Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="SavageRobby" data-source="post: 3740489" data-attributes="member: 51573">Well, house rule is the term I'm objecting to, as is the characterization that - out of the box - C&amp;C doesn't support the ability to do feat like actions. The rules clearly define the process on how to handle actions players would like to take that aren't detailed elsewhere. Its that simple.Here is the crux, I believe: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&amp;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. If you want to qualify it as &quot;creative input&quot;, 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&amp;C is designed to let the player describe the mechanic they want to achieve, and provide a framework for adjudicating it.I think Tankschmidt said it well on page 1:</blockquote>

[QUOTE="SavageRobby, post: 3740489, member: 51573"] Well, house rule is the term I'm objecting to, as is the characterization that - out of the box - C&C doesn't support the ability to do feat like actions. The rules clearly define the process on how to handle actions players would like to take that aren't detailed elsewhere. Its that simple. Here is the crux, I believe: I don't believe anyone stated categorically that those elements [b]will always be[/b] 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 [i]you and the DM want to include them[/i]. 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. 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 think Tankschmidt said it well on page 1: [/QUOTE]

Verification