BETA: What has been learned?

[jmucchiello]

It's probably too soon for this but I'd love to know (as soon as possible) from Joe and the guys what might be changing now that we've spent a few days picking at the beta release and coming up with our own suggested changes.

[goodmangames]

Still processing it all!

There's been an enormous amount of feedback, which is great, but there's a lot to go through.

I'm definitely changing thief skills back to d20-based vs. d% based.

I'm doing a lot of thinking about, well, a lot of other things.

I also want to hear more actual playtest reports versus "just" reading comments. I firmly believe that games are meant to be played and there are a lot of elements that may "read" one way but work out differently in play.

Can I get back to you in a month or so?

[Ogrepuppy]

I firmly believe that games are meant to be played and there are a lot of elements that may "read" one way but work out differently in play.

Guilty as charged. Trust me, I wish I had a play test group.

[jmucchiello]

I also want to hear more actual playtest reports versus "just" reading comments. I firmly believe that games are meant to be played and there are a lot of elements that may "read" one way but work out differently in play.

Oh, I understand. But even with this in mind, you've been swayed about thief skills. Although I wish you had called them Ability Checks.

Can I get back to you in a month or so?

I'm sure if I forget, someone will hold you to that.

[Stainless]

There's been an enormous amount of feedback, which is great, but there's a lot to go through.

Well then, you got what you asked for!

[smathis]

I also want to hear more actual playtest reports versus "just" reading comments. I firmly believe that games are meant to be played and there are a lot of elements that may "read" one way but work out differently in play.

I'm running a few playtests this week. I've pre-genned a thief for just this reason. As it turns out his Luck score is a 5 and it applies to Find/Disable Traps. Gotta love random chargen!

As I mentioned in another thread, I'm ambivalent on the Thief skills. I don't mind if they're percentile or d20 bonuses.

But what do we roll against if they're d20 bonuses? Will Thieves have something like Target20 where they roll whatever die, add their bonus and try to beat a 20? Or a 15? Or maybe the target number shifts down as they get more skilled while the bonus increases here and there?

I hate to use "skill points" but it might be nice to be able to select what abilities improve. That way, I can have a Thief who's a master at Traps or Read Languages but sucks at Backstabbing and Pick Pocketing. Making the class more of a tailor-made skillmonkey class, instead of a vanilla Thief that fits-all-sizes.

I'll report back when I get some feedback on the Thief skills. The only thing I want to keep is the wide array of abilities. I mean, I don't mind if some get merged, like Sneak Silently and Hide in Shadows. But I want to keep as many of them separate as possible. I wouldn't mind keeping Find Trap and Disable Trap separate because I could see having a character whose very perceptive but lacks the know-how to disarm complex mechanical devices.

[goodmangames]

But what do we roll against if they're d20 bonuses? Will Thieves have something like Target20 where they roll whatever die, add their bonus and try to beat a 20? Or a 15? Or maybe the target number shifts down as they get more skilled while the bonus increases here and there?

Thieves roll against a DC for the given activity -- i.e., "DC 10 to pick the lock on this door" or "DC 15 to disarm this trap." Over the course of the various adventures we've been designing for the system, there are many examples of DCs. In general Harley's tend to be too high and more thieves die in his adventures than in mine. Heh heh, sorry Harley, couldn't resist. But my point is we were defining a "menu" of appropriate DCs for given situations, which would eventually be summarized in the judge's section of the rules as examples for homebrew adventures: an average lock, a good lock, a tough lock, etc. I'll have to dust those off along with the thief d20-based skills. I do want to avoid the "difficulty creep" of some editions where the DCs increase with the thief's levels. The best thief in the world shouldn't find himself constantly encountering the best locks in the world as his skill level increases...

[Harley Stroh]

In general Harley's tend to be too high and more thieves die in his adventures than in mine. .... I do want to avoid the "difficulty creep" of some editions where the DCs increase with the thief's levels. The best thief in the world shouldn't find himself constantly encountering the best locks in the world as his skill level increases...

It's only funny because it is true. The core book may need a rule along then lines of "lower any of Harley's DCs by 5."

//H

[jmucchiello]

Apparently Harley needs to read the skills chapter again.

"DC 20 tasks are hero’s work. Only the most super-human characters attempt and succeed at these tasks."

That means a pedestrian lock is just a DC 5 or so. That section on DCs is why I suggested d10 for ability checks when attempting a non-class appropriate task. That solves the ever inflating DC issue found in 3e/4e. And it eliminates the needs for the concept of skills. (No skills! No skills! No skills!)

[smathis]

It's only funny because it is true. The core book may need a rule along then lines of "lower any of Harley's DCs by 5."

We kill Thieves because we want to teach players that "Crime Doesn't Pay". It's our own little "I'm Batman" moment. I kid, of course.

I kill Thieves because they're PCs and I like having the monsters sing "We are the Champions" after a TPK.

But only if there's a group of them. Solos sing "Somebody to Love".

That section on DCs is why I suggested d10 for ability checks when attempting a non-class appropriate task. That solves the ever inflating DC issue found in 3e/4e. And it eliminates the needs for the concept of skills. (No skills! No skills! No skills!)

In case it's been missed in the flood of threads and posts, I whole-heartedly +1 this idea. I think it's a great one. Like really, really great.

[jmucchiello]

In case it's been missed in the flood of threads and posts, I whole-heartedly +1 this idea. I think it's a great one. Like really, really great.

Comments like this is why I started this thread. I'd like to know if the suggestions that lots of people have given a +d30 to (I did it first!!) have any chance of making it into the final product.

Things like: "CLASS DIE for all classes", "No skills, just ability checks (and d10 for actions inappropriate for class)", "Birth Augur as a flat +1 (to mitigate fluctuating luck)", "get rid of infravision", "smaller funky dice in place of big negative modifiers", "No spell levels", "scrap electrum pieces", and others seem to be very popular (and I've only started about half of these but I'm sure I've missed something really good). Will they see the rulebook? (That's rhetorical as I've already given them a month to respond.)

[smathis]

Comments like this is why I started this thread. I'd like to know if the suggestions that lots of people have given a +d30 to (I did it first!!) have any chance of making it into the final product.

On a side note, I used the d10 rule last night in a playtest of "Portal Under the Stars". It worked really well and was intuitive -- in that the players understood without asking why their Farmer had to roll a d10 instead of a d20 to try and pick a lock. And why they rolled a d20 to try to force open the door instead.

It was just one of those rules tweaks that needed no explanation at all.

[jmucchiello]

I finally invented something that works!!!

[Ogrepuppy]

We kill Thieves because we want to teach players that "Crime Doesn't Pay". It's our own little "I'm Batman" moment. I kid, of course.

I kill Thieves because they're PCs and I like having the monsters sing "We are the Champions" after a TPK.

But only if there's a group of them. Solos sing "Somebody to Love".

That section on DCs is why I suggested d10 for ability checks when attempting a non-class appropriate task. That solves the ever inflating DC issue found in 3e/4e. And it eliminates the needs for the concept of skills. (No skills! No skills! No skills!)

In case it's been missed in the flood of threads and posts, I whole-heartedly +1 this idea. I think it's a great one. Like really, really great.

Wow, yeah. Terrific idea!

[jmucchiello]

In case you still haven't found it: No Skills Chapter

[jmucchiello]

I'm bumping this because there's been an influx of new posters on the board lately and I wanted them to see it. I also wanted to keep the ideas in here in people's minds.

Finally, have there been any other well-received fan ideas beyond the list I reprint from above here?

Things like: "CLASS DIE for all classes", "No skills, just ability checks (and d10 for actions inappropriate for class)", "Birth Augur as a flat +1 (to mitigate fluctuating luck)", "get rid of infravision", "smaller funky dice in place of big negative modifiers", "No spell levels", "scrap electrum pieces", and others seem to be very popular (and I've only started about half of these but I'm sure I've missed something really good).

Race as Race. Just because DCCRPG uses Race as Class does not prevent DCCRPG from ALSO using Race as Race. The Race as Race section of the rulebook would explain the difference between 0-level humans, 0-level elves, 0-level dwarves and 0-level halflings. Answers to questions like "What is the movement rate of a 0-level human?" would be answered in the section of the rulebook.

Spells having individual spell failure charts related to the effects of the spell.

EDIT: Updated with a few more common alternative rules in recent threads.

[tithian]

Re: Infravision

In my games I've always ruled that only Dwarves have the ability to see in the dark, and that they see a spectrum of red to black. I don't concern myself with radiant heat energy because it just too difficult to imagine, and trying to describe infravision accurately often bogs down the game. If players press me for the scientific rationale for dwarven dark-vision, I tell them that the dwarf's pupils casts a subtle, almost imperceptible light, which illuminates nearby objects just enough for the dwarf's sensitive eyes to register. The ability is not without it's shortcomings though. Dwarves eyes are highly light-sensitive, requiring them to wear dark goggles in daylight or be blinded, and in the dark the Dwarf's eyes are visible to other dark-vision creatures.

I don't consider elves and halflings to be natural underground-dwellers, so they wouldn't have evolved this ability.


Re: D10 v D20 for non-class actions

Would a 1 be a fumble and a 10 be an automatic success? Statistically that presents a problem.

It's seems logical that there should be a higher probability of fumbles for non-class actions, but not for automatic success. At the same time, nothing that is possible should ever be made impossible by a game mechanic. I propose a rule: if you roll a 10, you get to roll again, and if you roll another 10, you get an automatic success.

[finarvyn]

I was tempted to necro this thread myself, or to start a "one month later" one, but each time I started it I couldn't decide where to take it.

Having a thread full of "well, in my game I..." and/or "I think we should..." posts seems useless because we already have threads for most of the individual topics. Rehashing it here simply makes it hard to find later.

I've pondered going through threads to look for Joseph's comments on various issues, but at present I'm not sure that he's added much different from his initial vision for the game. What we need is to have Joseph weigh in on where he sees the game going and then we can playtest it that way and offer additional feedback.

That's the way I see it, anyway.

[tithian]

Sorry man, I'm just trying to help.

I'll just shove off then.

[finarvyn]

I don't want you to shove off. I'm just saying that the best place for discussion on various topics is in the thread on those same topics.

We can't do much here until Joseph gives his say.

[Coffeedragon]

That solves the ever inflating DC issue found in 3e/4e. And it eliminates the needs for the concept of skills. (No skills! No skills! No skills!)

I'm confused. (it happens easily, bear with me)
If there are no skills, how does a character get better at something he does session after session?

Take climbing for example. A group ventures down into a labyrinth of caves and spends a week or two spelunking. The thief has a climb walls 'ability' that is garuanteed to improve when he levels up, but what of the warrior and the others who have scaled just as many walls and climbed just as many ropes? Surely their skills at climbing will improve?

If we're using the d10 principle, we could bump the character up to a d20 to reflect the improvement, but what if they're using a d20? How do they improve?

As for the 'ever inflating DC issue', if your party is facing the same challenges session after session, month after month, you will surely soon reach a point where there is no challenge at all?
I agree that DC's shouldn't creep up just because the party's level does, but as the adventurers get better at what they do, they tackle riskier 'jobs' - it's human (and demihuman) nature!

[jmucchiello]

Read the no skills source thread. The point is the word "skill" does not exist because this is a class-based RPG. If you can convince the DM that Wizards are natural climbers, then you get the d20 die to make "an ability check (be it Str or Agil) when attempting to climb). Else, you get the d10 die to making similar ability checks.

Ability checks in place of named skills is how oD&D, B/X, BD&D Holmes, and AD&D1 worked for many years. NWPs in Unearthed Arcana screwed it up. And every subsequent edition of D&D has made it worse.

[jmucchiello]

I don't want you to shove off. I'm just saying that the best place for discussion on various topics is in the thread on those same topics.

Exactly, this is not a thread for DISCUSSING alternate rules. It is a place for gathering references to discussions of alternate rules where there is a ground swell of user support. Many people in the No Infravision thread have noted support for it. Likewise for all the other things I've listed above. My request was for people to point out similar alt rules that I have left out (probably because I didn't notice their popularity) because it is much easier for me to talk about the alt rules I like and I don't want to leave others out.

Speaking of which, I think Spells with failure tables built in is close to becoming a common alt rule. I'm not sure because I'm close to the idea. From page 3 of the Limiting Corruption thread: http://www.goodman-games.com/forums/vie ... 0&start=50 This and Race as Race has been added to the list above.

[talmor]

I agree that DC's shouldn't creep up just because the party's level does, but as the adventurers get better at what they do, they tackle riskier 'jobs' - it's human (and demihuman) nature!

Part of it is narration--at level 1 the players climb the ruined moathouse or scale up the hill. At level 10, they're scaling the Cliffs of Insanity or the Flying Fortress of the Mad Lich Faizon. The DC remains the same.

If the players have an issue with this, make a point of it being a "comparable" DC--it represents the difficult FOR THEM, not for generic 0 level farmers.

Alternately, you can bump them up die for certain roles. Players climbing alot, bump them up to a D12 or D14 or D16. Of course, all this time out in the woods and wilderness has affected their social skills--they're rolling D8 or D6 when it comes to scheming and politicking.

I haven't run it yet, but the D10/D20 split seems pretty elegant to me. Reminds me of older games, where things were simple chances (like, 1 in 3 to spot a lizard man in the water, regardless of class or level). The ever escalating DC was one of my big issues with 3rd ed, and why I gave it up.

[geordie racer]

I don't want you to shove off. I'm just saying that the best place for discussion on various topics is in the thread on those same topics.

We can't do much here until Joseph gives his say.

I think the whole board's at an impasse at the moment apart from a few cool ideas. Until we know how the power curve is going to be spread over 10 levels (splitting gains between levels still?) it's hard to crunch the numbers.

As regards Actual Play - there seems to be a lot of funnel activity (understandably) but little beyond that. There's this impression out on the blogs that this is a gritty non-heroic game, which maybe doesn't tie in with the pulpy heroics in Appendix N.