Warriors and MDoA's

[jmucchiello]

The MDoA die adds to your chance to hit so at higher levels, most hits are also going to have special effects. That's why in the other thread (on grappling I think) having certain results require more than a 3 makes a certain amount of sense. Aiming for the eyes of a living opponent should be HARD no matter what level you are. And this also makes one wonder why a thief can't knock someone off a staircase? He has no MDoA ability whatsoever. What is the thief's special ability again? Luck?

No more powerful than what a fighter can do in 3.x with Improved Trip or Bullrush.

Except that the 3.x fighter has to take a feat specifically to be good at tripping and a second feat to be good at bullrush and he still needs to roll well on the dice. The DCCRPG fighter can do all of these things at will if he makes a good roll and he can also disarm and make called shots and put a javelin through someone, pinning his corpse to his buddy!!! (Are you sure none of these are very powerful?)

[geordie racer]

Are you sure none of these are very powerful?

Yes, but only in a limited sphere-in combat-compare this to wizards being able to invoke patrons - and at higher levels -launch magic missiles through a crystal ball, and I think there needs to be that probability of warrior's (as level increases) pulling off some tactics that turn a fight to their advantage. It's what they do.

DCC warriors at higher levels shouldn't have to solely rely on magic weapons to get the job done - else why not play a wizard with a magic sword ?

Against the lich king himself? You're right, maybe it is too powerful--maybe give the lich a saving throw to resist or tell the fighter in advance that his maneuver might not work.

Surely a Lich King would be powerful enough to field the type of spells to protect himself - making that 'to hit' roll harder for the warrior, thus making it harder to opull off an MDoA ?

[nanstreet]

Are you sure none of these are very powerful?

Yes, but only in a limited sphere-in combat-compare this to wizards being able to invoke patrons - and at higher levels -launch magic missiles through a crystal ball, and I think there needs to be that probability of warrior's (as level increases) pulling off some tactics that turn a fight to their advantage. It's what they do.

DCC warriors at higher levels shouldn't have to solely rely on magic weapons to get the job done - else why not play a wizard with a magic sword ?

I agree with gordie racer on this point.

Against the lich king himself? You're right, maybe it is too powerful--maybe give the lich a saving throw to resist or tell the fighter in advance that his maneuver might not work.

Surely a Lich King would be powerful enough to field the type of spells to protect himself - making that 'to hit' roll harder for the warrior, thus making it harder to opull off an MDoA ?

But I agree with talmor on this point. I don't like upping armor class as the only means of protecting from MDAs, because that just equates a monster's armor class with their battle prowress. I find that hit points partly represent battle prowress and those increase as a character levels or a creature gets more hit dice, and increasing saving throws also shows increasing defense ability. Some games might increase armor class as those rise also, but I was under the impression that DCC wasn't going to do that (of course, I haven't seen it yet, so I could be wrong). So that leaves hit points and saving throws to represent a character's or creature's increasing toughness and ability to defend itself. So I think allowing a save for certain monsters (maybe only those who have more hit dice than the warrior has levels) would allow for a defense without having to rely on jumped up AC.

[Ravenheart87]

A lich king is more clever than go toe-to-toe with a fighter. I suppose he also has an arsenal of spells that leaves a smoking pile of ash of the poor warrior if he tries to get close. Unless the warrior finds a way to avoid or negathe it - in such case, he deserves to be able to chokehold and pummel that pile of bones and rotting meat to the ground!

[bholmes4]

I'm not sure this is as big an issue as people are thinking it will be.

1. If it works how I imagine, could you not simply add a negative modifier to hit for difficult stunts?

So if the warrior wants to leap on to the dragon's neck, pull out his spear and pierce up through it's lower jaw and out through the upper, thereby sealing it's mouth shut and preventing a breath attack, well perhaps a -4 modifier to hit (or worse) is in order. The warrior may go from a 50% chance to hit to 30% and then he still needs to succeed on his MDoA, bringing him to perhaps a 25% or so of pulling off this stunt. Suddenly it may not seem like such a wise idea considering a failure may force him to fall prone on the ground as he is thrown from the neck of the dragon (or other consequence).

2. If you are still worried about your BBEG, simply don't put him in a room where stunts will be just asking to be pulled off.

So if you decide it's cool to have your Lich Lord's throne on the edge of a precipice that overhangs a volcano, complete with braziers suspended by chains all over the room, well don't get upset when the warrior casts off a brazier, leaps on to the chain Tarzan-style and slams in to the lich feet-first, hurtling him of the precipice and down to a fiery doom. If you are upset that you wanted a drawn out bloody battle, well you have nothing but the room itself to blame.

[Ravenheart87]

2. If you are still worried about your BBEG, simply don't put him in a room where stunts will be just asking to be pulled off.

So if you decide it's cool to have your Lich Lord's throne on the edge of a precipice that overhangs a volcano, complete with braziers suspended by chains all over the room, well don't get upset when the warrior casts off a brazier, leaps on to the chain Tarzan-style and slams in to the lich feet-first, hurtling him of the precipice and down to a fiery doom. If you are upset that you wanted a drawn out bloody battle, well you have nothing but the room itself to blame.

This is just what I said. To sum it up: don't wonder why your monsters are getting killed by warriors, if you play them stupid. Play them smart, it's easier than rewriting minor things in the rules. Also, usually what your players can do, your monsters can too.

[moes1980]

Also, if the MDoA reqires a succesful hit in addition to rolling 3+, than even a 75 percent chanch at level 6 will still fail to activate about half the time. If you used precentile dice for both rolls, its like you have to roll 50 percent or less (on average for a fighter, im assuming), and than you have to roll 75 or less ontop as well in order to get the MDoA. Suddenly it dosn't sound like it is allways going off, but it is going off alot more than level one, where is roll 50 percent or less, and than roll 33 percent or less to pull it off. So it might work out allright.

After doing a couple of more play test games, that percentage calculation is not 100% accurate.

Since the MDoA is added to the d20 roll, you will find that you are more likely to hit the higher the MDoA die is (especially at higher levels where with a higher dX die. (i.e. d7 at 5th level).

If you roll a 7 on the MDoA and add in STR and possible magic item bonuses, you are going to hit signifigantly more often than when you roll a 1 on the MDoA die (i.e. 30% more often).

So the formula is not a true static 75% chance, but instead sales a bit towards the higher the MDoA die.

Also, keep this is mind. There is not a steady progression of opponent AC like in prior versions of DnD. The bonuses are a bit less in DCC RPG, so the opponent AC's do not scale as quickly as you level up.

Oh, good points, I didn't think about that. I did read some where though not all MDoA are equal, and rolling higher on your bonus die gives MDoA's that are stronger than what you can get when your low level. So at higher levels, alot of your succesful MDoA's are not your best MDoA's. That might help balance it out a bit but, I don't know how it will actually work in play.

[moes1980]

I am still a little confused about how this works exactly. As i understand it, the process is:

1: decalre your attacl and your mighty deed of arms before rolling to hit
2: roll action dice (d20) +bonus die (based on level) +other mods from magic and strength
3: if total equals or beats ac you hit,
4: if bonus die rolls high enough for the declared MDoA it goes off

But,

5: Is there a second roll you have to make to attempt your might deed of arms or is it automatic?

Also, I would say there should that if a player declares making a MDoA before rolling, and rolls a natural one, the results on the fumble tables should be much worse or, maybe it is more easy to fumble since your tying a darring stunt. That way fighters can try something cool and even powerful, but has the dread of his fancy stunt going disasteriously worng! Brings in the same element of danger that spell casters have to deal with every time they cast a spell.

[jmucchiello]

I am still a little confused about how this works exactly. As i understand it, the process is:

1: decalre your attacl and your mighty deed of arms before rolling to hit
2: roll action dice (d20) +bonus die (based on level) +other mods from magic and strength
3: if total equals or beats ac you hit,
4: if bonus die rolls high enough for the declared MDoA it goes off

3 is the target number. At first level your MDoA die is d3, 2nd level d4, d5, d6, etc at 5th level you need a 3 on a d8, the same d8 that you rolled on the to hit above.

5: Is there a second roll you have to make to attempt your might deed of arms or is it automatic?

Automatic.

This is why I think a simple trip or disarm effect should be automatic on a 3 but putting a spear through the front rank opponent and snaring the guy behind him should require more than just a 3 on that second die. I can't imagine giving guidelines for what a 3 on the MDoA die can do versus what a 5 and a 7 can do will bloat the rules all that much. Especially when you can always ignore such rules.

I also do not buy the idea that limits on what a MDoA can do makes warriors less effective than wizards. That is the whole point of playing warrior versus wizard. Do you want to be able to survive one-on-one against a strong opponent or do you want arcane might in and out of combat. They are trade offs and doing anything to bring up the warrior's power or worse bring the wizard down can only result in the bland sameness found in D&D 4e.

the results on the fumble tables should be much worse

Interesting. The DM should add his own roll of the same MDoA die to the fumble chart (assuming the results get nastier the higher the fumble roll).

[geordie racer]

Interesting. The DM should add his own roll of the same MDoA die to the fumble chart (assuming the results get nastier the higher the fumble roll).

That would mean that a fumble potentially has more dire effects for a higher level warrior because of the larger range on the dice e.g. 1-3 for a level one fumbler, 1-5 for a 3rd level fumbler etc.

[Ravenheart87]

IIRC, Joseph told us that higher roll on MDoA should mean more nasty stunts. But I'm too lazy to find the reference now...

[geordie racer]

IIRC, Joseph told us that higher roll on MDoA should mean more nasty stunts. But I'm too lazy to find the reference now...

Here we go, I'd forgotten about this:

The rules include guidelines on what a disarm means if the warrior rolls a 3, a 4, a 5, etc. on his second die; what a blinding attack means in similar circumstances, what a bull rush means, and so on. A blinding attack with a 3 means you just throw sand in his eyes or smack him in the forehead or something else that gives him a hit penalty for a round...that sort of thing. Roll a 5, though (which is only possible at level 3 and above), and maybe you'll actually be poking some eyes out! Enough elements are subject to DM discretion that it doesn't get crazy.

[moes1980]

Interesting. The DM should add his own roll of the same MDoA die to the fumble chart (assuming the results get nastier the higher the fumble roll).

That would mean that a fumble potentially has more dire effects for a higher level warrior because of the larger range on the dice e.g. 1-3 for a level level fumbler, 1-5 for a 3rd level fumbler etc.

But only when they want to try a daring dc 5 MDoA. If they make a normal attack with no declared MDoA and roll a natural one then they suffer a normal crit no matterr what the bonus die rolls. If they declare a level 3 MDoA and roll a natural one, they suffer a worse crit, perhaps adding 3 (but not more than three if rolling a die larger than a d3) to the fumble roll. If a fighter declares an attempt at a MDoA with a target number of 7 and rolls a natural one on the d20, uh oh....he gets a +7 to his fumble roll.

Or, even worse, since MDoA allow a player quite a bit of imagination when creating their cenimiatic action, perhaps a fumble could allow the DM the same creative space for deciding the fate of the pc!

"Player dclares he wants to swing on hanging rope to land on dragons back and stab it in the skull so that I can ride on the back of its head and it can't attack me. The bonus die needs to roll is a 7+. Player rolls d20+d7+str. Player rolls a natural one on d20 (so the bonus die rolled is not relevent). GM explains that while trying to swing the stone that the rope was attached to gives way, droping said pc 20 feet, for 2d6 damage. also, chucnks of stone fall on the pc crushing him for another 3d6 damage. finally, because pc is traped under the stone and prone, he dose not get to make a reflex save for half aganst the dragon's breath which it is about to breath on its next turn. Oh, and his weapon landed 20 feet away and player will need to make an int check to know where his weapon landed at."

This could be called a Mighty Fail!

[geordie racer]

But the quote says:

Interesting. The DM should add his own roll of the same MDoA die to the fumble chart (assuming the results get nastier the higher the fumble roll).

1st level warrior rolls a fumble while doing an MDoA. DM adds d3 to the fumble chart roll.
6th level warrior rolls a fumble etc DM adds a d8 to it instead. Potentially a worse fumble.

A warrior at 6th level is probably going to end up worse from fumbling than a 1st level warrior.

I agree that it would be good to attach an element of risk to attempting MDoAs in case of fumbles, but it shouldn't scale UP with level so it's more hazardous.

[jmucchiello]

The rules include guidelines on what a disarm means if the warrior rolls a 3, a 4, a 5, etc. on his second die; what a blinding attack means in similar circumstances, what a bull rush means, and so on. A blinding attack with a 3 means you just throw sand in his eyes or smack him in the forehead or something else that gives him a hit penalty for a round...that sort of thing. Roll a 5, though (which is only possible at level 3 and above), and maybe you'll actually be poking some eyes out! Enough elements are subject to DM discretion that it doesn't get crazy.

So basically what I and others have been saying was already in Joe's head. Did it make it into the beta rulebook? Shouldn't it be in the rulebook? Alsthough reading this closely I'm not sure I like what is implied. The player only says "cause blindness" but because he rolls a 5 he gets "pokes eye out"? What I've been asking for works the other way: If the player says "I want to distract him with sand in the eyes", the MDoA requires a 3. If the player says "Poke his eye out", then the required roll is a 5, where a 3 is but a partial success (temporary blindness in this case, not disfigurement).

Enough elements are subject to DM discretion that it doesn't get crazy.

Once again, this statement reminds me that this game is not for beginner or even intermediate DMs. There is so much emphasis on DM judgement that firmly places DCCRPG back in 1974. IME, the kind of expert DMs that the game assumes are extremely rare.

[kataskicana]

I don't think you need an 'expert' gm... I just think you need a GM who has some play experience.

Playing anything old school is more about doing things on the fly and not having someone say 'wait! There IS a rule for that.... everyone take one of my 63 hard back rule books and lets see if we can find it in less than 20 minutes!'

As long as everyone has fun its all good and the GM will get more experience as things go along.

I think one of the greatest DMing tools is 'ok, roll a dice'. I don't care what kind of dice, you don't need to give a threshold for success, you don't even necessarily need to care what stats/skills/abilities are involved. As long as its within reason: reward enthusiasm and creativity. If someone is pushing the limits let them know failure will have serious repercussions and let them choose to roll or not.

OTOH, I think you do need to be willing and able to say no to players as a DM and if you can't you should never run a game. Yes that sounds neat... but this isn't the Matrix... you can't do that.

[moes1980]

But the quote says:

Interesting. The DM should add his own roll of the same MDoA die to the fumble chart (assuming the results get nastier the higher the fumble roll).

1st level warrior rolls a fumble while doing an MDoA. DM adds d3 to the fumble chart roll.
6th level warrior rolls a fumble etc DM adds a d8 to it instead. Potentially a worse fumble.

A warrior at 6th level is probably going to end up worse from fumbling than a 1st level warrior.

I agree that it would be good to attach an element of risk to attempting MDoAs in case of fumbles, but it shouldn't scale UP with level so it's more hazardous.

I agree, the version of dm rolling the die makes fumbles more nasty for a high level fighter than a low level fighter, which is backwards thinking. Thats why I think it should only be equal to the level of MDoA that was attempted, so you you won't get penalized for tying to do a MDoA of DC 3 with a d7 or, what ever the fighter's bonus die is. This way the more daring the MDoA the greater the risk. I might house rule this way just to see how it goes with the beta rules.

[geordie racer]

But the quote says:

Interesting. The DM should add his own roll of the same MDoA die to the fumble chart (assuming the results get nastier the higher the fumble roll).

1st level warrior rolls a fumble while doing an MDoA. DM adds d3 to the fumble chart roll.
6th level warrior rolls a fumble etc DM adds a d8 to it instead. Potentially a worse fumble.

A warrior at 6th level is probably going to end up worse from fumbling than a 1st level warrior.

I agree that it would be good to attach an element of risk to attempting MDoAs in case of fumbles, but it shouldn't scale UP with level so it's more hazardous.

I agree, the version of dm rolling the die makes fumbles more nasty for a high level fighter than a low level fighter, which is backwards thinking. Thats why I think it should only be equal to the level of MDoA that was attempted, so you you won't get penalized for tying to do a MDoA of DC 3 with a d7 or, what ever the fighter's bonus die is. This way the more daring the MDoA the greater the risk. I might house rule this way just to see how it goes with the beta rules.

Doh, now I understand,

[moes1980]

The rules include guidelines on what a disarm means if the warrior rolls a 3, a 4, a 5, etc. on his second die; what a blinding attack means in similar circumstances, what a bull rush means, and so on. A blinding attack with a 3 means you just throw sand in his eyes or smack him in the forehead or something else that gives him a hit penalty for a round...that sort of thing. Roll a 5, though (which is only possible at level 3 and above), and maybe you'll actually be poking some eyes out! Enough elements are subject to DM discretion that it doesn't get crazy.

So basically what I and others have been saying was already in Joe's head. Did it make it into the beta rulebook? Shouldn't it be in the rulebook? Alsthough reading this closely I'm not sure I like what is implied. The player only says "cause blindness" but because he rolls a 5 he gets "pokes eye out"? What I've been asking for works the other way: If the player says "I want to distract him with sand in the eyes", the MDoA requires a 3. If the player says "Poke his eye out", then the required roll is a 5, where a 3 is but a partial success (temporary blindness in this case, not disfigurement).

Enough elements are subject to DM discretion that it doesn't get crazy.

Once again, this statement reminds me that this game is not for beginner or even intermediate DMs. There is so much emphasis on DM judgement that firmly places DCCRPG back in 1974. IME, the kind of expert DMs that the game assumes are extremely rare.

I agree with your concern. IF MDoA's are highly subjective, I see room for a lot of problems at the table. Even if rough guidelines are provided for the GM, I can see alot of arguments breaking out at the table as both players and GMs argue abuot how difficult certain MDoA should be. An especially sticky point could be trouble with being consistant with those rulings. I am hoping that the rules provide fairly regiours guid lines about what each level of an MDoA can do. Something like this:

3+: only an action or a move, can't combine both. Cannot cause any effect that would last more than a single round. The highest penaltiy that can be bestowed is 1d3

4+: Only single action, cannot do both a move and an attack, only one. any wound effects last for d3 rounds (or turns, or what ever the term might be). Roll d4 to derteman any penalties to die rolls

........

7+: Can do both a move and an attack, including great leaps and acrobatic stunts. Can inflict a permanent penatly of d4, or a tempory penalty equal to d7 for 3d4 rounds. (so one eye could be gouged out maybe, but not both for total blidness)


Special attacks avaliable for any level of MDoA:

Disarm: Opponent makes a reflex save equal to 10+ a roll of the fighters bonus die. If fail the opponet drops his weapon
trip: Opponent makes a reflex save equal to 10+ a roll of the fighters bonus die
Acrobatic stunt: Get to make a move equal to half your speed +roll of the bonus die with out suffering free wacks from opponents.
Subdual: Instead of inflicting normal damage, inflict 1d4+bouns die+str damage. Enemy must make fort save dc 10+subdual damage delt or fall unconsious (only works on huminoids)
Shove enemy:
Grapple:
Shild shatter
Shild bash
Throw enemy to ground:
...

So basically, the guid lines need to provide specific limitations on what an MDoA can accomplish mechanic wise for each level, and let the player come up with the discription of what they want to do. If a player says he wants to do a triple back flip and cut the head off of a dragon with his MDoA you can tell him sorry, but the rules limit what yuo can do mechanic wise with your MDoA

If it is more generic or general than that, ALOT of arguments are gonna break out at gamer's tables.

[bholmes4]

I'd much rather risk arguements than have something so dry and limiting though. If you go this route you completely remove the magic and mystique from the MDoA. The last thing we need is another rules-bloated D20-type system where everything has been systemized and nothing is left to the imagination.

[mshensley]

I'd much rather risk arguements than have something so dry and limiting though.

Rule arguments are the best part of roleplaying games.

[moes1980]

I'd much rather risk arguements than have something so dry and limiting though. If you go this route you completely remove the magic and mystique from the MDoA. The last thing we need is another rules-bloated D20-type system where everything has been systemized and nothing is left to the imagination.

Well, perhaps we can agree that a happy medium should be the aim? I like the idea of being able to be creative when declaring an MDoA, and I am all for avoiding rules bloat, but I know that without some sense of hard rules to control MDoAs players will try to abuse it, and it only takes one pain in the butt player to ruin an eveaning of fun gaming.

I'd much rather risk arguements than have something so dry and limiting though.

Rule arguments are the best part of roleplaying games.

Not with my experince, I have seen entire campaigns end becuase of a long and heated argument over what a player can or can't do occur between player and GM, especially when the survival of a character or campaign plot hinges on how something is ruled, either a GM or a player can get pretty bent out of shape and so I like it when I can point to a rule in the book and say "its not me, its the rule" when I am a GM (as a player, if a GM runs a game in a way I don't like, I simply go find another game that suites me rather than make a big fight and ruin every one's fun, but not all players are like that). Trying to manage the hackmaster system of honor and how to award honor points in particular comes to mind but thats a different story...

But I think there should be rules for the MDoA in some form rather than "just wing it based on these examples." Spell effects based on casting rolls are not left up to player and GM discretion, they have fairly hard rules in terms of what your casting roll gets you, why can't MDoA be managed by the rules as well?

[mshensley]

Going by the rules assumptions in the first post, I ran some tests to see how the percentages for this should work out. The test case is a fighter with no str mod trying to hit AC 15 with a long sword (or whatever does 1d8 damage) over levels 1-10.

Level 1
Chance to hit- 40%
Avg. Damage- 7
MDoA Chance- 15%

Level 2
Chance to hit- 43%
Avg. Damage- 7
MDoA Chance- 24%

Level 3
Chance to hit- 45%
Avg. Damage- 8
MDoA Chance- 30%

Level 4
Chance to hit- 48%
Avg. Damage- 8
MDoA Chance- 35%

Level 5
Chance to hit- 50%
Avg. Damage- 9
MDoA Chance- 39%

Level 6
Chance to hit- 52%
Avg. Damage- 9
MDoA Chance- 43%

Level 7
Chance to hit- 58%
Avg. Damage- 11
MDoA Chance- 50%

Level 8
Chance to hit- 62%
Avg. Damage- 12
MDoA Chance- 56%

Level 9
Chance to hit- 67%
Avg. Damage- 13
MDoA Chance- 62%

Level 10
Chance to hit- 71%
Avg. Damage- 14
MDoA Chance- 66%


I'm really starting to love how the bonus die works by both replacing the BAB and by adding to damage. By level 10, the fighter is a wrecking machine - no feats or high stats necessary.

[mshensley]

Not with my experince, I have seen entire campaigns end becuase of a long and heated argument over what a player can or can't do occur between player and GM, especially when the survival of a character or campaign plot hinges on how something is ruled, either a GM or a player can get pretty bent out of shape and so I like it when I can point to a rule in the book and say "its not me, its the rule" when I am a GM (as a player, if a GM runs a game in a way I don't like, I simply go find another game that suites me rather than make a big fight and ruin every one's fun, but not all players are like that). Trying to manage the hackmaster system of honor and how to award honor points in particular comes to mind but thats a different story...

But I think there should be rules for the MDoA in some form rather than "just wing it based on these examples." Spell effects based on casting rolls are not left up to player and GM discretion, they have fairly hard rules in terms of what your casting roll gets you, why can't MDoA be managed by the rules as well?

Funny, I've had much worse experiences with rule sets that set firm definitions on what everything does. D&D 4e sets me off especially badly - to the point where I refuse to ever run it again. When players can dictate to me ridiculous actions just because that's what their power card states, I start driving the game towards TPK-ville.

[moes1980]

Not with my experince, I have seen entire campaigns end becuase of a long and heated argument over what a player can or can't do occur between player and GM, especially when the survival of a character or campaign plot hinges on how something is ruled, either a GM or a player can get pretty bent out of shape and so I like it when I can point to a rule in the book and say "its not me, its the rule" when I am a GM (as a player, if a GM runs a game in a way I don't like, I simply go find another game that suites me rather than make a big fight and ruin every one's fun, but not all players are like that). Trying to manage the hackmaster system of honor and how to award honor points in particular comes to mind but thats a different story...

But I think there should be rules for the MDoA in some form rather than "just wing it based on these examples." Spell effects based on casting rolls are not left up to player and GM discretion, they have fairly hard rules in terms of what your casting roll gets you, why can't MDoA be managed by the rules as well?

Funny, I've had much worse experiences with rule sets that set firm definitions on what everything does. D&D 4e sets me off especially badly - to the point where I refuse to ever run it again. When players can dictate to me ridiculous actions just because that's what their power card states, I start driving the game towards TPK-ville.

Forth ed is deffinintly the oppisite extreem. The rules run rampet over almost all space for creativity. It is very difficult to run 4th ed in any way other than players bendeing the DM over. That game game has fun factor for about the first session or two, and than just turns into a boring, non-interesting, repetitive mesh. It is possible for a DM to make it fun, but its not easy, for reasons you just explained. I will run that game if that is all my players are willing to play, but it is not my first choice of game by any means.

But I am pretty sure a "make it up as you go along" type of system is not going to fair so well either. Hopefully the rules will provide something that strikes the right balance.