Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="seskis281" data-source="post: 3739838" data-attributes="member: 41593">From the introduction to the C&amp;C PHB: &quot;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.&quot;To answer this point: the core intent and philosophy of the C&amp;C system is to NOT present detailed, &quot;out of the box&quot; 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 &quot;flip a coin to determine success or failure,&quot; 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&amp;C as an RPG is that it not only says &quot;its ok&quot; 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&amp;C created a hybrid of 1e flavor and ideas with d20 concepts and ideas, then said &quot;take these building blocks (foundation) and make the game your own, your individual RPG experience.&quot; To say that a set of rules must be a &quot;univeral, shared experience&quot; 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 &quot;most people want x, y, z&quot; is really sort of placing what you want from a system as a little too universal.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="seskis281, post: 3739838, member: 41593"] 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 [I]intent[/I] and philosophy of the C&C system is to NOT present detailed, "out of the box" rules for every mechanic. The [I]intent[/I] of the Siege mechanic was [I]specifically[/I] developed by [I]design[/I] 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 [I]meant from the start[/I] 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 [I]individual[/I] 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 [I]you[/I] want from a system as a little too universal. [/QUOTE]

Verification