[Design Question] DCC RPG and 10 Levels

[Machpants]

When I am OSing I def want to just 'suit up and delve', with minimal political stuff. So I would like to see a progression beynd 5 that doesn't involve getting a keep etc. But not having all the rules out for all levels can be a pain. Our Dragon Age game wasn't helped by the fact that levels 6+ still are not out. To me a 10 level game is good, a 5 level game is restrictive.

[mythfish]

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.

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.

I like this plan. If there's a serious shift in focus after level 5, a separate book seems the way to go. It not only emphasizes the shift subconsciously, but gives a lot more room to explore this sort of high level stuff in an Appendix N way that hasn't been done before.

(Though I do agree with a "Basic/Expert" type break rather than relegating high level stuff to a mere "annual".)

[mshensley]

I don't like the idea of the core only supporting levels 1-5. It would feel like an incomplete game, just like HackMaster Basic does. By all means, use additional books to bring in rules for building castles, mass warfare, etc, but the core rulebook should be all I need to run a game if I don't want that stuff.

[smathis]

So here's something that's topical (yes, i know, first time for everything) that I run into a good deal when I'm trying to sell a group on E6.

Sometimes people just don't think 6 levels is enough. So, instead of E6, I make the "cutoff" level 7. Or 8.

You'd be surprised how much those extra couple of levels turn people around. Instead of complaints about how they're soooooo limited with just 6 levels, all of a sudden you'll hear how they can't wait to make it to level 8.

I think it would be no big deal if Joseph had posted he's only doing levels 1-8. So maybe some sort of compromise that cuts it off around level 7 or 8?

Is it a math issue? Or an issue with the scaling of the dice types? If so, I'd recommend pushing it to find out where it begins breaking down and then take the game to there. That may be level 5, for all I know. If so, maybe an option is to offer the old school end line to level progression (and every +118,000xp, get 2 hit points and call yourself level X). Especially if play at these higher levels doesn't seem like it's going to be level-dependent.

I mean, if characters' abilities screech to a halt at level 5, 6, 7 or 8, and then they spend their time afterwards leading armies or fighting the setting's Big Bad... then why do we need levels beyond that? What's the harm in a character being 10th level if he's only a 5th level fighter with 15 extra hit points?

[Hamakto]

I will have to say that I am not totally thrilled that characters are reaching named levels by level 6 and are expected to open schools, build castles and stuff like that. I always thought that was based more on RP than any sort of game threshold.

In RPing, any warrior with the proper money, charisma, and reputation (which is adventure not level based) should be able to build a castle and recruit troops.

I would prefer that the game is not designed around that being a target cap level or that certain things happen at that point. I know a DM can do whatever, but that does mean that the class 'gains' an ability at that level that most players will not care about or use.

[smathis]

Not sure if this is applicable to DCC or not. But I've posted potential 8-level progressions for both the Fighter and the Thief.

Code: Select all

Fighter Level... Action Die... Damage Die... Critical Die
1 1d3 -- d20
2 1d3 1d2* d20
3 1d3 1d2 d24*
4 1d3 1d3* d24
5 1d4* 1d3 d24
6 1d4 1d4* d24
7 1d4 1d4 d30*
8 1d4 1d6* d30

Code: Select all

Thief Level... Specialties... Specialty chart die... Skillburn bonus die...
1 3 d20 1d3
2 4* d20 1d4*
3 4 d24* 1d4
4 4 d24 1d6*
5 5* d24 1d6
6 5 d30* 1d6
7 5 d30 2d4*
8 6* d30 2d4

Asterisks in both denote increases at each level. Also of note is that the Warrior never exceeds a 50% chance at an MDA. Of course, the charts depend on elements that may or may not be applicable to DCC in its current form. Namely, that Fighters get a die that boosts damage. And Thieves get some love with a whole bunch of stuff discussed on the Thief thread.

But maybe there's something salvageable in it?

[Hamakto]

Code: Select all

Fighter Level... Action Die... Damage Die... Critical Die
1 1d3 -- d20
2 1d3 1d2* d20
3 1d3 1d2 d24*
4 1d3 1d3* d24
5 1d4* 1d3 d24
6 1d4 1d4* d24
7 1d4 1d4 d30*
8 1d4 1d6* d30

While I applaud your attempt for tighter balance for the Warrior there, I do not like the extra complexity that is involved in having multiple dies (one for MDoA and one for damage). I think in the play test, the single MDoA die worked well and is not too overpowering. Plus, it provides enough extra damage for the fighter that he stays deadly in combat because of lack of spells or other skills. Also at higher levels, it provides a fairly substantial bonus to the damage being done via a weapon. It is quite possible at high levels that the amount of damage a fighter does with the core weapon damage is less than what he gains from skill.

Which does reflect real life.

[JediOre]

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.

Joseph, going off the above, is it safe to say converting PCs from, say, Castles & Crusades or AD&D will be difficult at best?

As an example, the PCs I write about on these forums are all around 5th level. How would they be able to transition to the DCC RPG?

[finarvyn]

Joseph, going off the above, is it safe to say converting PCs from, say, Castles & Crusades or AD&D will be difficult at best?

I'm not sure this is an accurate statement. Most of the key elements from one will be in the other: hit points, armor class, classes in general, etc. While some of the mechanical parts (how you cast spells, which spells are in the game, critical hits and fumbles) are different, the fundamentals are all there.

As an example, the PCs I write about on these forums are all around 5th level. How would they be able to transition to the DCC RPG?

I think they would be around 5th level. The DCC RPG doesn't change the characters as much as the overall scale of the outside world. 5th level is amazing in DCC, not because it's equal to 10th level in some other game but because few characters are expected to survive to that point. So you'd be changing the NPCs around the character, not the character itself.

If you have 5th level characters and want to play DCC, it's probably going to be more fun to start over instead of convert because a lot of the fun will be taking a pile of level-0 dudes and advancing them against all odds to get to 5th level or so. Starting out there would remove most of the flavor of the game.

[Coleston the Cavalier]

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.

I think this is a good idea. It will help gamers focus on roleplaying rather than an endless series of mechanics. Plus, combat will continue to be gritty and deadly even at higher levels and the difference between common folks and characters will never be as much as in other games. I think this makes good sense, since DCC is not set up as a game to take characters from diapers to godhood.

Now I know there will be gamers who are upset that it isn't "a complete game," but sometimes less is more. Plus, in the current RPG market, it may end up being a very good idea as well.

Of course, no one has to agree with me. I just thought I would chime in.

[GnomeBoy]

<2¢> My gut reaction to the levels 'ending' at 5th is that making that end-point 7th or 8th Level sounds more palatable to me. That span is about a year's worth of gaming in 3e for the group I'm in, and that feels like the right length of time that you could really enjoy playing a character and then may well be ready to move on to something/someone new anyway. Expansion in a supplement could cover 8/9-12 or some such... </2¢>

[jmucchiello]

I think the real issue here is that 5th level is lower than the average level of the classic dungeons. G1-3, D1-3, S1-4, etc, most of those modules start at 8th level. So, this makes Hill Giants in DCC Epic. You can't have G1's steading sitting in your campaign world because each Giant (out of like 40 or so IIRC) is more powerful than anyone within a thousand miles.

I liked the idea of a 1-5/6-10 split because I didn't want to see spells and monsters short changed by a full 1-10 slim core book. But now I'm on the fence. Both books would either have to be core or the core book needs to go to at least 8th level.

[Black Dougal]

I think the real issue here is that 5th level is lower than the average level of the classic dungeons. G1-3, D1-3, S1-4, etc, most of those modules start at 8th level. So, this makes Hill Giants in DCC Epic. You can't have G1's steading sitting in your campaign world because each Giant (out of like 40 or so IIRC) is more powerful than anyone within a thousand miles.

I liked the idea of a 1-5/6-10 split because I didn't want to see spells and monsters short changed by a full 1-10 slim core book. But now I'm on the fence. Both books would either have to be core or the core book needs to go to at least 8th level.

I think you are not taking one thing into account. Levels in 1e AD&D will not map directly to levels in DCC. 1e AD&D had 20-30 levels. DCC will have only 10. This basically means that every 1 level in DCC is worth 2-3 levels in AD&D, so you would have to adjust the levels down. A level 8 adventure in AD&D would probably be a level 2-3 adventure in DCC.

Just a thought.

[smathis]

I liked the idea of a 1-5/6-10 split because I didn't want to see spells and monsters short changed by a full 1-10 slim core book. But now I'm on the fence. Both books would either have to be core or the core book needs to go to at least 8th level.

I agree.

GnomeBoy makes a good point about classic modules being out of reach of characters in levels 1-5. It's out of reach for Against the Giants (as GB points out), Expedition to the Barrier Peaks, Lost Caverns of Tsojcanth, Master of the Desert Nomads and Temple of Death.

If we count modules that start out at 5th level (such as "for levels 5-10") then we're also short Forgotten Temple of Tharizdun and Ravenloft.

Not to mention, that there are around 17 Dungeon Crawl Classics adventures for 3e that will now be out of reach for DCC characters. Of which I own around 9.

If the cap level is 8th, then high level DCC characters could play in all of those modules -- assuming 8th level in DCC is roughly equivalent to 7th or 8th in other editions. 7-8th level, to my thinking, is a much better stopping point.

I think DCC core should be levels 1-8 and then "Expert" play -- whatever that is defined as being -- shouldn't have "levels". Characters max out at 8th level and then they go on to do other things. Like build expansive dungeons that adventurers a couple of generations from now will have to clear out. Or become the jaded and oppressive rulers they fought against as 2nd level warriors. Or beget such tyrants.

[smathis]

While I applaud your attempt for tighter balance for the Warrior there, I do not like the extra complexity that is involved in having multiple dies (one for MDoA and one for damage). I think in the play test, the single MDoA die worked well and is not too overpowering. Plus, it provides enough extra damage for the fighter that he stays deadly in combat because of lack of spells or other skills. Also at higher levels, it provides a fairly substantial bonus to the damage being done via a weapon. It is quite possible at high levels that the amount of damage a fighter does with the core weapon damage is less than what he gains from skill.

I'm a sucker for applause!

What I tried to demonstrate was how it could be possible to extend out the Fighter and Thief to 8th level. If a "damage die" isn't good for Fighters, then give them some other benefit. Like this...

Code: Select all

Fighter Level... Action Die... Weapon Specializations... Critical Die
1 1d3 1 d20
2 1d3 2* d20
3 1d3 2 d24*
4 1d3 3* d24
5 1d4* 3 d24
6 1d4 4* d24
7 1d4 4 d30*
8 1d4 5* d30

Where weapon specializations represent weapons the Fighter gets to roll a d24 on, instead of a d20. Let's try to look at the big idea at this point, instead of nitpicking the details. The only people with visibility into the details are Harley and Joseph. Sure, keeping a single die for MDA is simpler and putting one's stamp on keeping it that way is relevant and important.

But I was trying to give an idea of a different progression. Because from what I've read it sounds like the Fighter goes from 1d3 to 1d6 or 1d8, advancing the MDA die each level. I don't think that's necessary. And I agree with others that after the 50% mark is reached, MDAs could become routine and uninspiring.

So mixing some other sort of benefit in there -- whatever that is -- gives us a chance to extend out the levels to a range that it appears more than a few of us are more comfortable with.

[GnomeBoy]

GnomeBoy makes a good point...

While I'm happy to take credit for things I didn't do whenever money is attached, I must point out that this wasn't me.

And apropo of nothing, I do make a good pie.

[jmucchiello]

I think you are not taking one thing into account. Levels in 1e AD&D will not map directly to levels in DCC. 1e AD&D had 20-30 levels. DCC will have only 10. This basically means that every 1 level in DCC is worth 2-3 levels in AD&D, so you would have to adjust the levels down. A level 8 adventure in AD&D would probably be a level 2-3 adventure in DCC.

Just a thought.

I know they don't map. But people are asking how easy (or hard) will it be to convert old modules (and new ones) from 1e to DCC. If the levels aren't direct maps, that means conversion is hard. The nice thing about C&C is level 5 is roughly equivalent to level 5 AD&D or B/X. I'm sure most folks here were expecting the same easy conversion until this thread came along.

[smathis]

While I'm happy to take credit for things I didn't do whenever money is attached, I must point out that this wasn't me.

And apropo of nothing, I do make a good pie.

My bad. Whoops! Credit goes to jmuchiello. Sorry j.

And, GnomeBoy, should we ever wield dice bags towards a common cause... I'll bring the grog if you bring the pie.

[finarvyn]

Now I know there will be gamers who are upset that it isn't "a complete game," but sometimes less is more. Plus, in the current RPG market, it may end up being a very good idea as well.

Of course, no one has to agree with me. I just thought I would chime in.

John, I've seen enough of your posts to know that if I didn't agree with you then I should at least rethink my position to see if I'm in error somewhere. I think that 0-5 can be a complete game if players are willing. Geoffrey on DF has made a similar argument for Holmes Basic and I think it applies here as well. The scale of the campaign determines the level range of the characters. However.....

I think the real issue here is that 5th level is lower than the average level of the classic dungeons. G1-3, D1-3, S1-4, etc, most of those modules start at 8th level. So, this makes Hill Giants in DCC Epic. You can't have G1's steading sitting in your campaign world because each Giant (out of like 40 or so IIRC) is more powerful than anyone within a thousand miles.

Not to contradict myself, but this is a key component that I will need to ponder. I'd like to be able to run "Classic Gygax" as well as classis Appenidix N.

I liked the idea of a 1-5/6-10 split because I didn't want to see spells and monsters short changed by a full 1-10 slim core book. But now I'm on the fence. Both books would either have to be core or the core book needs to go to at least 8th level.

Crud. I thought I was certain, but like you I have this twinge of doubt. While levels 0-5 could be enough for a complete game, I wonder what it would take to extend DCC into 10 levels instead of 5. On the other hand, perhaps if one defines DCC's 0-5 as our standard, perhaps one needs to come up with a way to convert the old TSR modules and "downsize" the scale to fit DCC....

[Hamakto]

I would like to put my 2cents worth in for keeping the DCC at 10 levels out of the gates.

I would rather have a single book that covers the core of the game.

5 levels would be just too restrictive for 50% of the potential DCC players out there. Everyone enjoys leveling up and getting new powers and/or abilities. With only five levels, you have very little chance of doing that. Yes, it is huge! But I for one would not be happy with only five levels.

[mythfish]

Nobody cares in Call of Cthulhu about leveling up and getting new powers. Nobody plays Paranoia and feels that being Red Clearance all the time is restrictive. Why? Because no one really expects to make it through an entire adventure (much less a campaign) intact. Those rare characters that do survive become legendary in the gaming group.

How many Appendix N characters went up 5-10 "levels" (whatever that means) during the course of their stories?

[Black Dougal]

I think you are not taking one thing into account. Levels in 1e AD&D will not map directly to levels in DCC. 1e AD&D had 20-30 levels. DCC will have only 10. This basically means that every 1 level in DCC is worth 2-3 levels in AD&D, so you would have to adjust the levels down. A level 8 adventure in AD&D would probably be a level 2-3 adventure in DCC.

Just a thought.

I know they don't map. But people are asking how easy (or hard) will it be to convert old modules (and new ones) from 1e to DCC. If the levels aren't direct maps, that means conversion is hard. The nice thing about C&C is level 5 is roughly equivalent to level 5 AD&D or B/X. I'm sure most folks here were expecting the same easy conversion until this thread came along.

Ah, I get you now. You make a good point. I was one of those people expecting the levels to map directly. That is one of the many assumptions of mine which have been challenged and altered.

[Black Dougal]

While I'm happy to take credit for things I didn't do whenever money is attached, I must point out that this wasn't me.

And apropo of nothing, I do make a good pie.

My bad. Whoops! Credit goes to jmuchiello. Sorry j.

And, GnomeBoy, should we ever wield dice bags towards a common cause... I'll bring the grog if you bring the pie.

mmmmm.... Grog and pie. It must be close to dinner time, because now I am hungry.

I would rather have a single book that covers the core of the game.

+1 on this one.

[Black Dougal]

Nobody cares in Call of Cthulhu about leveling up and getting new powers. Nobody plays Paranoia and feels that being Red Clearance all the time is restrictive. Why? Because no one really expects to make it through an entire adventure (much less a campaign) intact. Those rare characters that do survive become legendary in the gaming group.

How many Appendix N characters went up 5-10 "levels" (whatever that means) during the course of their stories?

To me this seems like a mechanics versus story issue. Many players of D&D-like games (retroclones, C&C, yada...) seem to get wrapped around the mechanics of leveling and start worrying about how much XP they still need to get to the next level so they can get the next benefit.

In the games that you mention it is more of a story progression. Yes, the character sheet gets better but what really matters is what happens in-game. What does it mean when An-R-Mal (red class citizen) becomes An-O-Mal (orange class citizen), but CoC might be the better example. When an investigator "levels" it means that there is a chance of improving a few skills on the character sheet (those for which the player received a "check" from the keeper). There is no concept of improving power, it is just improving the skills which the character uses most often.

The trick for DCC is going to be getting the D&D leveling monkeys to be more interested in story progression than mechanical progression. This will more truly mimic Appendix N, as you have pointed out.

[smathis]

How many Appendix N characters went up 5-10 "levels" (whatever that means) during the course of their stories?

About the same number who die ignominiously due to a Save or Die effect...