Ok, please do read all I wrote with a hefty chunk of salt, due to my usual ironic manner. I don't want to offend or madden anyone, and I am not pissed, screaming or jumping up and down on my chair as I type.
AQuebman wrote:You also unlike being a demihuman had a choice of what class to go into and with those drawbacks known went into warrior.
Actually, I didn't. If you remember I decided to make Goratrix into a warrior before having the write-up available. I did this because he doesn't excel in any ability score that is associated with any D20 classes, and because Fighters (to my experience) are always the simplest class in D20 games and I didn't want to have to bother learning magic rules, etc.
It never crossed my mind that one of the main abilities that defines the Fighter class would be dependent on Luck. I was expecting STR, AGI maybe even STA...but LUK? Give me a break...
AQuebman wrote:You have the benefit of being a hearty 16 Stamina warrior you just happened to have a low luck.
That is not the issue and it does not answer my question on why Weapon of Choice comes down to sheer dumb luck, or the logic behind it...which still eludes me. And for the record, Goratrix does not have "low luck" he has *shit low* Luck.
And STA is irrelevant to this issue, Goratrix could have become A Wizard or Priest or whatever and he would still have a hearty 16 stamina. What he would not have is his fighting ability shafted because some game designer on a brain fart decided the ability for a professional warrior to fight with his favorite weapon comes ultimately down sheer dumb luck.
AQuebman wrote:Not all birth signs should be positive
And were did I say otherwise? The issue is, if they shaft you, why do they have positive names then? Would it have really been *that* hard to make a dual list of titles expressing what birthsigns do according to the LUK? i.e.: Fox Cunning / Mechanically Impaired; Eyes of the Eagle / Blind as a Bat ?
AQuebman wrote:just like not all warriors are great with all weapons.
And where did I say all warriors should be great with all weapons? What I want to know is why a warrior with low LUK just happens to be magically worse than a non-warrior with a specific weapon, which is supposedly (given the title of the ability) his favorite one? And why it stays that way *forever* even when you increase LUK and its modifier?
AQuebman wrote:If your worried about it mechanically pick a weapon you don't want to use and forget about it.
Wait, you honestly assumed I am so dumb to not have decided to do that already?
And of course we'll forget about it. We'll forget that Goratrix just has to discard a class feature due to crappy game design. I mean, what can we do about, right? It's on the book. It ain't like we can (
gasp!) house-rule to sort out the fuck-ups of the designers, can we? Nope. If it's on the book, it's on the book. "Magister Dixit" and all that.
AQuebman wrote:I think what Rag's is trying to say is that you have an opportunity to roleplay around a detriment just like you can roleplay around how hearty and tough you are as well.
And what if I *don't* want to roleplay around a detriment I had no choice about in the first place? And when did things that are imposed by nonsensical rules suddenly turned into "opportunities"?
And yeah...I did role-play the snot out of how hearty and though Goratrix was didn't I? With his massive 16 STA, and his
minimum possible rolled Hit Points. Why, the dude's was veritable tank I tells ya! It truly be a good thing that I randomly aced my random 1d12 roll and now it doesn't seem like Goratrix will die as soon as someone touches him with a stick...why, if I had rolled a "1" your entire argument about "hearty and tough" Goratrix would fall flat on its face.
Wait...it falls flat on its face anyway. because the reason Goratrix is "hearty and tough" *now* is that I choose to play a HD 1d12 Fighter and got really lucky with one die roll...his STA really doesn't figure into it more than one sixth.
AQuebman wrote:As a whole warriors still have a lot of power.
That is awesome! Now can I please play a warrior with lot of power that
isn't shafted by rules with no logical explanation?
AQuebman wrote:The Deed Die alone provides a much greater chance of hitting/damaging a monster along with allowing you to do great feats just with a high enough roll and some imagination.
Just like AD&D called shots, right? Sounds wicked! Now can I please do all that *and* have a warrior who isn't crap with his Weapon of Choice?
AQuebman wrote:They also crit often and overall have much more freedom then I have found in past systems.
Oh, you mean exactly like 3E has done for 13 years? Well, that sounds cool. Now...if only Goratrix had the freedom *not* to be crap with is Weapon of Choice...
AQuebman wrote:Unfortunately yes your base luck is abysmal and you will face that hardship but it's not all terrible and frankly I think adds a lot of character.
Now you've lost me. Please explain how being randomly shitty with one weapon "adds a lot of character".
What is this fetish I see that keeps equating random PC flaws with "character" and "opportunity". Does this mean PCs who are very good at something, or a lot of things, lack "character" altogether?
AQuebman wrote:Not all warriors will be the same, not even close.
Yeah. Apparently on DCC it all comes to sheer dumb luck from beginning to end starting with the should-have-long-been-dead dinosaur of "roll 3d6 in order". So much for player ability, meaningful choice and all that.
AQuebman wrote:Lastly DCC is built off of the idea that if you want X then quest for it. If raising your starting character's overall luck is your drive with this character then I can implement that into your future ventures.
Ahem...
You wrote, and I quote:
"there isn't a system of gaining ability scores or anything like that"
You also confirmed that any future LUK increase will NOT remove Goratrix's penalty with Weapon for Choice.
So please elaborate on why I'd "quest" to increase LUK when there's no hard-and-fast system for it (just GM whim) and when it will
not sort the issue at all.
"Here...make a quest to gain this reward which will not help at all sort your problem."
Seriously?
AQuebman wrote:That goes to everyone this is your game i'm just telling it and adjudicating by the rules.
I though GM stood for "Game Master" and not "Rules Adjudicator"? You know, the guy that can actually make his own rules and rulings?
AQuebman wrote:I hope Vargr you can see the diversity and mix of good and bad that rag and I appreciate so much with the system.
Oh I can certainly see it, and all the fetishist levels of chaotic randomness that go along with it. But I don't appreciate it much; especially the features that don't seem to make any sense.
You know, I enjoy some randomness in my RPG as much as the next guy, but it has to have two caveats:
a) make sense
b) not saddle folks with crappy bellow-average characters
Neither premisses (a), nor (b) are provided by the DCC system.
(And no, before someone goes knee-jerk on me, I am not saying Goratrix is a crappy bellow-average PC. Just that 3d6 in order will get you that more often than not)
AQuebman wrote:Who knows your next character might have 18 luck but crap physical scores, it's all up to the dice.
Indeed, and that is just adding insult to injury. Because if Goratrix had crappy physical scores and 18 LUK he'd still likely be a better Fighter with his weapon of choice than he is now.
Again...bad game design.
AQuebman wrote:Also I played a character with no legs being wheeled around in a little red pull wagon and he was awesome!
Good for you! Awesome!
And you know what? If you were playing Goratrix, or any of the other PCs you could
voluntarily chop his legs off and have fun to your heart's content role-playing him being pulled around on a little red wagon too.
But Goratrix's "I fight worse with my Weapon of Choice" is not a choice. It is a rule mechanics
imposition, and one that doesn't make a lick of sense. Just because folks might think it is awesome, please don't call an imposition an "opportunity". An opportunity presupposes a thing called *choice*.
I cannot *choose* to play a Goratrix who isn't shite with his Weapon of Choice the same way you can choose to maul your character (or design it from the get-go to be that way). So please do not use that as an argument. You enjoy playing cripples? Great! I do not. (and no, before any of you gets all knee-jerk on me, I am not saying Goratrix is a crippled character).
Now, why have I written all this? I don't give a toss about Goratrix, I don't care if he lives or dies. If he buys the bucket I'll just roll a new one, It will most likely be turd, mechanically worse than ol'Goratrix and die horribly too to be replaced by a new turd, etc, etc until I am lucky enough to beat the odds and roll one of those awful PCs who doesn't have any "opportunities for roleplay".
Or...Goratrix will keep on living and dungeonin' and I'll keep running him.
But you see, I jumped on the bandwagon to play DCC because I was curious about what was being bandied as "the new bestest weirdest game in town" and that (allegedly) really "went back to the roots"; so my playing has also been an ongoing personal review of sorts. And so far I have seen nothing in the play experience that couldn't be done (and hasn't been done already) with good ol' AD&D, and the new gimmicks that are presented have been...well, crap honestly (and don't even get me started on things that have not come into play yet, like halflings and Luck, or how the Mighty Deeds of Arms system is ripe open for abuse and making the GM life hell).
DCC just doesn't seem nearly as good as the folks at
Spellburn are gushing. Listening to them you'd half expect this to be the Second Coming of FRPG.
With nearly 40 years of game design behind it, DCC is turning out not to live to expectations, for me at least. I have seen no reasons thus far to exchange OSRIC for it and invest in packs on weird Zochhi dice.
In fact, I am beginning to think DCC modules could be more enjoyable if you'd just run them using AD&D or OSRIC or LL or whatever. The art, the attitude, and the ideas behind the modules are great...but AFAIK so far it's a shame they are saddled to DCC.
And last but not least, one peculiarly irritating (to me) feature of DCC, although it is hardly the only FRPG at fault in this matter, is that it uses game mechanics which are as old as a comfortable old shoe your grandfather used to wear, and claims they are innovative.
Dictatorial "thou SHALL roll 3d6 in order"? Done before. Character funnels? Done before. 0th-level characters? Done before. Choose your class later? Done before. Mighty Deeds? Done before. Corrupting Magic? Done before. Personalized visual/auditory spell effects? Done before. Race-as-Class? Done before. No multiclassing? Done before. Karma systems by spending "Luck"? Done before.
I am still not "getting it" on what DCC has that supposedly makes it so awesome as advertised compared to what was already available. This system better start surprising me positively in the future, and
soon.