Is it Possible for a System to be too Flexable?

The Serpent wrote:We are bout to vote these jerks off the island!

Xavvy could just blow the island up.

You Sir are the weakest link! The tripe has spoken.

Tripe?

Damn fat fingers of mine! Tribe!

I thought you were calling Team Awesome cow stomach, I got a great laugh from that.

Cambria wrote:Today, I am hoping both you and Moose die a very brutal death.  I can only take so much "we are the best players on the face of the planet" before I start voting against you.

I mean that with love, of course.

Ummm since I was away how did I get swept into this.......

Malevolent Moose wrote:Ummm since I was away how did I get swept into this.......

Your good buddy talking up how amazing you all are compared to everyone else that has ever played in the history of the world.

Well can't be mad at the truth.......lmao

Cambria wrote:

Malevolent Moose wrote:Ummm since I was away how did I get swept into this.......

Your good buddy talking up how amazing you all are compared to everyone else that has ever played in the history of the world.

Maybe Not The world ......the US??......Eastern Seaboard???.......New York??..... Definitely West Virginia.....

Malevolent Moose wrote:

Cambria wrote:

Malevolent Moose wrote:Ummm since I was away how did I get swept into this.......

Your good buddy talking up how amazing you all are compared to everyone else that has ever played in the history of the world.

Maybe Not The world ......the US??......Eastern Seaboard???.......New York??..... Definitely West Virginia.....


 

lmao

You are totally right.

So, now that we are all becoming more familiar with C&C, do you guys think it is too flexible or not flexible enough?

I have said it before, but I love C&C. I started out playing AD&D, and I love that, as well. I also played 3.5, and I felt like it wasn't flexible at all. I feel like C&C has just the right amount of flexibility.

However, I do think that it completely depends on the dungeon/game master.

Cambria wrote:I have said it before, but I love C&C.  I started out playing AD&D, and I love that, as well.  I also played 3.5, and I felt like it wasn't flexible at all.  I feel like C&C has just the right amount of flexibility.

However, I do think that it completely depends on the dungeon/game master.

yes, some of us are still neophytes and not up to the caliber of the awesome GMs out there.

yeah the DM / GM really decides how flexible a game difficulty really is. Or now that I really think about it... The players really decide how flexible the game difficulty really is. If the DM / GM sees that the game is rough for the players or that they are getting killed to easily then it the DM lowers it. Simple enough.

Toepoker wrote:yeah the DM / GM really decides how flexible a game difficulty really is.  Or now that I really think about it...  The players really decide how flexible the game difficulty really is.  If the DM / GM sees that the game is rough for the players or that they are getting killed to easily then it the DM lowers it.  Simple enough.

I agree but difficulty and flexibility, though related, are not the same thing. it's the difference between pitting the party against Stone Giants in Plate and allowing characters to take extra attacks if they can succeed on a dexterity roll regardless of their class or training.

I see flexibility as being able to work outside of what is written in the handbook, or bringing in outside resources (such as D&D treasure/spells/monsters). Flexibility is being able to bend the rules. Lem is always great about letting you get away with something if you described it epically and got a good roll, even if it isn't something that is necessarily by the book.

Cambria wrote:I see flexibility as being able to work outside of what is written in the handbook, or bringing in outside resources (such as D&D treasure/spells/monsters).  Flexibility is being able to bend the rules.  Lem is always great about letting you get away with something if you described it epically and got a good roll, even if it isn't something that is necessarily by the book.

I agree so why change it if it isn't broke?

Toepoker wrote:

Cambria wrote:I see flexibility as being able to work outside of what is written in the handbook, or bringing in outside resources (such as D&D treasure/spells/monsters).  Flexibility is being able to bend the rules.  Lem is always great about letting you get away with something if you described it epically and got a good roll, even if it isn't something that is necessarily by the book.

I agree so why change it if it isn't broke?  

I've had players complain about allowing others to perform extraordinary feats that are not expressly mentioned in the books. He asked how is he to know what he can or can't do when it isn't written down. He thought it wasn't fair that the GM set the difficulty of such abstract things. He inspired me to ask the question of this post and I notice that Moose has a similar attitude towards the rules n the book as opposed to the GM 'winging it' which makes this thread relevant again.

That was Jose, right? I kind of wish he was back on the forum, just to see how he would interact with our newcomers.

Cambria wrote:That was Jose, right?  I kind of wish he was back on the forum, just to see how he would interact with our newcomers.

The great and legendary Lengendary. Yes it was Jose. I think he would have enjoyed playing with Joey and Rob, not sure why but I feel like that would have been a thing.

The Serpent wrote:The great and legendary Lengendary.  Yes it was Jose.  I think he would have enjoyed playing with Joey and Rob, not sure why but I feel like that would have been a thing.

If by "would have enjoyed playing with Joey and Rob" you mean "would have hated their very existence" I totally agree. He was very territorial and very by the book, and he didn't like anyone who challenged him. He HATED me.... which was lovely.

Well I look at it like this. The book is very clear that these rules are just a guide for the DM / GM to use to create the gaming world. Plus I don't like to be chained to a system that doesn't allow for growth. Also people can do extraordinary things, so for me it is if you can think it and it is within the realm of possibility then try it. I dont mean try to deflect an arrow bolt to bounce off the wall and back to the person who shot it. I mean try to catch that arrow shot, or jump in its way to save a party member even though you had your turn already. I will set the difficulty and if you can meet it or beat it then you got it. It enhances the game for the players.

Besides a lot of the rules are cumbersome for the GM as well as the players. Weight, gear, sleep all factor into movement and fighting ability. Do you think I want to hear that because my pack is full of treasure that I cant swing a sword or hammer because it is too heavy and will throw off my fighting skill? Or that I have to take my pack off before a fight because it is not balanced properly? "Excuse me Mr. Bad Guy could you give me a minute to take off my pack before we fight"? Or you cant cast that spell because you are in a dungeon and cant find the materials needed to cast it? Then what the hell good is mage or any caster for that matter in a dungeon? Unless you are carrying a pharmacy in your pack and remember to fill your belt pouches in the morning before you adventure. Or as it so happens often during a fight the player says "I hit him". "okay give me damage". the player rolls a d8 for sword damage. The GM says "no roll a d3 for damage you didn't say that you use your sword to hit him so you hit him with your hand". Flexibility.

Plus those players who want to quote the rules are only trying to get their way. But quote the rules back to them and its a problem you are limiting them restricting their game play. Setting restrictions or just being a dick.