Tell me about Castles and Crusades

[maddman75]

On the rules-light vs rules heavy debate this has morphed into, I can offer an anecdote of how rules heavy can discourage innovation.

We'd played 3e and nothing but 3e for a long time. I've noticed a tendency, due to the large number of skills, feats, and special abilities, when a player gets in a jam the first thing they do is look over their skills, feats, and special abilities to find a fix for that problem. If there's nothing on the sheet, they assume there's nothing they can do. This isn't a knock, just something I've observed from any rules heavy game system.

When we played All Flesh Must Be Eaten, with me using the simplest options avaiable it was a very different situation. For the most part, the ZM picks the Stat and SKill that applies to the situation, and decides the # of successes or an opposed roll. When one of the characters got each arm grabbed by a zombie he wanted to know what he used to get out, looking over his character sheet. I had to get him to stop, not worry about rules, and just tell me what his character wanted to do. He replied "I want to push one zombie off me, and once my arm is free swing my shotgun up to the leg of the other one.' So we did an opposed Strength test to shake off zombie #1, which he passed. Then he went for the other one with his shotgun. I gave him -1 for the akward angle, but gave him a called shot to the leg 'for free'. This isn't in the rulebook anywhere, just what I decided to happen.

True, you can do the same with 3e or any heavier system (and Unisystem can be fairly heavy, depending on the exact rules used. But mine was pretty light). But the players will tend to do what the rules support, and in 3e it supports using all your feats, skills, etc. And that's a feature, not a bug. Different tastes, and different advantages to different systems. Liking system A does not mean you can't like systems B or C as well.

 

[MoogleEmpMog]

-shrug-

I've seen players look to the stat sheet first in d20, but watching NPCs abuse action points to the hilt cured them of it real quick and in a jiffy.

They still pack goodly amounts of static crunch to dictate their general fighting style or specialties, but they know full well the benefits of saying, "Screw reloading the rifle, I'm going to jump down the stairs and try to make the thug fall and break his neck!"

Almost managed to break both their necks, but the PC was the one who survived.

 

[Akrasia]

A DM can obviously house rule anything, but at least with 3e, you have a basis to start from for a lot of things. With C&C, you have no guidance.

This is just not true. I don't understand why people keep making spurious claims like these. :\

You are given 'guidance'. You have have a base targent number for any task (12 if prime, 18 if not), which the CK modifies depending on the difficulty of the task in question.

Lots of advice on what kinds of modifiers to assign to different tasks are given on pp.107-111.

Furthermore, in both 3E and C&C the DM/CK is required to make decisions about the difficulty of different tasks. (Afterall, these are situations created by the DM/CK!) C&C gives more latitude to the CK than 3E does to the DM. But to say that everything is simply 'ad hoc' or whatever is just plain false.

I consider myself lucky in that I generally agree with my DM, so C&C is working okay for us. I have had DMs, though, who I did not agree with on game rulings. Even with rules, we had some problems. With an open system like C&C, we would have probably come to blows.

Why would you want to play with a DM whose judgement you felt had to be 'controlled' or 'restrained' by the rules?
IMO life it too short to play with a DM/CK whose judgement you don't trust.

 

[gideon_thorne]

Yes indeed. Back to what C&C IS as opposed to what others might prefer.

Its a framework. Like those that finish the exteriors of buildings with the facing and deccor they wish, players and game masters can take this simple framework of base classes, underlying core conflict resolution mechanics and simple rules and evolve their own comfort level of complexity with it.

Its designed on a specific stylistic preference. Along the line of the 'lite' framework, the design of the game harkens back to the rustic 'do it your self' mentality of early gaming. Sure. Not everything is spelled out in exhaustive detail. But neither is a rpg game scenario when the players and game masters work together to 'fill in the plot' from the notes of the game master and the character ideas of the players.


The rules are a tool, a guide, not an absolute. There is enough to get one started. If the answer isn't writ in stone, make it up! The system guidelines are simple for a reason, in some cases they are nebulous for a reason. Often the question is asked 'how am I supposed to interpret/implement a given rule?' My reply. "You tell me how you think it should be done?"

There is enough 'guidance' to get one started. But the rest is up to you. Not a design philosophy thats going to appeal to everyone, but hey...it worked in 1973...

 

[bolie]

I understand the zen of rules and how they should be a guide rather than a guard. I also understand that having lots of rules can feel restricting. Having a light and free system can be liberating.

Also, I've played C&C now for about five weeks. I gave up on my original character concept (a shapeshifter) that I'd been playing in 3e and went with a Wizard. I worked with my DM to come up with rules for a shapeshifter, but it was too much work to create from scratch something that existed in 3e, more or less.

I'm glad I did. When I tried to use polymorph as a Wizard, I ran smack into the lack of attributes for monsters. Yes, you can make up whatever you want. Yes, you can add HD or whatever if you think it's appropriate for that monster. But the game provides no guidance. In 3e, I know whether a Hill Giant is stronger than a Bulette. Or whatever. In C&C, I have no idea. I have to make it up. I don't get to make it up if I want to, I MUST make it up. I can't fall back to the Rules as Written because there ain't one.

I pointed out several times that the polymorph spell description doesn't mesh with the rules for monsters and the suggestions have either been simplistic to the point of not being useful or wrong.

Then there are combat modifiers. It's +5 to hit prone targets with melee weapons or ranged weapons? But this table (p.117) is just a sample. You should obviously come up with your own modifiers. But 3e has a similar table in the PH (p.151) but it's divided into ranged and melee. So it's also a guide, but it's more useful because it already makes the very real distinction between ranged and melee combat.

On p.46, the rules for casting spells are incomplete. It isn't clear to me from the text exactly how you cast a spell. Apparently (looking at Concentration on p.47), you declare your spell on your initiative and, if it's a 1 round spell, it goes off right then. So can anyone break your concentration? There are no attacks of opportunity, so I guess not? But if they did, then how do you handle it? The book says the CK may allow a concentration check. Okay... so is there any guidance for when to do so and when not to do so? If this is an optional rule, how about spelling it out and declaring it optional? As it is, there is no rule, it's just a suggestion for a rule you can make up. What would the concentration check DC be? 12/18 + HD of foe or 12/18 + damage taken or 12/18 + spell level? And what stat do you use? The book says typically Int or Dex. Typically? Uh... so what should it be? The rules don't say.

So a wizard casting a spell in combat immediately begs the questions: Can someone disrupt his spell? How? Can he resist? How? None of those answers are given by the rules. Suggestions are made for how to go about it, but you can't just go with the Rules as Written. You MUST make something up yourself.

Then there's the whole question of how to handle skill checks for racial skills. If an elf wants to move silently and is not a Rogue or Ranger, how does he do it? Does he add his level? Does he add the +2? Can he move as silently as a Rogue? I've seen debate and discussion on this and suggestions for how to handle it. But again, the Rules as Written don't tell you. You MUST make something up yourself.

These questions are not academic since I'm playing an Elf Wizard. Mythmere and I have come up with some rules for these situations, but, again, we HAD to. The game didn't have rules.

Reading through the PHB, C&C seems to have been intentionally written so that it is incomplete and the DM must fill in the blanks. This is fine as long as people who buy it understand it. If you are looking for a game you can play right out of the box, C&C isn't it. If you constantly make up house rules as you go anyway, then C&C is probably fine for you. It has some nifty things, like the six saving throws, easy turning undead rules, the SEIGE engine for ad hoc skill rolls, etc...

<deep breath>

Bolie IV

 

[gideon_thorne]

Also, I've played C&C now for about five weeks. I gave up on my original character concept (a shapeshifter) that I'd been playing in 3e and went with a Wizard. I worked with my DM to come up with rules for a shapeshifter, but it was too much work to create from scratch something that existed in 3e, more or less.

Hrm.. Take one druid, eliminate spells, lower the level of the shape change abilty, make the # of times per day of the shapechange some function of level. Quick way to create a shape shifter.

When I tried to use polymorph as a Wizard, I ran smack into the lack of attributes for monsters. Yes, you can make up whatever you want. Yes, you can add HD or whatever if you think it's appropriate for that monster. But the game provides no guidance. In 3e, I know whether a Hill Giant is stronger than a Bulette. Or whatever. In C&C, I have no idea. I have to make it up. I don't get to make it up if I want to, I MUST make it up. I can't fall back to the Rules as Written because there ain't one.

Hit dice and Monster Primes Mental and Physical.

You should obviously come up with your own modifiers.

Yup. Range can also be a function of dex modifiers. Page 116, under 'ranged combat' talks about range modifers as well.

Dexterity is the attribute that modies a ranged attack to hit roll.


When attacking with ranged weapons,
the attacker’s dexterity modies the to hit roll. Additionally, a
character’s strength modier is added to the damage of thrown
weapons, but not propelled weapons.

Ranged weapons also have range increments, and they have
a maximum effective distance equal to three times the listed
range increment as detailed in the equipment list. The listed range
increment is considered to be close range. Twice the range increment
is medium range, and three times the increment is long range.
Medium range results in a -2 penalty to the ranged attack roll, and
long range results in a -6 penalty to the attack roll.

Ranged weapons that miss their target continue on their path and
can potentially hit another target within close range. If the target of
the attack is missed, the projectile continues in a straight line and
can hit anything in its path. For each ten feet traveled within close
range, the attack accrues a -1 penalty. The exception to this rule is
that bolts red from a crossbow continue up to long range, although
the medium and long-range modiers still apply.

On p.46, the rules for casting spells are incomplete. It isn't clear to me from the text exactly how you cast a spell. Apparently (looking at Concentration on p.47), you declare your spell on your initiative and, if it's a 1 round spell, it goes off right then. So can anyone break your concentration? There are no attacks of opportunity, so I guess not? But if they did, then how do you handle it? The book says the CK may allow a concentration check. Okay... so is there any guidance for when to do so and when not to do so? If this is an optional rule, how about spelling it out and declaring it optional? As it is, there is no rule, it's just a suggestion for a rule you can make up. What would the concentration check DC be? 12/18 + HD of foe or 12/18 + damage taken or 12/18 + spell level? And what stat do you use? The book says typically Int or Dex. Typically? Uh... so what should it be? The rules don't say.

Yup. What do you feel is appropriate?

So a wizard casting a spell in combat immediately begs the questions: Can someone disrupt his spell? How? Can he resist? How? None of those answers are given by the rules. Suggestions are made for how to go about it, but you can't just go with the Rules as Written. You MUST make something up yourself.

Indeed

Then there's the whole question of how to handle skill checks for racial skills. If an elf wants to move silently and is not a Rogue or Ranger, how does he do it? Does he add his level? Does he add the +2? Can he move as silently as a Rogue? I've seen debate and discussion on this and suggestions for how to handle it. But again, the Rules as Written don't tell you. You MUST make something up yourself.

Exactly. What works best in your game. If any one method is picked people are going to argue over that as well. "But thats not how such and such critter works in (insert favorite piece of obscure literature here)"

Reading through the PHB, C&C seems to have been intentionally written so that it is incomplete and the DM must fill in the blanks.

I do believe hes got it. The C&C PLAYERS handbook has been written just that way. The full CKG will have more comprehensive guides for all the 'extras' for those who need them. "Put the power back in the hands of the gamemaster" is a prime slogan for this system. How does the CK want to run his game. Players, please consult with the CK on how various rules decisions are implemented.

 

[Ourph]

On the rules-light vs rules heavy debate this has morphed into, I can offer an anecdote of how rules heavy can discourage innovation.

We'd played 3e and nothing but 3e for a long time. I've noticed a tendency, due to the large number of skills, feats, and special abilities, when a player gets in a jam the first thing they do is look over their skills, feats, and special abilities to find a fix for that problem. If there's nothing on the sheet, they assume there's nothing they can do. This isn't a knock, just something I've observed from any rules heavy game system.

Ha! I remember arguing with you about this very subject over at Dragonsfoot's EW forum a few years ago. Glad to know you've finally seen the light. (just kidding!)

But the players will tend to do what the rules support....

That's actually excellent analysis and I agree 100%. It's incumbent upon any rules-lite game to make clear to both the referee and the players that the lack of rules don't imply that characters are limited, but just the opposite. The lack of specific rules should be described as freedom for the player to try anything that his character could reasonably do, and for the DM to use the framework to decide how to determine success or failure. Any rules-lite game that doesn't make this abundantly clear is shooting itself in the foot. Fortunately for C&C, the PHB (with all its flaws) does an excellent job of getting this message across (I only looked at the book for about 20 minutes and I got that message loud and clear).

The problem with this "system" of ad hoc rulings made on the fly is that it makes it difficult for a player to plan ahead. He will make decisions about his character based on what he thinks is reasonable. If the DM disagrees, then his decisions have been invalidated and his character may not be what he wanted. Also, it makes it more difficult for a player to plan ahead what his tactics will be in certain situations if he doesn't know how the DM will rule. With 3e, you can look up all the rules and figure out your tactics ahead of time. Then you can write it down and you know what the rules are. If the DM doesn't know the rules, you can show him.

This is where maddman's point becomes really valid. Yes, C&C asks you to give up some of the assurances you get with more defined rules. But it shouldn't stop you from planning ahead. Instead of thinking in terms of what's reasonable within the rules, C&C asks you to think in terms of what's reasonable for your character in the game world. C&C asks you to trust your DM to make fair and reasonable calls. C&C asks you to live with the risk that your character lives with (that carefully laid plans may, in the end, not work out exactly as you'd hoped they would). It's a HUGE paradigm shift from playing 3e, but it's also a great way to play if you can get past the fact that you're not working from the same expectations anymore and start thinking in terms of what's possible rather than what's allowed.

 

[Darkness]

I think if we are giving CC air time in the main forum, we should give Blue Rose air time in the main forum.

A thread comparing BR to D&D?

 

[gideon_thorne]

A thread comparing BR to D&D?

There seem to be several Blue Rose/C&C comparisons going on on different forums. Several folks seem to be discoursing on how efficiently the two systems can be used together.

I dont recall threads off hand but that sort of inquiry is going on.

 

[bolie]

Hrm.. Take one druid, eliminate spells, lower the level of the shape change abilty, make the # of times per day of the shapechange some function of level. Quick way to create a shape shifter.

Druids can only change into one shape at first, then two others on the next two levels. Then eventually a large version of one of the three other shapes. That's it. I doubt the M&T book will have any guidance for making large versions of animals. Maybe there will be a corresponding large animal for every type of animal.

But that's not important. I was trying to emulate the Shifter PrC (or Master of Many Forms). So using the C&C Druid as a basis wouldn't get me anything. I actually have a 20 level class made up with types and sizes and etc... But the lack of attributes issue was a problem.

Hit dice and Monster Primes Mental and Physical.

Uh. Huh? Those aren't attributes. Those are hit dice and primes. Go and read the polymorph spell description. Then read some monsters from the monster list published on the C&C web site. Then read some of my previous comments on monster attributes. Hit Dice and Primes don't help. Without attributes, polymorph is either a very weak spell or requires a custom ruling for each and every monster.

Yup. Range can also be a function of dex modifiers. Page 116, under 'ranged combat' talks about range modifers as well.

Dexterity is the attribute that modies a ranged attack to hit roll.


When attacking with ranged weapons,
the attacker’s dexterity modies the to hit roll. Additionally, a
character’s strength modier is added to the damage of thrown
weapons, but not propelled weapons.

Ranged weapons also have range increments, and they have
a maximum effective distance equal to three times the listed
range increment as detailed in the equipment list. The listed range
increment is considered to be close range. Twice the range increment
is medium range, and three times the increment is long range.
Medium range results in a -2 penalty to the ranged attack roll, and
long range results in a -6 penalty to the attack roll.

Ranged weapons that miss their target continue on their path and
can potentially hit another target within close range. If the target of
the attack is missed, the projectile continues in a straight line and
can hit anything in its path. For each ten feet traveled within close
range, the attack accrues a -1 penalty. The exception to this rule is
that bolts red from a crossbow continue up to long range, although
the medium and long-range modiers still apply.

I'm not talking about the basic ranged weapon to hit roll. I specifically referred to two tables, one in the C&C PHB and one in the 3.5 PHB. If you would look, both tables are of circumstance modifiers which modify the basic roll you described above. In 3.5, the table has two columns, one for ranged and one for melee. In C&C, the table appears to be geared towards melee without the ranged column.

Yup. What do you feel is appropriate?
...
Indeed
...
Exactly. What works best in your game. If any one method is picked people are going to argue over that as well. "But thats not how such and such critter works in (insert favorite piece of obscure literature here)"
...
I do believe hes got it. The C&C PLAYERS handbook has been written just that way. The full CKG will have more comprehensive guides for all the 'extras' for those who need them. "Put the power back in the hands of the gamemaster" is a prime slogan for this system. How does the CK want to run his game. Players, please consult with the CK on how various rules decisions are implemented.

Okay. So C&C is explicitly an unfinished, incomplete role playing game designed to be completed by the DM and the players. I would have liked to have seen the PHB reflect this better. One way would be to describe basic mechanics (the d20 roll, the SEIGE engine) and then provide modular, optional rule sets for different things. I know that the CK book is going to do some of this, but the PHB should have had more of this as well as more clearly defined areas of specificity and vagueness. The discussion of spell casting reads like two different people wrote parts of it and they were not on speaking terms. The description of polymorph reads like it was written by someone who didn't know how monsters were going to be described. Some of the "your CK will come up with how this is done" statements sound like copouts (as in "we couldn't think of a good way to do this, so we'll just suggest you come up with something").

Bolie IV