Quote from: km10ftp;504332Personally I like that C&C puts so much emphasis on attribute values, over race and class choices. When I roll a new character I always begin the process of imagining who that character is by looking at the stat values. Is he strong? smart? a leader of men? To me the attributes are what really define the character as an individual, over and above the culture of his people or his chosen profession.

I agree that attributes matter a lot when you're describing your character. And I definitely think they should matter, to a degree, when your character is doing stuff, but I feel training and experience should trump natural talent, save extraordinary (supernatural) circumstances. But that's just how I prefer things.

Quote from: Technomancer;504402What if primes didn't give as much of a bonus.  Say, +3, no greater than the highest attribute bonus.  Would that make it more palatable?

It mitigates the problem, but it's still a problem in my eyes.

Quote from: Spinal Tarp;504416I know your question was directed at The Butcher, but IMO I would say 'no', it still wouldn't be palatable because it doesn't go far enough to address the problem.  If I were to play C&C again, I would address the 'problem' as such;

 1)  Ditch Primes and the SEIGE stuff as written.

 2)  Base target numbers is 15 adjusted up or down depending on difficulty ( CK's ruling ).

 3)  If performing an action pertaining to your class, you get a +3 bonus + your level as a modifier.

 4)  If performing an action pertaining to your backround*, you get a +3 bonus + HALF of your level rounded down as a modifier.

   Of course your appropriate attribute modifier is also always added to your rolls too.

 * Backrounds would be something simple like 'rural farmer', 'nobelman', or 'towns blacksmith'.

  Now maybe the actual numbers would need to be adjusted somewhat, but IMO this would address the problems I see with the Prime/SEIGE mechanic as written.

Your ideas read a lot like what I've suggested in an earlier post on this thread, so I'm obviously inclined to like them.

Right now, I think if I was to run C&C, I might as well adopt 4e's task resolution equation almost wholesale. Roll 1d20 + ability modifier + 1/2 level for everything. Add +5 if you're "trained" (which, in C&C means a class ability, or -- optionally -- a background or secondary skill, like you suggest). Of course, you'll have to drop the "Challenge Level" schtick and use the 4e DC tables instead, but that looks easy enough to me.

Quote from: Benoist;504067And once you do that a couple more times, you start wondering, "why am I not playing AD&D to begin with, exactly?"

Yeah, that's precisely what happened.

Quote from: Spinal Tarp;5044161)  Ditch Primes and the SEIGE stuff as written.

 2)  Base target numbers is 15 adjusted up or down depending on difficulty ( CK's ruling ).

 3)  If performing an action pertaining to your class, you get a +3 bonus + your level as a modifier.

 4)  If performing an action pertaining to your backround*, you get a +3 bonus + HALF of your level rounded down as a modifier.

   Of course your appropriate attribute modifier is also always added to your rolls too.

 * Backrounds would be something simple like 'rural farmer', 'nobelman', or 'towns blacksmith'.

This is similar to the skill rules I use in Microlite74 Extended:

QuoteThere are no specific skills in Microlite74. Instead players are expected to think like adventurers, tell the GM what they are doing and the GM decides if it will succeed in the situation, taking into account the characters' classes and backgrounds. If the GM decides a random success chance is truly needed he may resolve the situation with a roll of his choice or he may call for one of the following rolls:

Primary Skill Roll: 1d20 + Stat Bonus + Class Level if the character is attempting something directly related to their class or background.
Secondary Skill Roll: 1d20 + Stat Bonus + (Class Level/2, round up) if the character is attempting something only loosely related to their class or background.
Minor Skill Roll: 1d20 + Stat Bonus + (Class Level/3, round down) if the character is attempting something not really related to their class or background.

When the GM calls for a skill roll, he will declare the type of skill roll, which stat the skill roll falls under, and any situational modifiers and the player will make a skill roll. (The GM should make the roll in secret if seeing the result would give the player more information than his character should have.)

Roll higher than the GM assigned Difficulty Class to succeed. Unless the GM rules otherwise, a natural roll of 20 always succeeds for a Primary Skill Roll. Suggested Difficulty Classes: Easy - 8, Normal - 12, Difficult - 16, Hard - 20, Very Hard - 24, Legendary - 28, Unbelievable - 32.

Quote from: The Butcher;504498Your ideas read a lot like what I've suggested in an earlier post on this thread, so I'm obviously inclined to like them.

  Well it seems we're very much on the same page on this subject!  I can only guess as to why the designers and play testers for C&C thought they struck gold when they came up with the 'revolutionary' SEIGE mechanic....

QuoteRight now, I think if I was to run C&C, I might as well adopt 4e's task resolution equation almost wholesale. Roll 1d20 + ability modifier + 1/2 level for everything. Add +5 if you're "trained" (which, in C&C means a class ability, or -- optionally -- a background or secondary skill, like you suggest). Of course, you'll have to drop the "Challenge Level" schtick and use the 4e DC tables instead, but that looks easy enough to me.

  I thought of doing the exact same thing because it's easy and it scales good with level but there was always the one thing holding me back from doing it though; class 'skills' would only improve every OTHER level which would be a slap in the face to the 'thief' ( and other classes to a lesser extent ) who's only thing are their 'skills' since they would have to advance 2 levels before seeing any improvement in doing thier craft.  I know it's a minor quib, but for someone who only cares about how good they are in their 'skills' and not combat ability, it could be a dissapointment to a player to find out a 3rd level theif isn't any better at his craft than a 2nd level theif.  I would still seriously consider using that system though if I were to play C&C again just to try it out.  In fact, I see the attack bonuses using a similar mechanic i.e.  you get a big bonus up front and then everyone adds 1/2 their level regardless of what class you are.

Quote from: Spinal Tarp;504638I thought of doing the exact same thing because it's easy and it scales good with level but there was always the one thing holding me back from doing it though; class 'skills' would only improve every OTHER level which would be a slap in the face to the 'thief' ( and other classes to a lesser extent ) who's only thing are their 'skills' since they would have to advance 2 levels before seeing any improvement in doing thier craft.  I know it's a minor quib, but for someone who only cares about how good they are in their 'skills' and not combat ability, it could be a dissapointment to a player to find out a 3rd level theif isn't any better at his craft than a 2nd level theif.  

Excellent point.

Taking a page from 3.x now: IIRC, maximum skill level is current class level +4. Which, of course, would mean 1d20 + ability mod. + level; and an additional +4 for "trained" or "class" skills. Maybe even +5, a la 4e, or +6, after C&C's own Primes? I like +4 or +5 because both represent clear, round percentages of a d20's range (+4=+20% and +5=+25%).

Quote from: Spinal Tarp;504638I would still seriously consider using that system though if I were to play C&C again just to try it out.  In fact, I see the attack bonuses using a similar mechanic i.e.  you get a big bonus up front and then everyone adds 1/2 their level regardless of what class you are.

Umm, not sure about the attack bonus progression. This is one area of the game that's never been problematic at my game table, and I'd be inclined to use it as written.

Quote from: Benoist;504067And once you do that a couple more times, you start wondering, "why am I not playing AD&D to begin with, exactly?"

Playing C&C feels like listening to a re-recording of a hard rock classic (e.g. Tarja Turunen's take on Alice Cooper's "Poison"). It's a fresh take on an old favorite, and can be a great performance (or tank horribly), but sometimes you just want to listen to the original tune. And thus the OSR was born...

I've got to say that with the back-and-forth on system and possible fixes to what I perceive to be a problem (i.e. the Primes vs. class debacle), I have half a mind to dust off the old C&C books and use them before, or after, I run my S&W dungeon crawl game. I feel it would be a particularly good engine to use late 1e and early 2e AD&D material with, such as early FR and DL stuff.

Damn it, so many great games, and so little time to play them.

C&C perfectly emulates the 1E experience.

I sold it as soon as I finished reading it.

As listed in many of the posts above the system has some serious problems, the company has some serious problems, the execution of the product has some serious problems, and perhaps the creators as well.  But, that being said, it is a product of its time- mid 2000s when the OGL was not well understood and some inefficiencies were put in the system to make it not get the smack down from Wotc IMO.  Since then, there have been several advancements in the OSR family of games which IMO have left C&C in the dust.  As they are free/cheap, there is no more need for C&C.

Also, the C&C/OSRIC blood feud is quite fun reading.  The fact that TLG botched Zagyg so horrendously makes it even more funnerer.

Quote from: Teazia;505964As listed in many of the posts above the system has some serious problems, the company has some serious problems, the execution of the product has some serious problems, and perhaps the creators as well.  But, that being said, it is a product of its time- mid 2000s when the OGL was not well understood and some inefficiencies were put in the system to make it not get the smack down from Wotc IMO.  Since then, there have been several advancements in the OSR family of games which IMO have left C&C in the dust.  As they are free/cheap, there is no more need for C&C.

Also, the C&C/OSRIC blood feud is quite fun reading.  The fact that TLG botched Zagyg so horrendously makes it even more funnerer.

I agree with you 100%. As an isolated product, C&C was rife with small flaws, none of which was a dealbreaker on its own, but which added up to give the product a decidedly amateurish air.

The lackluster supplements, the mishandling of the CKG fiasco (which may or may not have ben Amazon's fault as they claimed), the loss of Castle Zagyg (which, as far as I knew, had little to do with the Trolls, and more with Gail Gygax), all compounded the problem. Throw in the explosion of well-laid-out, well-illustrated, free-to-download retro-clones and you've got C&C and TLG sidelined by the very OSR they helped start.

I feel it's sad, really, because I sympathize with the Trolls' enthusiasm and love for what they do (though I admit to never having spent any significant measure of time on their forums) and feel C&C as written and published is something of a missed opportunity, to bridge the gap between old school sensibilities and new school design.

Somewhat relevant to the system talk: TLG has a pulp RPG on their release schedule (Amazing Adventures -- not sure if it's a good idea to have your RPG abbreviated "AA"...). It's class- (and possibly level-) based, unlike StarSiege, but the blurb suggests a comprehensive rehaul of the SIEGE system:

Quote from: Troll Lord Games release scheduleInside this book you'll find:

• Eight brand new character classes: Arcanist, Gadgeteer, Gumshoe, Hooligan, Mentalist, Pugilist, Raider, and Socialite
• Character customization options: Generic Class Abilities, Traits, Backgrounds, Fate Points, Pulp Costumes, Sanity rules, and more!
• A streamlined presentation of the SIEGE engine, which uses a single Challenge Base
• Rules for vehicular combat
• Guidelines on how to run a pulp game
• A complete Monster section with all kinds of pulp beasties from giant apes to Lovecraftian horrors
• A complete starting adventure for 4-6 new pulp heroes
• And tons more

#3 is a no-brainer, but #2 bugs the hell out of me... what's the point? If you want a d20-based game with character customization options, why not just play d20? :confused:

I might pick it up, though, if only for the Monster section. Like I've said elsewhere, I'm a sucker for new monsters.

Quote from: The Butcher;506036The lackluster supplements, the mishandling of the CKG fiasco (which may or may not have ben Amazon's fault as they claimed), the loss of Castle Zagyg (which, as far as I knew, had little to do with the Trolls, and more with Gail Gygax), all compounded the problem.

The teacup storm tragedy is that Castle Zagyg was never completed.  By most accounts the product is very strong and Gary's swan song.  I was active on the TLG boards when Gail pulled the plug on the license and it was a bit of a confusing shock.  There seems to behave been some unusual business dealings going on at the time around Gary's death.  Some folks know the truth about what happened during this time, but they aren't really talking.  One recent development has been that Jeff Tolaran (sp?) the co-author of CZ was paid in product for his work, not cash (he sold the majority of his 20 odd sets recently on DF and made $4-5000), so it goes to figure TLG had some cash flow problems which may have affected Gail's decision to pull the plug.  

When the CZ project was first announced Gary and Rob Kuntz were supposed to finally do there Castle Greyhawk magnum opus.  Gary subsequently fell into ill health which derailed the project for an extended time.  What finally came out was too little too late, and now it seems that any steam Gail had to republish/continue he project has dissipated.  There was other CZ material written as well, which may actually be the property of the writers as they were never paid IIRC.  They would need to take out the CZ references and Gygax Games IP in it for it to be publishable.  Jeff has already stated that he has no plans to do so with the material he wrote.  Which is too bad,

Quote from: The Butcher;506042Somewhat relevant to the system talk: TLG has a pulp RPG on their release schedule (Amazing Adventures -- not sure if it's a good idea to have your RPG abbreviated "AA"...). It's class- (and possibly level-) based, unlike StarSiege, but the blurb suggests a comprehensive rehaul of the SIEGE system...

Huh.  The author is Jason Vey (a.k.a. 'Grey Elf', and proprietor of 'Elf Lair Games'), which I find somewhat surprising, given his involvement with the retro-clone movement.  (Vey also authored some Unisystem stuff for Eden Studios, years ago.)

I might check this out, if the reviews are good, but I don't really need another 1920s/30s RPG, as Call of Cthulhu suffices for my needs.

In case anyone is interested, Jeffrey Talanian now has his own gaming company, North Wind Adventures, and is coming out with his own FRPG, 'Astonishing Swordsmen & Sorcerers of Hyperborea'.

Quote from: Teazia;506442When the CZ project was first announced Gary and Rob Kuntz were supposed to finally do there Castle Greyhawk magnum opus.  Gary subsequently fell into ill health which derailed the project for an extended time.  What finally came out was too little too late, and now it seems that any steam Gail had to republish/continue he project has dissipated.  There was other CZ material written as well, which may actually be the property of the writers as they were never paid IIRC.  They would need to take out the CZ references and Gygax Games IP in it for it to be publishable.  Jeff has already stated that he has no plans to do so with the material he wrote.  Which is too bad,

Kuntz quit the project for reasons unclear to me after writing one introductory module for the setting.  Talanian came in later to help Gary.

I have the folio and box set that eventually was released.  It's very good, and would work well for a campaign.  I'm tempted to use it, someday (though I would run it with either B/X D&D or S&W).

Quote from: The Butcher;503856In the RAW, all Clerics have Wisdom as a Prime, which is +6 right off the bat. With a Wisdom bonus that's likely to be higher than the Ranger's, that means a +7 to +9 modifier, regardless of level.

Unless your Ranger also has Wisdom as a Prime, and an exceptional (13+) Wisdom with a similar bonus, it'll take him anywhere from 6 to 8 levels to outrank the Cleric at finding traps and ambushes, or tracking, or just about anything Wisdom-related.

Sorry for the year old thread necromancy, but I came across a link to this thread while looking up C&C modules and what people thought of them (as I'm planning to start a C&C game soon) and I just have to ask a pretty obvious question that seems to have been missed in this discussion...

Why would you allow the Cleric to make an unmodified roll for tracking when the Cleric clearly doesn't have the same training as the Ranger? Doesn't "you're doing this untrained" deserve a difficulty modifier to the roll?

The Challenge Rating for any task is 12/18 + GM determined modifiers of 0-10+. I think "You don't have the specialized training of a ranger but are trying to act as one" is deserving of a substantial modifier to the challenge base.

This is just using the rules as written, it doesn't require convoluted house rules to "fix". It seems like common sense that this is how it's intended to be done.

I can't imagine, as a GM, allowing a Cleric PC to make an unmodified roll to perform a class ability of another class. Clearly, this is a case where you should be applying a modifier to the Challenge Base.

So it seems it's more a rulings problem, than a rules problem. Or am I missing something here?

Quote from: Doctor Jest;623033Sorry for the year old thread necromancy, but I came across a link to this thread while looking up C&C modules and what people thought of them (as I'm planning to start a C&C game soon) and I just have to ask a pretty obvious question that seems to have been missed in this discussion...

Why would you allow the Cleric to make an unmodified roll for tracking when the Cleric clearly doesn't have the same training as the Ranger? Doesn't "you're doing this untrained" deserve a difficulty modifier to the roll?

The Challenge Rating for any task is 12/18 + GM determined modifiers of 0-10+. I think "You don't have the specialized training of a ranger but are trying to act as one" is deserving of a substantial modifier to the challenge base.

This is just using the rules as written, it doesn't require convoluted house rules to "fix". It seems like common sense that this is how it's intended to be done.

I can't imagine, as a GM, allowing a Cleric PC to make an unmodified roll to perform a class ability of another class. Clearly, this is a case where you should be applying a modifier to the Challenge Base.

So it seems it's more a rulings problem, than a rules problem. Or am I missing something here?

I'm pretty sure the level bonus is supposed to represent training. To the best of my knowledge there's no recommendation for tacking a penalty for "cross-class" checks specifically and to me it feels like contriving a ruling to fix a wonky system (not my favorite kind of ruling).

When/if I get the chance to play C&C again I'm ditching the whole SIEGE mechanic and using the system I outlined earlier in this thread, and using C&C only for the classes (which are awesome), monsters, items, etc.

But right now it's ACKS and Delving Deeper who are competing for my attention.