Aplus wrote:
It is also the mark of someone playing a game in which fun can be derived from attempting things that may turn out badly. After all, that is why we use dice in the first place - so there can be a chance of failure - failure which often turns out to be more entertaining than success.
That being said, for anyone that wants to add more granularity to corruption, you can simply say that a natural 1 results in some % chance to get a corruption, and have the player roll percentiles whenever they get a 1. It could be a progressively higher chance for higher level spells, or whatever you'd like.
At any rate, I think one of the strongest points going for DCC is the fact that it isn't too self-serious. I would be saddened if it went too far in the direction of being a "legit, well-balanced, self-serious" game. There are enough of those around. The players can make the decision for themselves if they are uncomfortable with the risks associated with being a magic-user.
Just my 2d cents.
This is definitely it. Spell corruption, at a 5% chance, isn't even really that common. A lot of people seem under the impression that a Wizard will have 40+ Corruptions throughout his career or something, and I don't see where that number is coming from. Probably by the 5th, and certainly by the 10th corruption, the consequences of being tainted by a patron or marked as an outcast would lead to more and more situations for that character who is hopefully role-playing the nature of the corruption as well, causing lots of fun encounters with angry commoners, interparty distrust, and unwanted attention from opposing powers-that-be. All of this seems to encourage a wizard to lay low, and reinforces the idea that you have to pay the piper someday, or make increasingly desperate deals with otherworldly powers to stave off further corruption. This all seems in the flavor of the setting.
Like what was said earlier, to limit corruption a wizard has to limit spellcasting. The rules couldn't be more clear that magic-users make dangerous bargains with untrustworthy and self-interested powers. And rolling a 1 isn't tremendously common the way people are making it out to be, either. If the 5% chance when casting a spell (a player choice, it should be remembered) is too high for you, then what percentage would work better? It's simple enough to house-rule, as suggested above, though the inherent limitations on sorcerers (let's just call them this, it sounds more pulp) are that risk of corruption, every time they roll the die to cast a spell.
If a sorcerer is casting multiple spells every round in a combat, those 1's will be coming up more often. Magic is powerful, but dangerous. This seems entirely appropriate. What exactly is the problem?
Someone on a different thread had suggested different tiers of corruption, and this is an excellent idea. Minor are cosmetic mostly, Greater start affecting things mechanically, and Major end up causing physical changes, perhaps turning the PC into an NPC. Their example was:
"Major corruptions would be character altering type corruptions. My example in the email for a Major would be if you have a Patron of death... a Major corruption would be that you turn into a Vampire or Lich. It fits the game environment and it gives a really cool explanation on how some of the races/monsters appear.
If you worship the God of Frogs... you could turn into a Bullywog, etc..."
I love this and hope it gets supported in the final product. The idea that many monsters that are encountered are actually sorcerers or otherwise bonded to a patron whose dealings with extraplanar and infernal powers have caught up with them is steeped in the pulp tradition and makes for an awesome background explanation for monstrous beings, while providing inspiration for specific demi-gods, demons, and patrons to populate the cosmology of the setting with.