BETA: What has been learned?

[meinvt]

My recommendation is to focus on the core rules and a few key variants with a thought to what systems are easily substituted with a pop-in replacement. A new set of occupation charts? Easy to pop-in. New spells? East to pop-in. A different Halfling for those of us inspired by Tolkein? Easy to pop-in.

Changes to spell casting resolution such as corruption and fumbles? No skills and a class die for all classes? Pretty big.

Different power curve for armor class, hit points and experience points? Very hard to change, especially given the material in modules, etc.

[abk108]

My recommendation is to focus on the core rules and a few key variants with a thought to what systems are easily substituted with a pop-in replacement. A new set of occupation charts? Easy to pop-in. New spells? East to pop-in. A different Halfling for those of us inspired by Tolkein? Easy to pop-in.

Changes to spell casting resolution such as corruption and fumbles? No skills and a class die for all classes? Pretty big.

Different power curve for armor class, hit points and experience points? Very hard to change, especially given the material in modules, etc.

+1.

By the way, when the Beta testing is over, anybody looking for any optional rule could check these forums, if GG created some subforums with "official extra rules, spells and stuff"
Doing it online should be a lot easier for GG, and users wouldn't have to worry about buying a 600 pp book for 80$ in the end.

[geordie racer]

Yes, the idea I like the most is that a wizard can burn a point of Luck to offset a corruption result.

On a similar note, I've also been playing with a "cosmic balance" rule that every fumble on an attack roll restores one point of burned Luck. It can't take you past your starting max but can restore a lost point..

Both of these are good ideas, I particularly like the second one. Keep at it

[DCCfan]

Yes, the idea I like the most is that a wizard can burn a point of Luck to offset a corruption result.

On a similar note, I've also been playing with a "cosmic balance" rule that every fumble on an attack roll restores one point of burned Luck. It can't take you past your starting max but can restore a lost point..

Both of these are good ideas, I particularly like the second one. Keep at it

I like this second one too. Appendix N is full of characters with what seams like an endless supply of luck.

[Stainless]

Hmmm, with a 1 in 20 chance of a fumble, I can see Luck points being spent like water. Then, rather than for life-and-death situations, Luck will be used for trivial things. I can also see some metagaming going on where a player spends some luck and then picks random fights with insignificants just to swing their sword in the hope of a fumble. The GM will have to be wary of this and work at making things a bit more surprising.

[finarvyn]

Hmmm, with a 1 in 20 chance of a fumble, I can see Luck points being spent like water. Then, rather than for life-and-death situations, Luck will be used for trivial things.

I think it all comes down to the way the players percieve the style of the game. I've used a 1 in 20 chance of a fumble for years and we never had Luck points. The fumble often represents a stumble, a dropped weapon, or something that causes a missed attack the next round. My players would never dream of wasting a Luck point on something like that because they have dealt with those things for years.

My experience with Luck is exactly the opposite, that they are afraid to use it in a critical situation because there might be an even bigger one coming up soon. (We have tried something similar with 7th Sea and with D&D 4E and this was the result constantly.)

So, I'd say it all comes down to how you present it. If you give out lots of Luck points players will spend them like currancy, but if you are stingy players will hourde them.

Just my two cents.

[Stainless]

I'm not sure you understand my point or possibly I've misunderstood Joseph's point.

You spend a Luck point which under the current rules would be permanently gone. But under the proposed rules, the player would know they'll get that spent luck point back the next time they roll a fumble. On average, that will be once in every 20 swings of the sword. So just pick a fight with someone with reasonable armour and/or HP (a combat where there'll be some too and fro) and start chopping. Sooner or later you'll roll a fumble and wha-la, your Luck has just been recharged. Rinse and repeat.

Hmmm, with a 1 in 20 chance of a fumble, I can see Luck points being spent like water. Then, rather than for life-and-death situations, Luck will be used for trivial things.

I think it all comes down to the way the players percieve the style of the game. I've used a 1 in 20 chance of a fumble for years and we never had Luck points. The fumble often represents a stumble, a dropped weapon, or something that causes a missed attack the next round. My players would never dream of wasting a Luck point on something like that because they have dealt with those things for years.

My experience with Luck is exactly the opposite, that they are afraid to use it in a critical situation because there might be an even bigger one coming up soon. (We have tried something similar with 7th Sea and with D&D 4E and this was the result constantly.)

So, I'd say it all comes down to how you present it. If you give out lots of Luck points players will spend them like currancy, but if you are stingy players will hourde them.

Just my two cents.

[fjw70]

I'm not sure you understand my point or possibly I've misunderstood Joseph's point.

You spend a Luck point which under the current rules would be permanently gone. But under the proposed rules, the player would know they'll get that spent luck point back the next time they roll a fumble. On average, that will be once in every 20 swings of the sword. So just pick a fight with someone with reasonable armour and/or HP (a combat where there'll be some too and fro) and start chopping. Sooner or later you'll roll a fumble and wha-la, your Luck has just been recharged. Rinse and repeat.

Hmmm, with a 1 in 20 chance of a fumble, I can see Luck points being spent like water. Then, rather than for life-and-death situations, Luck will be used for trivial things.

I think it all comes down to the way the players percieve the style of the game. I've used a 1 in 20 chance of a fumble for years and we never had Luck points. The fumble often represents a stumble, a dropped weapon, or something that causes a missed attack the next round. My players would never dream of wasting a Luck point on something like that because they have dealt with those things for years.

My experience with Luck is exactly the opposite, that they are afraid to use it in a critical situation because there might be an even bigger one coming up soon. (We have tried something similar with 7th Sea and with D&D 4E and this was the result constantly.)

So, I'd say it all comes down to how you present it. If you give out lots of Luck points players will spend them like currancy, but if you are stingy players will hourde them.

Just my two cents.

That can be fixed by the GM by not allowing luck to be gained in random meta-gamey fights, or 20 of the guy's friends suddenly show up and the PC needs to spend more luck getting away from them.

[GnomeBoy]

I think Marv was posting a little early in the morning, so maybe we'll forgive his misreading this time...

Personally, I like the Cosmic Balance rule -- and can't say I see natural 1s come up so often that it would make spending Luck become trivial (IME). Especially since it can only get you up to your normal total, which might not be fantastic to begin with...

[abk108]

I'm not sure you understand my point or possibly I've misunderstood Joseph's point.

You spend a Luck point which under the current rules would be permanently gone. But under the proposed rules, the player would know they'll get that spent luck point back the next time they roll a fumble. On average, that will be once in every 20 swings of the sword. So just pick a fight with someone with reasonable armour and/or HP (a combat where there'll be some too and fro) and start chopping. Sooner or later you'll roll a fumble and wha-la, your Luck has just been recharged. Rinse and repeat.

That reminds me of that South Park episode where the kids play WoW and they decide to hunt in the woods 6 millions boars, because they gave 2 exp each.
This is a Pen & Paper RPG, it's not just about the players, it's not just a game. It's also about the judge, who should have as much fun as the players running the adventure. Meta-gaming is a player vs judge situation.... and i'm sorry, but judge always wins. And fun often loses.

[meinvt]

I'm not sure you understand my point or possibly I've misunderstood Joseph's point.

You spend a Luck point which under the current rules would be permanently gone. But under the proposed rules, the player would know they'll get that spent luck point back the next time they roll a fumble. On average, that will be once in every 20 swings of the sword. So just pick a fight with someone with reasonable armour and/or HP (a combat where there'll be some too and fro) and start chopping. Sooner or later you'll roll a fumble and wha-la, your Luck has just been recharged. Rinse and repeat.

I'm not sure you're experiencing the same game in actual play test that I am. Consider a "typical" level 1 character. They let's say they got a d8 for hit points going to level 1, so they have on average 2.5 hp from level 0, and 4.5 hp from level 1. For a total of 7 hit points. They also have gotten a bit of armor and a shield. Let's call it AC of 14.

Now, in my experience an AC of 14 and 7 hp means that every combat is potentially life and death, even against a 'mook'. Let's consider they are fighting an opponent that gets only a +1 to hit and does 1d6 damage with no bonus. On average for every swing they take the opponent will do 1.4 points of damage, disregarding a critical (that is they will be hit 40% of the time for an average of 3.5 damage). If the opponent gets a critical there is a reasonable chance it will kill the character, let's call it a 3% chance per round of dying. Meanwhile, if the character gets a fumble there is a slight chance they'll also damage themselves and die. Let's give that another 1% chance a round (I can't be bothered with the exact math).

So, for your 5% chance per round to get a luck point back, you have about 4% chance per round of going to 0 hp. Meanwhile, on average you can only do this for about 4 rounds on average before you need to run and heal (if you haven't killed the mook first). So, you'll need to find three of these combats to have a coin toss as to whether you get that luck point back. Obviously if you fight someone with a longsword (d8 damage) then there is a 10%+ chance per combat round that you are killed, so not worth it at all.

[Stainless]

I agree with all of your points. I had mentioned initially that the GM could control this by making things interesting for a player who tries it. Never the less, in my experience many players pervert rules in unexpected ways (my current gaming group is in now way included in this). I'm just voicing this as a potential 'loop hole' that should be considered and evaluated on a risk-benefit basis.

[shaggykorean]

limited run leatherette cover variant for DCC RPG?

yes please!

[Stainless]

limited run leatherette cover variant for DCC RPG?

yes please!

I forgot to say "Yes please" to this as well. By any chance would this be the same as the Mongoose RuneQuest II books?

[finarvyn]

I think Marv was posting a little early in the morning, so maybe we'll forgive his misreading this time...

You called that one. I went back and re-read Joseph’s post. I totally missed this:

On a similar note, I've also been playing with a "cosmic balance" rule that every fumble on an attack roll restores one point of burned Luck. It can't take you past your starting max but can restore a lost point.

Oops.

I'm not sure you understand my point or possibly I've misunderstood Joseph's point.

Nope, you're find and I totally blew it. Your point makes a lot more sense now that I re-read the “cosmic balance” rule. I'm not sure what I was thinking, other than as a word-association to the word "luck." (See word, post random paragraph.)

Personally, I like the Cosmic Balance rule -- and can't say I see natural 1s come up so often that it would make spending Luck become trivial (IME). Especially since it can only get you up to your normal total, which might not be fantastic to begin with...

Maybe instead of a natural 1 the rule could be that a natural 20 gives one either a critical hit or allows the character to regain a lost luck point.

The idea of benefiting from a fumble just seems kind of creepy.

[Stainless]

Maybe instead of a natural 1 the rule could be that a natural 20 gives one either a critical hit or allows the character to regain a lost luck point.

The idea of benefiting from a fumble just seems kind of creepy.

+d6

I was also instinctively thinking that regaining Luck should follow a demonstration of being lucky. I was thinking that the Luck reclaim should happen on a natural 20 but that seemed like double dipping. I should have thought about the obvious simple fix, as you've described. The Natural 20 means you've got lucky. Now choose your form of luck (but only one).

However, I don't think it should be extrapolated backwards such that on a natural 1 you get to choose either a fumble or a -1 to Luck. That just seems like a step too far.

[abk108]

Maybe instead of a natural 1 the rule could be that a natural 20 gives one either a critical hit or allows the character to regain a lost luck point.

The idea of benefiting from a fumble just seems kind of creepy.

+d6

I was also instinctively thinking that regaining Luck should follow a demonstration of being lucky. I was thinking that the Luck reclaim should happen on a natural 20 but that seemed like double dipping. I should have thought about the obvious simple fix, as you've described. The Natural 20 means you've got lucky. Now choose your form of luck (but only one).

However, I don't think it should be extrapolated backwards such that on a natural 1 you get to choose either a fumble or a -1 to Luck. That just seems like a step too far.

To me the Luck stat of a PC should balance off the luck of a player. With the "fumble=Luck" a very unlucky player who rolls tons of 1s will get his Luck replenished so he can adjust his other rolls. A very lucky player who never gets a fumble shouldn't be even more rewarded.

Remember, Luck is just a perceived order in what are the rules of chaos and probability, so it really doesn't exist. Since this is a GAME, and it is meant to be FUN, i think it's ok to try and balance out in-game luck and out-of-game luck as much as possible.

[Stainless]

Hmmm, well I'd have to disagree that there is anything such as luck in the real world. It's all just probability.

[abk108]

Hmmm, well I'd have to disagree that there is anything such as luck in the real world. It's all just probability.

maybe i wasn't clear in my post, but i said that in the second paragraph. What i meant is that luck is just the way that we perceive probability. However, since we are playing a game and the aim is to have fun (for everybody), we should take into account the players' perception of Luck, even if it's not real.

The point is, probabilistically, giving luck on a 20 or on a 1 is the same. But from the point of view of a player who seems to be constantly getting 1s, getting at least a small boon back is going to make the session more enjoyable for him, i think. The player who seems to be getting loads of 20s won't say "damn! i wanted to fumble to get 1 Luck back!" (unless he's metagaming) because in general crits are already good enough.

Besides, this would be consistent with the suggestion i think i read somewhere, saying that Luck awards could be given for particularly unlucky events, like : you are captured and thrown into jail by goblins, now the success of your quest seems highly unlikely. Regain 1d3 Luck.

[bholmes4]

The point is, probabilistically, giving luck on a 20 or on a 1 is the same. But from the point of view of a player who seems to be constantly getting 1s, getting at least a small boon back is going to make the session more enjoyable for him, i think. The player who seems to be getting loads of 20s won't say "damn! i wanted to fumble to get 1 Luck back!" (unless he's metagaming) because in general crits are already good enough.

Besides, this would be consistent with the suggestion i think i read somewhere, saying that Luck awards could be given for particularly unlucky events, like : you are captured and thrown into jail by goblins, now the success of your quest seems highly unlikely. Regain 1d3 Luck.

I like this. It reminds me a bit of Burning Wheel where you actually purposefully cause setbacks for your character to gain a type of "luck" (Artha I believe) to be used later, when you really need it. Gaining a luck point for a fumble (or possibly a really unlucky event, not so sure about this though) could turn a frustrating session around in to a fun one at the end for a player when they finally spend their gained luck.

I have been toying with the idea of throwing the players a white glass bead for certain things which can be spent as luck points. They would be a "buffer" before they spend actual luck ability points and would likely be lost at the end of a session (or max out at 3 beads or something). Awarding beads for fumbles or certain unlucky events might be the way to start. I'm just not a fan of playing with the ability scores too much (this includes Spell Burns and yes, luck) so I want to keep that sort of thing to a minimum. I also only want luck permanently raised or lowered for major events (ie. a noble deed, great quest or the player reducing their score to save their bacon).

Having beads might even lead my players to spend some luck, something they seem afraid to do (probably rightfully so).

[GnomeBoy]

I think Marv was posting a little early in the morning, so maybe we'll forgive his misreading this time...

You called that one.

No worries. Been there myself a time or two. Or 7d20.

The idea of benefiting from a fumble just seems kind of creepy.

I loves the creepy.

Embrace the creepy!

[finarvyn]

I think Marv was posting a little early in the morning, so maybe we'll forgive his misreading this time...

You called that one.

No worries. Been there myself a time or two. Or 7d20.

And I can't say that I shouldn't post until after I've had my coffee, because I don't even drink coffee.

The idea of benefiting from a fumble just seems kind of creepy.

I loves the creepy.

Embrace the creepy!

See ... that's creepy!

[Anselyn]

Back to the point, interjecting too many "decision points" (i.e., different occupation table depending on X or Y) and building in reasons for mechanical differentiations between characters (i.e., possibility of dwarf having different stats than elf) starts down a different path than what I want, so I'm really hesitant to take that first step.

Keep one Table 1.3 Occupation but have several Roll/% columns. The columns could be used to bias the flavour as appropriate:possibly:- Urban(*), Rural, Elf, Dwarf, Halfling.
(* Comment: we had a jeweller living on our farm of peasants in our playtest which was a bit odd. Equally, it can be grit for the roleplaying oyster to explain these things.)

Alternatively, they could be columns for strength-based, agility-based, personality-based or int-based initial occupation.

This brings in one sort of decision point in absorbing details of which roll column to reference but it's not as bad as splitting off to different tables, IMHO.

[finarvyn]

Hmmm, well I'd have to disagree that there is anything such as luck in the real world. It's all just probability.

Agreed, but some folks seem to have "good probability" while others have "bad probability." Savvy?