Post by Morandir on Jun 8, 2011 23:17:03 GMT -6
I feel the same way; there are tables for everything - sometimes more than one! I like randomization, but I don't like anything that's going to grind the game to a halt while we consult 3 different tables just to see how someone's Sleep spell worked. I already use casting rolls from Chainmail, corruption and spell fumble charts in my game, but I think having a separate table for every single spell is overkill.
A lot of the ideas are great. I especially like the patrons for Wizards, and I may steal that one for my home game. Spellburn is a nifty concept too, and provides a great place to introduce the magical regenerative powers of the Black Lotus. "Mercurial magic" is great and serves to differentiate casters, even when they're using the same spells.
I also like the treatment of Elves as fighter/mages who tend to make pacts with demons and other chaotic entities. If Elric wasn't a strong inspiration here, I'll eat my hat. ;D
At the same time, it introduces a lot of fiddly bits that wouldn't work for me. Five (!) separate critical hit charts, fumble charts, 3e-style armor penalties, another chart for dual wielding, and so forth.
As for the dice, I'm not bothered by them. I like the additional granularity, to be honest, and I think that having a character roll two different dice for two attacks and add the same modifier to both is easier than rolling two of the same dice and adding different modifiers - there's less to keep track of. A warrior could just roll his d20, d14, two damage dice, and his "attack die" all at the same time and adjudicate the results pretty quickly (especially if the damage dice are the same color as the corresponding attack dice). I prefer to avoid multiple attacks altogether, but if you're going to do it I like this method.
I think the mighty deed system is interesting, but I don't think it needs a mechanical system; why not just allow people to describe interesting actions, and reward them for it? If a Fighting-man wants to swing across a room on a chandelier and attack a foe, I wouldn't tell him to roll and see if it worked - I'd just give him an attack bonus for being creative, and maybe even a damage bonus. With DCC you have to succeed at two rolls for it to work. A player who rolls poorly at the table is going to be really frustrated by this. They also don't note what happens when the attack roll succeeds, but the attack die doesn't come up 3 or better - does it just count as a standard successful attack?
On a different note, I found a mistake. In the first combat example in the Warrior section, they forgot to note the +3 from his attack die in his damage total (it should be 1d8 +2 +3).
Overall, I think this is an interesting take on old-school gaming, and the artwork, as I said, is top-notch. Like Kesher I may buy it just for that. And I'm going to pick up the starter mod on Free RPG day and give this a spin with my group. But as it stands, I think it's just too fiddly for my tastes. I like my game to be as simple as can be, and all those charts will mean a lot of flipping through the book at the table - something I prefer to avoid.
A lot of the ideas are great. I especially like the patrons for Wizards, and I may steal that one for my home game. Spellburn is a nifty concept too, and provides a great place to introduce the magical regenerative powers of the Black Lotus. "Mercurial magic" is great and serves to differentiate casters, even when they're using the same spells.
I also like the treatment of Elves as fighter/mages who tend to make pacts with demons and other chaotic entities. If Elric wasn't a strong inspiration here, I'll eat my hat. ;D
At the same time, it introduces a lot of fiddly bits that wouldn't work for me. Five (!) separate critical hit charts, fumble charts, 3e-style armor penalties, another chart for dual wielding, and so forth.
As for the dice, I'm not bothered by them. I like the additional granularity, to be honest, and I think that having a character roll two different dice for two attacks and add the same modifier to both is easier than rolling two of the same dice and adding different modifiers - there's less to keep track of. A warrior could just roll his d20, d14, two damage dice, and his "attack die" all at the same time and adjudicate the results pretty quickly (especially if the damage dice are the same color as the corresponding attack dice). I prefer to avoid multiple attacks altogether, but if you're going to do it I like this method.
I think the mighty deed system is interesting, but I don't think it needs a mechanical system; why not just allow people to describe interesting actions, and reward them for it? If a Fighting-man wants to swing across a room on a chandelier and attack a foe, I wouldn't tell him to roll and see if it worked - I'd just give him an attack bonus for being creative, and maybe even a damage bonus. With DCC you have to succeed at two rolls for it to work. A player who rolls poorly at the table is going to be really frustrated by this. They also don't note what happens when the attack roll succeeds, but the attack die doesn't come up 3 or better - does it just count as a standard successful attack?
On a different note, I found a mistake. In the first combat example in the Warrior section, they forgot to note the +3 from his attack die in his damage total (it should be 1d8 +2 +3).
Overall, I think this is an interesting take on old-school gaming, and the artwork, as I said, is top-notch. Like Kesher I may buy it just for that. And I'm going to pick up the starter mod on Free RPG day and give this a spin with my group. But as it stands, I think it's just too fiddly for my tastes. I like my game to be as simple as can be, and all those charts will mean a lot of flipping through the book at the table - something I prefer to avoid.