Dragon's Egg - Rules Questions and Discussion

[Steerpike]

It is important that player characters are the focus. Like a story - and it's their story. NPCs shouldn't overshadow them.

I keep rules loose, but with reasonable restrictions when you flat you can't do something. I also like to keep the distinction between the classes, so Thieve's are the ones to pick locks, for example. Another class isn't going to have much luck because that takes away from the player who is playing the Thief.

But, yes, fun is the main thing.

 

[Ravana]

Darin's +2 to-hit roll (wimp!) shows he's a peer, not a level 20 grandmaster superhero whose hammer is a hand-me-down from Thor.

Well, that you're aware of, at least. Steerpike might not have put Darin's actual bonuses into what he posted.…

(Yeah, okay, I'm sure he did, too.)

Also, for the record, I did check with Steerpike about Baldhart's use of Primary Instinct STR checks being done every time she charges.

Oh, I figured it had to have come up at some point, or you'd've heard otherwise by now.

I think the best time to say "you can't do that" is when there's a rule that clearly indicates you can't (like one person shielding another player getting an AC bonus—a clear "no" since the shield has an AC bonus, and there's no "shielding others" rule in the book—which is what I was wondering when I asked)

Yeah, well, unless the GM happens to know the game's shield rules are completely bogus. But if I can't talk Steerpike into accepting my proposed revisions, I'll run that (and most other things) the way he's doing it at present, so that players will find themselves on familiar ground. I'd rather do it that way than try to "fix" everything I know is wrong from a realistic point of view. (And in fact there's very little I've proposed changing; anyone not actually privy to the discussion would be unlikely to register any differences. There's just no point in bothering with too many tweaks. Nearly everything I've suggested would eliminate rather than add complexity, too. Which, considering the source, I'm sure is shocking to most.)

Of course, what he and I might allow in the infinite variety of possible situations might not always correspond. Which is yet another reason to keep the "hard-and-fast rules" limited; otherwise, as a GM you're surrendering flexibility. But something as basic as that, yeah, it's unlikely to change, barring truly bizarre situations.

or when the player goes too far ("My STR check is a 28! I rip the entire castle from its foundation and throw it to the moon!").

Hey, if your STR is high enough to lift the castle in the first place, I don't see where that would be a problem.[SUP]1[/SUP]

Let's see (Ravana looks up weight for building stone): a structure made of solid wall stone 50x50x30 feet would weigh a bit over 4600 tons; remove about a third of that for the hollow interior… round it down and call it 3000 tons to keep things simple. With normal lifting ability—oh, let's allow the better number, for dead-lift, and make it 15 pounds per point of STR; that comes out to a DC of around (Ravana gets out calculator[SUP]2[/SUP]) 400,000. —Nope: gonna need to roll more than a 28, I'm afraid.[SUP]3[/SUP]

(1) Depending on what the range increment on a castle is.
(2) Yes, Ravana does still use a pocket calculator.
(3) No, I'm not being sarcastic. I play superhero games, too. It could come up.

 

[Legendary Sidekick]

Were you to face trogs in the future, now that you know what they can do, I'd rule as follows: you may elect to hold your breath when entering the combat… but if you do not, you cannot use Primal Instinct later to resist their gas attack, because you have already made a reasoned decision in the matter—you've applied "consideration" to it.

Actually, this part in bold is something I would see as consideration. I'm being strategic and cautious; therefore, it's not instinctive.

The fart smell pissed Baldhart off, particularly because her plan (which I never bothered to post) was to spare the beast due to Ankari's words, which seemed to imply that they are possibly innocent. Burnbright's scream and the poisonous (?) gas implied a trap that even Ankari fell for. The reaction to poison is instinctive and a primal rage.

I'm not arguing, to clarify. I'm telling you what my thought was when I added the +4 (my other thought being that Steerpike can subtract 4 if I'm wrong). The point is that the rule isn't clearly "you can use it for THIS, but not THIS." What is clear is that it's not a once-per-day skill, so if I think I can use it, I'll try knowing that Steerpike would have told me by now whether I was going overboard.

(I do limit STR checks to charges and use them consistently with charges, and I figured during an "inspiration" round batting a goblin into the air was fine. It just looked cool. I didn't expect the dead goblin to become a dangerous projectile or anything.)

 

[Ravana]

Actually, this part in bold is something I would see as consideration. I'm being strategic and cautious; therefore, it's not instinctive.

As mentioned, it's interpretation. Way I'd look at it:

"TrogdontbreatheCHARGE!" —instinct.
"Trog! I'll worry about not breathing if it gasses me later!" —not instinct.
"LizardythingCHARGE!" < gas > "DONTBREATHESILLY!NowIrememberwhereIsawtheseguysbefore!" —back to instinct. Maybe.

I have no problem, at any rate, with the first being instinct: most beings have an instinctive aversion to puking, even when they see it coming. There's a fair amount of territory to be covered between "being strategic" and "forgetting everything you've ever learned in your entire life." Such as, say, how to swing a sword… has any of your charging into combat involved dropping yours and proceeding empty-handed?

What would be more likely to make it a consideration for me would be if you took a couple deep breaths while you were closing the distance: there, it might be argued that you weren't flinging yourself headlong into the situation. Even then, I'd probably lean toward permitting it, as long as you didn't stop to take those breaths, if you were just sucking some extra air while you ran: Primeval Instinct doesn't require you to be stupid, after all. Compare it to, say, swimming underwater: I would not be inclined to say that if you took a deep breath before diving in you automatically lose any benefit of Primeval Instinct—as applied to holding your breath or, more likely to be of importance, to the swimming itself—simply because you gave at least that much thought to the endeavor. In that situation, I wouldn't say you couldn't use it you even if you decided to spend a couple minutes hyperventilating before you hit the water… not as long as you flung yourself body and soul into the swimming once you started. So to that extent I'd be more flexible than the strictest possible construal would yield. Others might differ with me on that point.

The last of the three examples I might accept, if the character was the sort who tended to forget such things.

The middle one, as it's stated at least, I'd be inclined to consider out. No matter how annoyed you get at being gassed. I imagine you'd get pretty irritated at being paralyzed, too: that doesn't mean you get a +4 to attempts to resist it, certainly not to every attempt to resist it. In spite of which, I still wouldn't state categorically that it could never happen, given the proper circumstances, only that it wouldn't be a good way to bet.

•

And, no, it doesn't say anything about how often it can be used. Neither did I. What I said is that it isn't a constant bonus. Dwarves get +2 to saves against poison because they're dwarves: they get it all the time, whether they're trying or not. You might get a +4 if it was adjudicated that you could somehow make use of your ability to resist the effect of a poison; I can think of situations where it would be entirely reasonable to allow it. You would, nevertheless, have to be aware that you had been poisoned, or at least have good reason to believe you had been, and would have to use the ability, assuming it was allowed in that situation: it does not kick in automatically, you do not get to walk around 24/7 "resisting" poison simply because you might get poisoned in the next moment, and I can't imagine any circumstances off the top of my head which would allow it if you were unconscious. You might end up using it twenty times in as many hours if some evil magician teleports you to the Labyrinth of the Cobra God. (And would get to use it against twenty different poisons if he teleported you to my Kobold Mountain… don't ask. It involved a bet.) Which might well be alternated with using the ability to pile up large rocks so you could climb over an otherwise unscalable wall to escape, for all the number of discrete uses matters. But if you (player and character) didn't need to choose to use the ability, and when, then it would have read "barbarians get +4 to ability checks involving STR, DEX and CON." That's what I meant.

 

[Legendary Sidekick]

I remember reading some specified limits in the rule book. Off the top of my head, the big limitation is that if a barbarian ever flees, the skill cannot be used. I assume that's for the entire encounter—and that you lose the use of the skill, not just the +4 bonus. Primary Instinct covers several abilities, including the ability to climb anything that a ranger can scale without a check (What the ranger can scale with a check cannot be climbed by a barbarian.) and other non-check/GM's-discretion abilities.

Basically, if you fail to act like a barbarian (meaning if you fight like a wuss), you lose big. Primary Instinct really forces you to play your character "right," which is why I LOVE the way barbarians are designed.

(From what I read, this class went through major revisions for C&C4, so they put plenty of thought into the class—as I did when choosing who I'd play.)

 

[Steerpike]

My starting point for RPG rules is what I call Rule Zero (I think C&C refers to it as Rule 1):

The Rules are your Servant, Not Your Master

For a game of Castles & Crusades to be truly successful, the rules must bend to the desires and needs of the imagination....The rules are designed to be amended, changed, adjusted, added to, and customized in order to best serve the wants of its player's desires and needs....In all, the rules should ignite the fires of the imagination, and the changes should be the fuel that keeps it burning. Bend the rules, change them, amend them; do whatever is necessary to make your game more enjoyable. -Player's Handbook

Most people here don't have access to the actual rule books, outside of the Quick Start Guide. I have the Player's Handbook, The Castle Keeper's Guide, and two other books to draw on. So, we're going to be more loose in terms of rules than we might otherwise be all gathered around a table. In addition, I like player creativity. If you want to try to do something, try it. If it isn't included within the written language of the rules, but it's an interesting take on a class ability, an ability check, or whatever, give it a shot. That's a lot more fun than reading the rules like a statute and saying "No, you can't do it that way."

My write up of the rules in the sticky threads are all abridged. No reason to duplicate the rule book here. With Primeval Instincts, the crux of it is that any time the barbarian throws herself fully into a task requiring a STR, DEX, or CON check, she can get a +4 to the check. The ability to hold one's breath longer, run longer, tolerate heat and cold longer, etc, are also part of it, but these don't require rolls - the barbarian can just do them.

If the barbarian wants to try something with a STR, CON, or DEX check, and the barbarians acts reflect throwing herself wholeheartedly and single-mindedly into the act, then the +4 will apply. The difficulty of the check will vary, of course. If the barbarian wants to try a feat of STR against a level 1 creature, that's going to be far different than trying it against a level 8 creature when the barbarian is still level 1.

 

[Steerpike]

On the question of the save versus the reptilian stench - any save, successful or not, applies to the group of reptiles present at the time. A missed save will affect the person who missed it until the stench clears. You're not sure how long that will be. When a new group of creatures are encountered, new saves will be required if they try the same stinking tactic.

 

[Ravana]

My starting point for RPG rules is what I call Rule Zero (I think C&C refers to it as Rule 1)

Yep, that's the Rule Zero I was thinking of. Like I said: wouldn't play with anyone who didn't use it.

•

I only point out the text from the rule book to help expand upon or (attempt to) clarify items under discussion, not because I expect them to be adhered to strictly (or, possibly, at all). Which is why I point out that something comes from the book, whenever I do… along with the edition, and the source of comparable rules from D&D which might serve to fill in gaps C&C doesn't address—or at least doesn't address in the sole text I have.

Ceteris paribus, I would normally expect that what's in the text will be a good guide to what will actually occur, barring stated exceptions… not because I'm a rules fiend, but because the rules exist to provide a common ground to resolve actions that might occur in a role-playing environment. Note that there are several qualifiers contained within that statement, however—the biggest one being "guide," though there are at least three others.

And there are more that could be made, not least being that sometimes exceptions won't be "stated" up front because they rely on information only the GM has. For instance, the next group of trogs we face might have been mutated by the Taint, and their gas is a contact toxin rather than an inhalation one: holding breath won't help. (Yeah, I know: don't give the GM ideas.… )

•

I also am providing my take on things because, as mentioned, I intend to use the same set of rules, in the same game world, to run my own adventure. I intend to conform as closely as possible to decisions made in this game, and will in general defer to the decisions Steerpike makes, whether I agree completely with them or not, because I'd rather place the players on a familiar "common ground" than subject them to learning a "new" set of rules. I am availing myself of the opportunity to provide input on these decisions, rather than try to hash them out after the fact. There will always be exceptions, and sometimes things may happen when I'm running that will not correspond precisely with what Steerpike does, or would do; my goal is to minimize these by attempting to anticipate as many of them as possible, so that players don't face surprises later on. Likewise, where situations do rely unavoidably on interpretation, my statements here should provide insight into how I will interpret things in my turn.

As it happens, I intend to be even more fast and loose with action—the "dice-rolling" parts—than Steerpike is… which is why I make lengthy, complicated cases for simplifying modifiers wherever it seems feasible. I was even tempted, albeit briefly, to do away with mechanics altogether, and resolve everything through narrative; I decided it was preferable to retain the mechanics, as they afford players clearer ideas of what they are capable of. Or aren't, or might be, or how likely a given action is to succeed. That doesn't mean that the player will be making all the same die rolls in similar situations: in some cases, I may simply take those abilities into account and declare an outcome. In others, I may make the rolls myself, in order to move the narrative along—say, when everyone in the party needs to make a saving throw: rolling them all at once will avoid the inevitable delay of each person logging in, seeing that one needs made, and rolling it individually. Regardless of whether a die roll ends up being called for or not, the "rules" will still provide a good indicator of what is or is not likely to be the outcome.

And, yes, I prefer rewarding creativity as well. It's more fun that way. Not all "creative" actions may be "rewarded" in quite the same way—if you creatively attempt something which is transparently a poor idea, your reward might not be quite as you hoped. ("I drop my weapon and try to put the iron golem in a hammer lock." "The iron golem swings you at the rest of the party. Lucky them, he doesn't have weapon proficiency in 'fool,' so he's at -4 to hit. Also, you cause less damage than his fist does." ) But it will always have some outcome more interesting than what the usual "I swing my sword at it" produces. Not necessarily better… but more interesting.

What I absolutely want—and intend—to avoid is having to take the time to determine whether or not a given action should provide a +2 or a +4 modifier… not because I feel it's inappropriate to apply different modifiers to different situations (or I wouldn't be discussing them, and trying to get them nailed down, here ), but because I'd rather the characters just acted and the action gets moved along. It will always be appropriate to ask, especially when it involves something which hasn't come up previously in the game; for the most part, whether or not something will be beneficial, or practical, will be obvious to the character—and for the most part, to the player as well. Actively trying to defend will always aid the character's defense; coordinated action will always make the action more likely to succeed… whether we decide on specific mechanics and modifiers for these, or leave them to the situation then at hand. Whatever mechanics do get decided upon here will remain in force, in any event.

And, of course, one of the rules we definitely hold in common is Rule Zero.

 

[Nihal]

The Rule Zero I know: The master can change the rules to make the game more fun, but he can also veto some player actions, b***hslap and punish (who knows, even kill) an insistent player.

I've seen it in action when a friend wanted to destroy a puzzle just because he wanted and kept trying until the GM said: "So, now you're going to hit the pedestal with your sword? Okay. You shattered your sword. It can't be repaired."

It became a running joke, now everyone wants an armor made of "pedestal".

 

[SeverinR]

Sorry for no post this weekend, bad weekend.
Car borke down and was busy working around that problem.

 

[Nihal]

Okay, if I still got time for a move can I consider that Mauve suffered the usual consequence of failing, +1 corruption (rolled a 12 for a lvl 1 spell corruption save), - seeing this arcane's magic place again? Being corrupted she would retreat as soon as possible, I don't want her facing the darkness longer than necessary. =P

 

[Steerpike]

Yes, Mauve has gained a corruption point and will suffer 1 HP damage. I'll mention it when I update the thread, but you can assume it for now as well.

 

[Ireth]

The shield wall is behind Baldhart, Nod and Ankari, right? Just want to make sure where Cadell is before I act.

 

[Steerpike]

The shield wall is behind Baldhart, Nod and Ankari, right? Just want to make sure where Cadell is before I act.

And behind Mauve as well, as I understand it. Things got a bit jumbled in all the posts, but I think that's right.

 

[Nihal]

Yes, and Aliron blocked the room entrance with the table. We're about to watch an obstacles race!

 

[Legendary Sidekick]

The table hasn't been moved yet! Baldy just checked its weight with a die roll. (Note the lack of a +4 bonus since the feat of strength was discussed, and was neither primal nor instinctive.)

 

[Legendary Sidekick]

So, talking while charging is bad. Very, very bad! Especially for the party's biggest fool! (4 in WIS)

About moving a big fool... can 2 people do that without a check?

 

[Steerpike]

Yeah, working together the can drag her back. Since she can't walk, I suppose they'd tip her back and then drag her along the floor. Or else just carry her. Nod, presumably, jumps free. They can't do all of that in one round, though. Both Darin and Cadell can get to her, get her situated and begin dragging her back toward where the shield wall was.

 

[Legendary Sidekick]

Would it make more sense to just block her from one of the corridors and hope she snaps out of it, or is she out for several turns? I'd hate for the battle to go against us even more than it has over a failure to understand unwritten rules. The sad part is I edited in the "my hair" battle cry after posting... though I do see humor in the result!

 

[Steerpike]

Would it make more sense to just block her from one of the corridors and hope she snaps out of it, or is she out for several turns? I'd hate for the battle to go against us even more than it has over a failure to understand unwritten rules. The sad part is I edited in the "my hair" battle cry after posting... though I do see humor in the result!

Unfortunately, the characters have no idea. It's a spell of some sort, and you've never been affected by it before and those coming to your aid aren't familiar with it either. You'll just have to wait and see how long it lasts in the battle :tongue:

Baldhart came to a quick enough stop that Nodrick may have yanked some hair out in his effort to hang on!