Design Philosophy

This RPG engine has been designed to be what I want out of a game system. Other people will no doubt disagree with a lot of the details. I had a number of guiding principles:

• The system must be able to handle any type of character well.
• The system should be based around a small number of basic systems. These systems should be similar to each other, and have sufficient flexibility to encourage modification for specific purposes.
• The system should not emphasise combat.
• The system should cover the social interactions of characters, because they are not the same as the players.
• Ability scales should be open ended. No matter how good a character is, it should be possible for someone to be better.
• The system should cover downtime activities as well as things that happen on stage.
• Natural ability should be important, but should not dominate: training should also matter.

DCS is the result. The social mechanics allow people to play gullible characters who get taken in by lies that the players see coming a mile off, and the temptation rules allow them to play people struggling to be good. And the combat mechanics are nine lines long.

This is the second version of DCS.

The presence of "personality mechanics" will annoy some people. I fully expect Dave Nalle to go apoplectic if he reads this, but then he hates all the best systems. I can see where such objections are coming from, and the web format means that I can take the space to justify myself.

Player characters are not the players in different bodies: still less are NPCs the GM. They have different personalities, and mechanics can help you play someone different. I tend to play nice, helpful, conciliatory characters, because that's how I am when indolence doesn't win out. Mechanics to help me play someone nasty would be useful.

Mechanics as crutch are not the whole story, however. The player is not in the character's position. It is all very well for the player to decide that his character is not going to go off with the woman, but the player hasn't just had a gorgeous blonde throwing herself at him for an hour, immediately after he gets back from three months in the desert. The player can have the character try to resist, but there should be mechanics that present the possibility of failure.

I don't think that this restricts roleplaying any more than combat mechanics. The character tries to win the battle, but isn't good enough: the character tries to resist seduction, but his will gives out.

The player gets to provide the character's will, as it were, but sometimes emotions and other drives will defeat it. The mechanics allow this to happen.

There are other, more specific reasons. I like the concept of a character struggling to free himself from an evil past, the habits as much as the associations. With mechanics for temptations, I can have him struggle constantly, but sometimes fail and lapse back. Without such mechanics, I have to decide when he gets better, when he succeeds, and when he fails. If I want to simply decide that, I can write a novel. (Well, maybe. I can write a short story, at least.) The mechanics allow me to role-play someone struggling with temptation, and to throw my whole heart into it. I don't need to keep a corner of my mind detached, saying "I think he should fail this time".

The inclusion of social and mental mechanics allows a wider range of roleplaying. You can play someone struggling with his inner demons, or the good guy constantly set up by beautiful women. The mechanics give you something to pit yourself against. Instead of just deciding that you resist temptation, you must have the character do things that reduce the temptation, and hope that the GM gives you enough bonuses.

I've been emphasising personality mechanics here. Mechanics for social interaction are much easier to justify. The character has different persuasive powers from the player. NPCs will differ from the GM. If the player is slick and articulate, his characters should not get the benefit of that.

Of course, there has to be a limit, which is why the system allows role-playing modifiers. If the player is slick and articulate, the character will probably get lots of role-playing modifiers, and so do better than he should. But if the character has no social skills at all, he still won't do very well.

Several game systems have influenced my design. It has probably been influenced by most games that I have read, and I have read a lot. A lot of the influence is negative, such as the size of the combat system in most games, or closed ability ranges.

The main positive influence is doubtless Ars Magica. The crafting rules are heavily inspired by it, and the improvement rules are inspired by the rules that I wrote for the fourth edition, which in turn were inspired by the basic structure of the mechanics.

The ability and aptitude structure was (immediately) inspired by CORPS.

Fate Points were inspired by FUDGE, WFRP, and Castle Falkenstein. I would like to work cards into DCS, giving the player more control over the randomness, but I haven't figured out how.

Aspects were inspired by GURPS, Ars Magica (again), and all the other myriad games including Advantages, Merits, Virtues, Benefices or whatever. In keeping with my personality, I've tried to keep mine abstract, so that the players can create whatever aspects they want, rather than producing a restricted list.

I don't claim any great originality for DCS. It is unique, in that no other system works in quite the same way, but it is very close to a lot of other systems.

The system is simply a skeleton, onto which the flesh of different game worlds can be put. I have several ideas, but they will probably have to wait for a repeat of the burst of enthusiasm that got this written this weekend. In the meantime, I will put it up on the web, to be ignored by all and sundry. Enjoy!

David Chart
Cambridge, UK
8 March 1998