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

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.

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 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.

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.

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 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.

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.