Just because you could do it doesn't mean you should.
In my optional rules booklet, I was thinking about an optional DCC feat system, something like 3.5E-style feats that can be chosen and added to the characters like my simplified skill system. The skill system is nice. It gives characters additional areas of training based on their choices and gives them a way to specialize and customize their characters.
The skill system I developed doesn't take anything away; it adds to the characters. Having a few more training areas across skills and allowing specializations doesn't limit anyone.
The 3.5E-style feat system, as it is done in games with them? It takes away more than it gives. Like power attack, cleave, and other feats that give fighters special attack options? DCC has the mighty deeds of arms system and the "deed die" - which covers all those feats and more.
In DCC, you do not need "fighter feats" at all since the deed die covers it.
Similarly, spell-burn, thief luck, and many other DCC systems have you covered in terms of special abilities. You don't need a lot of feats giving you "extra stuff to do" since you are assumed to "get a lot of stuff to do." This is also how skills work in the base game, trained or untrained, roll against a DC with a modifier.
The 3.5E-style feat system, as it is traditionally implemented, is a "takeaway" system. A character can't do anything but "basic actions," players need to sort through a few thousand feats to find all the unique things that characters can do. This is a horribly regressive system, forcing every player to know hundreds of feats, what they do, and if a special attack or action type is already covered under a feat - and thus, disallowed as a character action during a turn.
Feat systems justify "taking away cool stuff" to add it to the feat system.
Let's add "jump attack" as a feat! That sounds cool! Suddenly, players trying "jump attacks" can't do that because that would disadvantage players who took that feat for their characters. And as a mighty deed of arms, you can't do jump attacks. That's a feat! And if you buy a book with 100 new feats, that is 100 more things you can't do.
Other feats in 3.5E are boring "straight bonuses" like "+2 to poison saves" that are better added to characters as a part of the story. DCC does a lot of "quick add" to character sheets based on what happens during the adventure, especially magical corruption and mutations. If a character saves a unicorn, and one of the "random boons" the unicorn bestows is a "+2 on poison saves," - you just add that straight on the character sheet; no feat is required. The character has that forever.
Just write it down. No special rules are required.
This is DCC; characters rarely live long enough for a permanent unique bonus to unbalance the game that much. Even if a level 1 DCC character finds a laser rifle that does 6d6, an attack isn't terribly unbalancing in the scheme of things, especially if it blows up on a fumble.
Another class of feats is "class requirements," which you want to avoid. Like the cleave, combat casting, improved initiative, or power attack feats in 3.5E, some of these were "must haves" for many character builds. These aren't even choices, so they need to be tossed out. It is like having an "improved spell-burn" feat in DCC that doubles the value contributed to those dice rolls. This is so good it is a must-have for all casters. Is it cool, and does it make sense? Yes. But it breaks the game so hard and gives such an advantage that the feat becomes a requirement for all casters.
Other feats let you break specific game rules or grant you exemptions. These are a bit more interesting, but they also have a high possibility of breaking the game and becoming "must-haves."
Just because another game "does something" does not mean "you should do it, too." A lot of the rules introduced by Wizards of the Coast, even back in 3.5E, were anti-player and anti-referee rules that put more control of the game in the hands of the company. They seemed great then, but they eventually shifted most of the freedom of building characters into purchased books and took away so much of what made the old-school games fun in favor of book sales.
If I developed a feat system, it would have a hard requirement of "adding to characters" without "taking things away from others." DCC has a default assumption that "characters are awesome" and that they can make up a lot of stuff to do on the fly. You must avoid adding a feat system that chips away at player freedom. I would likely not even call it feats since that system has a "game-breaking" expectation that removes player options.
I remember how the Low Fantasy Gaming game had a feat system; players could invent a unique ability at every few levels. They gave you a few samples, but the game also lets players come up with anything, given referee approval. This requires an experienced group and referee to do well and have excellent knowledge of the rules. This is more in the spirit of DCC, but honestly, the game does a lot without a feat system like this, and you may be creating feats to limit yourself (or others).
Maintaining the "freedom of action" that players have is paramount.
Also, keeping that spirit of "just write it down" is essential.
You can't add a system that relies on limiting options by default for everyone else.
Given DCC's two design features, adding a feat system is a very difficult task and possibly not worth pursuing since the design goals of a 3.5E-style feat system run counter to the spirit of DCC.
No comments:
Post a Comment