Goodman Games

stacktrace wrote:Let me add another voice to the opinion of increasing the effectiveness of shields somehow.

I don't see it in the beta test rules, but I believe there was a rule in the last version of the full rules I have that a character can sacrifice their shield to completely negate all the damage from one attack. That can make a huge difference in low level games particularly.

Ooh, I like that one!

Can a warrior use an MDoA to give someone ELSE a bonus to AC? If so, the hireling bodyguard for the mage got a lot more viable...

+d14

mythfish wrote:

stacktrace wrote:Let me add another voice to the opinion of increasing the effectiveness of shields somehow.

I don't see it in the beta test rules, but I believe there was a rule in the last version of the full rules I have that a character can sacrifice their shield to completely negate all the damage from one attack. That can make a huge difference in low level games particularly.

Yes, I thought the 'Shields Shall Be Splintered' rule was going to be used ?

jmucchiello wrote:If you increase shields too much more folks will pick Dwarf over Warrior because they get a free Shield Bash attack each round.

You can't pick Dwarf.

Dwarf picks you.

See also funnelling and Table 1-3.

I agree on shields. I'd like to see armor bonuses slightly compressed and shield bonus expanded, something like

Padded/Leather +1
Studded/Hide +2
Scale +3
Chain/Banded +4
Half-Plate +5
Full Plate +6

Small Shield +2
Large Shield +3

geordie racer wrote:

mythfish wrote:

stacktrace wrote:Let me add another voice to the opinion of increasing the effectiveness of shields somehow.

I don't see it in the beta test rules, but I believe there was a rule in the last version of the full rules I have that a character can sacrifice their shield to completely negate all the damage from one attack. That can make a huge difference in low level games particularly.

Yes, I thought the 'Shields Shall Be Splintered' rule was going to be used ?

Joseph had said it would be. But it might be in a "variant rules" section.

smathis wrote:But it might be in a "variant rules" section.

NOOOooo. Variant rules in the core book is a bad idea - let people houserule it themselves if they want but maintain the core as definitive. I think this rule is the only one that doesn't boost the dwarf over the warrior or involve more calculation.

geordie racer wrote:NOOOooo. Variant rules in the core book is a bad idea - let people houserule it themselves if they want but maintain the core as definitive. I think this rule is the only one that doesn't boost the dwarf over the warrior or involve more calculation.

Joseph had said he was going to collect his favorite "house rules" and put them in an appendix or something in the core book. I'd love for "Shields Shall Be Splintered" to be a core rule. It's great. But I don't have a problem with variants or house rules being called out in a core book. S&W Core does that to great effect, IMO. I think it's better than rolling them up into another book like Unearthed Arcana or M&M's Gamemaster book.

smathis wrote:

geordie racer wrote:NOOOooo. Variant rules in the core book is a bad idea - let people houserule it themselves if they want but maintain the core as definitive. I think this rule is the only one that doesn't boost the dwarf over the warrior or involve more calculation.

Joseph had said he was going to collect his favorite "house rules" and put them in an appendix or something in the core book. I'd love for "Shields Shall Be Splintered" to be a core rule. It's great. But I don't have a problem with variants or house rules being called out in a core book. S&W Core does that to great effect, IMO. I think it's better than rolling them up into another book like Unearthed Arcana or M&M's Gamemaster book.

I'm going to add my voice to the notion that the book only contain "core rules". Mostly because I'd prefer that the space be dedicated to these rules and also that the rules be complete, thematic and play tested really well. Weigh each potential variant and decide if it should be core, or should be set aside and not tested until you are preparing for a future update.

geordie racer wrote:

smathis wrote:But it might be in a "variant rules" section.

NOOOooo. Variant rules in the core book is a bad idea - let people houserule it themselves if they want but maintain the core as definitive. I think this rule is the only one that doesn't boost the dwarf over the warrior or involve more calculation.

Just curious: what's inherently wrong or unrealistic about the dwarf being rarer but in almost all ways (aside from movement) superior to the warrior?

Isn't it possible, even likely, that when it comes to combat and other "Dwarfy" things, the Dwarf would be the superior race?

[quote="QuentinTheTroll"]Just curious: what's inherently wrong or unrealistic about the dwarf being rarer but in almost all ways (aside from movement) superior to the warrior?/quote]
Because not every character is going to come through the funnel. Eventually, players will not want to create totally random PCs and create a PC they care about from the get-go. And if at 1st level there's a clear imbalance, it reduces the game's long term viability.

Add to the fact that Dwarves need less XP than Warriors per level only makes this imbalance more pronounced. Changing the dwarf xp chart is a via solution, too.

jmucchiello wrote:

QuentinTheTroll wrote:Just curious: what's inherently wrong or unrealistic about the dwarf being rarer but in almost all ways (aside from movement) superior to the warrior?/quote]

Because not every character is going to come through the funnel. Eventually, players will not want to create totally random PCs and create a PC they care about from the get-go. And if at 1st level there's a clear imbalance, it reduces the game's long term viability.

Add to the fact that Dwarves need less XP than Warriors per level only makes this imbalance more pronounced. Changing the dwarf xp chart is a via solution, too.

Okay, I'm slow. I don't understand why someone would want to play this particular game without the funnel. That's kind of like playing Space Hulk without using overwatch rules - it would rob the rule set of one of its most basic (and delightful) functions.

In any case, I'll keep these current rules over any "balancing" rules. If I want balance, I'll buy a scale. Give me rare Dwarves no warrior can match.

But thanks for clarifying that.

jmucchiello wrote:Changing the dwarf xp chart is a via solution, too.

This is probably where I'd go with this.

And I agree about the funnel. Not every character is going to go through it. If you've got a group at 4th or 5th level and one of them dies, I doubt it's going to be standard operating procedure for a player to write up three 0-level PCs and run them alongside everyone else.

The funnel will be a hoot, don't get me wrong. But it's not going to happen every time, all the time. Most likely it will happen when a campaign starts and that's about it. After about 3rd level, I can't see it being a focus for incoming characters.

It just seems like it would be obtrusive at that point.

QuentinTheTroll wrote:Okay, I'm slow. I don't understand why someone would want to play this particular game without the funnel. That's kind of like playing Space Hulk without using overwatch rules - it would rob the rule set of one of its most basic (and delightful) functions.

Don't know the reference.

Sometimes, you want a game to harken back to the Conan Is Old stories so you generate a 5th level party and jump into a dungeon. Can't easily do that if you always have to start with the funnel.

jmucchiello wrote:

QuentinTheTroll wrote:Okay, I'm slow. I don't understand why someone would want to play this particular game without the funnel. That's kind of like playing Space Hulk without using overwatch rules - it would rob the rule set of one of its most basic (and delightful) functions.

Don't know the reference.

Sometimes, you want a game to harken back to the Conan Is Old stories so you generate a 5th level party and jump into a dungeon. Can't easily do that if you always have to start with the funnel.

I don't think I'll do that with this game, but I get that others will. In the circumstance where a (generally) 5th level party is going somewhere, and a player is without a character, you bet I'll have him roll up 4 (or 6 or whatever) 0-level characters to funnel.

They'll play retainers and henchmen. It will be fun.

Can you tell I really don't value balance at all?

smathis wrote:

jmucchiello wrote:Changing the dwarf xp chart is a via solution, too.

This is probably where I'd go with this.

And I agree about the funnel. Not every character is going to go through it. If you've got a group at 4th or 5th level and one of them dies, I doubt it's going to be standard operating procedure for a player to write up three 0-level PCs and run them alongside everyone else.

The funnel will be a hoot, don't get me wrong. But it's not going to happen every time, all the time. Most likely it will happen when a campaign starts and that's about it. After about 3rd level, I can't see it being a focus for incoming characters.

It just seems like it would be obtrusive at that point.

As far as obtrusiveness goes, I really don't think it would be the case for the games I hope to play. If I'm playing with a semi-high level party, consisting of corrupted wizards and wary warriors, my 0-level funnellers will likely be better shielded by the others than they would if they were "throwaway" NPCs, and definitely surrounded by a better class of combat ally!

I see this as an ongoing feature, not a bug, in the rules.

Some of the most fun I ever had playing an RPG is when I had a vulnerable character going "above" his level, and devising ways to survive.

QuentinTheTroll wrote:Some of the most fun I ever had playing an RPG is when I had a vulnerable character going "above" his level, and devising ways to survive.

As we have no clue how the XP system works, we have no way of knowing if those 0-level character can ever catch up. If xp requires "significant" contribution to the enemy's defeat, 0-level char will get meager crumbs of xp compared to the high level chars.

jmucchiello wrote:

QuentinTheTroll wrote:Some of the most fun I ever had playing an RPG is when I had a vulnerable character going "above" his level, and devising ways to survive.

As we have no clue how the XP system works, we have no way of knowing if those 0-level character can ever catch up. If xp requires "significant" contribution to the enemy's defeat, 0-level char will get meager crumbs of xp compared to the high level chars.

Who said anything about "catching up?"

A 0-level character only needs "meager crumbs" from a 5th level game to advance, just as he only requires "meager hits" to die.

I may not have been clear: unbalanced play is a feature, not a bug, for what I'm looking for. I've got to arrange a playtest, however, so perhaps DCC RPG isn't as unbalanced as I'm hoping it is.

QuentinTheTroll wrote:As far as obtrusiveness goes, I really don't think it would be the case for the games I hope to play. If I'm playing with a semi-high level party, consisting of corrupted wizards and wary warriors, my 0-level funnellers will likely be better shielded by the others than they would if they were "throwaway" NPCs, and definitely surrounded by a better class of combat ally!

I see this as an ongoing feature, not a bug, in the rules.

Some of the most fun I ever had playing an RPG is when I had a vulnerable character going "above" his level, and devising ways to survive.

Not saying it's a bug.

But if I'm running a game of 4th level PCs and one of them dies, I'm not going to make a big deal out of it if the player doesn't want to start over again at Level 0.

If a player wants to start over with three zero level PCs, I'll be fine with that too.

But I won't mandate one way over the other.

I think 0-level is a great way to start a campaign. I think it's also something fun to revisit every once in a while. But I understand where those who don't feel that way are coming from. I'll probably offer my usual -- which is start a new character at -20% current XP -- or start out with 3 0-level PCs with some sort of bennie for the character that makes it through the funnel. Magic Item. Extra Luck points to spend. That sort of thing.

So that way a player has the option to come back into the game at a reasonable power level compared to the rest of the group. But weighs that against possibly getting something really cool for a starting all over again.

I'm thinking it is okay to allow players two active characters in this system. With the high mortality rate and simple to run characters I don't think it will slow things down too much. Trying to set up a campaign based on the Beta rules. Here is what I just sent out:

• I'll set up a general world and feed rumors of sites you might visit/quests you may undertake.
• The world is not balanced. Running is a perfectly reasonable survival strategy.
• At a session a player may bring a main character and either: Up to three level 0 characters as henchmen/hirelings, or a partner/sidekick hero of any level up to that of the main character.
• A player with no leveled characters may adventure with four level 0 characters who all get full experience.
• Henchmen/hirelings get half experience points when adventuring under the direction of a main character.
• Treasure divided as players agree (basic terms recommended before setting out), but experience for finding treasure will be split equally among the group.
• Characters are allowed to disagree, steal treasure, demand bribes for actions and otherwise be self-centered jerks, etc. It will be up to the group to manage themselves. I will frown on open pc vs. pc warfare however, and players are not allowed to be jerks to each other (i.e. keep it clearly in character).

When we were doing our play tests (we were doing non-level zero play tests), we used the following mechanic to create characters:

(4 - players party size of

1. Roll three sets of stats in order and roll the profession.
2. Throw away the one you did not want and keep the other two.

But this could work for replacement characters...

Roll 1,2,3 base sets of stats in order w/ professions. Pick one or two of them to level up to 'catch' up with the rest of the group.

In prior campaigns if you brought a new character in it was at the average party level -1. It is just enough of a penalty that someone does not want to just flip / flop characters, but they are still effective.