Tell me about Castles and Crusades

[gideon_thorne]

Still just a difference in desired game system detail. The Seige mechanic gives the ability to use background skills if needed. Its refered too as an 'attribute check'. One doesn't neccessarily need the level of detail of having 'specific' skills, like investigator, ect, listed on the sheet. PrC's are also a level of detail that many, including myself, find unneeded.

If one wants to call their character an Investigator with all the various abilities, it needs no more than a constructed background and the seige attribute check. The Prime scores will modify this a bit and a simple mod to the default attribute check (one can add level) will make the desired character.

And it just takes one modified rule in C&C to add levels of detail, wherein I would have to ignore most of the rules in 3.5 to get the game setup I desire.

C&C pidgeonholes absolutely nothing. It gives one just enough to work with and an inherent flexable seige mechanic to develop more.

*chuckles* The cost of the C&C book(s) are also more economical.

I've never actually seen a Nascar event, so I couldn't tell you if the analogy worked in that light.

Here's another one:

It's the difference between:

a) Playing a fighter who, according to his backstory, used to be the head of the town watch but has no actual investigative or even spotting skills.
b) Playing a high Intelligence fighter with a few rogue levels, the Alertness feat, the Investigator feat, cross-class skill ranks, and eventually the Master Inquisitive PrC from Eberron.

Same rp, but it actually affects the game in the second version.

It's the difference between:

a) Playing a barbarian who, according to his backstory, is equal parts warrior and woodsman and whose ability to cross the trackless wastes of his homeland is unmatched, but who is pigeonholed mechanically into a handful of skills that don't accomplish this goal.
b) Playing a barbarian with scout and/or ranger levels, eventually going into the Horizon Walker PrC.

Same rp, but it actually affects the game in the second version.

It's the difference between working out your character's backstory with the GM so he can incorporate those elements into the campaign, only to discover that your character can't actually do anything his backstory says he can - and having a fighter Sherlock Holmes his way through the depths of a murder mystery.

 

[maddman75]

Its a matter of taste. Some people would rather have a rule and not need it than need a rule and not have it. Other people would rather not have a rule and just make it up within the framework than have a rule but need to dig through a thousand pages of rules to find it.

 

[Breakdaddy]

... in a fashion that cuts corners that I* am not happy to cut, and requiring inconsistant ad hoc GM calls.

* - And those who share my particular values in gaming.

This is why I posted my previous statement about the proclamations on both sides of the debate. I happen to agree with some of Akrasia's points, but I also see very good points being made on the other side of the debate as well. Personal preference plays a large part in our gaming desires and our proclivities to enjoy certain types of systems. I do not think that C&C is the end-all be-all of gaming any more than I think 3.x is. I like to play both games for different reasons and I like to GM C&C because it cuts down on my administrative overhead significantly. I have friends that disdain C&C and other Rules Lite games for the exact same reasons that I like them so much. In the end, these things are ephemeral and of little consequence when all the players are sitting on the edge of their seats completely immersed in their game of choice.

 

[gideon_thorne]

Exactly. C&C's appeal clearly is to the second group of people.

Its a matter of taste. Some people would rather have a rule and not need it than need a rule and not have it. Other people would rather not have a rule and just make it up within the framework than have a rule but need to dig through a thousand pages of rules to find it.

 

[bolie]

Hrm...well...if the character has turned into said critter, I'd say the critter now has more defined ability scorses. One could always add the hit die of the monster or the characters level to 'beef' up any neccessary stats.

Or alternatively the person doing the polymorphing could simply roll for added stats, if its really that important.

Just a thought

But polymorph says that the character gets the physical traits of the creature, so he doesn't keep his own ability scores. One could add the monster hit dice or character level or even the date. One could also add an arbitrary bonus. Or roll a die and use that. But are any of those really the best way to do it? What did the game designers have in mind?

How does one roll stats for a Hill Giant? A Giant Spider? Etc...? There is absolutely no guidance for how this would work.

In C&C, I find myself not wanting to try things because we'd have to make up our own rules to cover whatever it is. I like to PLAY the game, not WRITE the game. I know that we can just wing it on the fly, but that's not very satisfying. I am not an intuitive game designer, mechanics I come up with may suck. That's why I pay for books... so someone else can do all the work of making up rules that work together.

Bolie IV

 

[Breakdaddy]

We have gotten so off topic here it's ridiculous. Somebody asked what C&C is like and once again the conversation has slowly degenerated into the back and forth sniping plagued by every such thread on this game I've seen. I think I realized about 200 posts ago that bolie is playing the game but doesnt like the mechanics, just like everyone realized I am playing it and loving it. I just hope the original poster has gotten enough information to decide for himself whether or not he wants to give this game a try instead of being soured by the back and forth sniping by the usual suspects.

 

[gideon_thorne]

*chuckles* Look at the bright side. At least anyone interested is getting a real good look into the philosophical differences in the design of the game systems.

I just hope the original poster has gotten enough information to decide for himself whether or not he wants to give this game a try instead of being soured by the back and forth sniping by the usual suspects.

 

[Ourph]

But polymorph says that the character gets the physical traits of the creature, so he doesn't keep his own ability scores. One could add the monster hit dice or character level or even the date. One could also add an arbitrary bonus. Or roll a die and use that. But are any of those really the best way to do it? What did the game designers have in mind?

It's quite clear the game designers want CKs to make their own individual call. Some people are comfortable with this, others are not.

I am not an intuitive game designer, mechanics I come up with may suck. That's why I pay for books... so someone else can do all the work of making up rules that work together.

Then C&C is almost assuredly not for you.

 

[gideon_thorne]

I suppose the 'best way' to do anything is whatever suits?

But I'll have a stab at this again.

Monster's are centered around two types of primes Mental or Physical. So...if one gains the 'physical' traits of a monster when polymorphed one ony has to worry about one 'attribute'. That would be a Physical Prime. Checks involving this prime deal with a bonus from the creatures HD.

If one simply must have stats for monsters, the 3d6 method works pretty well.

The design of the game centers on a flexable framework designed for people to make their own decisions for the 'details'. I suspect the soon to be published next two books will have more clarity on this and other subjects, but will still follow the basic guideline of giving a structured framework and letting people fill in their own details.

But polymorph says that the character gets the physical traits of the creature, so he doesn't keep his own ability scores. One could add the monster hit dice or character level or even the date. One could also add an arbitrary bonus. Or roll a die and use that. But are any of those really the best way to do it? What did the game designers have in mind?

How does one roll stats for a Hill Giant? A Giant Spider? Etc...? There is absolutely no guidance for how this would work.

In C&C, I find myself not wanting to try things because we'd have to make up our own rules to cover whatever it is. I like to PLAY the game, not WRITE the game. I know that we can just wing it on the fly, but that's not very satisfying. I am not an intuitive game designer, mechanics I come up with may suck. That's why I pay for books... so someone else can do all the work of making up rules that work together.

Bolie IV

 

[cleaverthepit]

bolie

i want to disagree with you on one point. just from your posts i can tell you are a very good intuitive designer. as for wanting to.... weeelllll.... reluctant hero???

i am glad you are sticking with mythmere's game despite your preference for more details and options.

as a note, the CKG will be coming out sometime and that will be about some of those details - as options.

And as a not to all who find the options in the CCPHB limiting and therefor a drawback, but are attracted to the basic system, the CKG might just be a turning point. The idea is to produce sets of options from which one can choose to add to the game. The option of options will create, IMHO, a truly dynamic gaming experience.

but thats just me, and off course I would say something like that.

Davis