Would you use the DCC RPG for long term campaign play ?

[finarvyn]

I agree that judging the 'long-term campaign' value of the DCC RPG by what's in the Beta rules is a bit premature. Obviously, much of the 'flavor' of how to manage the system isn't going to show up in a rules package designed to get players started.

Exactly. It would be like judging BECM D&D based only on the "Basic" set, or Call of Cthulhu based only on the "Quickstart" rules. What we have here is a rules system designed to get people playing in a hurry.

[jamescbennett]

For those worried about the effect of ability score loss over the course of a long-term campaign, I'd point out that, from what I remember of my misspent youth, "you find an unusual magical effect in the dungeon which increases ability score X by 1" was a not-too-uncommon RPG trope.

For a more Appendix N solution to the problem, I would most likely introduce alchemical ability-enhancing drugs, a la Elric.

[reverenddak]

For a more Appendix N solution to the problem, I would most likely introduce alchemical ability-enhancing drugs, a la Elric.

Just like IRL, I can see those drugs being abused.

[mntnjeff]

Quick question: I've heard that Joseph has been running a home game with these rules, is there any reason we haven't heard any reports from one of his players on how this game works in a campaign setting?

I'm just curious. These are the only people that might be able to answer the questions we all have regarding the endurance of the game.

(Yes, I've asked this question before. But I don't recall if it was ever answered.)

If no one is allowed to speak due to signing an NDA, then how about a clue like: "We've played it for 6 months and, so far, it has worked for campaign play as written."

This is the ONLY thing that's kept me from outright ordering the game. I LOVED playing it in a one-shot setting, but I see serious issues long term. (All stated previously by others)

[finarvyn]

If no one is allowed to speak due to signing an NDA, then how about a clue like: "We've played it for 6 months and, so far, it has worked for campaign play as written."

This is the ONLY thing that's kept me from outright ordering the game. I LOVED playing it in a one-shot setting, but I see serious issues long term. (All stated previously by others)

I'm not in Joseph's home game, but I've been playtesting since March and, so far, it has worked for campaign play as written.

For me, at least. (Not using the Beta rules per se, but the Alpha set with levels through 5 worked out.)

[mntnjeff]

I'm not in Joseph's home game, but I've been playtesting since March and, so far, it has worked for campaign play as written.

For me, at least. (Not using the Beta rules per se, but the Alpha set with levels through 5 worked out.)

That's valuable knowledge... It's curious why no one has really spoken up on that topic. I imagine that a few people out there (you included finarvyn) have played with the rules over an extended period of time, and yet we haven't really heard much about their experiences. Even though it's a fairly hot topic.

I'm not complaining mind you...Just curious. I would REALLY like for this game to work out as a rule set that holds its own over the long haul. I've been playing long enough to realize that there's never a set of rules that work "as written". Tweaking is part of the fun. But if there's something as core as magic use that's inherently broken (for campaign play), then it casts doubt upon whether that rule set is THE rule set with which to play that type of game.

I don't know though, maybe that was Joseph's intent? It's a game specifically created for short term / one-shot play? Has he stated outright that it's NOT? I'd love to hear him weigh in on this topic. Not that your input isn't valuable finarvyn.

[moes1980]

I don't see any reason why the game, even in its state now, can't be played in a campagin style (other than the limitations of 5 levels and only a few spells to pick from). GM's can allways teak the leathality of their adventures (i ran a campaign using DnD basic's rules encyclopedia up to high levels, never had a tpk, cause as DM, I teaked things to make sure the game could keep going, so im sure the same is possible with DCCRPG which is even more forgiving then that old system).

But, will I run a long term campaign in it? Personally im on the fench between the new hackmaster and this system. I love they style and feel of each system and chosing which one is very tough for me. After the full rules for hackmaster come out ill probably WANT to run that game as my go to game, but the reception from players has been much more positive for DCCRPG. Seems like my players just like the quick character creation and simple rules and fast and exciting play that comes with DCCRPG. Also, economics is sure to factor in, hackmaster core books (3 of them) will run at about 60 bucks a pop, where DCCRPG is, what, 35 bucks for one book? That is a huge plus for alot of players that don't have lot of money to spend. In other words, simpler rules and cheaper rule book lower the hurdle to getting new players.

As much as I love hackmaster (and I will buy at least one copy of each of those books, even if I dont get to play it), I see DCCRPG becoming my gaming groups main, go to, long running campaign rules system. I am hoping my brother will pick it up and continue are long running forgotten realms game in it (our realms has 15+ years of actual game play factored into its history, spanning 3 editions of DnD. Much of its history has been written by the deeds of our characters, very cool.)

[Ungoth]

Somehow, I borked my very first post here. This is how it should have read:

The slow wear down of your character (corruption, ability loss) does not lend itself to long term play. It's very cool for an adventure or two but long term you will drive your character in to the ground. In every way your character gets more powerful (hp, spell access, equipment, saves) but we are going to pull the rug out from under you over here? I don't like inflated 3e / 4e stats but I think this will lead to frustration and ultimately the player will quit or grow apathetic to their character and let them die.

"Oh my character with elephant ears, 1 leg, and 3 strength is dead, oh darn".

...and...

But big picture, I think from reading Joseph's comments in the various forums that he prefers 'role-playing' solutions to many problems, rather than hard-coding everything in the core rules.
<snip>
...I understand this might be difficult with players who want everything hard-coded with exactness. But I personally think it looks as if DCC will strike a nice balance between loosy-goosy & rules-exact.

As someone who is interested in supporting DCC RPG, both of these comments fire my creativity. Too much corruption? Excessive ability drain? To me, that is reason enough to gather your gaming buddies and go on a quest. 'Within the overgrown palace gardens of the Veiled Queen lies the fabled Pool of Pure Reflection. Fed by a natural spring from deep within the earth, the water in the pool is said to contain varied restorative powers. Stories tell of people finding the pool and having their youth restored, their diseases cured and their curses removed. Beware! For the Palace of the Veiled Queen is located inside an ancient city cloaked in perpetual night. Worse, foul creatures roam the ghostly streets --stalking anyone who dare approach the city. It is said that these demonic werebeasts were once men and women; adventurers and fortune hunters who dared steal a look at their reflection in the Pool...'

Therein lies part of long term play: Roleplaying a solution to a mechanical problem.

The more I think about DCC RPG, the more I am convinced that the players are supposed to be the driving force for propelling the game along.

[joela]

But how about you ?

Would there be anything that could be added or changed to what we know about the game so far that would convince you that it is equally suited to long term play ?

Yes, I'd use DCC RPG for long-term play. Nothing in the rule that I can see needs to have changes; I would, however, come up with houserules on how to reduce things like corruption, ability loss, etc., most like with adventures in their own right to do so.

I'm interested in DCC RPG precisely for the the lack of formal rules in nullifying / ignoring such issues with the proper section of feats and whatnots.

[Coffeedragon]

Yes, I'd use DCC RPG for long-term play. Nothing in the rule that I can see needs to have changes; I would, however, come up with houserules on how to reduce things like corruption, ability loss, etc., most like with adventures in their own right to do so.

I'm interested in DCC RPG precisely for the the lack of formal rules in nullifying / ignoring such issues with the proper section of feats and whatnots.

I agree completely.
The freeform DMing style of DCC is what has drawn me to the game.
Ultimately there should be no issues that can't be resolved via roleplaying means or a bit of common sense from the DM.
I would like to see the spells 'sorted out' or even have spells as a freeform system where the mage makes his own spells.

We have 3 DM's in our group and DCC has become a hot topic of discussion of late.
We were comparing it to Pathfinder the other day and realised that it is possible to run a DCCRPG style game using Pathfinder rules (well, partial rules anyway) but that the way the rules are laid out in each book heavily influences how both DM and players interpret the game.

Playing the game as written feels more 'right'. Having to houserule a bunch of stuff makes a game feel awkward to me.

[ragnorakk]

For a more Appendix N solution to the problem, I would most likely introduce alchemical ability-enhancing drugs, a la Elric.

Just like IRL, I can see those drugs being abused.

Yes but that's when the real hard core corruption kicks in!

I certainly remember using stat changing effects in early gaming. With the in-rules (potential) stat drain, a GM might want to liberally sprinkle the lands with magic fountains & such.

[Abchiptop]

You could always house rule an exercise system; every check using certain abilities bumps you up a notch, after so many uses, the player can trade the experience for stats.
Better yet, an option would be xp drain to build stats. This option would increase the player's maximum, but wouldn't repair stats used for spellburn, those have to heal naturally.
Something like my warrior has 11str, to go to 12, I burn 100 xp. 13 gives a modifier bonus, so it'll be pricier; 500 or so. Slap a cap of player level + 1 on three number of increases, so your first level thief can go up 2 stats but no more until they level. Combines with all the drain issues, it should allow smooth progression even between levels, and the cap reduces minmaxing at least until higher levels (maybe a hard cap of 4 stats power level once it's reached that level)
Make the players choose between levels and stats

[smathis]

Played my first higher level DCC game last weekend. Play report will be up soon. Probably this evening.

Results for that were mixed. DCC continues to be enjoyable. But frustrating because there's just a couple of things I'd tweak or change about it. I had a lot of good feedback from this group. I think they'd be up for playing it for an ongoing campaign after the November release. But their reaction to it last weekend suggested that it had lost some of its luster after a fun and engaging 0-level game.

Some of the issues are more Judge-related. And I think they could easily be solved through advice in the Judge's section. Others were more of a system issue. Or at least, a disparity in how this group expected a mechanic to work versus how it was said to work in the rules (and further how it has been "interpreted" to work via discussions on this forum).

I think those last ones are significant because it points out that the rules read differently (or at least in a way that they could be taken differently) from how they are played. Luck is the big gorilla in the room here. But there were others, like Divine Aid.

The stat thing continues to bug me. In a pretty big way. Whether or not DCC adopts some means of stat recovery or increase per level, I will be doing so in my games of DCC -- using bholmes' suggestions. Over the course of one evening, I saw at least 1 stat permanently dropped one point. That's with no undead or anything. Considering that I'd expect at least 4-5 sessions before the characters advanced to 6th level -- or even as many as 10! -- I'd expect each character to have lost at least one ability point permanently by their next level. Again, ability score increases are hamsters running a treadmill -- not munchkins on their way to Stathalla.

I think it's fine for Joseph and others to say "Let them make a deal with a patron for it" or "Let them find a magic fountain". But, in a way, that's sweeping the issue under the rug. I'm of the strong opinion that the ability scores being dropped will become a significant problem over time. And bholmes' suggestion is so... minor and unobtrusive. I can't see any significant reason it can't be included in the same appendix that Joseph was going to put "popular house rules" like jrients' "Shields Shall Be Splintered".

It doesn't have to be core, IMO. But it deserves a mention. Because I think the first thing groups are going to do (besides ditching 3d6 in order) is add stat bonuses in.

Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it and all...

As it stands, the 0-level game wowed the group. The 5th level game was "alright". I expected the opposite. Or at least to have the 5th level game on par with the excitement of the 0-level game. My regular group prefers DCC to Basic D&D -- somewhat. It's almost too 3e for the guys who pine for Basic and AD&D. And almost not modern enough for the guys who cut their teeth on 3e and 4e.

For this group, DCC went from "man, we gotta play this again" to "Man, this is wonky. I guess I'd play it again. Hey, when are we going to do another FASERIP game?"

Wonkiness will be discussed ad-nauseam in upcoming play report.

[bholmes4]

As it stands, the 0-level game wowed the group. The 5th level game was "alright". I expected the opposite. Or at least to have the 5th level game on par with the excitement of the 0-level game. My regular group prefers DCC to Basic D&D -- somewhat. It's almost too 3e for the guys who pine for Basic and AD&D. And almost not modern enough for the guys who cut their teeth on 3e and 4e.

Well said. As someone that pines for Basic, the 3e feel of this game (once you get out of 0-level play) is not sitting well and I constantly think of house rules to fix and clean/simplify things. It's transparent that they took a d20 engine and tried to "old school-ify" it when I think the reverse makes more sense: take an old school engine and modernize some things.

I keep reading about how much fun the 0 level funnel play is (OD&D meat grinder fun). There are posts on this forum by DMs and players that express a desire to only play 0-level games. And then for some reason at 1st level we decide to throw all that simple fun out the window and get away from what is working for the game, the one thing that is getting the most rave reviews.

For this group, DCC went from "man, we gotta play this again" to "Man, this is wonky. I guess I'd play it again. Hey, when are we going to do another FASERIP game?"

Wonkiness will be discussed ad-nauseam in upcoming play report.

This is exactly what I feared when reading the rules. I think it will take amazing DM skills to keep on top of things, adjusting to the wonkiness etc.

I have no doubt games run by Harley and Joseph are superb but their campaigns are not going to reflect what most of us will experience (for various reasons). I surely hope they listen closely to the feedback of players like yourself who are attempting campaign-play, since it is probably far closer to what most us will experience...

[smathis]

I have no doubt games run by Harley and Joseph are superb but their campaigns are not going to reflect what most of us will experience (for various reasons). I surely hope they listen closely to the feedback of players like yourself who are attempting campaign-play, since it is probably far closer to what most us will experience...

Just as a clarification. I'm not doing campaign play. Just playtesting at different levels. I'd love to do campaign play with DCC. But my group's not buying it (yet). They're of the opinion that they'd rather wait until they can either (A) playtest the thing I'm working on or (B) the official rules are out with changes.

They're not against playing the game again. And they'll probably be up for another playtest in a month or so. But they seem to think the game has too many issues to want to play it regularly. Which makes me sad. There's a lot I really like about DCC.

If the November release is really tight, it shouldn't be too hard to win them back. Right now, they really want me to pick up my Marvel FASERIP super-hero campaign and also do a cyberpunk game. DCC isn't high on their list.

I may try some pick-up games at the FLGS. I want to see how the game plays at 1st and 3rd level too.

But it's hard to ignore what I've seen with my own eyes. DCC has a couple of rough spots. That's not a bad thing. I think it's to be expected. It's a beta. And Joseph is really treating it as such because he's a stand-up guy. Fortunately, there are only a couple of things I think DCC needs clarification and/or a minor tweak here and there. There's one big (as in onerous) task I think needs to be done with spells. And then a small wish-list of random stuff.

It was my intent to post my play report tonight. But I'm going to watch Game of Thrones on HBO.

Gotta have some downtime.

[CEBrown]

The stat thing continues to bug me. In a pretty big way. Whether or not DCC adopts some means of stat recovery or increase per level, I will be doing so in my games of DCC -- using bholmes' suggestions. Over the course of one evening, I saw at least 1 stat permanently dropped one point. That's with no undead or anything. Considering that I'd expect at least 4-5 sessions before the characters advanced to 6th level -- or even as many as 10! -- I'd expect each character to have lost at least one ability point permanently by their next level. Again, ability score increases are hamsters running a treadmill -- not munchkins on their way to Stathalla.

You know, there was a game - I have no clue which one; I only played it once or twice back in the late 80s or early 90s that used a system for stat improvement similar to the skill system from Basic Role Play; once per level, you could check against a stat on whatever dice were used to generate it (i.e. 3d6). If you roll ABOVE the current stat, you gain one point in it.
Maybe something like that would be in order?

[bholmes4]

You know, there was a game - I have no clue which one; I only played it once or twice back in the late 80s or early 90s that used a system for stat improvement similar to the skill system from Basic Role Play; once per level, you could check against a stat on whatever dice were used to generate it (i.e. 3d6). If you roll ABOVE the current stat, you gain one point in it.
Maybe something like that would be in order?

http://www.goodman-games.com/forums/vie ... 65&t=15182 That is basically what I suggested here. I have never played BRP so I didn't know about that rule when I suggest it, but I also knew I couldn't have been the first to think of it.

[smathis]

You know, there was a game - I have no clue which one; I only played it once or twice back in the late 80s or early 90s that used a system for stat improvement similar to the skill system from Basic Role Play; once per level, you could check against a stat on whatever dice were used to generate it (i.e. 3d6). If you roll ABOVE the current stat, you gain one point in it.
Maybe something like that would be in order?

Yup. That's what bholmes is suggesting. Maybe not every level. I'm leaning towards every other level. My take on it is giving the player a roll against one stat. Starting at 1st level and then every even level after that -- so 2nd, 4th, 6th, etc. Alternating between a stat chosen by the player and one chosen randomly from STR, AGL, STA, INT and PER -- via d5, of course.

Unlike 3e and 4e, it's not a flat increase. It's fairly moderate. And it would never allow a stat above 18. That's why I characterize it as characters keeping up on the treadmill. Not uber-optimizing. Over 10 levels, a character would see 5-6 increases max, spread across all their stats. So that's a max of +1 to each stat or (maybe) a +2 to one stat over 10 levels. It's my experience that characters take at least 6 or 7 points of permanent ability damage across that same range of levels. Taken in that light, it might not be enough. But I'm wanting to debunk the myth that this would lead to min-maxing and optimization. Bollocks. I challenge anyone to min-max with a system like that.

I think there's a lot of knee-jerk reactions at 3e-ifying or 4e-ifying the game. Yeah. I don't want to do that either. But this is something DCC needs. I've heard it from almost everyone who's sat at the table. It's a bigger complaint than the funky dice. And it's not even related groups. The Free RPG Day pick-up group pinged on it too.

Hearing the same criticism from two completely separate groups perks up my ears. DCC can do better than "send them to a magic fountain". As always, YMMV.

[finarvyn]

It's curious why no one has really spoken up on that topic. I imagine that a few people out there (you included finarvyn) have played with the rules over an extended period of time, and yet we haven't really heard much about their experiences. Even though it's a fairly hot topic.

For me, the answer is pretty simple: most of my playtest campaign started out with material provided directly from Jospeh and I don't want to post "spoilers" for it. Some of this material was re-written into the "Free RPG Day" module, other will be released soon as regular modules (I think). I don't want to say anything about those games that might spoil it for others or hurt module sales later.

So far, I've found that DCC plays as a campaign much like most other RPGs that I've run in the past. Players start out weak and grow strong. Many of the complaints about losing stats or burning luck too fast were issues that my group expressed concerns about early on, but as play has continued they have figured out the scale of the game better. Learning curve and all.

What my group has determined is that corruption is bad and they don't like the side-effects and so they aren't as big a fan of running wizards as they used to be. They have fallen more into the style of good guys stalking the evil wizard NPC, which fits the Appendix N style quite a bit.

They've had fun with it. My group is used to moving from one campaign to the next at 6-9 month intervals, however, so it will be interesting to see long-term what they think of the game. (My usual "go to" game has been C&C.)

[jmucchiello]

So far, I've found that DCC plays as a campaign much like most other RPGs that I've run in the past. Players start out weak and grow strong. Many of the complaints about losing stats or burning luck too fast were issues that my group expressed concerns about early on, but as play has continued they have figured out the scale of the game better. Learning curve and all.

What my group has determined is that corruption is bad and they don't like the side-effects and so they aren't as big a fan of running wizards as they used to be. They have fallen more into the style of good guys stalking the evil wizard NPC, which fits the Appendix N style quite a bit.

They've had fun with it. My group is used to moving from one campaign to the next at 6-9 month intervals, however, so it will be interesting to see long-term what they think of the game. (My usual "go to" game has been C&C.)

This implies to me that the wizard doesn't work as written. We don't need a game where wizard is the new cleric. "Hey, Jake, you're late, we all picked classes and no one is a wizard, you want to take that role for us?" Or worse, just leave it out of the book if people don't enjoy playing it long term.

[reverenddak]

It would probably be in the best interest for DCC to have viable wizards (and clerics). It's pretty clear that Warriors are fine, Thieves... I don't know about that class anymore. The Demi-humans? I don't know why they're there. They should be optional, and examples, and possibly found in the Judge's section (like the Bard in AD&D.) But that's a whole other topic, and probably too late to deal with now.

Regardless of what has been included, no one will want to buy a RPG just for one-shots. My hopes were that DCC would be my go-to game for Sword & Sorcery. There are already a ton of well designed games that cover Epic or High Fantasy.

[abk108]

I'm already running a level 0 funnel adventure. I think that by the end of tomorrow session they'll reach the end of the dungeon, the big baddie and take the loot. After that I'm planning on playing the AD&D Desert of Desolation adventure (it's actually three modules, one after the other), adapting it to a Low Level DCC game.

I find that DCC works perfectly with adventures designed for a higher level party: this way, the feeling that the world out there is not for the PCs to take it, but it's a dangerous place that requires careful play.
I mean, I would really toss a group of 3rd level characters in the Tomb of Horrors (obviously trying to make those necessary fights easier, or give the PC a chance to overcome impossible obstacles)... It's like, the funnel never ends