House Rules for Garweeze Wurld

[Galadrin]

In an effort to map DCC RPG onto the Garweeze Wurld, I have been considering these house rules. What do you think?

Threshold of Pain: When a combatant receives damage equal to half or more their remaining hit points, they must immediately take a Threshold of Pain (ToP) test. Take a Fortitude Save against a DC of 10 + the amount of damage received. If the save is failed, the combatant is "topped" and collapses to the ground in the fetal position, rolling around stunned for 1d6 rounds. If the save is fumbled, the combatant is disabled for 1d6 turns. If the save is a critical success, the combatant bears the blow regardless of the DC.

Subdual Damage: When a combatant successfully hits an enemy, they may ask a general question about the enemy's condition (how beat up they look) and then decide to do subdual damage instead of regular damage. Roll the damage dice as normal and compare the result to the enemy's remaining hit points. If the result exceeds the hit points, the enemy is immediately knocked unconscious. Subdual "damage" is not recorded or subtracted from the remaining hit points in any case (and is otherwise discounted after the roll).

This rule is not lifted from Hackmaster so much as it is just a fun tweak on the normal subdual rules. The rationale is that subdual damage always targets the head, and since even a slight puncture of the skull could easily and immediately kill the victim, subdual damage always represents fairly "soft handling" (such that a blow that misses its target and hits an arm or shoulder would essentially cause no damage anyway). It also keeps the attacker guessing on when to employ that final subdual blow, and can easily result in misjudging and accidentally killing the target.

Helmets: A combatant with a helmet may make a Fortitude save against being knocked out by subdual damage. The DC of this save is equal to 10 + the subdual damage dice result.

Player Facing Initiative: Instead of determining initiative order each round of combat, the referee and players describe the action fluidly and narratively. When a player's action crosses paths with an opponent's action, the player rolls an Initiative save against a DC equal to 10 + the monster's initiative bonus to act first.

Example:
Referee: The Android is about to throw the maiden into the cryostasis pod. What do you do?
Player: I run up behind the Android and hack him in his control box with my sword!
Referee: Maybe you get there in time and maybe you don't. Make an Initiative save...

[finarvyn]

A bit more in-depth than I like, but these rules don't look like they will unbalance a DCC campaign and they certainly give the feel of a HackMaster game. I'd say try 'em out and report back.

[Skyscraper]

Interesting rules.

I like that th ToP rules give a more gritty feel to the game. If you and your players like that, I'm sure it will be a good addition to your game. The downside I would see to it is that DCC appears relatively lethal already, adding another layer to PC fragility is likely to make the players' lives more complicated. But if you balance your game accordingly as judge, it should be fine.

I like the idea of subdual damage, and this rule seems as good as others that I've seen before. I admit that I have not seen a subdual rule that really pleases me yet, this one included. About this particular rule, one problem that I see might happen (would have to confirm by playtesting it) is that the rule appears pretty dependent on meta-play:

(1) the judge "status description" of how badly the opponent is hurt is very important. If the judge misdescribes, then the player cancels an otherwise useful hit. This might lead eventually to codes appearing that will be recognizable by both players and judge (e.g. "the critter is close to death", player: "do you mean really close like last time?"), or to the judge varying his descriptions in which case the players could get frustrated at not being able to rely on the description.

(2) The player needs to determine if the amount of damage rolled on his damage die is enough to beat that status description. This is not a PC decision, this is a player decision taken after rolls are made.

I like the idea of armor parts, such as helmets, that allow avoiding some specific damage types, such as blows to the head. Helmets in particular just get that special treatment that they should. Nowadays, we recognize how much helmets are necessary in sports, using them in hockey, skiing, biking, rollerblading, etc... Because we know that a simple hit to the head can be disastrous. It sounds like common sense that combatants should wear helmets pretty much systematically. I also like that this rule links to your subdual rules. However, in DCC, the question then is: why do only helmets get that special treatment? We all know that combat should not be about hit points, that armor giving a boost to AC is very simplistic. I think your idea is good, but it is a drop of realism in a sea of abstraction. Personally, if we're going to play in a system such as DCC (or D&D or any other such RPG), I prefer we stick to our guns and embrace the system as it is. the rule about helmets appears like an added complexity that would not add much to the game in terms of realism.

The idea of initiative, I like the most I believe. I understand this to be a way to avoid rolling initiative when you don't feel it's necessary. I'm unsure that I would use this as the default assumption, because in multi-creature battles initiative order can be pretty important. Also, this might lead to the fast talkers around the table getting the upper hand because they said what they wanted to do before the others. But I think that in some circumstances, dropping initiative rolls helps simplify the game and getting on with the action more quickly, especially in simple fights.

[Galadrin]

Those are some good points. To be honest, I suppose I will change that rule so that referee could just say "dude has 3 hp left" (or "you can't knock him out yet!")—I wouldn't mind being explicit if the target is close to death (with the exception of those targets that cannot be subdued, like skeletons and golems). I want to limit subdual damage from causing any real reduction in hit points because I want to preserve the risk of accidentally killing the target (if you could just whittle him down, it becomes much safer to attempt to subdue the enemy).

The ToP rule would apply against monsters as well, of course, but yes: it does make things more lethal! On the other hand, it does force the players to take pause at the fact that they only have a handful of hit points left. You are effectively forcing characters who are close to their death to consider their mortality before they go too far and are killed.

I've actually tried the initiative rule and what I've found is that it really frees up the imagination of the combat (it is essentially the same initiative system as Dungeon World RPG). Things are no longer fixed in space and time, but rather it reads like a book, with characters jumping in freely at any point. The more talkative players do tend to take priority, of course, but a canny referee can tweak this by having the monsters engage the quieter players. For example:

P1: "I charge the Troglodyte and hack him with my axe!"
Ref: "Well, the Troglodyte was grasping at Frobozz the Wizard... Frobozz, what are you doing?"
P2: "I was going to cast Wall Walk!"
Ref: "Ok, let's all throw some Initiative rolls and see how it unfolds..."