C... need help

[ST]

Keeping polite and simple:

Why does a system HAVE to put down in rules or PHB, in specific detail, all mechanics for it to be "well designed?"

It doesn't. I really think that there's a disconnect in what we're all talking about, between

"It has rules that let you do X,Y, and Z, all using basically the same mechanic"

versus "It has extra rules that cover X, Y, and Z as separate rules cases"

Both approaches work great! The only reason whether you'd want to specify between the two is because someone might choose one approach over the other. Some people like the first one because it's easier to add in new cases (using the same mechanic), some like the second one because it they enjoy more complex rules.

I know I've played in and enjoyed games using each approach. But if you or your group is in the mood for one, you wouldn't want to end up with the other for that game. But I think we're just discussing how they work, and not judging either as right or wrong.

 

[Treebore]

Actually, you are correct, C&C does contain specific rules that semi-replicate the old 1e rules about Fighters getting multiple attacks against 1HD creatures (which I believe the 3e Whirlwind Attack feat is based on). It's probably not the best example to use. Since you claim that in C&C "all characters have all feats" then it shouldn't matter what example we use. Let's focus instead on a metamagic feat, like Empower Spell. Where are the rules that cover the mechanical effects of Empower Spell in C&C? Note that I'm not asking for the rules that cover how to determine success or failure (it's the SIEGE mechanic which I understand quite well and don't need explained again), I'm asking for the rules that tell you the mechanical effects of succeeding at the SIEGE check.


I understand the OGL perfectly, thanks and this interpretation is, in fact, quite inaccurate. Since the feat descriptions for core D&D are part of the SRD it's actually quite acceptable for a 3rd party OGL product like C&C to include those descriptions in its text verbatim if the publishers desire. That is beside the point, however, because I'm not arguing in any way that C&C should incorporate those descriptions or would be a better game for it. I am pointing out that, since it doesn't, it's inaccurate to assert that "all characters in C&C have all feats". C&C doesn't have a feat system, nor does it contain enough information to replicate the mechanical effects of the 3e feat system without importing information from other games or creating new rules from whole cloth. I hoped that I had repeated that premise enough that we would all be clear about what I am and am not saying by now. :\

Well all I can tell you is the TLG guys didn't want to because of "legal concerns". I myself always wondered why ever since I read True20. Maybe with the CKG they will address such things as directly as True20 does.

 

[SavageRobby]

Ourph,

Keeping polite and simple:

Why does a system HAVE to put down in rules or PHB, in specific detail, all mechanics for it to be "well designed?"

This is my question as well.


I don't think C&C needs to have "enough information to replicate the mechanical effects of the 3e feat system without importing information from other games or creating new rules from whole cloth" (ye gods, what a load). I suppose for players with less imagination or who are used to be spoon fed what they can or can't do, this approach is necessary. My players have a lot more fun just thinking up what'd they like to do, and asking "Can I do [insert some cool thing they want to try]?" than looking up feats someone else thought in some other book that were supposed to follow the "all feats are equal" design philosophy that never worked in the first place.

 

[tankschmidt]

Let's focus instead on a metamagic feat, like Empower Spell. Where are the rules that cover the mechanical effects of Empower Spell in C&C? Note that I'm not asking for the rules that cover how to determine success or failure (it's the SIEGE mechanic which I understand quite well and don't need explained again), I'm asking for the rules that tell you the mechanical effects of succeeding at the SIEGE check.

I don't understand what the controversy is here. Doesn't the player request the mechanical effects prior to rolling a SIEGE check?

Wizard: "I want to focus my arcane might to make this fireball twice as powerful."
CK: "Hm... Twice as powerful? That's gonna be a pretty high CL."

Or maybe the player and CK arrive at a consensus on the mechanical effects:

Wizard: "I close my eyes, enter a zen state, and then open them again sans pupils. From the depths of my power, I summon an intensely hot ball of fire."
CK: "150% damage sound okay to you?"
Wizard: "Yeah, man."
CK: "Roll a CL 23."

I'm asking for the rules that tell you the mechanical effects of succeeding at the SIEGE check.

And I'm glad we don't have them!

 

[Ourph]

This is my question as well.


I don't think C&C needs to have "enough information to replicate the mechanical effects of the 3e feat system without importing information from other games or creating new rules from whole cloth" (ye gods, what a load).

As a value judgement, I don't think C&C needs that either. But as I said above, this isn't a values discussion. As a matter of whether C&C provides rules that allow "all characters to have all feats" as claimed on the first page of the thread, it does actually need that info for the claim to be true, IMO.

I suppose for players with less imagination or who are used to be spoon fed what they can or can't do, this approach is necessary.

Let's try to keep the rude, passive-aggressive hyperbole out of this discussion please. Thanks.

 

[Ourph]

I don't understand what the controversy is here. Doesn't the player request the mechanical effects prior to rolling a SIEGE check?

I find it kind of hard to believe that after half a dozen or more posts you're still not clear on the issue under discussion, but if so maybe this summary will help clear things up.

C&C may not list "feats", but using the SIEGE engine allows anyone to do anything the CK is willing to allow, including feat actions such as power attack, cleave, whirlwind, and meta magic feats.

The implementation of a feat-like system depends on a particular GM choosing to bring those options into his game, they are not an inherent part of the rules (even if the GM is using a mechanic within the rules, like the SIEGE mechanic, to help adjudicate it).

Doing actions, that are covered by feats in 3E are inehrent to the SIEGE mechanic, not something I imported.

Treebore's assertion is false because the SIEGE engine provides the method for determining whether a character is able to perform a specific feat-like action, but provides no rules for the actual mechanical effects of success. The SIEGE engine produces a binary result (success or failure) but Feats aren't a binary mechanic. Selecting Feats is a binary mechanic (you either have them or you don't) and the SIEGE engine works just fine as a replacement for the process of Feat selection, but it does not replace the more complex function of feats which is detailing the mechanical effects of the binary result. Saying that the SIEGE mechanic replaces the function of feats is false, because it does not reproduce the entire function of that mechanic, only the simplest portion of it.

If my player says they want to perform a "Whirlwind Attack" then haven't they already set the parameters for what, if succesful, they're action will do?

Yes, and that's exactly my point. The SIEGE mechanic doesn't provide you with the mechanical effect, YOU provide that. The SIEGE mechanic just provides you with the binary result of the attempt.

And I'm glad we don't have them!

To be clear, this was never a discussion about one system being "better" than the other on my part, it's a discussion about the accuracy of certain claims and the reasons behind the opinion that they are either accurate or inaccurate. As far as I'm concerned it's a value-neutral issue, whether the SIEGE mechanic replicates the function of feats is irrelevant, as far as I'm concerned, when it comes to the quality of the C&C rules.

Hope that helps.

 

[ST]

Complexity of a system, stuff like the number of extra subsystems in the rules, is important.

But,it's only important because different people have different preferences. They give somewhat different experiences, and will better suit some situations and groups than others.

I think everybody in the thread (probably) agrees on that.

 

[TwoSix]

Ourph, you have the patience of a saint.

Quite simply, the fact that the SIEGE action can replicate the actions of any feat is immaterial. You don't have a feat system to give you more options....you have them to give restrictions! For a gamer who favors more complex character creation, restrictions are necessary to allow for difficult choices. C&C and the SIEGE engine doesn't provide for those kind of difficult choices, because that isn't what a rules-light player is looking for.

All Ourph was pointing out is that you can't say the SIEGE engine is like having the D&D feat system, because the SIEGE engine lets you attempt "anything you can imagine." The feat system doesn't exist to give you actions to take. It exists to define the actions you can take. For a lot of us, that's exactly why we like 3e.... it gives us a way to build characters to our liking that can take the actions we want them to take, and not other actions. Maybe that's not your cup of tea as a gamer, and that's fine. But don't pretend that your rules-light system is just like our complex system, except it's light.

 

[Treebore]

Ourph, you have the patience of a saint.

Quite simply, the fact that the SIEGE action can replicate the actions of any feat is immaterial. You don't have a feat system to give you more options....you have them to give restrictions! For a gamer who favors more complex character creation, restrictions are necessary to allow for difficult choices. C&C and the SIEGE engine doesn't provide for those kind of difficult choices, because that isn't what a rules-light player is looking for.

All Ourph was pointing out is that you can't say the SIEGE engine is like having the D&D feat system, because the SIEGE engine lets you attempt "anything you can imagine." The feat system doesn't exist to give you actions to take. It exists to define the actions you can take. For a lot of us, that's exactly why we like 3e.... it gives us a way to build characters to our liking that can take the actions we want them to take, and not other actions. Maybe that's not your cup of tea as a gamer, and that's fine. But don't pretend that your rules-light system is just like our complex system, except it's light.

See, that is where we have a significant divergence in perspective. You look at the feat system as a way to define actions, so do I. However, you seem to accept the feat system in its "limiting" form. IE if you don't have the feat you can't do it. In C&C you can attempt any kind of action. I prefer the freedom for the player to think of anything, and they can attempt it if I think its within reason. Since I DMed 3E for almost 5 years my definition of "reasonable" has been greatly expanded.

I probably would not like playing under a truly "old school" DM in C&C, because its likely their perspective of whats possible will be a lot narrower than mine. Heck, now 3E's perspective of what is possible is narrower than mine.

 

[Ourph]

I probably would not like playing under a truly "old school" DM in C&C, because its likely their perspective of whats possible will be a lot narrower than mine.

Wait... you were asserting earlier that the ability to "do anything" was inherent to the SIEGE mechanic. If so, why would it make a difference what the GM's attitude was, if he was using the SIEGE mechanic?