Four fixes for DCC

For DCC RPG rules discussion. Includes rules questions and ideas, new rules suggestions, homebrews and hacks, conversions to other systems, and everything else rules-related.

Moderators: DJ LaBoss, finarvyn, michaelcurtis, Harley Stroh

oncelor
Hard-Bitten Adventurer
Posts: 155
Joined: Thu Jun 09, 2011 11:55 am

Re: Four fixes for DCC

Post by oncelor »

Skyscraper wrote:The points of view that differ from mine are interesting in that they bring forth something I perhaps would deal with more off-handedly: the possibility of reacting to even those very (super)powerful items or powers.

What I'm realizing is that I have an expectation, that I suspect is shared by the friends with whom I play(ed), many of them at least, that if a PC gains a power or item and then the DM sends stuff after the PC to steal the item or kill the PC (or otherwise punish him), it's kind of bad manner (to take the online gaming expression). It's like: look, if you're going to put a piece of cake before me, and then remove it after only one bite, why did you give it to me in the first place? Don't tease me!
Ironically I have dangled the offer of great-magical-power in front of the party a couple times now in the form of a powerful ritual they found on a Babylonian tablet and the true-name of a powerful creature, but in both these cases they smashed the items containing these in righteous indignation. If they'd used these, I'd have no qualms in causing very bad things to happen to them. But in Idris' case, he's just casting a first level spell that he got when he rolled up his character.
oncelor
Hard-Bitten Adventurer
Posts: 155
Joined: Thu Jun 09, 2011 11:55 am

Re: Four fixes for DCC

Post by oncelor »

AJClark wrote:
oncelor wrote: you aren't singling him out.

He is making himself a target by wielding such powerful magics.

There is a difference.
If the creatures in my campaign world realize the threat he poses and do everything in their power to thwart him, that's a case of he making himself a target by wielding such powerful magics. I don't mind doing this.

If I change my campaign world just for the purpose of stopping his ability, then I'm the one singling him out. I've done this, but I don't like doing this.
User avatar
Raven_Crowking
Cold-Hearted Immortal
Posts: 3159
Joined: Fri Mar 16, 2012 9:41 am
FLGS: The Sword & Board
Contact:

Re: Four fixes for DCC

Post by Raven_Crowking »

Hey onceler,

First off, thanks for responding, and thanks for not assuming that I am trying to say you are doing it wrong. Considering issues, and throwing out ideas/opinions is like throwing spaghetti at a wall. Throw enough, and something might stick/be useful!

:D

It does sound like he's been lucky with misfire and corruption - the spell-specific corruption for color spray isn't all that bad, but having to roll on the general charts can be. When I was listening to the Spellburn podcast today, I thought about your wizard during the "disco snake" segment.

Re: Rescuing the fallen, remember that changing positions can allow free attacks at the judge's discretion. Healing will help, but the healed are presumably prone, have dropped their weapons, and are initially vulnerable. There is no good reason that intelligent foes will not seek to incapacitate them, especially once they have seen others rise. Likewise, if a few escape back to the warrens, they will know to target the wizard first, that bringing him down is the key to success in dealing with the party. I can think of at least one module where the main opponent observes the PCs to better know how to deal with them. There is no reason that you cannot use a similar feature in some adventures. There are reasons that you do not show your hand to your opponent when playing poker, and similar rules apply to successful engagement against intelligent foes.

I don't think that taking the PCs toys away from him is the best solution. If possible, it would be better to just make him hesitant about turning to the same trick every time. You might consider running an adventure in an alternate dimension that changes the way magic works. Take every arcane spell the PCs know, and randomly link them to another spell. When the PC casts a spell, use the other result instead. Keep the mercurial the same, but have the spell behave utterly differently. Part of the challenge of such an adventure is that the player must cast most or all of his spells to determine which are which, and is thus forced to deal with a wider range of effects. The results of rolling a "1" can be taken from the original spell cast, just to enforce that magic is different during this adventure.

The Revelation of Mulmo and Icon of the Blood Goddess (in In the Prison of the Squid Sorcerer) may be worth referencing for other ideas re: bringing about uncertainty with magic. Or, just read "Magic Here and Magic There" on page 358 of the Core Rulebook. There is no reason not to create a region linked to the negative energies of un-death, where casting arcane spells might cause damage to those around the caster (or including the caster!). An area where mercurial effects were roughly reversed would be interesting as well.....indeed, some spells would benefit from such an area, as some of the worst mercurial effects would suddenly become the greatest boons.

(Shrug)

In my Mulmo pbp, I just had beermotor's character age 35 years trying to cast detect magic. I think that it is great fun to be able to do amazing things with magic, but even more fun when that ability is tempered with some level of caution.

You might consider a Faustian bargain along those lines - something that the PC has reason to want (AC bonus, bonus hp, etc.), but which increases the chance of failure (i.e., increases spell fumble range). My current game of Colossus Arise! has a magic item like that in it.

----------------

You've responded a few times while I was writing the above, and you are absolutely right. Bend the rules to your needs, and do what you think will make the game most fun for you and those involved. Let us know how it works out!

Daniel
SoBH pbp:

Cathbad the Meek (herbalist Wizard 1): AC 9; 4 hp; S 7, A 7, St 10, P 17, I 13, L 8; Neutral; Club, herbs, 50' rope, 50 cp; -1 to melee attack rolls. Hideous scar.
oncelor
Hard-Bitten Adventurer
Posts: 155
Joined: Thu Jun 09, 2011 11:55 am

Re: Four fixes for DCC

Post by oncelor »

beermotor wrote:My only complaint is y'all keep saying "balance" as if it is some talisman against evil. Rock/paper/scissors is balanced. DCC isn't and wasn't even meant to be. Real life isn't balanced either. That's why I think for all its gonzoness, DCC has more realism than, say, a more methodically balanced game like D&D 4e. Too much balance is a terrible thing and makes everything the same, and boring. I want my players to seek out advantage, to seek to become powerful and unbalanced. Then I can crush their tiny little dreams. :twisted:
I agree that obsession with balance is boring. 4e characters were boring. 4e magic was oh so boring. 4e was boring to play. 4e books were boring to read. 4e game forums were boring to read.

I'm not talking about imbalance being a problem per se, I'm talking about a balance problem. I don't think ice cream eating is a problem, but eating two pounds of ice cream in one go would be an ice cream problem.

I don't mind that one character is more powerful than another as long as everybody is still having fun, and as long as I don't have to bend my campaign world out-of-shape to make sure everybody is having fun. Having to single-out a character and "crush" him just isn't fun for me. If the source of the great power were something unusual, like a bound-demon or an artifact or a strange ritual, I would have less qualms about crushing characters who dabble in this sort of thing: everybody knows an artifact or a bound-demon or a strange ritual is gonna getchya in the end!

In this case, it's just a guy casting his first level spell, and there are already corruption rules that I feel ought to be doing the job of balancing out the power of this but aren't quite doing that. "Color spray" has become insanely more powerful for him over the last couple levels, but the corruption effects haven't gotten any more threatening to him than when he was casting this spell in our second session. I think things would feel more verisimilitudinous if corruption scaled with spell power somehow.
oncelor
Hard-Bitten Adventurer
Posts: 155
Joined: Thu Jun 09, 2011 11:55 am

Re: Four fixes for DCC

Post by oncelor »

Raven_Crowking wrote:Hey onceler,
First off, thanks for responding, and thanks for not assuming that I am trying to say you are doing it wrong. Considering issues, and throwing out ideas/opinions is like throwing spaghetti at a wall. Throw enough, and something might stick/be useful!
Thanks for the suggestions! There are different styles of running campaigns -- no problems.

I can think of at least one module where the main opponent observes the PCs to better know how to deal with them. There is no reason that you cannot use a similar feature in some adventures. There are reasons that you do not show your hand to your opponent when playing poker, and similar rules apply to successful engagement against intelligent foes.
One of the best moments I ever had running a campaign was with characters whom we kept from AD&D through 2nd Edition into 3rd edition D&D. I was running "Dragon Mountain" and the kobolds started keeping a dossier on the party, writing down a list of all the characters and noting each of their spells and pieces of equipment. I kept this in a notebook and adjusted the kobold tactics with every new item in the dossier. Finally the characters killed a kobold chief and got a copy of the dossier. Their jaws dropped when they read the notes and the little sketches I'd made. It completely changed the way they fought combats for the remainder of the adventure.

You might consider a Faustian bargain along those lines - something that the PC has reason to want (AC bonus, bonus hp, etc.), but which increases the chance of failure (i.e., increases spell fumble range). My current game of Colossus Arise! has a magic item like that in it.
That's a very good idea.
User avatar
IronWolf
Deft-Handed Cutpurse
Posts: 268
Joined: Fri Jun 08, 2012 5:28 pm
Location: Central Ohio
Contact:

Re: Four fixes for DCC

Post by IronWolf »

Skyscraper wrote: It's like: look, if you're going to put a piece of cake before me, and then remove it after only one bite, why did you give it to me in the first place? Don't tease me!
I think the analogy is more like putting a "whole cake" before them. If they take a slice here and there, they don't get sick (i.e. don't raise the ire of supernatural/patron/otherworldly forces). If they eat the whole cake, they get sick (i.e. raise the ire of supernatural/patron/otherworldly forces).

As many have said though. Bend the rules to fit your game. Fixes that keep the game fun for you and your group are obviously what folks should be doing in these situations. In my games the unspoken fear of patron ire keeps things in check quite well. But that might not be for everyone and there is nothing wrong with that!
User avatar
beermotor
Cold-Hearted Immortal
Posts: 1222
Joined: Mon Jun 25, 2012 6:01 am
Location: Atlanta, GA

Re: Four fixes for DCC

Post by beermotor »

Raven_Crowking wrote: First off, thanks for responding, and thanks for not assuming that I am trying to say you are doing it wrong. Considering issues, and throwing out ideas/opinions is like throwing spaghetti at a wall. Throw enough, and something might stick/be useful!
I think we're all about the same age +/- 5 years or so, and our experiences are helpful to share. I've seen stuff in the thread that I intend to steal, to be sure.
Raven_Crowking wrote: In my Mulmo pbp, I just had beermotor's character age 35 years trying to cast detect magic. I think that it is great fun to be able to do amazing things with magic, but even more fun when that ability is tempered with some level of caution.
Yeah uh, that's a rough effect. I mean one more casting could kill him of old age! :shock: So far as he knows, anyway. The wizard's basically just been turned into an archer with a magic ring.
Raven_Crowking wrote: You might consider a Faustian bargain along those lines - something that the PC has reason to want (AC bonus, bonus hp, etc.), but which increases the chance of failure (i.e., increases spell fumble range). My current game of Colossus Arise! has a magic item like that in it.
Oh ho ho... well well well, mayhap the Judge hath slipped?! If it was his ring, and not the elf-mound, wouldn't he know? :o

/threadjack
User avatar
beermotor
Cold-Hearted Immortal
Posts: 1222
Joined: Mon Jun 25, 2012 6:01 am
Location: Atlanta, GA

Re: Four fixes for DCC

Post by beermotor »

oncelor wrote:I don't mind that one character is more powerful than another as long as everybody is still having fun, and as long as I don't have to bend my campaign world out-of-shape to make sure everybody is having fun. Having to single-out a character and "crush" him just isn't fun for me. If the source of the great power were something unusual, like a bound-demon or an artifact or a strange ritual, I would have less qualms about crushing characters who dabble in this sort of thing: everybody knows an artifact or a bound-demon or a strange ritual is gonna getchya in the end!

In this case, it's just a guy casting his first level spell, and there are already corruption rules that I feel ought to be doing the job of balancing out the power of this but aren't quite doing that. "Color spray" has become insanely more powerful for him over the last couple levels, but the corruption effects haven't gotten any more threatening to him than when he was casting this spell in our second session. I think things would feel more verisimilitudinous if corruption scaled with spell power somehow.
Well, corruption definitely does, he's just using a low level spell to great effect. You know, this is actually a function of the way spells and saves are written in DCC (and I guess d20 games in general). If the target save DC is whatever this guy is rolling, and he's got +20 to his roll or whatever, even if it's a low level spell, he's always going to be having a huge target DC for the enemies to save against. Theoretically, the target saves of lower level spells will on average be lower because, all things being equal (i.e. assuming no bonuses from equipment), you need a higher base result to succeed on a higher level spell. But this PARTICULAR CHARACTER seems to have just gotten really, really lucky with his stat, his random spell selection, and finding/learning the magic staff spell.

You know what... I don't know that I'd penalize him at all for being badass.

I think my tactic would be to tempt him. What's his alignment? Tempt him to be selfish, see if he sacrifices his buddies or saves them... Outline a long pathway from where he is to demonic imprisonment, and see if he starts down the road or avoids it. Or, at what point does he realize he's in trouble, and does he try to correct his actions, repent. There's some good examples of this in the DragonLance canon with Raistlin, of course, but also I'm thinking of Magius in the Legend of Huma book... he turned back to the good side before the end. Or, heck, Star Wars: Return of the Jedi, Vader does the same thing.
User avatar
Raven_Crowking
Cold-Hearted Immortal
Posts: 3159
Joined: Fri Mar 16, 2012 9:41 am
FLGS: The Sword & Board
Contact:

Re: Four fixes for DCC

Post by Raven_Crowking »

beermotor wrote:
Raven_Crowking wrote:You might consider a Faustian bargain along those lines - something that the PC has reason to want (AC bonus, bonus hp, etc.), but which increases the chance of failure (i.e., increases spell fumble range). My current game of Colossus Arise! has a magic item like that in it.
Oh ho ho... well well well, mayhap the Judge hath slipped?! If it was his ring, and not the elf-mound, wouldn't he know? :o

/threadjack
The Colossus Arise item in question is, I believe, posted to Google+, so no. The judge slippeth not, and the rain, it falleth every day.
SoBH pbp:

Cathbad the Meek (herbalist Wizard 1): AC 9; 4 hp; S 7, A 7, St 10, P 17, I 13, L 8; Neutral; Club, herbs, 50' rope, 50 cp; -1 to melee attack rolls. Hideous scar.
User avatar
cjoepar
Hard-Bitten Adventurer
Posts: 185
Joined: Sat Nov 03, 2012 8:27 am
Location: Ohio
Contact:

Re: Four fixes for DCC

Post by cjoepar »

I also want o reiterate what a great conversation this thread turned into. Lots of really good perspectives here, guys. I appreciate reading them all.
beermotor wrote:
Sweet. That's a nice and intuitive alteration. I'd like to see your tables, too.

Maybe this would make a good CRAWL! submission!?!?!?!? Please make it so. :-)
Posted here:
http://www.goodman-games.com/forums/vie ... 73&t=44637

I don't know how to make a submission to Crawl. If you send me an IM pointing me in the right direction, I will.
Tortog
Mighty-Thewed Reaver
Posts: 343
Joined: Sat Jun 11, 2011 11:44 pm

Re: Four fixes for DCC

Post by Tortog »

{Well, sorry in advance for the long post and I do not wish for anything in this post to be taken as personal criticism by anyone, for it is not my intention to do so. This 5 page essay is merely an honest attempt to ‘poke-at-the boundaries’ of game theory in the DCCRPG environment and storytelling in general. I know it’s been a couple of days since anyone posted on this thread, but I have some thoughts I’d like to contribute, and it took me a while to wade through all of these awesome and insightful posts.}

I would like to address a couple of specific items that were mentioned: 1. Early on in the thread someone mentioned that the healing of hit points and stat loss are separate processes, but p.94 of the core rules clearly states otherwise. 2. I think it was beermotor who put down the following as part of a larger post: “…everything is squishy at longbow range…” I mention it because it is quite true, and because I laughed so hard I shot coffee out my nose. I would definitely describe myself as the “when in doubt, tinker with the rule-set” type of GM/Storyteller. However, through much trial and many efforts over the years I’ve learned that the best rule-tweaks seem to be those which leave the smallest footprints in their wake.

Moving on to the OP, just in reverse order and mixing in a few follow-up questions...

To me point #4 is the more pernicious problem and I love reading about how everyone else is working with it. I would put myself firmly in the camp that uses the blanket approach of -1 per point of ability drain inflicted. I’ve tried keeping an accurate track of the process with the occasional recalibration of bonuses and penalties etc. but found it laborious and in the end it didn’t affect enough change for me to justify the need. But then, my basic barometer for any decision that I make in terms of game mechanics or table presentation and story-craft is simple: will the ultimate decision I make enhance the enjoyment of the game or detract from the experience? The answer to which is derived from three distinct data sources: is this a 1-off game or a longer term campaign; what are the audience expectations (if any), and what kind of story do I want to tell… dramatic, tragic, comedic, horrific, heroic…etc. which is generally set within my choice of modules and any attendant tweaks/modifications. I seek constantly to find and remain within the sweet spot created where all three intersect.

3. A game’s lethality is largely a function of how the people at the table define it… One person’s blood bath and carnage fest is just a tip-toe through the tulips for someone else. At least that’s my conclusion on several decades of table top RPG experience. That having been said, I have observed some confusion in players when going from funnel to regular play. The primary culprits for this muddled state seem to be the powerful healing magic and the recover the body rule. Both of which are adroitly handled by most GM/Storytellers with an eye for what they think works best. Luck and its function within the overall mechanics seems to be one of those things that everyone deals with in their own way. IMO the only thing wrong with the luck mechanic is that two classes get to regenerate their luck with nothing more than a night’s rest whilst everyone else has to work really hard for the tiniest thimble full of luck returned via quest.

I find this especially onerous considering that characters are likely to lose more luck during this quest than they are likely to gain from its completion. FWIW, I don’t allow luck burn on recover the body rolls either. When queried by indignant and emotional players as to why I’m being so heartless; I calmly point out that Luck is a physical ability score like Strength or Intelligence, when you’re dead you have no body. Ergo you have no luck score … besides, the dead are beyond the concerns of fate.

2. & 1. (takes deep breathe) I think these two concepts are too integrated to be treated separately. I also think it is of vital importance to keep the venue of the game in mind. The skill-sets and tools involved in handling a 1-off game are entirely different from those used to carefully manage long-term play. Thus far I have run one long term campaign that took players from 0 to 5th level and 3 different FRPG day 1-off events starting with the public beta release and as I recall the levels were: 0, 3, and 1; in that order and have enjoyed both styles for different reasons. I’ve mentioned it before, but the more I work with this rule-set, the more I’m convinced that there are two distinct forms of DCCRPG. With the 1-off, or ‘over and done with in an afternoon’ style being how the game is designed to be played. In this capacity it functions brilliantly and I have enjoyed it thoroughly in that capacity. Though I find it is often difficult to motivate, cajole, or intimidate characters via the story when the player knows their character’s chances of survival are practically nil, or that the event is entirely accidental. In some cases, when I’ve put before the wizard a choice of committing a heinous act of spellburn or failure for their action: they don’t even blink as they go for the burn. It means nothing to them regardless of how I try to emphasize its importance to story and theme. The honest truth is that to most players… a character is nothing more than a jumble of ideas organized onto a sheet of paper; which is entirely disposable/recyclable. And in short term play they have no fear of any real consequences from burning off points of luck or spellburn other than death… which they know is inevitable. To avoid the build-up of too much character power simply roll up new characters for every module… sure, sometimes a superhero or ultra-lame character will arrive. Big deal, it won’t last and the fun will bounce around the table from player to player given enough time so that no one feels left out.

It is not surprising to me that those of us who have chosen to go wandering off into the wild unexplored places like campaign gaming are going to run into the occasional deep river gorge standing between us and the promised land we seek. In this case, the chasm in question is the efficacy of spellburn’s ability to moderate player/character behavior. Some have chosen to limit its expenditure. That’s fine, if it works for you and everyone else at the table then as solutions go it cannot be wrong. The rules say so. p.314 8) It occurs to me that such a position is not without its own issues: chiefly that all the proposed limits (save for the one proposed by cjoepar) omit the possibility of spending 20 points for an automatic critical success (core rules p.107). Perhaps that is desired, maybe it’s accidental, I don’t know.

I should also say that I really like the solution put forward by cjoepar for several reasons, not the least of which is that it closely resembles an idea I’m putting forward in Liber Arcanum. That being: spells have an inherent misfire rate = spell level x 5%. So a 5th level spell has a 25% chance of failure on top of any problems or modifiers for casting situation; i.e. damage, weather, head of caster enveloped by brain-sucking alien, etc. I also like the idea of corruption chance linked to spellburn usage because it acts as a natural counter to rampant spellburn and by linking it to a player’s choice: it quietly redirects players into policing themselves. Brilliant. 8)

I do think that a further refinement of point #2 of the question/topic may be useful and ties back to the triumvirate of data points that I’m always monitoring. “Are the players at the table the kind of folks who will put the story’s goals over those of their character; or, will they act in their own interests seeking maximum advantage?” Obviously, the better I know them the more accurate my assessments will become and this data set is fraught with the potential for errors. For my part, the only difference in these player approaches is a shift of my goals… which usually means abandoning any attempt to tell a cohesive story. I sit back and let them create and solve their own problems and take the opportunity to practice and refine my craft as best as I can. They get what they want (usually treasure and a sense of control) and I get something out of the experience and everyone walks away happy.

In longer term play the build-up of debilities, corruptions, or mutations, and other playability or “balance” issues, etc. have much greater force and importance and may be used in various ways to manipulate the situation. Every GM/Storyteller has their favorite tactics. @ onceler> I feel your frustrations. In my case, his name was Thingerlan the spell cannon. For every point and counter point and such depicted in this thread, I can think of something similar that happened with Thingerlan. He didn’t have the added problem of the healing, but by 5th level he could pump his casting bonus reliably to +9 or more; level of 5 and INT bonus of 3+ everything else. For the spells linked to his magic staff (fly and mend; which were not his choices, the staff was treasure that he studied and learned to use) could be pumped to +10 reliably, and any of his spells could be pumped by an additional +4 bonus twice a day if the occasion could be justified to his patron. His mercurial magic result for Invoke Patron was Psychic focus and he was a battle wizard dedicated to a patron that rewards people for their tactical brilliance and success in battle. So he was regularly pumping up his magic missile spell with a +12 casting bonus; and if one of the clerics got a good roll on their bless spell, they could add another bonus to the casting check. At one point he rolled a 1 and still got a result of 14. I had to figure out how to have a misfire and a technical success at the same time. I went with automatic corruption and a successful casting of the spell and he ended up horribly scared with boils and such. When I told him the result of his disfigurement he just grinned and said: “That’s OK. Chicks dig scars. They’re manly.” On top of all of this, the player himself was just plain lucky with his dice rolls; with spooky consistency even when I’d have everyone use my dice… just to make sure theirs weren’t loaded. It really blew the feel of the scenes when the wizard with a luck score of 5 keeps making 85% or more of his luck checks even when I set the DC’s at 15+.

The recurring theme in the responses on this thread for how to deal with these kinds of situations seems to center on modification of; or some sort of punitive action against character. I disagree. My initial response to the situation as described is that Captain Rainbow isn’t the problem. As has been stated, the player is not one who makes a habit out of this, and the system does most of the work in character generation – so the only thing the player is guilty of is enjoying their good fortune. IMO the only valid concern brought up in this regard is that it has somehow made the game less fun for the rest of the people at the table. I also do not feel that this player has done anything wrong by not voluntarily setting this character aside for retirement or other such ending. I've always felt that players are not responsible for keeping other players happy, that is the GM/Storyteller’s job. My solution is not to penalize the lucky player or force retirement. Nor will I take away their toys: at least, no more than I would for any other player. :twisted:

Instead I would ask the other players: why are they passing up the invitation to go looking around for their own creative ways to build power for their characters? Why should I as a GM/Storyteller reward players for sitting on their back-sides, twiddling their thumbs and letting Captain Rainbow do all the heavy lifting? For that matter, I would be forced to ask myself: how badly have I flubbed things so as to allow characters to consistently get away with twiddling their thumbs? {This last question is not to imply that anyone else is a failure for ending up in the same place, just a reflection of how I would react to the situation if it was me and based upon my own principles. :wink: }

This brings me to the following mitigation tool for those who find that they simply must moderate this kind of event which is already within the rules: the EXP System. Core rules page 26, second bullet point under the description of the EXP system function to be precise. I think handing out 0 EXP is an acceptable option for situations when characters breeze their way effortlessly through what you thought was a devilishly clever and daunting scenario. It happens to everybody eventually when you run games often enough. After an interlude where no one advances for a while, someone will notice. Then you let them know that if they aren’t going to try then they aren’t going to gain; or otherwise enact your solution of choice. Another solution that I found to be particularly effective against Thingerlun was the Spell Resistance Rule I developed and then published in the CCD it reads like this:

“Any creature with this ability subtracts the indicated
amount from the casting check of any wizard or cleric that
is casting a spell directly on the spell resistant creature.
The creature’s entry will list the types of spells or other
actions or abilities that will bypass the resistance. If the
spell resistance reduces the casting check below the
minimum threshold necessary to successfully cast the spell
then the spell fails and may be lost for the day. If the
spell’s casting check is reduced to 1 or less the caster must
check versus mishap, corruption, or deity disapproval if
they fail a luck check against a DC of 14, + 1 per level of
the failed spell.” P.14

The above option in conjunction with the expanded misfire window is a very scary combo to the wizard players and will make them think twice about how they approach their spell casting. But it only works if the corruptions and misfires are something that they are actually afraid of; and many players are simply unconcerned by these events and so a measure of control or ‘balance’ is lost. When I introduced it to the game, it was in the form of an 8HD Drow assassin, and for DCC critters my rule of thumb is Spell resistance = HD noted in the CCD in section 4 on converting creatures from other systems. He rolled up a 24 on magic missile and was reaching for several d12's when I casually informed him that the spell's power was in fact mo more than 1d4+ caster level for damage. I couldn't have gotten a better reaction from him even if I'd reached over the table and slapped the smug expression right off his face. :shock:

Also, I re-read the Wizard Staff spell, and I don’t know if I’m misunderstanding the situation or not, but how is it that Captain Rainbow hasn’t run out of charges in the staff? And if he has, how are the recharges being handled? The spell says that staves can be recharged via special ritual that doesn’t require new materials costs or spell burn to which I say: F*** that! Make them pay the 1000gp and any spellburn every time they recharge that thing. It’s simpler than re-writing a core rule function; and as long as the rule is applied equally then the players can’t really complain too much. That should put the brakes on their one-trick pony parade. IMO, the real problem here is that the one combination is so effective that the players don’t feel the need to look for other more creative solutions.

I have also found that re-emphasizing environmental hazards is another very effective means of keeping everyone occupied while nullifying or moderating powerful characters without it looking like I’m picking on anyone; wizards in particular. A blizzard or monsoon or any other form of severe weather, rocking ship in a heavy sea, etc. will act as some great challenges because they affect everyone and there is nothing for Captain Rainbow (or anyone else) to throw spells at to make it stop. If the GM/Storyteller finds the need to keep mixing things up like this is in itself the problem and they really just don’t want to deal with the occasional statistical marvel that the system kicks out, that’s fine. However, and as a player simply being informed that my intelligence 18 character is going to be inconvenienced or punished simply because I play the character such that he/she/it makes intelligent use of their environment, resources, and uses clever tactics: I’m going to call ‘Shenanigans’ unless the GM is going to apply the idea consistently because as far as I’m concerned I'm just guilty of good role play and being lucky.

If one feels the need to remove the ‘broken’ combinations that lead to too much power; fine, but in fairness and for consistency mustn’t one then denude the system of the ultra-pathetic combinations at the other end of the spectrum? The elf with 3 INT score, or a wizard straddled with the “casting spell-kills-friend” mercurial magic result, or even something like ‘the cleric must go on a quest to heal someone regardless of other needs’ as examples. If the game is re-organized to eliminate one end of the character spectrum without addressing the other; it cannot be claimed that the action is balancing anything. One is simply redirecting the system bias to a more aesthetically pleasing form and running the very real risk of appearing to be picking on one player or class in spite of one’s best efforts and intentions.

Lastly, and directed towards the comment someone put down about how players react to having their toys taken away. The comment used the analogy that if you’re going to put a piece of cake in from of someone and then take it away after one bite. It’s mean, don’t tease them! I’ve run into this before and it bothers me. I think its existence has to do with the inbuilt wealth by level non-sense that has been inculcated into the gaming environment over the last decade or so, but maybe it’s always been there and I just didn’t notice. My initial reaction to this line of complaint when it happens is usually something along the lines of “S**t happens. Maybe next time you’ll be luckier, and it will happen to some other character;” or, “…start searching for better, more creative ideas about holding onto your stuff longer.” The trick to getting away with this is to not pile it up on one character. Share the misery: just don't go overboard with it. This is the secret at the heart of creating an engaging story: knowing how, when, and where to apply misery or relief to the characters. Every book on story-craft talks about how ‘torturing your characters’ is the path to interesting and engaging tales and it is the truth. Seriously, how many successful books, movies, etc. can you name where there wasn’t a significant threat of repercussions from action or inaction on the part of one or more characters? This zeal to balance everything is IMO at the heart of why the main D&D franchise hasn’t been doing so well and why 4.0 is so darn boring.

Anyway, sorry again for the long post and I sincerely hope I haven’t ruffled any feathers. :mrgreen:
oncelor
Hard-Bitten Adventurer
Posts: 155
Joined: Thu Jun 09, 2011 11:55 am

Re: Four fixes for DCC

Post by oncelor »

He's only run out of charges once because he only loses the spell 5% of the time and tends to use spellburn to cast it again before resorting to the staff. The spell was tough at 4th level when his bonus was +9, but he lost it 10% of the time and that seemed to be enough to slow him down. I have contemplated making rolls of natural '2' and '3' automatic losses of spells.

Idris also casts Magic Missile at a +10 bonus (that's the other spell in his staff), but I find that a +10 Magic Missile isn't so nearly powerful as the "Color Spray." It's still pretty powerful though. Sometimes when he runs out of Color Sprays he casts Magic Missiles for a while.

I rule that a roll of '1' on a spell is an automatic fail even if it would succeed with the bonus, c.f. page 12, "A roll of 1 is an automatic miss and often results in a fumbling failure of some kind."
Tortog
Mighty-Thewed Reaver
Posts: 343
Joined: Sat Jun 11, 2011 11:44 pm

Re: Four fixes for DCC

Post by Tortog »

oncelor wrote:He's only run out of charges once because he only loses the spell 5% of the time and tends to use spellburn to cast it again before resorting to the staff. The spell was tough at 4th level when his bonus was +9, but he lost it 10% of the time and that seemed to be enough to slow him down. I have contemplated making rolls of natural '2' and '3' automatic losses of spells.
I see, that makes sense. With the increase in casting prowess the need to draw on the staff is minimized. General question to all, because I'm somewhat confused by the wording in the Wizard Staff spell. When charges are stored, are they a generic battery for any of the available spells; or, are the individual charges tagged to their specific spell? I've been going with the latter, but players have argued for the former so I was wondering what everyone else might be thinking on the subject.
Idris also casts Magic Missile at a +10 bonus (that's the other spell in his staff), but I find that a +10 Magic Missile isn't so nearly powerful as the "Color Spray." It's still pretty powerful though. Sometimes when he runs out of Color Sprays he casts Magic Missiles for a while.


Agreed. But then, Color Spray has always been a powerful spell. Sure, MM can hit any target in range with a fair bit of damage, but unless you kill the target outright they can still fight back. CS will render the opponents helpless and at lower levels of play when most of the monsters are 1-5HD: this spell is devastating... always has been. Over the years, I've always giggled secretly (and breathed a sigh of relief) when players ignore it. The saving grace for the CS spell in older versions is that the DM only had to endure this kind of phenomena until he or she could use critters of 6+ hit dice who escaped the auto effect and had the saves to resist the spell's effects. The DCC system exacerbates the power of this spell because at the upper end of this version it has a nearly 100% chance of affecting everything in a very large area. thus far no one has had this spell, but for my games I've been considering changing the DC equation for this spell for those who get to roll a save to: "Willpower save DC= 1/2 the casting check."

The problem with Thingerlun and his magic missile spell was that by 4th level he was consistently hitting the 20-27 versions of the spell... without spellburn and vaporizing targets right and left. the player had a disturbing ability to hit the 28+ end of the spell table, so it got to be comedic at times.

Also - any wizard that creates a staff is also walking around with the equivalent of a live grenade in their pocket that will go off as soon as the staff takes enough damage... and there are multitudes of ways to accomplish this. Idris may have and 18 INT but what is his Fort save bonus? :twisted: I ask because nowhere in the core rules can I find anything about Item saves... it may be in there and I missed it, if so please feel free to correct me. But with out anything else to fall back on I've been using the standard of: 'character makes save, then items save as well.' So if a player fails his save against a Fireball or Dragon's Breath weapon (and manages to survive the full damage) then all of the player's non-magical gear is destroyed, and magic items get a save roll of their own for Fortitude based attacks. If the item has an intellect then it can have a Willpower save, otherwise it is immune to such damage and items always fail their Reflex saves unless there are extraordinary circumstances.

Without knowing anything about the rest of the party it's hard to say for sure, but have you considered trying the following:
If the party has a cleric or any characters with a generally 'good' moral outlook then said characters and especially clerics of many deities should have serious problems with the rather cowardly act of slitting the throats of the helpless... even if the victims are evil or vicious critters. That kind of story angle has powerful but subtle effect on the reputation of the whole party; especially when the towns they travel through shun them and try to drive them off from fear, or triple the prices on everything so that the characters won't stay longer than absolutely necessary. Then there are bounty hunters, which could be hired by those seeking vengeance, or they may even get hired by the local lord who is worried that the adventurers may decide to linger and threaten to take over his/her/its kingdom. Whenever something like this happened to me in older editions of D&D I'd simply wait for an advantageous moment (from my POV) to release the gibberlings: "number occurring= 1d10 x 40= 40-400 x 1d8hp each = (on average) 800 to 960hp of trouble." At that point it doesn't matter if one of the characters can effect the enemy by the dozens. Just some thoughts on encounters.
I rule that a roll of '1' on a spell is an automatic fail even if it would succeed with the bonus, c.f. page 12, "A roll of 1 is an automatic miss and often results in a fumbling failure of some kind."
I was going to go with that, but at the time it seemed better to go with the corrupted success because it was more dramatic and exciting for the story. I may choose differently next time depending on which result seems to fit the situation best. I tell players at the beginning that I'm prone to these kinds of decisions, so it's no great surprise to them when it happens.

I have another idea that might help to deal with these types of super-powered wizards in general. This is theoretical, untested, and not part of anything I put forward in Liber Arcanum. :wink: Just riffing here, but what if we dropped the '+ level' part of the casting equation? Change it to action die +INT bonus+ what ever bonuses the player can devise/find. To me the logic for this is quite sound because in most cases even the very best of casters (INT 18) will still top out at 23; unless they get a natural 20 on the casting check. In doing so the upper ends of the tables are only accessed 5-10% of the time for any caster that doesn't get to roll a d24 or d30 on the check, use ritual sorcery, or spellburn lots of points. After all, the system lists 25 as the top end of the DC table so I figure limiting wizards (and clerics) to 23 re-establishes the mystery and awe of the upper end spell table results. The logic is further bolstered by the fact that the only characters/NPCs/Creatures that can withstand a spell or the results of any affect with a DC of 26+ is just as 'rock-star' as the caster or whatever is creating the effect.

Lastly, to clarify a point in my last post... I see a huge difference between messing with the characters (even roughly at times) and depriving players of the opportunity to experience both of the extreme ends of the character spectrum. At one end the players have won the lottery. At the other end they are experiencing the short, often tragic existence of such characters as an elf with 3 INT score, or dwarf with 3 STR and/or STAM; which makes the characters in between these extremes seem more alive and playable. Take away both extremes and the ones in the middle seem a bit bland, take away the rock-stars and it deprives the players of the hope that they will be able to someday play that lucky character that can make it to 10th level. Take away the lower end yet leaving in the rock-stars just means that everyone has decided to play a 'super-hero' style game; all have their pros & cons, and largely falling into areas of play style.
oncelor
Hard-Bitten Adventurer
Posts: 155
Joined: Thu Jun 09, 2011 11:55 am

Re: Four fixes for DCC

Post by oncelor »

Tortog wrote:General question to all, because I'm somewhat confused by the wording in the Wizard Staff spell. When charges are stored, are they a generic battery for any of the available spells; or, are the individual charges tagged to their specific spell? I've been going with the latter, but players have argued for the former so I was wondering what everyone else might be thinking on the subject.
I ruled they are tagged to the specific spells.

Thanks for the good suggestions. The party is fighting a lot of undead now (having reached the "Temple of the Eater of the Dead"), and I've ruled that undead cannot become unconscious, and only some can become blind. After this they plan to travel through a gate to a moon around Saturn, Oceanus, and I think I'll create some sort of magic-chaos table that will be rolled every time spells are cast there. This will help balance things for a while.
caveman
Hard-Bitten Adventurer
Posts: 139
Joined: Mon Dec 15, 2003 6:18 pm

Re: Four fixes for DCC

Post by caveman »

I like the idea of adding Corruption chance with Spellburn! The rule change could be a result of overusing spellburn, or a result of a spellburn of 20, or a curse related to the Wizard Staff and could only apply to that spell. That should give pause, and not have terribly wide reaching effects on the game.
Johann
Far-Sighted Wanderer
Posts: 43
Joined: Sun Apr 15, 2012 4:01 am

Re: Four fixes for DCC

Post by Johann »

Tortog wrote:I also think it is of vital importance to keep the venue of the game in mind. The skill-sets and tools involved in handling a 1-off game are entirely different from those used to carefully manage long-term play. [...] I’m convinced that there are two distinct forms of DCCRPG. With the 1-off, or ‘over and done with in an afternoon’ style being how the game is designed to be played. In this capacity it functions brilliantly and I have enjoyed it thoroughly in that capacity.
Your post has been a real eye-opener! In a tightly paced game (e.g. a 1-off or a series of modules that play like 1-offs), spellburn is not much of an issue. Parties don’t rest up in town during the adventure, so the wizard gets one chance to shine via spellburn and must carefully decide when to pull out all stops.

Such a tightly paced game can be achieved through different means:

Player level: Players can press on regardless of low hit points etc. This is appropriately pulpy in style (think Indiana Jones etc.).
Adventure level: Modules can be designed with time limits or a “the only way out is through” approach, so the question “Should we head back to town and rest up for two weeks?” doesn’t come up in the first place.
DM level: A Judge can bring the action to the PCs, if need be. If the PCs retreat from the dungeon the Judge can have the monsters come out and attack the next town etc.

A game methodically paced by the players is a different beast altogether. Megadungeons and, I suspect, wilderness hexcrawls play very differently. A dungeon like The Barrowmaze by Greg Gillespie is not a place one can clear out in an afternoon (or in one go, even if split over several evenings of play). The party must retreat periodically and without any obvious points on when to do so, tactical concerns take over.

And that’s where spellburn-as-written may become a major problem. It's the 15-minute adventuring day conundrum all over again.
User avatar
GnomeBoy
Tyrant Master (Administrator)
Posts: 4126
Joined: Fri Mar 10, 2006 1:46 pm
FLGS: Bizarro World
Location: Left Coast, USA
Contact:

Re: Four fixes for DCC

Post by GnomeBoy »

I've got a draft of a fix for too-heavily-leaned-upon Spellburn, with a mind to submitting it to Crawl! fanzine.

Would there be three or four folks out there currently running campaigns (or short adventures) willing to give them a quick spin? PM me with an e-mail address, if you're interested.
...
Gnome Boy • DCC playtester @ DDC 35 Feb '11. • Beta DL 2111, 7AM PT, 8 June 11.
Playing RPGs since '77 • Quasi-occasional member of the Legion of 8th-Level Fighters.

Link: Here Be 100+ DCC Monsters

bygrinstow.com - The Home of Inner Ham
Tortog
Mighty-Thewed Reaver
Posts: 343
Joined: Sat Jun 11, 2011 11:44 pm

Re: Four fixes for DCC

Post by Tortog »

Johann wrote: {...}
A game methodically paced by the players is a different beast altogether. Megadungeons and, I suspect, wilderness hexcrawls play very differently. A dungeon like The Barrowmaze by Greg Gillespie is not a place one can clear out in an afternoon (or in one go, even if split over several evenings of play). The party must retreat periodically and without any obvious points on when to do so, tactical concerns take over.
Agree with you on points you raised and from my experience the players are more interested in reserving those moments to enhance the drama rather than as a calculated strategy... at least for the shorter duration games. As a Storyteller I find that it's all about matching the right tools to the right situation... the trick is figuring out the larger issues and where things are likely to go pear shaped... before it happens... and that is a skill that can't be taught. That skill-set has to be learned through experience.
And that’s where spellburn-as-written may become a major problem. It's the 15-minute adventuring day conundrum all over again.
Yes, though from my one experience with long-term play, I discovered that the dreaded 15-min adventuring day isn't as likely to occur as it does in other systems. In DCC system the fact that the spells are only lost through failure coupled with the idea that the regaining of spell power isn't linked to sleeping for 8 hours means that HP levels and access to healing magic are the largest variables in how far characters press on each day. I found this to be true despite the fact that I was actually defaulting to the standard 8hr sleep to recharge casters - mostly out of habit. :oops: The fact that natural healing is so slow acted as an additional reminder that stopping to rest really won't return enough HP or stats to make it worth trying to find a defensible location to hole-up for the night... :twisted:
cthulhudarren
Cold-Blooded Diabolist
Posts: 471
Joined: Mon Feb 09, 2009 9:14 am
Location: Cube Farm of Alien Geometry

Re: Four fixes for DCC

Post by cthulhudarren »

In regards to spellburning,I find it very interesting that the game goes differently as single session vs. campaign. I had not considered that! I also don't quite understand how it works if the wizard does not have a patron. I guess it would just be blood then?
User avatar
Skyscraper
Steely-Eyed Heathen-Slayer
Posts: 660
Joined: Wed Jul 04, 2012 12:23 pm
Location: Montreal

Re: Four fixes for DCC

Post by Skyscraper »

cthulhudarren wrote:In regards to spellburning,I find it very interesting that the game goes differently as single session vs. campaign. I had not considered that! I also don't quite understand how it works if the wizard does not have a patron. I guess it would just be blood then?
I think you can explain magic as an entity in itself. E.g. to tap into the kind of power required to achieve THIS kind of result (spellburn 10 points), you need to sacrifice something that is important to you... Very important... Like one of those fingers...
Maledict Brothbreath, level 4 warrior, STR 16 (+2) AGI 7 (-1) STA 12 PER 9 INT 10 LUCK 15 (+1), AC: 16 Refl: +1 Fort: +2 Will: +1; lawful; Armor of the Lion and Lily's Blade.

Brother Sufferus, level 4 cleric, STR 13 (+1) AGI 15 (+1) STA 11 PER 13 (+1) INT 10 LUCK 9, AC: 11 (13 if wounded, 15 if down to half hit points), Refl: +3 Fort: +2 Will: +3, chaotic, Robe of the Faith, Scourge of the Maimed One, Darts of Pain.
Tortog
Mighty-Thewed Reaver
Posts: 343
Joined: Sat Jun 11, 2011 11:44 pm

Re: Four fixes for DCC

Post by Tortog »

cthulhudarren wrote: {...} I also don't quite understand how it works if the wizard does not have a patron. I guess it would just be blood then?
Well, I'm not interested in removing patrons, but it is an interesting theoretical inquiry... :mrgreen:

I've always thought of magic as a neutral force like gravity. The model I've been working with is that patrons aren't the source of the magic, but they do have vastly superior knowledge of how to manipulate this force. In other systems and other versions of D&D style games, there is usually a "school of magic" or a "master-apprentice" relationship where the knowledge of how to access and manipulate magic is passes from one generation to the next. So in my games, patrons are just another type of teacher that can be sought out. The elder races (anything that is intelligent and not human) still use the schools and master-apprentice models for the most part, but the humans in my game worlds tend to be a bit short sighted in this regard. With no real schools of magic, and no elder masters to learn from so they turn to supernatural beings... and these beings as it turns out... are greedy, demanding, and petulantly self-focused. So much so that patrons require the supplicant to sacrifice of themselves JUST to be able to invoke the patron's name. I imagine that when a caster is spellburning, the patron is taking that sacrifice and somehow using it to magnify or enhance the flow of magic to the supplicant.

However, using the model above, if you take away the patrons... to whom or what are the casters sacrificing their blood (or whatever) in order to receive a benefit? What then is the mechanism for returning on the investment of blood, fingers, or the still beating heart of your enemy? Cutting off a finger and dedicating the act to the force of gravity won't help me fly of the top of a building... gravity is non-sentient and doesn't care. IMO if you remove patrons, then it's probably best to remove spellburning mechanics completely which still leaves them with the Luck burn mechanic for when they simply MUST enhance their casting attempts. Though you could keep the spellburning mechanic, but you'll need to come up with a means to explain things that will remain plausible for your players... assuming they even care where the boost is coming from. 8)
-------------------------------------------------
FWIW, if you take away the deities and keep the patrons, it doesn't really screw up the game mechanics. The only things that clerics can provide that wizards can't are healing and turning the unholy... which are simple to fix with additional class powers/spells. This paradigm shift fits well within the model above, because a wizard with the right spell can channel magical energy into nearly miraculous displays of healing, or to turn away nasty supernatural critters/spirits. :wink:
cthulhudarren
Cold-Blooded Diabolist
Posts: 471
Joined: Mon Feb 09, 2009 9:14 am
Location: Cube Farm of Alien Geometry

Re: Four fixes for DCC

Post by cthulhudarren »

Tortog wrote:
cthulhudarren wrote: {...} I also don't quite understand how it works if the wizard does not have a patron. I guess it would just be blood then?
Well, I'm not interested in removing patrons, but it is an interesting theoretical inquiry... :mrgreen:

I've always thought of magic as a neutral force like gravity. The model I've been working with is that patrons aren't the source of the magic, but they do have vastly superior knowledge of how to manipulate this force. In other systems and other versions of D&D style games, there is usually a "school of magic" or a "master-apprentice" relationship where the knowledge of how to access and manipulate magic is passes from one generation to the next. So in my games, patrons are just another type of teacher that can be sought out. The elder races (anything that is intelligent and not human) still use the schools and master-apprentice models for the most part, but the humans in my game worlds tend to be a bit short sighted in this regard. With no real schools of magic, and no elder masters to learn from so they turn to supernatural beings... and these beings as it turns out... are greedy, demanding, and petulantly self-focused. So much so that patrons require the supplicant to sacrifice of themselves JUST to be able to invoke the patron's name. I imagine that when a caster is spellburning, the patron is taking that sacrifice and somehow using it to magnify or enhance the flow of magic to the supplicant.

However, using the model above, if you take away the patrons... to whom or what are the casters sacrificing their blood (or whatever) in order to receive a benefit? What then is the mechanism for returning on the investment of blood, fingers, or the still beating heart of your enemy? Cutting off a finger and dedicating the act to the force of gravity won't help me fly of the top of a building... gravity is non-sentient and doesn't care. IMO if you remove patrons, then it's probably best to remove spellburning mechanics completely which still leaves them with the Luck burn mechanic for when they simply MUST enhance their casting attempts. Though you could keep the spellburning mechanic, but you'll need to come up with a means to explain things that will remain plausible for your players... assuming they even care where the boost is coming from. 8)
-------------------------------------------------
FWIW, if you take away the deities and keep the patrons, it doesn't really screw up the game mechanics. The only things that clerics can provide that wizards can't are healing and turning the unholy... which are simple to fix with additional class powers/spells. This paradigm shift fits well within the model above, because a wizard with the right spell can channel magical energy into nearly miraculous displays of healing, or to turn away nasty supernatural critters/spirits. :wink:
I certainly do not want to remove patrons! But some wizards may choose to go it alone. So how do they spellburn and what does it entail? I thought magic can be powered through blood (lifeforce) and see that as valid. And I like the limitation that to spellburn high numbers you will have to cut something off! It is a built in deterrant.
malek256
Ill-Fated Peasant
Posts: 3
Joined: Sat May 07, 2022 9:52 am
FLGS: Devil's Bench

Re: Four fixes for DCC

Post by malek256 »

Have you considered a small house rule? Each time the spell succeeds, a cumulative -1 penalty on the same spell is applied. Restoration of the negatives could be 100% next day after sufficient rest (bed rest, possibly only 50% reduction if not resting in a proper bed, etc.) or +1 restored per hour. This seems to be it would very cleanly address the issue while encouraging use of different spells and keeping to the spirit of the original intent (especially if the +1/hour restore is used).
malek256
Ill-Fated Peasant
Posts: 3
Joined: Sat May 07, 2022 9:52 am
FLGS: Devil's Bench

Re: Four fixes for DCC

Post by malek256 »

It also occurs to me that the problem isn't so much the color spray nor even the staff (although this to me, seems like spells that give permanent bonuses like enchanting potions, scrolls, staffs should not be rolled for but tied directly to level or some such with a "yes you did" roll or "no it fumbled" roll) but the mercurial magic which effectively either ruins the spell caster (low results) or makes them way OP (healing all the time!) It is mercurial however - maybe that should just stop. As in, mercurial should be re-rolled for a spell with each player level gained if either player or referee call for it?
Last edited by malek256 on Thu Jan 05, 2023 2:33 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Post Reply

Return to “Rules discussion”