DwD Studios

I generally just give them less DP. I like simple smooth rules. Most of the important stuff is in our imagination anyway, the points and paper is just to try to make the rolling match our concept. (In other words, I generally want my character to be able to do what I think he ought to be able to do)

I think the suggested amendment is pretty neat- makes the selection of initial skill preference more enduring/ important. And means you can be a little more generous on DP...My players like getting more and plan carefully well ahead where to spend them. I'll use it!

I dunno, this new system looks more "class-based" than the original. That could be a plus for lots of people like wbrowne above. But I like that choices at chargen don't pigeonhole future advancement so much.

I'm with Neolithicwolf, if I want to slow down or speed up advancement, I change how many DP I hand out. It seems way easier to manage than having a selection of different advancement systems.

well the idea of limiting the amount given was thought up first at my second game. So the question is , how many? One? Two? Three? With three you can buy a level in any skill. By the fourth game I have a skill level in all the skills that need a level.

What problem are you trying to solve?
- I don't want players to take a level in all skills
- I want a skill cap, you can't have a skill that is higher than 4
- I want players to make the character they enjoy
- etc.

One of the neat things about the DP system in the core book is the ability to for anyone in the party to fill a gap in skills. For instance, the party barley survives a trek through the jungle (they came across many traps set by a local tribe that almost killed the party). Anyone in the party can make a Scout check, however nobody is trained in it. Bob the Wizard from Trell decides to take a level in Scout for their next trip through that jungle. See, neat.

I'm of the opinion that game balance isn't achieved by limiting DP or using the above option but relies on the GM. I know of a table that have a level 5 spellcaster, everyone else have level 3 skills. The player wanted to focus on just spellcasting while the rest of the party balanced out. The GM has to challenge the caster as well as the party and is finding it difficult. It's not the players fault, ya know?

Here's how I feel about that way of thinking though: Most people that pick up and just read the rules as-is and aren't prone to house ruling will run the game based on the core material in the book. That's the root of the game and, yes, it's good for players and DMs to work together to make the game they want it to be but if something is continually reworked or house ruled by most players then the core ruling no longer holds true, the change does. It's like how I feel about the rules for Offensive Strike. It does say that you can hit creatures as an area of effect but it says nothing about, say, using that spell to incur a specific status effect through roleplaying by asking the DM to drop damage. Yes, that's a great way to roleplay and it's ultimately up to the DM to rule whether they'll allow it or not, but if you're a noob and just looking at the rules you initially only see the spell as a form of direct damage.

I guess the point I'm making here is that I agree with what everyone says about the game being GREAT for house ruling and modifying, but I feel that some aspects like DP distribution could be tested for application and then included as a replacement for the original printed rules so if someone picks up the game they can jump into the game quickly with a good understanding of how things are going to work.

/my2cents