Goodman Games

dkeester wrote:Thank you for providing a frame of reference.

And I won't pretend that this has to be the scale for your campaign. It's just the way I've done it.

dkeester wrote:I, perhaps like many here, have a different frame of reference. Mine comes from Mentzer BECMI, 1e AD&D, 2e AD&D, and 3e/PFRPG. So, my knobs have always gone up to 20, to paraphrase "This is Spinal Tap."

Agreed. I think the entire scale thing does change a lot from edition to edition, mostly growing higher and higher.

Think about spells:
* The origininal boxed set OD&D had spells from 1st to 6th level.
* The Greyhawk supplement added 7-9th level spells.
* AD&D added 0 level spells.
* 2E added spell schools and lots of extras.
* 3E added 8th and 9th level for Clerics.
* 4E rates spells from 1-30 (I think).

Think about character levels:
* OD&D was clearly defined for levels up to 10 or so, and some vague guidelines suggested that you could go a lot higher, but Gary implied that playing "by the book" would take years and years to actually get there. (On Grognardia is a wonderful blog post where James mentions level ranges for 36 of the early TSR modules, none of which were designed for characters above 12-14th level or so.)
* AD&D lifted the bar to 20th level.
* BECMI brought it to 36th.
* 2E had a "high level campaign" book.
* 3E defined "epic" as 20-30th.
* 4E assumes that going to 30th is standard.

All a matter of scale, and the DCC RPG will be taking us back to the early days.

dkeester wrote:This is something that definitely needs to be called out explicitly in the rulebook. I don't remember at this time if Joseph or Harley have given any concrete examples of the level scale for DCC RPG. I would love to know what levels the designers would assign to the iconic characters of Appendix N and have specific examples, perhaps using those characters, in the final text.

I think that Joseph will be quite specific on this issue. He has dropped some hints and I suspect that he will define this more completely soon.

The neat thing about RPGs is that they can be played at pretty much any power level. Players just need to get a solid understanding of what power range they are at and what power range corresponds to the monsters.

There is a lot of fun to be had from being able to drop a timestop and knock off a couple more 8th and 9th level spells (with metamagic) in epic level 3e. Getting to use Bigby's Crushing Hand or Meteor Swarm. They sat there in the Player's Handbook unused through most of 1e and 2e AD&D. Scry, Buff, Teleport. It's all good stuff. After all, the original Bard (first prestige class in D&D) implied 12+ level characters exist.

But I would never expect that kind of experience from DCCRPG (or OD&D or C&C or...) they are all just different games. In fact, I see no reason for DCCRPG to even imply such spells exist. It is obviously leaning toward "street level" fantasy. D&D really doesn't work for that (for me) so this fills a niche in the market (though E6 is close).

There's no reason to get all GOML here. I think most of us here have been playing "forever". 1e magic-users had spell lists that ran to 29th level. 3e cut that list off at 20th level. Does that mean 1e had more levels than 3e? Wasn't 1e prone to the 134th level Thor-slaying character? Never saw that in 3e.

* OD&D was clearly defined for levels up to 10 or so, and some vague guidelines suggested that you could go a lot higher, but Gary implied that playing "by the book" would take years and years to actually get there. (On Grognardia is a wonderful blog post where James mentions level ranges for 36 of the early TSR modules, none of which were designed for characters above 12-14th level or so.)
* AD&D lifted the bar to 20th level.

No AD&D had no bar and listed cleric, illusionist and magic-user spell progressions well above 20th level.

* BECMI brought it to 36th.

I never saw the C M or I box sets in my area. For me Moldvay's B/X series will always "stop" at 14th level.

* 2E had a "high level campaign" book.

That for the most part cut off around 15th level and paid some lip service to 20th level.

* 3E defined "epic" as 20-30th.

3E stopped cold at 20th level and only had an optional book that added higher level play and most 3e players never use it because there are many problems with it if you use the Epic Spellcasting from it. The epic book was theoretically unlimited. Pathfinder and Paizo's adventure paths (both before and after they lost the Dragon/Dungeon license) stop at 20th level.

* 4E assumes that going to 30th is standard.

But still calls 21-30th level "Epic". There are various posts on ENWorld about how poorly WotC is doing at supporting Epic play.

dkeester wrote:EDIT: If level 10 really is "Immortal" or "Godly", then my proposed level-15 experiment becomes rather pointless.

Not really. It should be pretty easy to extrapolate out what a character at level 10 will look like at level 15. It might be informative to get a feel for play at levels 15 and 20 because it might illustrate problems with the mechanics that aren't apparent at level 1.

And it might point out things that could be easily fixed with tweaking at lower levels. So I think there's value there, even if DCC doesn't go that high.

Simply put, if the designers of 3e had kicked the tires at 20th or 30th level with 3e, they would've been exposed to serious holes in their approach. And would've realized pretty spot on how broken 3e was in a couple of areas. Sure, the cracks don't really stress the system until about level 12 or so... But they would've (and should've) seen that coming.

It's pretty apparent that they designed a game that was good up to 10th level or so and then just extrapolated from there.

4e isn't much different, IMO. I think WotC kicked the tires at 11th, 21st -- maybe even 30th level. But the powers and such get so handwavy at the high levels... it seems pretty obvious that Epic level play wasn't high on their list. But they cared more about it than the designers of 3e.

I'd rather have 10 good levels than 6 good levels and 20 or so broken ones. There's even been talk of limiting 4e to an E6 sort of approach. Mainly because the powers (and bonuses) get unmanageable at higher levels.

And the combats take even longer for it.

How in the world anyone spent a year plus designing and developing 4e yet NEVER had a combat last 90 minutes and say, "gee... that took a little long", is beyond my powers of comprehension. Not to mention the phonebook of "playtesters".

So, yes, let's kick the tires beyond DCC's upper limit. IMO, playtesting isn't normal rpg play. Normal rpg play doesn't inform the developers of much, except the predispositions of the group and the DM. A good DM playtesting any game will come away with a fun time no matter what.

We should be punching this game in the nuts to see if it doubles over at some point. We should be kicking its shins to see if it can still run while hopping on one leg. And if no one else runs at least one session at level 15 or 20, I will. Just to see what breaks and if that translates down to level 5 or level 1 in an unexpected manner.

jmucchiello wrote:But I would never expect that kind of experience from DCCRPG (or OD&D or C&C or...) they are all just different games. In fact, I see no reason for DCCRPG to even imply such spells exist. It is obviously leaning toward "street level" fantasy. D&D really doesn't work for that (for me) so this fills a niche in the market (though E6 is close).

I see DCC as more competition for Warhammer Fantasy than D&D. D&D has really moved on to being a tactical boardgame about Big Damn Heroes.

My only concerns from the playtest accounts are the lethality and how the buckets of randomness shake out. The lethality is fun for those looking for a "hardcore" OSR experience, I'm sure. But over long-term play, I'm not sure that a high lethality game won't get a bit dull.

There's a good reason why early editions of D&D featured all sorts of house rules to boost character efficacy at low levels. Everything from max hit points at level 1 to getting one's CON score in hit points at level 1. It would be nice if DCC took this under consideration and offered some optional rules that gave characters a leg up without screwing the game up at higher levels. They don't need to be intrusive or crazy rules, either. But I think they do need to address the lethality issue without inflating hit points. Whether that's by pushing everything towards a common middle (with 1d6 plus a bonus based on class for all classes) or giving a boost at level 1 and limiting the range of hit dice (1d6 to 1d8 instead of 1d4 to 1d12) is anyone's guess.

Playing 3 schlubs at zero level is fun a couple of times. But at some point, players are going to want more. If DCC wants to be a go-to game and not a beer-and-pretzels one-off of old school splatterpunk, it will need to be kicked hard in this area, IMO. I want DCC to be my go-to game. So I'm biased here.

The randomness isn't as big of an issue for me as the lethality. But my concern with randomness is that it ceases to become as random due to familiarity and bonuses at higher levels. As a character's floor increases, the range of results on a chart decreases. A character who rolls a 1d20+11 on a chart ranging from 1-23 has around 50% of that chart unavailable to them. The answer is to extend that chart upward and/or manage the inflation of bonuses. I'll be looking closely at how the game does both. The other killer of randomness fun is familiarity. Random charts cease to be so awesome after they're referenced over and over. At some point, players just remember it and it loses the thrill. Then speculation emerges about why even have charts. Done it. Seen it. Been There.

I think this depends on how DCC uses supplemental charts like secondary spell effects and spellburn. Pulling in a seldom-used secondary chart adds an extra dimension to the primary chart. Pulling in two or three further increases the depth (and long-term reuse) of that primary chart. Also, randomness within the primary chart results themselves help.

I'll be looking at this aspect too. But, like I said, it isn't high on my list. First, I don't think I'll get to run DCC enough for my players to get bored with the charts. Second, it looks like Joseph understands this and has taken steps to curtail it already.

I'm far more concerned about the lethality issue and it's impact on replay.

jmucchiello wrote:I never saw the C M or I box sets in my area. For me Moldvay's B/X series will always "stop" at 14th level.

Amen to that!

jmucchiello wrote:But still calls 21-30th level "Epic". There are various posts on ENWorld about how poorly WotC is doing at supporting Epic play.

Considering that WotC haven't done much more than give "Epic" play lip service... yeah, valid criticism, IMO.

I mean, just check out the number of adventures, articles, publications or anything really, that've been published for Epic level versus... oh... Gnoll deities.

smathis wrote: There's a good reason why early editions of D&D featured all sorts of house rules to boost character efficacy at low levels. Everything from max hit points at level 1 to getting one's CON score in hit points at level 1. It would be nice if DCC took this under consideration and offered some optional rules that gave characters a leg up without screwing the game up at higher levels. They don't need to be intrusive or crazy rules, either. But I think they do need to address the lethality issue without inflating hit points. Whether that's by pushing everything towards a common middle (with 1d6 plus a bonus based on class for all classes) or giving a boost at level 1 and limiting the range of hit dice (1d6 to 1d8 instead of 1d4 to 1d12) is anyone's guess.

The houserules document which we are compiling based on these forums is perhaps a good place for this. Yes, some of it has been standard D&D fare for decades, and therefore probably does better belong in the main rulebook since it is more in the realm of accepted rules than houserules. Just like the various systems for rolling up attributes it will get documented somewhere.

smathis wrote: Playing 3 schlubs at zero level is fun a couple of times. But at some point, players are going to want more. If DCC wants to be a go-to game and not a beer-and-pretzels one-off of old school splatterpunk, it will need to be kicked hard in this area, IMO. I want DCC to be my go-to game. So I'm biased here.

I agree that this should be a go-to game. Based on the few times that I have played it, I think it is shaping up nicely to be that for me. (It may even supplant C&C as my go-to.) The lethality is something that groups will have to deal with. In the four game sessions that I have played so far, Harley has killed 5 of my characters. Some of that death was careless play on my part, I am sure. I am still excited about the game. I see it being a big thing for players to be able to say "Wow, I actually survived that adventure." However, not every adventure should be that harrowing, and well played characters should have a greater chance for survival. The last session that I played at GenghisCon should have been extremely lethal for my character, Gareth the One-Handed. I had him dive off of a cliff after his precious book at one point. He took on a giant (actually more than one) single-handedly. He should have been splattered on more than one occasion. Yet, he survived. The fickle hand of fate does come into play in this game.

I envision games which span characters. In DCC RPG the plot probably shouldn't end when the characters do, as often happens in my 3e/PFRPG & C&C games. Friends, relatives, & neighbors should get involved when the current adventuring group falters and loses members. There should be many ways to deal with death, either by avoiding or by overcoming.

One thing is definitely true about my experience with this game and these forums so far. My views on gaming and my approach to games in general is changing. I am not used to thinking of level 10 as "high-level." I am not used to the lethality of the game. I am not used to the "gritty Appendix N" feel. So far, however, I like it and I think I could really get used to it. It all just needs to be taken in stride. But, that is just my experience. I guess I am biased as well.

smathis wrote:

dkeester wrote:EDIT: If level 10 really is "Immortal" or "Godly", then my proposed level-15 experiment becomes rather pointless.

Not really. It should be pretty easy to extrapolate out what a character at level 10 will look like at level 15. It might be informative to get a feel for play at levels 15 and 20 because it might illustrate problems with the mechanics that aren't apparent at level 1.

And it might point out things that could be easily fixed with tweaking at lower levels. So I think there's value there, even if DCC doesn't go that high.

Simply put, if the designers of 3e had kicked the tires at 20th or 30th level with 3e, they would've been exposed to serious holes in their approach. And would've realized pretty spot on how broken 3e was in a couple of areas. Sure, the cracks don't really stress the system until about level 12 or so... But they would've (and should've) seen that coming.

It's pretty apparent that they designed a game that was good up to 10th level or so and then just extrapolated from there.

4e isn't much different, IMO. I think WotC kicked the tires at 11th, 21st -- maybe even 30th level. But the powers and such get so handwavy at the high levels... it seems pretty obvious that Epic level play wasn't high on their list. But they cared more about it than the designers of 3e.

I'd rather have 10 good levels than 6 good levels and 20 or so broken ones. There's even been talk of limiting 4e to an E6 sort of approach. Mainly because the powers (and bonuses) get unmanageable at higher levels.

And the combats take even longer for it.

How in the world anyone spent a year plus designing and developing 4e yet NEVER had a combat last 90 minutes and say, "gee... that took a little long", is beyond my powers of comprehension. Not to mention the phonebook of "playtesters".

So, yes, let's kick the tires beyond DCC's upper limit. IMO, playtesting isn't normal rpg play. Normal rpg play doesn't inform the developers of much, except the predispositions of the group and the DM. A good DM playtesting any game will come away with a fun time no matter what.

We should be punching this game in the nuts to see if it doubles over at some point. We should be kicking its shins to see if it can still run while hopping on one leg. And if no one else runs at least one session at level 15 or 20, I will. Just to see what breaks and if that translates down to level 5 or level 1 in an unexpected manner.

You make a very good point. +1000 for kicking the tires.

smathis wrote:Playing 3 schlubs at zero level is fun a couple of times. But at some point, players are going to want more. If DCC wants to be a go-to game and not a beer-and-pretzels one-off of old school splatterpunk, it will need to be kicked hard in this area, IMO. I want DCC to be my go-to game. So I'm biased here.

Players really only stay at level-0 for a single adventure. The key is to see which schlubs survive and which ones don’t, and the top-schlub becomes your character!

dkeester wrote:One thing is definitely true about my experience with this game and these forums so far. My views on gaming and my approach to games in general is changing. I am not used to thinking of level 10 as "high-level." I am not used to the lethality of the game. I am not used to the "gritty Appendix N" feel. So far, however, I like it and I think I could really get used to it. It all just needs to be taken in stride. But, that is just my experience. I guess I am biased as well.

If you want to pursue more conversations about low-level fun, you could peek at the OD&D Discussion board in my signature. We spend a lot of time looking at the old game there.

I think your general sentiment is important, because it is the root of most edition wars or game wars. We all tend to gravitate to games that we are familiar with, but we all have different backgrounds. Some of us learned by reading a rulebook, others were taught or mentored by another gamer. Either approach tends to introduce certain biases and predispositions about how a game “should” be designed or should be played. None of these are “right” or “wrong” but they can be very different.

This is a little different, however, when you seek to emulate some movie or literature. If I want to play a comic book superhero and you give me a game which limits my character to level 3, I’m gonna be expecting some amazing things at each level or I’m gonna be disappointed in the game because level 3 doesn’t feel very superheroic. If I want to play Frodo running from Nazgul and orcs and you give me a game where characters go to level 3 I might be fine, because suddenly each level becomes precious. This is where players need to be educated as to the style of play expected for a particular game.

DCC is about heroes battling nasty creatures, so I want to have enough power to feel heroic but not as much power as the bad guys. How lethal it should be is up to some interpretation. Clearly, our heroes from literature don’t die often but at the same time we have to have the FEAR that they might die. This suggests to me that DCC should be somewhat low-level in order to keep characters in fear.

Just me rambling again, probably.

dkeester wrote:The houserules document which we are compiling based on these forums is perhaps a good place for this. Yes, some of it has been standard D&D fare for decades, and therefore probably does better belong in the main rulebook since it is more in the realm of accepted rules than houserules. Just like the various systems for rolling up attributes it will get documented somewhere.

I'd appreciate it if Joseph included some house rules in DCC. If you look at Swords & Wizardry Complete -- which is really nice btw, there are all these little grey and double-outlined, white boxes in the book. They point out common variants like Ascending AC, Traditional Saving Throws, Optional Rules for Dual Classing, Optional Advancement Rules, Three Different Approaches to Initiative.

It's a toolbox approach. There's the core rules. Which are the ones that aren't in the little boxes. Then there are these optional variants that people can take or leave as it suits them.

And I think it's important to note that none of these are BIG rules. Just small ones. Comparable to "Shields Shall Be Splintered" or mtnjeff's "Dutch Courage".

I'd like to see some of those in DCC too. The ability to turn a dial on a game is important (to me at least) because it means I can increase or decrease a facet of the game with a small tweak. I think that increases the replay value of a game. Because all of a sudden I can use that game to play John Carter, Conan, Lord of the Rings or Fantasy ****ing Nam.

And I'm not talking about genre bending. Not trying to make DCC do the Justice League.

I'm talking about ways to augment or diminish lethality. Or up the Epic (play, not level). Or ways to reskin magic. Or go without healing magic altogether. Or do without demi-humans. Or make them freakier.

Just little ideas in those directions would be a huge value, IMO. Because now we're talking about DCC being more than slogging through a sewers and tallying a body count. We're talking Tolkeinesque Fantasy, Dark Fantasy, Pulp Fantasy, Weird Fantasy, Swords & Blasters... all with unobtrusive, yet intentional, modifications to the core.

dkeester wrote:I envision games which span characters. In DCC RPG the plot probably shouldn't end when the characters do, as often happens in my 3e/PFRPG & C&C games. Friends, relatives, & neighbors should get involved when the current adventuring group falters and loses members. There should be many ways to deal with death, either by avoiding or by overcoming.

I'm cool with character death. Down with it, in fact. I do "Save or Die" the way Michael Jordan does lay-ups. I wouldn't advocate against removing the threat of death.

But I've played in a lot of grind-it-out types of games. Aftermath, perpetually low level AD&D... others I'd just as soon forget. They are fun. And there is a sense of accomplishment when some poor schmoe makes it out of the gutters. Then that poor schmoe dies. And it's rinse-repeat. This is fun for a while. Then you get to the point where you just want to do something with a character, besides re-roll him.

I'd like it if DCC gave us both options. Otherwise, I fear we'll just have the same misguided house-rules we've had for three decades to band-aid the same issues in early D&D -- Roll 4d6, take best 3. Max hp at 1st level. CON score in HP at 1st level. I'm sure we're familiar with most of them.

I've covered this before on the Death & Dying thread. But I would advocate that DCC increase (slightly) hit points at the lower levels, while lowering them on a per level basis. Or at least offer a variant that allows groups to do so.

This would allow for a pulpier, more Conan feel without making things ridiculous at 10th level. As an example, say you could start out at zero level with 6-8 hit points and then move to first with 11-15. While still remaining in the 35-50 range at 10th level. A bit more heroic at the lower levels. A lot more, in fact. But actually a little more killable at the higher levels.

dkeester wrote:One thing is definitely true about my experience with this game and these forums so far. My views on gaming and my approach to games in general is changing. I am not used to thinking of level 10 as "high-level." I am not used to the lethality of the game. I am not used to the "gritty Appendix N" feel. So far, however, I like it and I think I could really get used to it. It all just needs to be taken in stride. But, that is just my experience. I guess I am biased as well.

But... on the other hand... Appendix N also covers Burroughs and Zelazny's Amber series... So... gritty? Lethal?

It certainly appears that DCC has aligned with Leiber and Howard in terms of power levels. Which I think is good. But that's just something to consider when we're talking about Appendix N. Having the option to take a somewhat pulpier approach would be nice, IMO. Even if it's just a little grey box here or there.

smathis wrote:I'd appreciate it if Joseph included some house rules in DCC. If you look at Swords & Wizardry Complete -- which is really nice btw, there are all these little grey and double-outlined, white boxes in the book. They point out common variants like Ascending AC, Traditional Saving Throws, Optional Rules for Dual Classing, Optional Advancement Rules, Three Different Approaches to Initiative.

Well, I certainly can't argue with this notion because it was my philosophy when I wrote the S&W: WhiteBox rules set. I can see where there are different groups of folks each searching for different things in the DCC RPG and I'd like to find a way to deliver it to them.

The questions become:
(1) What styles of play should be supported?
(2) What kinds of tweaks need to happen in order to support them?
(3) How much space does it require to support them?

For example, as you noted Amber has a very different power scale than does Conan. Looking at my three questions above:
(1) Should both be supported, or does DCC have a more limited focus in mind?
(2) In order to support Amber-style gaming, do we have to double the level charts, or what? If we have to add spells and powers to go to twice as many levels, that may be a major tweak and not a minor one.
(3) With double the spells, etc, can all that still be crammed into one small rulebook?

I wonder if Joseph might consider a second volume, an Advanced DCC RPG in order to tackle that second market.

finarvyn wrote: The questions become:
(1) What styles of play should be supported?
(2) What kinds of tweaks need to happen in order to support them?
(3) How much space does it require to support them?

For example, as you noted Amber has a very different power scale than does Conan. Looking at my three questions above:
(1) Should both be supported, or does DCC have a more limited focus in mind?
(2) In order to support Amber-style gaming, do we have to double the level charts, or what? If we have to add spells and powers to go to twice as many levels, that may be a major tweak and not a minor one.
(3) With double the spells, etc, can all that still be crammed into one small rulebook?

These are great questions. I would love to be able to use the Logrus in a game sometime. Seriously though, you (and smathis) are correct that supporting Leiber as well as Zelazny well could be a difficult proposition.

I suppose there is always "Amber Diceless Roleplaying." *ducks*

finarvyn wrote: I wonder if Joseph might consider a second volume, an Advanced DCC RPG in order to tackle that second market.

This thought has crossed my mind several times. I also sometimes wonder why he didn't take the B/X or BECMI approach and split it up into increasing levels of power.

dkeester wrote:I suppose there is always "Amber Diceless Roleplaying." *ducks*

I'll duck with you.

I'm a huge fan of Amber Diceless RP. An amazing system for an awesome setting.

dkeester wrote:

finarvyn wrote: I wonder if Joseph might consider a second volume, an Advanced DCC RPG in order to tackle that second market.

This thought has crossed my mind several times. I also sometimes wonder why he didn't take the B/X or BECMI approach and split it up into increasing levels of power.

Because he wants to sell adventures, not an RPG. But I agree, a B/X split would make some sense for this. Probably set at around B=0-5 and X=6+. I don't think DCC RPG's target audience would need C/M/ or I.

The easiest way to turn down the lethality dial in any version of D&D is to start the pc's at a higher level. I've often thought that 1st level characters (nevermind 0 level ones) were underpowered. I mean, given the same equipment, a measly 4' tall goblin is as tough as the average human. If this was the truly the case, humans would have long ago been swamped by the flood of greenskins. The best example I can think of for low level pc's would be the hobbits in lotr. They're about as low as you can get and yet they kill quite a few goblins without too much trouble. There's no way they only had one hit die.

finarvyn wrote:Well, I certainly can't argue with this notion because it was my philosophy when I wrote the S&W: WhiteBox rules set.

I came late to the party. I didn't know you'd written that. In case no one has told you today... YOU ROCK! You should hear that once a day until the end of time. Because it's true.

Great job on S&W: Whitebox.

finarvyn wrote:The questions become:
(1) What styles of play should be supported?
(2) What kinds of tweaks need to happen in order to support them?
(3) How much space does it require to support them?

(1) Good question. I think DCC can hit everything except the super high level (a.k.a. Amber) play with just a few minor tweaks here and there.

(2) For a Science Fantasy style of play, we only need rules for blasters and advice on tweaking magic items into artifacts. For Solomon Kane, we need rules for flintlocks. SolKane and Weird Fantasy would also need rules for fear (lol, this would cut out half a chapter of what I'm working on -- I've become redundant!). For John Carter and Tolkein, we'd need hardier characters. Even Conan would likely require that. But that could be as simple as the hit points thing mentioned above.

(3) I think all of that could be done in little grey boxes with very little fuss.

finarvyn wrote:For example, as you noted Amber has a very different power scale than does Conan. Looking at my three questions above:
(1) Should both be supported, or does DCC have a more limited focus in mind?
(2) In order to support Amber-style gaming, do we have to double the level charts, or what? If we have to add spells and powers to go to twice as many levels, that may be a major tweak and not a minor one.
(3) With double the spells, etc, can all that still be crammed into one small rulebook?

(1) Amber is the tough one, I think. I don't think it should be supported. Just sayin'.

(2) I have a feeling that, at some point, the bonuses at really high levels would make DCC almost diceless. I mean, rolling a spellcheck on Magic Missile with a +20 spell bonus soon becomes an exercise of "do I kill everyone in the first round or the second". Which might be cool. I dunno. That's why I want to kick them tires!

(3) I don't know if we'd need to double the spell charts. Or anything else, really. It seems to me DCC would become a game where every time a 15th or 20th level Fighter rolled an attack it would be the difference between an MDA and an Epic!DA. And I don't know how cool that would be. I think it fits the super-hero mold. The near deity thing. But I also feel that stuff should be covered by a 3PP or in an "Advanced DCC" book as you mentioned. I'm hoping to extrapolate the classes out to at least 20th level just to see how DCC plays out of the box, with no rule changes. Maybe it's something as simple as adding an Epic!DA where if you roll 7+ on the second die something legendarily cool happens. Or maybe it needs to expand further. Hard to say with no rules to look at.

mshensley wrote:The easiest way to turn down the lethality dial in any version of D&D is to start the pc's at a higher level. I've often thought that 1st level characters (nevermind 0 level ones) were underpowered. I mean, given the same equipment, a measly 4' tall goblin is as tough as the average human. If this was the truly the case, humans would have long ago been swamped by the flood of greenskins. The best example I can think of for low level pc's would be the hobbits in lotr. They're about as low as you can get and yet they kill quite a few goblins without too much trouble. There's no way they only had one hit die.

That's why I'm pitching at least an optional rules where hit points have more of a ski-slope to them than the relatively linear incline we're all used to.

I think it's more valuable to have a starting character with 6 hit points than a 10th level character with a bazillion.

And, again, something that's totally optional. Call it "heroic mode" or the "pulp dial" if you want. If a group wants to have their 0-level characters start out with 3 hit points and scale linearly up to the 60s or 70s, fine. But if a group would rather 0-level characters start out with 6-8 hit points and then follow a different progression of hit points into the 50s or low 60s, I think that should be cool too.

Honestly, I think a lot of the problems with hit points could be solved by removing the CON bonus per level and somehow limiting the range of results. There's a wide chasm between 1d4 hit points and 1d12 hit points per level. And I think it's difficult to challenge both ends of the range, without killing one right out or watching the other slip into a coma of boredom.

Even just doing 1d4 for Wizards, 1d6 for Thieves/Clerics and 1d8 for Fighters would solve a lot of problems, IMO. And it frees the game up to do something like 2d4 at 0-level and a full hit die at 1st level without mucking things up on the other end.

Andy's also suggested a common hit die (1d6) with a bonus determined by class. So +1 for Wizards, +2 for Thieves/Clerics, +3 for Fighters. I think that's also a great approach. And, again, it frees us up to load in a little more on the front end -- which I think allows for play that evokes Conan and Tolkein a little better.

But is unobtrusive enough that it can fit in a grey box and groups that don't want that sort of game won't need to use it. They can have their 1d4 hit point 0-level characters and a more traditional 1d4, 1d6 and 1d10 hit dice with bonuses and full regalia.

smathis wrote:Andy's also suggested a common hit die (1d6) with a bonus determined by class. So +1 for Wizards, +2 for Thieves/Clerics, +3 for Fighters. I think that's also a great approach. And, again, it frees us up to load in a little more on the front end -- which I think allows for play that evokes Conan and Tolkein a little better.

Thank you for the credit, but I want to make a small edit to what you quoted here. Wizard/Thief were d6, Cleric d6+1, and Warrior was d6+2. It brought up the Wizard to basic human toughness (i.e. a joe average commoner gets a d6 for hp). And it keeps the average hp for cleric and warriors the same.

In a world where there are few con bonuses, you get a more effective warrior rolling a d6+2 as opposed to a d10. The chance of a 1 being rolled is no where near as damaging in a d6+2 system. But there is plenty of discussion on the averages in the Death and Dying thread. I still owe a post there... *sigh*

I think the big question that needs to be determined is how high level will happen. And high level will be 7th or 8th level. What sort of attack bonuses, damage and spell effects will the monsters have? That in itself will determine how character will need to progress on their path to become not so much hero's.

Right now we are all fumbling around in a darkness spell... we know the light is out there, but we just need to find it.

Hamakto wrote:Thank you for the credit, but I want to make a small edit to what you quoted here. Wizard/Thief were d6, Cleric d6+1, and Warrior was d6+2. It brought up the Wizard to basic human toughness (i.e. a joe average commoner gets a d6 for hp). And it keeps the average hp for cleric and warriors the same.

Ah. Sorry to mess that up. Still a great idea, IMO, even when I get it all wrong.

Hamakto wrote:In a world where there are few con bonuses, you get a more effective warrior rolling a d6+2 as opposed to a d10. The chance of a 1 being rolled is no where near as damaging in a d6+2 system. But there is plenty of discussion on the averages in the Death and Dying thread. I still owe a post there... *sigh*

I think this is a great approach for a couple of reasons. First, it limits the range at high levels and boosts the bottom at the low levels for those who need it most. Second, even though a CON bonus in DCC won't be as prevalent as a CON bonus in vanilla 3e, a high CON is.. well... REALLY nasty in DCC. Rolling an 18 CON is crazy powerful in DCC. It's rare, sure. But when it happens, you've basically got a tank -- regardless of class.

I don't like that. I'd prefer that class takes a more prominent role than sheer luck.

Hamakto wrote:I think the big question that needs to be determined is how high level will happen. And high level will be 7th or 8th level. What sort of attack bonuses, damage and spell effects will the monsters have? That in itself will determine how character will need to progress on their path to become not so much hero's.

Right now we are all fumbling around in a darkness spell... we know the light is out there, but we just need to find it.

I'm actually relieved it's only a spell. I was afraid Joseph had us all under a gigantic darkmantle and was going to sacrifice us all at once to kick off the release of DCC. Darkness spell, I can deal with. But it is annoying in a -8 to hit sort of way.

smathis wrote:

finarvyn wrote:Well, I certainly can't argue with this notion because it was my philosophy when I wrote the S&W: WhiteBox rules set.

I came late to the party. I didn't know you'd written that. In case no one has told you today... YOU ROCK! You should hear that once a day until the end of time. Because it's true.

Great job on S&W: Whitebox.

Thanks, but you're making me blush.

I just tried to take my minimalistic "toolbox" philosophy and apply it to a simple game.

Hamakto wrote:Not to take this on a tangent, I wonder how well 3e would play if you only rolled 3d6 like DCC RPG (and take out ability boosting items). By keeping the statistics in line, I think the system would actually work pretty well. It is just when someone starts to get +6 or +8 ability bonuses, the system starts to unravel very fast.

To follow up on your tangent... One of the things that playtesting revealed is that the 3E ability score curve really is built around the assumption of "roll 4d6 and drop the lowest roll." DCC RPG uses a system of "roll 3d6 straight down the line." This produces a traditional bell curve of results, obviously, so pretty much every character has at least 1-2 abilities with single-digit scores. In the 3E rules, the ability modifiers (ranging from -4 to +4) become a significant impairment when applied to a "3d6 down the line" model, because, again, pretty much every character has multiple ability scores with significant negative modifiers. Lots of level 1 guys with -2 on several stats! Balanced by a couple +2's but those minuses add up. I thank Tavis Allison for pointing out that if I'm gonna with "3d6 straight down the line," I needed to revert back to an earlier edition's ability score modifier curve. Take the same ability score matrix from "3d6 straight down the line" and compare the modifiers in 1E, 2E, and 3E, and you discover that 3E has more bonuses on the high end...and far more minuses on the low end...but in original 3.0 and 3.5, PCs never got the low scores due to the extra ability score die. Now DCC RPG uses a slightly tweaked ability score curve and the characters wind up with more reasonable modifiers for the traditional bell curve of ability scores.

To answer the core question of this thread: I have planned for a while to cap the level advancement at around level 10. In keeping with traditional D&D, a fighter of around 5th or 6th level was expected to be running a castle / keep and managing the surrounding lands. This implies there are very, very few characters at that level - we're talking a rank equivalent of "governor" or "senator" in modern political terms, if that makes any sense. Getting to level 10 in OD&D was an incredible accomplishment, and I believe it should be equally impressive in DCC RPG.

I'm now leaning toward keeping the core rulebook focused on levels 1-5, and saving levels 6-10 for one of the annuals. Levels 6-10, in my mind, should really be where a PC establishes himself beyond "mere adventuring." Things like establishing land, exploring the planes, researching significant new magic, fulfilling ancient prophecies, etc. Particularly with spellcasters and warriors, I want the game to properly capture the sense of Appendix N at these levels: spellcasters who begin traveling the planes and establishing peer-level rapport with demons and deities; and warriors who become kings and rulers. More and more, it feels like there's a bit of additional definition required to properly convey that material.

goodmangames wrote:I'm now leaning toward keeping the core rulebook focused on levels 1-5, and saving levels 6-10 for one of the annuals.

Please don't. Let us have "complete" rules for the core classes. I don't know how often you plan to release annuals, but it can be annoying if you have a party that can play quite a bit every week, and the GM says "okay, sorry guys, but here our journey ends for a few months, we have to wait till the annual, let's play something else in the meantime". Making a few tables longer by five lines won't hurt, maybe the one-page-one-spell method can be problematic, but I don't see the point of having spells for every level if every spell can get more powerful.

goodmangames wrote:I thank Tavis Allison for pointing out that if I'm gonna with "3d6 straight down the line," I needed to revert back to an earlier edition's ability score modifier curve. Take the same ability score matrix from "3d6 straight down the line" and compare the modifiers in 1E, 2E, and 3E, and you discover that 3E has more bonuses on the high end...and far more minuses on the low end...but in original 3.0 and 3.5, PCs never got the low scores due to the extra ability score die. Now DCC RPG uses a slightly tweaked ability score curve and the characters wind up with more reasonable modifiers for the traditional bell curve of ability scores.

Thanks for that. That topic was discussed heavily on the forum. I'm glad Tavis was able to point that out.

In addition to the low end, traditional 3e attribute bonuses can make the high end really crazy. If you've got a bunch of characters with -1 and -2 in a stat, that one lucky bloke with a +4 is going to seem like Superman.

The B/X or AD&D ability bonuses fit the bell curve of 3d6. The 3e ones do not. I'm encouraged to hear we'll be seeing the former instead of the latter.

Are you doing individual experience point progressions for the classes? And are you using 1e/2e style multiclassing or 3e style (or no style)? One thing I have missed in 3e is 1e/2e multiclassing.

Ravenheart87 wrote:

goodmangames wrote:I'm now leaning toward keeping the core rulebook focused on levels 1-5, and saving levels 6-10 for one of the annuals.

Please don't. Let us have "complete" rules for the core classes. I don't know how often you plan to release annuals, but it can be annoying if you have a party that can play quite a bit every week, and the GM says "okay, sorry guys, but here our journey ends for a few months, we have to wait till the annual, let's play something else in the meantime". Making a few tables longer by five lines won't hurt, maybe the one-page-one-spell method can be problematic, but I don't see the point of having spells for every level if every spell can get more powerful.

I tentatively disagree. I don't like the name "annual". I'd prefer what someone else referred to as "Advanced DCC RPG", which would hold the levels no found in the core book. IOW, a B/X style split of the rules works for me. But a BXCMI split does not.

goodmangames wrote:I'm now leaning toward keeping the core rulebook focused on levels 1-5, and saving levels 6-10 for one of the annuals. Levels 6-10, in my mind, should really be where a PC establishes himself beyond "mere adventuring." Things like establishing land, exploring the planes, researching significant new magic, fulfilling ancient prophecies, etc. Particularly with spellcasters and warriors, I want the game to properly capture the sense of Appendix N at these levels: spellcasters who begin traveling the planes and establishing peer-level rapport with demons and deities; and warriors who become kings and rulers. More and more, it feels like there's a bit of additional definition required to properly convey that material.

Bold move. I'm a fan of E6. So if you can find it in your heart to include the "Level of the Devil" that would be cool.

I like knowing the endpoint. And knowing at what point (in game terms) my character will be sitting on the throne of Aquilonia. Or taking a boat out "west" to hang with some elf babes.

Question, though. How long do you think the progression from Levels 0-5 would take? And what options would be available to a group when their characters hit Level 5? Will it be like "name levels" in AD&D where you can "advance" every 1,500,00xp and get 2 hit points for your troubles? Or will Level 5 be a hard stop?

I think it's also hard to say what levels 6-10 will involve. It may need an "Expert" set of rules to go along with it. And it may not be to everyone's taste. I mean, there's a reason 4e excised domain management from the D&D play experience. Some people just want to suit up and delve for 30 levels and, well, WotC gave that to them.

I understand, I think, the reasoning behind it. I agree too. I'm just wondering what's going to "happen" in levels 6-10 that will require, well, leveling... I mean, doesn't it become a game of Civilization at that point? If my guy is going to create a spell that no one's ever created before, do levels need to play a role in that? If so, how?