# Crown and Skull

This page contains my review and analysis of the *Crown & Skull* RPG system.

## The Good

### Flaws

The **Flaw system** is a strong narrative tool. It improves character depth and offers players meaningful tradeoffs—gain more options by accepting drawbacks.

However:
- The list of flaws is **far too small**
- It serves more as a **source of inspiration** than a complete reference

In a flexible system, the flaw list must be **expandable** and player-driven to reflect diverse archetypes and concepts.

### Lists and Example Content

Some of the **lists provided** in the Player’s Guide (e.g., backgrounds, abilities) are worth mining for ideas.

It's worth reviewing them to:
- Ensure that our own system **covers the same design space**
- Avoid embarrassing gaps where another system supports archetypes we can't

This is especially important if the goal is to support **universal character creation**.

## The Bad

### Language Style

The Player’s Guide is **overwritten and flowery**.

- It reads more like an author showing off their vocabulary than conveying rules clearly
- A rules document should be **concise and direct**, not poetic or verbose

Clarity must take priority over flair in any player-facing rulebook.

### Lore Dependency

The system is heavily tied to its **canon world and lore**.

While that’s fine for a limited campaign or one-shot, it becomes **inflexible** for GMs who want to:

- Build custom worlds
- Change thematic tone
- Reuse the rules in other settings

A modular or lore-free ruleset has far broader utility.

### d20 Roll-Under Mechanic

Using a **roll-under system** is simple and easy—but flawed.

- It fails to reflect **variable challenge difficulty**
- Example: Jumping a 5 ft. gap is treated the same as a 20 ft. one

Without a DC or opposing threshold, there's **no scale** of difficulty—just success or failure based on your stat.

This reduces the system’s tactical and narrative flexibility.

## The Other

### Attrition

The concept of **attrition through loss of abilities or gear**, rather than tracking HP, is interesting.

- *Daggerheart* does something similar by letting players **lose armor** to reduce damage

However:

- In high-stakes situations, choosing what to lose can be **mentally taxing**
- May **slow down gameplay**, especially in combat
- Could **conflict with narrative plans** (e.g., player gives up a key item the GM needed them to keep)

While intriguing, it may not scale well across different groups or play styles.

### Core Ability Model

Limiting each character to a single defining trait keeps things simple.

But:

- It restricts characters to the **12 predefined archetypes**
- This limits player creativity and system flexibility

A more modular or combinatory system would support greater **archetype diversity** without sacrificing simplicity.