Dragonchess House Rules

[Zetram]

Here are the rules I decided to use in my game for Dragonchess. Would like some opinions on it balance and/or flavor wise.

Dragonchess Rules:


https://www.gmbinder.com/share/-Lmrni8ewAXgIyjLSCVg

[noob]

Except it turns out that charisma does not matters in games like chess(innovating is done with everything ever but charisma in real life: many people who are as worse at social stuff than a brick are extremely innovative: only making the other people think you are innovative by communicating with them is done with charisma and making people think you are innovative have nothing to do with being innovative(it is more useful than actually being innovative until you actually play a game like chess))
Also the skills involved in the deception skill are different from the ones that are used to dissimulate your tactics in a game unless you do not have the idea of wearing a mask or anything like that.
Perception is about seeing stuff not about abstract thinking for anticipating the next possible moves of the opponent so it should not help win a turn or else you might have an eagle sometimes beat an human at dragonchess for seemingly no reason(I mean why should the great sight of an eagle help it to beat people at dragonchess).

the worst stuff comes from one wrong idea: that there should be symmetry.
You wanted symmetry between all the mental stats while it would not have made sense here(wisdom and int might help in a game like chess but not charisma).
That desire for symmetry is the kind of stuff that did lead wotc to make good and evil symmetrical and thus led to absurd stuff like the lumi which are good aligned creatures that kills everything that lies or is evil and considers that you lying is a valid reason for killing you.
Do not follow the line of reasoning that made wotc create their worst creations.

(as for the skills not fitting it is a problem but not a problem as big as the desire for symmetry)

[Zetram]

Except it turns out that charisma does not matters in games like chess(innovating is done with everything ever but charisma in real life: many people who are as worse at social stuff than a brick are extremely innovative: only making the other people think you are innovative by communicating with them is done with charisma and making people think you are innovative have nothing to do with being innovative(it is more useful than actually being innovative until you actually play a game like chess))
Also the skills involved in the deception skill are different from the ones that are used to dissimulate your tactics in a game unless you do not have the idea of wearing a mask or anything like that.
Perception is about seeing stuff not about abstract thinking for anticipating the next possible moves of the opponent so it should not help win a turn or else you might have an eagle sometimes beat an human at dragonchess for seemingly no reason(I mean why should the great sight of an eagle help it to beat people at dragonchess).

the worst stuff comes from one wrong idea: that there should be symmetry.
You wanted symmetry between all the mental stats while it would not have made sense here(wisdom and int might help in a game like chess but not charisma).
That desire for symmetry is the kind of stuff that did lead wotc to make good and evil symmetrical and thus led to absurd stuff like the lumi which are good aligned creatures that kills everything that lies or is evil and considers that you lying is a valid reason for killing you.
Do not follow the line of reasoning that made wotc create their worst creations.

(as for the skills not fitting it is a problem but not a problem as big as the desire for symmetry)

I appreciate the critique, but I must say you're a title of your mark regarding my goal. It's not to create balance, but make the game itself a more interesting contest than a straight d20+proficiency roll by adding element of strategy. However, the way I set it up highly intelligent players have a clear advantage over wise or charismatic players. The only reason charisma is in there is to allow some with high charisma and proficiency in dragonchess to play the game. I imagine a charismatic player would do a lot of talking to distract a player from being inspired to make a great play or really sell the idea they messed up with the Feint play. However the ability to give your opponent disadvantage can be mitigated by re-using a skill play you already made that game.

As for how the skills apply, I left that up for DM's to use their imaginations to decide. The idea is that though something like perception wouldn't directly help in chess. If a player intended to anticipate their opponents next move noticing how they touch one piece then moved to another or how their eyes move as they view the board would help.

[noob]

I appreciate the critique, but I must say you're a title of your mark regarding my goal. It's not to create balance, but make the game itself a more interesting contest than a straight d20+proficiency roll by adding element of strategy. However, the way I set it up highly intelligent players have a clear advantage over wise or charismatic players. The only reason charisma is in there is to allow some with high charisma and proficiency in dragonchess to play the game. I imagine a charismatic player would do a lot of talking to distract a player from being inspired to make a great play or really sell the idea they messed up with the Feint play. However the ability to give your opponent disadvantage can be mitigated by re-using a skill play you already made that game.

As for how the skills apply, I left that up for DM's to use their imaginations to decide. The idea is that though something like perception wouldn't directly help in chess. If a player intended to anticipate their opponents next move noticing how they touch one piece then moved to another or how their eyes move as they view the board would help.

Cha (Inventive play) vs Wis

should be renamed into

Cha (confusing through social interaction) vs Wis

Also if the opponent is playing at a distance through letters(there is stories of players doing go that way) then charisma should definitively not help unless you were so charismatic that through your letters you can induce long lasting confusion(which is probably not the case).
Maybe we could replace charisma by strength and call it Str (Brute-force) vs Wis (playing by searching through the move space the possibilities and the possible moves against those moves and so on and picking the best one which is not something people would call intelligence but which is roughly what deep blue did and nobody would call a deep blue(which is a computer with a specific program) intelligent) and it would make roughly as much sense as a replacement to charisma.

[Zetram]

Maybe we could replace charisma by strength and call it Str (Brute-force) vs Wis (playing by searching through the move space the possibilities and the possible moves against those moves and so on and picking the best one which is not something people would call intelligence but which is roughly what deep blue did and nobody would call a deep blue(which is a computer with a specific program) intelligent) and it would make roughly as much sense as a replacement to charisma.

Agree to disagree *shrug*

To clarify, Dragonchess the way I'm imagining it here is actually a mini-game where plays are your magic melee attacks, so Cha modifies your inventive plays the same way it modifies a sorcerer's magic. While the skill plays are like cantrips.

[Man_Over_Game]

I do agree with Noob on that pieces like Deception or Charisma don't really fit the narrative of what I expect out of Dragonchess.

Even Wisdom, the attribute of honing into your physical senses, doesn't really fit here (unless it's to determine if your opponent cheated or not).

A few things that DO stand out as having a potential place:

Arcana (if Dragonchess is using literal magic as part of the game)
History (being knowledgeable on effective strategies)

There could be a way to fit those in.