Re: No Skill Chapter
Posted: Sun Jun 19, 2011 7:36 pm
I like several parts of this and I'm inclined to run some games including pieces of the idea, but I need to think on "the whole of it" put together.
I would like each of the classes in DCC RPG to feel different, without a lot of rules. Those of you who play 4E may think that many classes in 4E "feel" the same -- the mechanics are too similar from class to class. In 3E, classes did "feel" different but it was accomplished through some fairly complex mechanisms: skill points for thieves, feats for fighters, etc. What I'm about to say flies in the face of "internet game design theory" but I'll say it anyway: I'm striving to avoid too much consistency, and embrace sub-systems and alternate mechanics where they are simple, easy to remember in play, and evocative of a class's unique abilities.
For example, the cleric system does get across the idea of a cleric draining his deity's resources. Every casting diminishes the cleric's connection with his deity, reflected in the successive -1 penalties. This element would be lost with a consistent mechanic across all classes.
For example, the wizard system does reflect the "chanciness" of magic (e.g., Harold Shea and Jack Vance) in the form of the random dice roll and mercurial magic, and the wizard's limited ability to recall a great number of spells (e.g., Jack Vance) in the finite number of spell slots. Spellburn maintains the connection to the patron theme (e.g., Elric). This element would be lost with a consistent mechanic across all classes.
And so on. That is why the Mighty Deed of Arms system (i.e., the "funky class die") should remain fairly specialized to fighters (with a hint of in the thief class), the wizard spell check system should be different from the cleric system (and it is), and so on. When building the classes I approached each with a list of Appendix N archetypes and situations I wanted to convey, then tried to come up with mechanics to get that across -- and I was (and am) okay if the underlying design elements are not always consistent.
So, with that lengthy preamble, I want to avoid two elements of what you're proposing:
* Simplifying all class abilities to a single mechanic. This has appeal in "game design theory" but in game play, I believe it would diminish the "special-ness" of each class -- mechanically they'd all have the same basic roll and same basic way to exercise their class contribution.
* I don't want to sever the connection to a skill system grounded in 0-level occupation. The introduction of the class die makes improvement in skills related to class, vs. 0-level occupation. This is subtle but it is a difference; it weaves classes into skills even more. A lot of the role playing elements of DCC RPG come out of the 0-level character generation and the resulting motley mix of occupations and classes: the scribe who becomes a warrior, the gravedigger who is now a wizard, and so on. I'd like skills to remain fundamentally connected to the 0-level experience.
So, those are the reasons why I don't want to adopt an across-the-board approach. Now, that said, I think there are some really good ideas in what you're saying. Here's what intrigues me:
* Rolling a lower die for "untrained" skills: great idea. Roll a d20 if you can role play a connection from your occupation or class to the attempt; otherwise roll d10. I like it.
* I also like that you've basically come up with a really simple system for skills. I'm trying to avoid creating lists of skills and what abilities apply to them (judges can generally do this on the fly), and what you've done does manage to accomplish that goal fairly well.
Finally, with all that said, I would encourage you to still run a couple games using your modified class rules, then run a couple using the beta rules 'as written', then let me know what the feedback from the players is. For all the math we do, what it really comes down to is Monopoly. Yes, you heard me: Monopoly. Is DCC RPG more fun than the other alternative ways to spending your time -- like Monopoly? Monopoly as a game breaks every rule of game design that many game designers like to throw out, but by God that game is popular! I like to use it as an example of what D&D could be: FUN and SIMPLE. There are plenty of games out there where we can do math...DCC RPG is meant to be one that's at least as fun as Monopoly to actually play, and hopefully more fun! And in application to your rules, what I mean is: if you run this version of the rules and the players love it, then let me know...because fundamentally THEY are the judges of whether a rule is right or not!
I would like each of the classes in DCC RPG to feel different, without a lot of rules. Those of you who play 4E may think that many classes in 4E "feel" the same -- the mechanics are too similar from class to class. In 3E, classes did "feel" different but it was accomplished through some fairly complex mechanisms: skill points for thieves, feats for fighters, etc. What I'm about to say flies in the face of "internet game design theory" but I'll say it anyway: I'm striving to avoid too much consistency, and embrace sub-systems and alternate mechanics where they are simple, easy to remember in play, and evocative of a class's unique abilities.
For example, the cleric system does get across the idea of a cleric draining his deity's resources. Every casting diminishes the cleric's connection with his deity, reflected in the successive -1 penalties. This element would be lost with a consistent mechanic across all classes.
For example, the wizard system does reflect the "chanciness" of magic (e.g., Harold Shea and Jack Vance) in the form of the random dice roll and mercurial magic, and the wizard's limited ability to recall a great number of spells (e.g., Jack Vance) in the finite number of spell slots. Spellburn maintains the connection to the patron theme (e.g., Elric). This element would be lost with a consistent mechanic across all classes.
And so on. That is why the Mighty Deed of Arms system (i.e., the "funky class die") should remain fairly specialized to fighters (with a hint of in the thief class), the wizard spell check system should be different from the cleric system (and it is), and so on. When building the classes I approached each with a list of Appendix N archetypes and situations I wanted to convey, then tried to come up with mechanics to get that across -- and I was (and am) okay if the underlying design elements are not always consistent.
So, with that lengthy preamble, I want to avoid two elements of what you're proposing:
* Simplifying all class abilities to a single mechanic. This has appeal in "game design theory" but in game play, I believe it would diminish the "special-ness" of each class -- mechanically they'd all have the same basic roll and same basic way to exercise their class contribution.
* I don't want to sever the connection to a skill system grounded in 0-level occupation. The introduction of the class die makes improvement in skills related to class, vs. 0-level occupation. This is subtle but it is a difference; it weaves classes into skills even more. A lot of the role playing elements of DCC RPG come out of the 0-level character generation and the resulting motley mix of occupations and classes: the scribe who becomes a warrior, the gravedigger who is now a wizard, and so on. I'd like skills to remain fundamentally connected to the 0-level experience.
So, those are the reasons why I don't want to adopt an across-the-board approach. Now, that said, I think there are some really good ideas in what you're saying. Here's what intrigues me:
* Rolling a lower die for "untrained" skills: great idea. Roll a d20 if you can role play a connection from your occupation or class to the attempt; otherwise roll d10. I like it.
* I also like that you've basically come up with a really simple system for skills. I'm trying to avoid creating lists of skills and what abilities apply to them (judges can generally do this on the fly), and what you've done does manage to accomplish that goal fairly well.
Finally, with all that said, I would encourage you to still run a couple games using your modified class rules, then run a couple using the beta rules 'as written', then let me know what the feedback from the players is. For all the math we do, what it really comes down to is Monopoly. Yes, you heard me: Monopoly. Is DCC RPG more fun than the other alternative ways to spending your time -- like Monopoly? Monopoly as a game breaks every rule of game design that many game designers like to throw out, but by God that game is popular! I like to use it as an example of what D&D could be: FUN and SIMPLE. There are plenty of games out there where we can do math...DCC RPG is meant to be one that's at least as fun as Monopoly to actually play, and hopefully more fun! And in application to your rules, what I mean is: if you run this version of the rules and the players love it, then let me know...because fundamentally THEY are the judges of whether a rule is right or not!