Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
White Dwarf Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Nest
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
EN Publishing
Twitter
BlueSky
Facebook
Instagram
EN World
BlueSky
YouTube
Facebook
Twitter
Twitch
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*TTRPGs General
New Design Paradigms - What are they and are they good or bad?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Imaro" data-source="post: 3361791" data-attributes="member: 48965"><p>But C&C does "Rox" <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f600.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":D" title="Big grin :D" data-smilie="8"data-shortname=":D" /></p><p>Simple System+ Tactical Thinking+ Imagination+ DM FIAT(or group consensus)= Interesting Combat is for me a better analogy than the above and is true of all systems. In the D&D 3.x DC's are given based on difficulty. C&C also has a general rule on +/- a certain amount depending on difficulty of an action. Don't really see the difference.</p><p> </p><p>C&C already has rules for: Charging, Grappling, Overbearing, Disarming, Evading, Flanking, Rear Attacks, Two-wpn Fighting, Cover, Concealment, Dodging, Disengaging (all this is from memory right now so I might be missing some options.) Now since we've established that these rules exist in C&C it really boils down to DM Fiat on when to give you bonuses to achieve them, just like DC's in 3.x. You could argue that feats allow you to define what your PC is good at but in my mind this isn't necessarily the case as the DM will still set the DC and can increase it if he feels your character shouldn't or wouldn't be able to do something. If you ask him why and he gives you a list of mitigating factors that you agree/disagree with, how is this any different from DM fiat?</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>This is the biggest misconception I see with C&C, check above they are. Rewards come from deciding whether to flank, rear attack, take Cover or use Concealment, Disarm or Disengage etc. Each action rewards in different ways from I just hit him. The biggest difference for me is that these options are kept simple in their explanations as well as their implementation. In the end it has more to do with the players and DM's than cool feats and abilities or an abundance of tactical rules. In D&D I have seen someone find a combination of abilities that work well and do the same thing over and over again in numerous combats, this(IMHO) is as bad as I hit syndrome. </p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>I have a little bit of a problem with systems like these unless their is a balancing factor like a penalty to AC next round, or your first actions penalty is dependent upon how many actions you are taking, something along those lines. This is because in essence their is no real reason to stop taking multiple actions as yes my chances of succeding decrease with each action but it in no way hinders me and I might just get lucky and roll great.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Imaro, post: 3361791, member: 48965"] But C&C does "Rox" :D Simple System+ Tactical Thinking+ Imagination+ DM FIAT(or group consensus)= Interesting Combat is for me a better analogy than the above and is true of all systems. In the D&D 3.x DC's are given based on difficulty. C&C also has a general rule on +/- a certain amount depending on difficulty of an action. Don't really see the difference. C&C already has rules for: Charging, Grappling, Overbearing, Disarming, Evading, Flanking, Rear Attacks, Two-wpn Fighting, Cover, Concealment, Dodging, Disengaging (all this is from memory right now so I might be missing some options.) Now since we've established that these rules exist in C&C it really boils down to DM Fiat on when to give you bonuses to achieve them, just like DC's in 3.x. You could argue that feats allow you to define what your PC is good at but in my mind this isn't necessarily the case as the DM will still set the DC and can increase it if he feels your character shouldn't or wouldn't be able to do something. If you ask him why and he gives you a list of mitigating factors that you agree/disagree with, how is this any different from DM fiat? This is the biggest misconception I see with C&C, check above they are. Rewards come from deciding whether to flank, rear attack, take Cover or use Concealment, Disarm or Disengage etc. Each action rewards in different ways from I just hit him. The biggest difference for me is that these options are kept simple in their explanations as well as their implementation. In the end it has more to do with the players and DM's than cool feats and abilities or an abundance of tactical rules. In D&D I have seen someone find a combination of abilities that work well and do the same thing over and over again in numerous combats, this(IMHO) is as bad as I hit syndrome. I have a little bit of a problem with systems like these unless their is a balancing factor like a penalty to AC next round, or your first actions penalty is dependent upon how many actions you are taking, something along those lines. This is because in essence their is no real reason to stop taking multiple actions as yes my chances of succeding decrease with each action but it in no way hinders me and I might just get lucky and roll great. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*TTRPGs General
New Design Paradigms - What are they and are they good or bad?
Top