Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="CapnZapp" data-source="post: 9265875" data-attributes="member: 12731">Yes. For me, unfortunate. That each and every spell was almost its own mini-game, and that you could almost never count on getting a spell result you could actually use was one of the biggest causes of us abandoning the DCC system.I absolutely understand the criticism against regular D&amp;D: spells have no uncertainty. Tools that always do what you intend them to do are not called &quot;magic&quot;. They are called &quot;tools&quot;. But DCC severely overcompensates by randomizing ALL the parameters. If they focused on randomizing one or three variables that could have been something. But DCC turns spellcasting into a chaotic fiddly mess - an utter trainwreck, to be honest. My players found that they hesitated using magic since there was always great risks involved. And in the end they often ended up not using magic at all.I fully understand that part of this is because they're stuck in the rational solution-focused competitive mindset so common with D&amp;Ders, and that they were unable to &quot;let loose&quot; and &quot;don't worry be happy&quot;.But part of it is also bad design. Not every parameter needs to be randomized at the same time to achieve the goal of making magic more mysterious and less &quot;scientific&quot;, less reliable, less of a dependable tool.It ended up as one of our biggest hurdles to DCC adoption.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="CapnZapp, post: 9265875, member: 12731"] Yes. For me, unfortunate. That each and every spell was almost its own mini-game, and that you could almost never count on getting a spell result you could actually use was one of the biggest causes of us abandoning the DCC system. I absolutely understand the criticism against regular D&D: spells have no uncertainty. Tools that always do what you intend them to do are not called "magic". They are called "tools". But DCC severely overcompensates by randomizing ALL the parameters. If they focused on randomizing one or three variables that could have been something. But DCC turns spellcasting into a chaotic fiddly mess - an utter trainwreck, to be honest. My players found that they hesitated using magic since there was always great risks involved. And in the end they often ended up not using magic at all. I fully understand that part of this is because they're stuck in the rational solution-focused competitive mindset so common with D&Ders, and that they were unable to "let loose" and "don't worry be happy". But part of it is also bad design. Not every parameter needs to be randomized at the same time to achieve the goal of making magic more mysterious and less "scientific", less reliable, less of a dependable tool. It ended up as one of our biggest hurdles to DCC adoption. [/QUOTE]

Verification