Goodman Games

Have the playtests led to any significant changes in the game so far ?

What has been the most surprising thing to come out of the playtesting ?

geordie racer wrote:Have the playtests led to any significant changes in the game so far ?

What has been the most surprising thing to come out of the playtesting ?

I'd be VERY interested to hear that as well...

Hmm, just thinking of things offhand...

The Mighty Deed of Arms system came entirely out of playtests. The earliest versions of the warrior were much more "vanilla." It was obvious in playing that the wizards were dominating the games, and warriors needed to somehow balance things out -- not to mention a rules mechanism to do some of the cool things players wanted to do.

The cleric is still in a state of playtest. The cleric spellcasting system has been tweaked several times and I'm not yet 100% satisfied with it. This is more of a gradual system of minor changes to get it "just right."

The thief skills got changed substantially in playtest. The class still doesn't feel "special" enough (c.f. other threads on these boards) and it might change again.

The spell fumble tables, corruption tables, and general fumble tables were far too lethal early on. They're all balanced out better now.

Spellburn has proven quite popular in one-shots so the spellburn table is now expanded quite a bit.

Various spells get changed as playtests reveal balance issues. Animal summoning was changed quite a bit -- it was too much of a lengthy ritual in the early games.

The fundamentals of the spell check system haven't changed much but some of the details have. A natural 20 was originally the highest result on a given spell's table; it's now just a "kicker" bonus to the overall roll equal to the caster's level. (There were too many level 1 wizards getting extraordinary results when they rolled those natural 20's.)

Probably the biggest change is the ability score progression. I like the current system, which is closer to the 1980 rules sets -- not the 3E system of "+1 for every 2 points."

And of course the various adventures themselves get tweaked after every game. I've run People of the Pit maybe 7 or 8 times now, and there's this one secret room that not a single group has found. Every other secret room has been found in at least one game, but not this one. I'm going to change the map slightly so this room actually gets found sometime. Things like that are what get tweaked slightly from game to game.

Also out of interest, how is campaign play being playtested?

When you think of Appendix N literature (e.g., Elric, Cudgel, Farhad and the Grey Mouser, Conan, etc.) we know them in shorthand by the characters, because they progress through the novels, from one adventure to another. They don't die at the end of the first (and only) novel. Thus, for my money, a system that allows a developing campaign is vitally important. From what I've read on the forums so far, there's the hint that DCC RPG could be rather lethal, plus it seems to be play tested largely through single-shot convention play.

Just wondering....

Stainless wrote:When you think of Appendix N literature (e.g., Elric, Cudgel, Farhad and the Grey Mouser, Conan, etc.) we know them in shorthand by the characters, because they progress through the novels, from one adventure to another.

Actually, the examples you mentioned were originally written as short stories with no particular order. It was only later that they were collected into book form and an "order" for the stories was established.

So, while a modern reader might think that these characters "progressed through the novels" a reader of the day (and the authors) saw them as short one-shot adventures that happened to feature the same heroes.

In some cases (Conan) other authors filled in the "holes" between stories and "established an order" for the stories. In other cases I presume the author had some say in the order of the tales. Looking at copyright dates, however, you'll see that many of the stories weren't written at all in the order that you find them in the books.

Just thought I'd mention that point.

goodmangames wrote:And of course the various adventures themselves get tweaked after every game. I've run People of the Pit maybe 7 or 8 times now, and there's this one secret room that not a single group has found. Every other secret room has been found in at least one game, but not this one. I'm going to change the map slightly so this room actually gets found sometime. Things like that are what get tweaked slightly from game to game.

I think its awesome that the modules are getting so much playtesting. That seems to be a rare thing these days.

finarvyn wrote:Actually, the examples you mentioned were originally written as short stories with no particular order. It was only later that they were collected into book form and an "order" for the stories was established.

So, while a modern reader might think that these characters "progressed through the novels" a reader of the day (and the authors) saw them as short one-shot adventures that happened to feature the same heroes.

In some cases (Conan) other authors filled in the "holes" between stories and "established an order" for the stories. In other cases I presume the author had some say in the order of the tales. Looking at copyright dates, however, you'll see that many of the stories weren't written at all in the order that you find them in the books.

Just thought I'd mention that point.

Very true, however the characters were persistent through multiple books and adventures, not just cannon fodder in their first adventure. In the case of Conan, despite the order of publishing, he does grow old and progresses in experience.

goodmangames wrote: Probably the biggest change is the ability score progression. I like the current system, which is closer to the 1980 rules sets -- not the 3E system of "+1 for every 2 points."

That's great to hear! Is it only closer, or the same? Can you tell us what are the lowest and highest possible ability score bonuses on a scale of 3-18 now? Also, will ability scores advance in DCC RPG (like the +1 every 4 level in 3e)?

mshensley wrote:I think its awesome that the modules are getting so much playtesting. That seems to be a rare thing these days.

I agree, and so many modules read well but fall apart in play.

Ravenheart87 wrote:

goodmangames wrote: Probably the biggest change is the ability score progression. I like the current system, which is closer to the 1980 rules sets -- not the 3E system of "+1 for every 2 points."

That's great to hear! Is it only closer, or the same? Can you tell us what are the lowest and highest possible ability score bonuses on a scale of 3-18 now? Also, will ability scores advance in DCC RPG (like the +1 every 4 level in 3e)?

+1! I LOVED the old ability progression ESPECIALLY for random 3d6-type chargen

Ravenheart87 wrote:

goodmangames wrote: Probably the biggest change is the ability score progression. I like the current system, which is closer to the 1980 rules sets -- not the 3E system of "+1 for every 2 points."

That's great to hear! Is it only closer, or the same? Can you tell us what are the lowest and highest possible ability score bonuses on a scale of 3-18 now? Also, will ability scores advance in DCC RPG (like the +1 every 4 level in 3e)?

Right now I'm playing with this:
Score ... Adjustment
3 ... -3
4,5 ... -2
6,7,8 ... -1
9,10,11,12 ... +/-0
13,14,15 ... +1
16, 17 ... +2
18 ... +3

It's definitely changed the characters in a positive way. I still believe in "roll 3d6 straight down the line" for ability scores. With the 3E stat progression, such a method produces a lot of lamed characters, and the occasional superhero. (And I do mean "lamed" with the D on the end - not the pejorative "lame" but the descriptive "lamed" in the sense that their physical stat modifiers are so terrible they simply fail at many tasks.) With the stat progression above, you end up with the occasional plus or minus, and, rarely, a +2 or -2, but not the same extremes.

It also makes spellburn more fun in an indirect way. There isn't a lot of math to do around stat changes to begin with -- no skill points, not much to re-work if a stat changes. With the more gradual progression of modifiers, spellburn becomes even easier; a stat generally has to change by several steps to influence modifiers, and even then the change is modest (a change of -1, maybe -2, nothing huge).

Score ... Adjustment
3 ... -3
4,5 ... -2
6,7,8 ... -1
9,10,11,12 ... +/-0
13,14,15 ... +1
16, 17 ... +2
18 ... +3

Great! It's just the way I like it!

Ravenheart87 wrote:

Score ... Adjustment
3 ... -3
4,5 ... -2
6,7,8 ... -1
9,10,11,12 ... +/-0
13,14,15 ... +1
16, 17 ... +2
18 ... +3

Great! It's just the way I like it!

This is just further evidence of the superiority of Basic D&D.

mshensley wrote:This is just further evidence of the superiority of Basic D&D.

Yup. This is one of the changes I'm happiest about. It cascades out into so many other issues that it's not even funny. I'm very happy Joseph went with this change.