Tell me about Castles and Crusades

[Mythmere1]

Silhouette Core is a much simpler system than either 3e or C&C, and it permits a level of mechanical character customization almost equal to the former. Simple doesn't have to equal limited.

I haven't seen Silhouette Core, so I don't have the point of comparison. Since you're referring to "mechanical" character customization, you clearly picked up on the distinction I was making - is there an example other than Silhouette Core, or could you give more detail on what you mean?

This is what I don't understand, though. This is much more work for the GM.

I meant only to point out what C&C players mean when we say that C&C permits specialization equivalent to D&D, since that appears on the face of it to be ridiculous - but there's an assumed level and (more importantly) nature to refereeing inherent in the C&C player's answer. I don't mean the DMing is better or worse - just more ad hoc and interactive than consistent and reference-based. In terms of how much work it is, I answer that below.

If I had to ad hoc rule every attack, that would slow combat down more than any amount of AoOs. Having players ask me if they can take an interesting action is also something I never want to hear. Of course you can, and there is a consistent way to adjudicate it.

First, I'm not talking about an ad hoc ruling on every attack. Just in the situations when a character's particular, specialized persona comes into play (eg, "I'm a swashbuckling fighter").

It's not planned in advance - it comes from talk at the table, almost always. I suppose it is more work in terms of having to make a decision about what a modifier will be; since I've never been able to remember all the 3E modifiers, for me it's a choice between spending a few moments talking to a player about what his character can do vs spending a few moments looking it up. I prefer dialogue to the riffling of pages, and find it fun and a good addition to the game. A DM with extraordinary memory could certainly be quicker with a memorized answer from the 3E books, but in my experience players like to check these rules even after the ruling, just to be sure. This leads to much more page-riffling when I'd prefer to hear conversation. It's not that players ask if they can do something - it's that they want to know how it will be adjudicated. I prefer to have non-standard actions determined by discussion about the character and the situation than by a prolongued session of looking through rules and comparing different possibilities.

I don't buy this in any way, shape or form.

I've run a fairly straight 3.0 to 3.5 game, played in several with various house rules, and am currently running one based more on the Conan rules. Among the changes and/or house rules:
Armor as DR, class defense bonus, totally rewritten action and AoO structure, no spellcasting PCs, essentially all non-spellcasting PrCs and feats from any source available, action points, expanded diplomacy rules, and more.

I put together those house rules in about four hours. They have yet to "break" the game or make it play poorly. Obviously, not everyone will like the changes, but they don't cause any problems.

CR, EL... I've never 'recalculated' those in my life, and never would. I don't judge anything but XP off them, either, because I've learned how to read PCs more precisely than the printed system ever could, designed as it is as a rough estimation. For that matter, they're not terribly consistent. When I do award XP for combat, I use the values in the books, and it's no problem at all.

A system flexible enough to encompass Blue Rose, Conan, Babylon 5, Star Wars, d20 Modern, OGL Steampunk, Warcraft, Black Company, Grim Tales, Forgotten Realms, Call of Cthulu, Eberron and my homebrew with its attendant house rules is so interwoven that it can't be houseruled?

I never said it couldn't be houseruled. I said C&C is designed to be easy to houserule, and that houseruling 3E requires making changes across the board to account for other changes, because the system is so intertwined.

Also, I'm talking about D&D, not d20. D&D does not encompass these other games. D&D is far more intertwined than d20, because it contains game-specific rules that also tie in with the whole, creating wider ramifications for a single alteration than one would have in d20 or in C&C.

 

[Akrasia]

MoogleEmpMog,

Let me make this simple for you.

(a.) C&C players have never claimed that it is impossible to modify 3E/d20 (introduce house rules, etc).

(b.) C&C players have generally found it much easier to modify C&C (introduce house rules, etc.) to their liking than they have found 3E/d20.

If you are having a blast with your own homebrew d20 system, all the more power to you! I fail to see how your experience invalidates the experiences of people who play C&C.

 

[MoogleEmpMog]

MoogleEmpMog,

Let me make this simple for you.

(a.) C&C players have never claimed that it is impossible to modify 3E/d20 (introduce house rules, etc).

(b.) C&C players have generally found it much easier to modify C&C (introduce house rules, etc.) to their liking than they have found 3E/d20.

If you are having a blast with your own homebrew d20 system, all the more power to you! I fail to see how your experience invalidates the experiences of people who play C&C.

(a.) I understand that.

(b.) I understand that, too, and even think it's possible that they're right. What I don't understand is the specific things the C&C players cite as difficult to modify in 3e/d20.

(c.) My experience doesn't invalidate anyone else's in terms of playing C&C; it's not for me, it is for you, and unless we ended up in the same gaming group, it wouldn't be a problem.

 

[MoogleEmpMog]

I haven't seen Silhouette Core, so I don't have the point of comparison. Since you're referring to "mechanical" character customization, you clearly picked up on the distinction I was making - is there an example other than Silhouette Core, or could you give more detail on what you mean?

SilCore runs off a fairly stripped down stats, skills and traits/flaws d6 system. Absolutely every task is made by comparing d6+stat to a DC.

Unfortunately, I don't have another good example or enough time right now to explain more. If you like, I'll do so when I have more than 15 mins to spare.

I meant only to point out what C&C players mean when we say that C&C permits specialization equivalent to D&D, since that appears on the face of it to be ridiculous - but there's an assumed level and (more importantly) nature to refereeing inherent in the C&C player's answer. I don't mean the DMing is better or worse - just more ad hoc and interactive than consistent and reference-based. In terms of how much work it is, I answer that below.

Fair enough.

First, I'm not talking about an ad hoc ruling on every attack. Just in the situations when a character's particular, specialized persona comes into play (eg, "I'm a swashbuckling fighter").

It's not planned in advance - it comes from talk at the table, almost always. I suppose it is more work in terms of having to make a decision about what a modifier will be; since I've never been able to remember all the 3E modifiers, for me it's a choice between spending a few moments talking to a player about what his character can do vs spending a few moments looking it up. I prefer dialogue to the riffling of pages, and find it fun and a good addition to the game. A DM with extraordinary memory could certainly be quicker with a memorized answer from the 3E books, but in my experience players like to check these rules even after the ruling, just to be sure. This leads to much more page-riffling when I'd prefer to hear conversation. It's not that players ask if they can do something - it's that they want to know how it will be adjudicated. I prefer to have non-standard actions determined by discussion about the character and the situation than by a prolongued session of looking through rules and comparing different possibilities.

Well, I'm always against book-referencing.

What you're calling non-standard actions I almost always interpret with "add an action point to x and if you succeed you gain it back." Obviously, that's a homebrew system, but it does work quite well.

I like a wealth of what I call 'static crunch' - a PrC that gives the ability to add Wis to AC, for example, or a +2 attack bonus while wielding two weapons - and 'option crunch' - a class that allows you to charge up your attacks with an extra 1d10 magic damage, or to fly. I have a good head for both and a customized character sheet with enough room for players to fill it in.

Players are welcome to reference books after I've made a ruling, but it won't change the ruling after the fact and I may just make a consistent houserule of my personal change.

I never said it couldn't be houseruled. I said C&C is designed to be easy to houserule, and that houseruling 3E requires making changes across the board to account for other changes, because the system is so intertwined.

I understand that you're saying this. I'm saying that I just don't see these intertwined options. I've certainly heard people talk about them (for example, "If you remove AoOs, spellcasters become too powerful!") but when I've actually made those changes in campaign, or playtested them, the alleged problem doesn't crop up.

To take the specific example I gave, what I've found is this. Spellcasters are weak at low levels and automatically make their Concentration checks to cast defensively at higher levels. They only get AoO'ed when it doesn't matter or they're not aware of their enemies.

Also, I'm talking about D&D, not d20. D&D does not encompass these other games. D&D is far more intertwined than d20, because it contains game-specific rules that also tie in with the whole, creating wider ramifications for a single alteration than one would have in d20 or in C&C.

Well, any one of those d20 variants could well be just as intertwined as D&D and all by rights should be less so than C&C.

And why are we talking about D&D? All the other games I mentioned are so much better.

 

[gideon_thorne]

I'l break down the main difficulty I have with the current incarnation of the game.

It's too much stuff to keep track of.

C&C, I have basicly 3 formulae to keep track of.

3rd edition + I have a whole load of numbers intertwined with feats, skills and various 'number stacks' that my mild form of numbers dyslexia takes one look at and has a nervous break down.

Course, there is an inherent problem with too much structure as well. Throw enough rules in and folks feel compelled to follow them. This is one of those 'in plain sight' sort of things. Its so obvious people miss it.

Note the trouble that is even now being discussed when one comes from 'structure' to 'freeform'.

Me. Ive been creatively bending and outright ignoring rules most of my life. I was raised that way. And the more 'structure' something has the more likely I'm inclined to wang it all out the window.

Sure. I'll play in any game. Just dont expect me to keep track of or care about what is in essence no more than numbers on a sheet. The information on the character sheet is meaningless without the player there to give it meaning.

I have a friend of mine who also is a big fan of 3.5 and he delights in showing me various creations of his. Which I enjoy reading, simply because he has a deft hand with descriptive metaphore. But then he gets into all the technobabble that goes in with whatever mechanical build it was used to make this critter and all the pluses and minus's just make my mind slide sideways.

The point being, when I create a character I don't want it to be a math excersise. I just want to jot a few basics down and run with it and let the evolving story of the game 'develop' my character.

 

[Mythmere1]

SilCore runs off a fairly stripped down stats, skills and traits/flaws d6 system. Absolutely every task is made by comparing d6+stat to a DC.

Unfortunately, I don't have another good example or enough time right now to explain more. If you like, I'll do so when I have more than 15 mins to spare.

I'd like to hear more when it's convenient - comparing die roll and stat to a DC is basically the same as C&C or d20 - it's a matter of how specifically you define different abilities that tends to distinguish games in terms of complexity. d20 uses very specific skills, and C&C uses basically six groups of skills, since they're attribute based. What I'm curious about, harking back to your original post about highly personalized mechanics, is how you can select highly tailored options without having an equally complex resolution system to put these options into play.

What you're calling non-standard actions I almost always interpret with "add an action point to x and if you succeed you gain it back." Obviously, that's a homebrew system, but it does work quite well.

Deadlands d20 has these, too (as did original DL). They're lots of fun, and add considerably to the drama. Actually, I may need to add these to my C&C game, too...

Players are welcome to reference books after I've made a ruling, but it won't change the ruling after the fact and I may just make a consistent houserule of my personal change.

I didn't change the rulings, either, when I played 3E, but players still grumble. They'll grumble about ad-hoc rulings, too, of course - but they aren't pointing to a rulebook when they do it. I think there's a difference between players feeling merely shafted as opposed to feeling like the DM ignored a rule that they depended upon, or broke a rule somehow.

I understand that you're saying this. I'm saying that I just don't see these intertwined options. I've certainly heard people talk about them (for example, "If you remove AoOs, spellcasters become too powerful!") but when I've actually made those changes in campaign, or playtested them, the alleged problem doesn't crop up.

To take the specific example I gave, what I've found is this. Spellcasters are weak at low levels and automatically make their Concentration checks to cast defensively at higher levels. They only get AoO'ed when it doesn't matter or they're not aware of their enemies.

Here's a quote from someone who's done it more methodically than I:

"I think the thing is that if you make small, subtle changes to 3.x you will find the ripples they create grow larger through the system. Ripping out entire systems like Skills or Feats isn't as difficult as, say, removing Base-Attack Bonus and turning it into individual skills using the Skill system.

Remove Attacks of Opportunity and nothing else does make for some unexpected problems... there are a few feats that deal exclusively w/ AoO... but you can't simply remove them because some of them are entry points to Feat Chains... so you either have to change those as well, or re-write the feat. Then you have entire considerations in skills, like Tumble, that makes the skill's main mechanical purpose a lot less useful, which has implications on things like Prestige Classes who use that skill as a prereq."

 

[bolie]

I haven't seen Silhouette Core, so I don't have the point of comparison. Since you're referring to "mechanical" character customization, you clearly picked up on the distinction I was making - is there an example other than Silhouette Core, or could you give more detail on what you mean?

It's not planned in advance - it comes from talk at the table, almost always. I suppose it is more work in terms of having to make a decision about what a modifier will be; since I've never been able to remember all the 3E modifiers, for me it's a choice between spending a few moments talking to a player about what his character can do vs spending a few moments looking it up. I prefer dialogue to the riffling of pages, and find it fun and a good addition to the game. A DM with extraordinary memory could certainly be quicker with a memorized answer from the 3E books, but in my experience players like to check these rules even after the ruling, just to be sure. This leads to much more page-riffling when I'd prefer to hear conversation. It's not that players ask if they can do something - it's that they want to know how it will be adjudicated. I prefer to have non-standard actions determined by discussion about the character and the situation than by a prolongued session of looking through rules and comparing different possibilities.

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.

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. I've asked a number of questions and pointed out what I thought were missing rules and I keep getting told "Just make it up! What's the problem?" That's not a very helpful answer. If I wanted to make it up, I'd be a game designer. As you know, I have a job, two kids, a wife, etc... all competing for my time. Making up rules is not what I'd rather be doing. Nor is arguing about them during the game session.

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.

The C&C system has some good mechanics (six saving throws, undead turning), but I feel like it has some serious holes (monster abilities).

Bolie IV

 

[gideon_thorne]

This is where the communication breaks down I guess?

The level at which rules are 'too much' or 'not enough.' The problems arise when a variety of people dont just point out that a given amount of information is insufficient, its when few of these same people are agreeing on the same area.

Some state there is not enough information on skills and feats which they can 'manipulate' to make their character unique... (????) eh?

With another its not enough spelled out customizable options..

With others its a variety of things having to do with rules on movement, encumberance, monsters ect.

i'm not looking to start a debate on what people feel is lacking. Since thats a whole realm of subjective that never will reach a clear conclusion.

My point simply is, if every percieved 'hole' in the game is fixed, the system might as well not have been written to its intended goal as a rules lite 'framework' because all of these systems that need 'fixing' would quickly expand the game into a whole vast set of unwieldy books. Again creating the problem where people feel to 'reverse engineer' all the stuff they dont use back into some useable format.

Like I mentioned before, I suspect that some of this information on monster statting should be appearing in the M&T or CKG book. And a chunk of other erratta are being fixed in the PHB. Which should make many people happy.

But hey. Like for some of my other books, I have sheets of printable sticky back I can print art on and just cover information I dont use.

 

[MoogleEmpMog]

OK. More time (and the Silhouette Core rules in front of me) allow me to answer Mythmere's questions about the system.

SilCore is a pure d6 point buy system. It has essentially three types of stats:
Ability modifiers, which are basically identical to d20's and actually can be translated straight, but which have no illogical base-10 bonus-changes-every-even-number system tacked on.
Skill levels, which determine how many dice you roll for a skill check (similar to Storyteller).
Skill complexity, which determines how complicated your skill usage can be.

Every task requires an action check, with a threshold (DC in d20 terms) set by the GM and a certain complexity. Both the thresholds and the complexities have extensive guidelines and examples for each skill.

All action checks are made by rolling xd6, taking the best result, and adding an applicable ability modifier. The margin of success or failure then determines what happens.

There are also specializations (for example, Pistols is a specialization of Small Arms) that give a +1 bonus, traits, which are basically like the weakest sort of d20 feats but are mostly for flavor only, and flaws, which are negative effects that give you a tiny amount of bonus points, are restricted in number, and are also mostly for flavor.

Almost every task imaginable is associated with one of the nicely compressed skills (there are about the same as in d20, but there's no complicated ranks system and skills encompass several combat and feat based elements) and is handled using the simple action check system.

It's a fairly abstracted system, but very fluid and elegant, and it strongly encourages players to get tactical advantages or do cool things, since those grant a set bonus that usually means the difference between winning or losing.

 

[Psion]

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