Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="CapnZapp" data-source="post: 9048520" data-attributes="member: 12731">Taken in isolation, a worthy rule.DCC is far far too random and chaotic for my taste, however. Adding one vector of randomness (like a d20 casting roll) would be okay, making essentially every parameter of spellcasting random made my players dump the system.Again, viewed standalone; a reasonable addition. Combined with all the other random things, far too much, just making the mercurial effects getting lost in all the confusion.A cleaned-up list of reined-in mercurials could work in D&D.Again, theoretically an excellent idea. But DCC fails to safeguard against players who save their spellburn for when it really wins the game; then the scenario ends and they can rest up, playing a different character next adventure if need be.Like in so many other ways, DCC's spellburn rules don't give a damned they are eminently gameable. While that suits some players, herein we are discussing D&D which presumes that order and structure are good things... <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />Again, by itself not a bad idea. I could easily want to play a D&D game that includes corruption rules.But playing a D&D game that includes corruption AND taint, disapproval and patronage, mercurial effects...? On top of each and every spell being its own Wild Sorcerer? No thanks.I agree, this rule is another great one. Just a shame DCC included all the great ideas, making the end game almost unplayable <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />At least, I think so, which is why I started this thread. I chose the funnel and Luck rules, and what I also therefore did, was able to kill my darlings.Like with spell duels, I just said no.A legitimately great idea. In a rules-light game, this is perfect. Shame DCC isn't a rule-light game, though... For D&D, well, this game already has a skill system, and I don't want to change lots of things. I started this thread to try to think of "how can I inject DCC goodness into D&D with the minimal number of changes possible?"Absolutely. Playing Warriors and Thieves were great in DCC <img class="smilie smilie--emoji" alt="🙂" src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" title="Slightly smiling face    :slight_smile:" data-shortname=":slight_smile:" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" /><img class="smilie smilie--emoji" alt="👍" src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f44d.png" title="Thumbs up    :thumbsup:" data-shortname=":thumbsup:" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" />In the context of D&D, however, I have decided that simply giving them Luck will enable their fighteryness just like it will enable a Ranger's rangeryness and a wizard's wizardyness.Again, I'm trying to do much with little here.Thanks for a great post! DCC sure made my day, even if my players never could bring themselves to overlook its deep flaws.</blockquote>

Verification