Differences

This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.

Link to this comparison view

Both sides previous revisionPrevious revision
Next revision		Previous revision
research:crown_and_skull [2025/06/18 15:24] – Ron Helwigresearch:crown_and_skull [2025/06/22 16:36] (current) – Ron Helwig
Line 1: Line 1:
-====== The Good ======+# Crown and Skull
  
-===== Flaws ===== +This page contains my review and analysis of the *Crown & Skull* RPG system.
-Flaws can greatly improve the narrative quality of a character, and having a way for the player to get more character creation and growth options by taking flaws is a great idea.+
  
-Unfortunately the provided list is way too small and can't possibly cover all possible character ideas, but it is a decent example list to inspire players.+## The Good
  
-====== The Bad ======+### Flaws
  
-===== Language is too Flowery ===== +The **Flaw system** is a strong narrative tool. It improves character depth and offers players meaningful tradeoffs—gain more options by accepting drawbacks.
-The verbiage in the Player's Guide is way too verbose and appears written to show off the author's ability to use flowery language.+
  
-===== Lore ===== +However: 
-The whole thing is based on a canon world with it's own lore. That's fine for a one-off game you play once or twice, but it is too inflexible.+- The list of flaws is **far too small** 
 +- It serves more as a **source of inspiration** than a complete reference
  
-===== D20 roll under skill checks ===== +In a flexible system, the flaw list must be **expandable** and player-driven to reflect diverse archetypes and concepts.
-This is simple and easy but doesn't reflect the idea that challenges can have varying difficulties. An example would be that jumping across a 5 foot wide chasm is essentially the same challenge as jumping across a 20 foot wide chasm.+
  
-====== The Other ======+### Lists and Example Content
  
-===== Attrition ===== +Some of the **lists provided** in the Player’s Guide (e.g., backgrounds, abilities) are worth mining for ideas. 
-The idea that losing abilities or equipment instead of managing hit points or other virtual resources is intriguing. This is similar to how in [[research:daggerheart]] you can reduce the damage you take by sacrificing armor.+ 
 +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.
  
-In general though, I think this would be too taxing for most players to manage. Having to decide what to sacrifice in the heat of battle can be complex enough of a decision to radically slow down the combat. It could also result in a character losing something that the game master was relying on the character having for some story reason.