Blackdirge’s Dungeon Denizens as Monster Manual for DCC RPG?

[Black Dougal]

I was just looking over the listings of DCC modules for 3e and 4e and noticed the listing for "Blackdirge’s Dungeon Denizens". I recall that there was a version of the book for 3e as well as the 4e version. I was wondering if any thought has been given to producing a DCC RPG version of this book. Perhaps it could be expanded with DCC versions of the SRD creatures to become a monster manual for DCC?

Just a thought.

[Machpants]

Well it lacks many fantasy staples (EDIT: meaning it is not a good MM1), but it does have some cool monsters so I would love to see it converted.

[goodmangames]

I've probably mentioned this elsewhere, but I can't remember for sure, so here is a brief commentary on monsters.

One of the refreshing elements of reading Appendix N books is that they have a knack for presenting creatures in a fresh manner. Most of the Appendix N books were published before the genre of "fantasy" existed. There was a time where "adventure" books sometimes took place in fantastic settings, but they all fell into the "adventure" category. Somewhere along the way, the "fantasy" category evolved. I don't have any real factual knowledge of how/when this happened but it seems obvious to me over the last 30 years or so: book stores now have dedicated fantasy sections and everybody knows what an "orc" is, but neither of those was the case in 1970. What that means is that fantasy books published in the "pre-genre" era have this wonderful naivete about the nature of the creatures they present. Nowadays fantasy books present archetypes and detailed descriptions, and clarify how "my version of a dwarf is different from this other one"; back in the 1970's and before, a monster was just some sort of creature and it was always presented in a fresh way.

In that vein, something I want to do with DCC RPG is bring back the novelty of monsters. Insofar as the published modules go, this means a moratorium on using existing monsters. The first four written DCC RPG modules do not include a single "existing" monster. Every combat encounter is with a new critter designed for that encounter. Because the monster stat system is really simple (REALLY simple), you can bang out a new monster in a very short amount of time, so it's easy to create creatures on the fly as you go. I just ran a game today where every single encounter was with a creature that doesn't have an "entry" in any monster book anywhere (including the DCC RPG core rulebook)...it's all creatures I made up for this adventure, and they all fit and make sense.

In games, players are constantly unsure of what they face. Is that weird cultist with no face more powerful than me, or not? The four-legged lizard with the gold horn and the hypnotic eyes...how powerful is it? The enormous devil-frog that's the size of a house...it's big, but how dangerous is it? (I love that one because EVERY group assumes it has a sticky-frog-tongue attack...which it doesn't...but it IS psionic...) You get the idea: no player has any idea of the nature of their opponents, beyond what is described, and many of the creatures are truly weird and unusual.

The DCC RPG also encourages judges to make minor changes to monsters in order to make them more interesting for players to encounter. Make your orcs blue instead of green, and watch what happens. "What are these blue humanoids? What powers do they have?" Well, they have the same stats as orcs but the players don't know that! For undead, give them perfectly preserved bodies and normal skin-and-bones. Why do they have to rot? A zombie or ghoul with pale white skin and a normal, if glassy-eyed, appearance is far more terrifying than rotting flesh, especially when they don't bleed when wounded and advance in a a lurching fashion.

I can go on and on (and I do so in DCC RPG ), but the point is that I don't want any one monster to get re-used that much. The DCC RPG core book will include rules for all the archetypal monsters, but I am on the fence about doing any monster books. Gamers love them but I don't want to end up in a rut where the creatures come from a predictable place. Every adventure needs to have specific foes that are thematically appropriate and maintain the sense of true fantasy and novelty.

So, that's a roundabout way of saying that I'm not sure how many monster books I'll publish. What do you guys think? Do people want a lot of monster books? Or, knowing that it's very simple to create new monsters, would you rather just create your own?

[Ravenheart87]

So, that's a roundabout way of saying that I'm not sure how many monster books I'll publish. What do you guys think? Do people want a lot of monster books? Or, knowing that it's very simple to create new monsters, would you rather just create your own?

There's no such thing as "too much monster", especially if you're lazy. Also, some general wilderness encounter tables would be welcome.

As you mentioned, there was a time when fantasy and science fiction wasn't seperated like nowadays. The best examples are the Dying Earth stories of Jack Vance, but check out REH's Conan stories too: Demons and Yag-kosha came from the outer dark (space), and most of the magic wasn't really magic, but alchemy, hypnosis or martial arts.
This leads to the question: will the DCC RPG include artifacts of a bygone advanced age as treasures and enemies? That would be more than awesome...

[geordie racer]

So, that's a roundabout way of saying that I'm not sure how many monster books I'll publish. What do you guys think? Do people want a lot of monster books? Or, knowing that it's very simple to create new monsters, would you rather just create your own?

I would rather have no generic monster books for DCC outside of those in the rulebook, and just have new monsters appearing in the adventure modules, where the monsters 'fit' the adventure**. Other than that, I'll create my own, it's fun


** and this makes the publication of EACH new adventure module even more of an EVENT, as in 'what monster have GG dreamed up now?'

[Ravenheart87]

So, that's a roundabout way of saying that I'm not sure how many monster books I'll publish. What do you guys think? Do people want a lot of monster books? Or, knowing that it's very simple to create new monsters, would you rather just create your own?

I would rather have no generic monster books for DCC outside of those in the rulebook, and just have new monsters appearing in the adventure modules, where the monsters 'fit' the adventure. Other than that, I'll create my own, it's fun

Definitely the best way to do it. Just make it sure that there are already plenty of them in the rulebook and don't forget to include frogs and robots.

[Geoffrey]

What do you guys think? Do people want a lot of monster books? Or, knowing that it's very simple to create new monsters, would you rather just create your own?

I say a big NO to monster books. I will never buy another monster book. I agree with James Raggi (while acknowledging hyperbole) in his excellent Random Esoteric Creature Generator: "The idea of a standardized monster list for anything other than exemplar purposes is probably the worst thing that happened to role-playing."

Joseph, you already publish James's indispensible book that makes all published monster books (including the one that used to be my favorite: the original Fiend Folio) look pale and insipid. I'd simply refer people to that in the rulebook. Heck, if I had my druthers, the Random Esoteric Creature Generator would be tweaked a bit and reprinted as part of the core DCC: RPG rulebook INSTEAD OF a standard catalog of monsters. Perhaps the rulebook could give two or three example monsters, but no need for more than that.

[DCCfan]

So, that's a roundabout way of saying that I'm not sure how many monster books I'll publish. What do you guys think? Do people want a lot of monster books? Or, knowing that it's very simple to create new monsters, would you rather just create your own?

There's no such thing as "too much monster", especially if you're lazy. Also, some general wilderness encounter tables would be welcome.

As you mentioned, there was a time when fantasy and science fiction wasn't seperated like nowadays. The best examples are the Dying Earth stories of Jack Vance, but check out REH's Conan stories too: Demons and Yag-kosha came from the outer dark (space), and most of the magic wasn't really magic, but alchemy, hypnosis or martial arts.
This leads to the question: will the DCC RPG include artifacts of a bygone advanced age as treasures and enemies? That would be more than awesome...

I'm lazy but willing to turn over a new leaf in the spirit of the whole appendix N thing. You also say that it will be easy which helps with the lazy. Lazy people like easy. So I'll create my own monsters and it will be fun even if they are less than great.
I guess if I get really lazy I could just pull out the old Monster Manuals and make quick changes like the blue orcs mentioned above. So my answer is NO to needing more MM for the DCC RPG.

[goodmangames]

To avoid rulebook bloat in general, I'm leaning toward only doing one additional rulebook a year after the core book. The additional one would be called the "DCC Annual" (for 2012, 2013, etc.) and would include any new rules, errata, clarifications, and generally cool ideas that came up in the last year. That would be on top of lots of modules, of course, and the basics like a DM screen. That ought to keep it simple.

[Jeffrey]

If generating monsters is as easy as described, then we probably don't need a "manual". I used to always cherry-pick bits and pieces of different monsters, toss them well with a splash of balsamic vinegar and heave them at my players 'cuz after 14 years they'd seen everything I had. Sounds like we can be doing the same thing here.

Psionic frogs? Really?

Oooo... I hate when that happens!

-Jeffrey

[smathis]

So, that's a roundabout way of saying that I'm not sure how many monster books I'll publish. What do you guys think? Do people want a lot of monster books? Or, knowing that it's very simple to create new monsters, would you rather just create your own?

Nope. I'd rather not have more monster books. I say hit the high notes in DCC. The ones everyone's looking for like zombies, vampires, Elder Tentacle Monster and then give lots of info on creating one's own adventures and creatures to fit those adventures.

[Geoffrey]

To avoid rulebook bloat in general, I'm leaning toward only doing one additional rulebook a year after the core book. The additional one would be called the "DCC Annual" (for 2012, 2013, etc.) and would include any new rules, errata, clarifications, and generally cool ideas that came up in the last year. That would be on top of lots of modules, of course, and the basics like a DM screen. That ought to keep it simple.

That's a laudable goal. I'd suggest not even doing a DCC Annual. Your forthcoming game doesn't sound like it will be a flash in the pan. Thus, I expect it to be published for 5+ years. In a mere 5 years, there would be 5 DCC Annuals, thus bringing the total number of rulebooks to 6. Even one rulebook per year would lead to rulebook bloat.

Consider AD&D. After the Dungeon Masters Guide was released in 1979, there wasn't another actual AD&D rulebook released until 1985's Unearthed Arcana. I'd take that as a rough timetable: "When 2017 rolls around, maybe I'll publish another rulebook to go with the DCC: RGP rulebook."

Another thing that would concern me regarding these Annuals is their effect upon the modules. I'd hate to buy a module and have it crippled for me because I didn't have Annuals X and Y.

As for errata, clarifications, and fixes: Reserve these for subsequent printings of the DCC: RPG rulebook. (Kind of like the Troll Lords have done with their printings of the C&C Players Handbook.)

In short, I'd like for DCC: RPG to always remain a single rulebook. Nothing more, nothing less. (Modules, referee screen, etc. are of course fine.)

[Ravenheart87]

To avoid rulebook bloat in general, I'm leaning toward only doing one additional rulebook a year after the core book. The additional one would be called the "DCC Annual" (for 2012, 2013, etc.) and would include any new rules, errata, clarifications, and generally cool ideas that came up in the last year. That would be on top of lots of modules, of course, and the basics like a DM screen. That ought to keep it simple.

That's a laudable goal. I'd suggest not even doing a DCC Annual. Your forthcoming game doesn't sound like it will be a flash in the pan. Thus, I expect it to be published for 5+ years. In a mere 5 years, there would be 5 DCC Annuals, thus bringing the total number of rulebooks to 6. Even one rulebook per year would lead to rulebook bloat.

Consider AD&D. After the Dungeon Masters Guide was released in 1979, there wasn't another actual AD&D rulebook released until 1985's Unearthed Arcana. I'd take that as a rough timetable: "When 2017 rolls around, maybe I'll publish another rulebook to go with the DCC: RGP rulebook."

Another thing that would concern me regarding these Annuals is their effect upon the modules. I'd hate to buy a module and have it crippled for me because I didn't have Annuals X and Y.

As for errata, clarifications, and fixes: Reserve these for subsequent printings of the DCC: RPG rulebook. (Kind of like the Troll Lords have done with their printings of the C&C Players Handbook.)

In short, I'd like for DCC: RPG to always remain a single rulebook. Nothing more, nothing less. (Modules, referee screen, etc. are of course fine.)

Don't forget that those were different times when AD&D appeared, and that it also had the Dragon magazine! While a DCC magazine would be overkill, a yearly annual wouldn't hurt, just don't make it "core" like Wizards does with all of it's 4e books. I think we won't need new rules, but some good adventure ideas, articles about sword & sorcery literature, original monsters, adventures, interesting places, devious traps, short stories and the like would be welcome. Maybe a collection of "good stuff" from last year's DCC adventures... An annual should be like a magazine with cool stuff, but not a new "core" rulebook.

[joela]

So, that's a roundabout way of saying that I'm not sure how many monster books I'll publish. What do you guys think? Do people want a lot of monster books? Or, knowing that it's very simple to create new monsters, would you rather just create your own?

No, but I would like some sorta single compendium of all those unique monsters from the various DCC mods. Maybe issued once a year or every other year. That way, I don't have to go hunting through all my mods for that one monster that fits perfectly with my latest encounter.

[joela]

To avoid rulebook bloat in general, I'm leaning toward only doing one additional rulebook a year after the core book. The additional one would be called the "DCC Annual" (for 2012, 2013, etc.) and would include any new rules, errata, clarifications, and generally cool ideas that came up in the last year. That would be on top of lots of modules, of course, and the basics like a DM screen. That ought to keep it simple.

Perfect. You should have some sorta contest here on the forums on "Best New Kewl Idea for DCC RPG" to keep the good stuff rolling

[SgtPepper76]

To avoid rulebook bloat in general, I'm leaning toward only doing one additional rulebook a year after the core book. The additional one would be called the "DCC Annual" (for 2012, 2013, etc.) and would include any new rules, errata, clarifications, and generally cool ideas that came up in the last year. That would be on top of lots of modules, of course, and the basics like a DM screen. That ought to keep it simple.

Don't forget that those were different times when AD&D appeared, and that it also had the Dragon magazine! While a DCC magazine would be overkill, a yearly annual wouldn't hurt, just don't make it "core" like Wizards does with all of its 4e books. I think we won't need new rules, but some good adventure ideas, articles about sword & sorcery literature, original monsters, adventures, interesting places, devious traps, short stories and the like would be welcome. Maybe a collection of "good stuff" from last year's DCC adventures... An annual should be like a magazine with cool stuff, but not a new "core" rulebook.

To expand a bit on Ravenheart's suggestion. What if the Annual had a monster section that collected all (or at least the key) monsters that appeared in the previous year's modules? As another poster suggested, it keeps all of them collected in one spot so you don't need to dig through your collection of modules to find "the one". But that also gives those players on a more limited budget a chance to see what was published, at least in the creature department.

I love modules, especially high quality ones like GG has a reputation for producing, but I'm fooling myself if I think I'll be able (or even want) to buy all of the modules that are released. Sometimes it's a budget issue (how many can I afford?), sometimes it's a plot issue (that one doesn't sound interesting to me/my group), sometimes it's a common sense issue (how many modules covering levels 1-3 do I truly need?). I hate reprinted material but I think in this case it would be a good thing since it would consolidate monster content from the previous 12 months, functioning as a minor MM update and it would give a chance for players with spending constraints to see some content they missed. Who knows, with footnotes on the creature referring to the originating adventure, players might find a cool monster and buy the module based on that.

Now for my "dream scenario" there'd be a MM released at some point and maybe an update book every couple of years that consolidates the new monsters from the last couple of years (when you have enough material to warrant a true book. Not creating variant upon variant to fill up pages so you can sell MM IV that has 20 creatures and 60 variants, with 18 of those creatures having appeared in previous MMs just to sell bloat books...not that I'm calling anyone out... .

I'm not sure which is the proper term, they seem to exchange meanings every couple of years but I enjoy "fluff", i.e. the story stuff. The descriptions of the monsters, their ecology, etc. For me it acts as a springboard to come up with other material. And unfortunately I, like I'm sure the majority of adult players, only have a limited amount of time to devote to game prep what with everything else going on. I want the maximum amount of fun and excitement for the players at the table with a modest amount of prep time. Last but not least, I find them fun to read.

[Black Dougal]

I've probably mentioned this elsewhere, but I can't remember for sure, so here is a brief commentary on monsters.

One of the refreshing elements of reading Appendix N books is that they have a knack for presenting creatures in a fresh manner. Most of the Appendix N books were published before the genre of "fantasy" existed. There was a time where "adventure" books sometimes took place in fantastic settings, but they all fell into the "adventure" category. Somewhere along the way, the "fantasy" category evolved. I don't have any real factual knowledge of how/when this happened but it seems obvious to me over the last 30 years or so: book stores now have dedicated fantasy sections and everybody knows what an "orc" is, but neither of those was the case in 1970. What that means is that fantasy books published in the "pre-genre" era have this wonderful naivete about the nature of the creatures they present. Nowadays fantasy books present archetypes and detailed descriptions, and clarify how "my version of a dwarf is different from this other one"; back in the 1970's and before, a monster was just some sort of creature and it was always presented in a fresh way.

In that vein, something I want to do with DCC RPG is bring back the novelty of monsters. Insofar as the published modules go, this means a moratorium on using existing monsters. The first four written DCC RPG modules do not include a single "existing" monster. Every combat encounter is with a new critter designed for that encounter. Because the monster stat system is really simple (REALLY simple), you can bang out a new monster in a very short amount of time, so it's easy to create creatures on the fly as you go. I just ran a game today where every single encounter was with a creature that doesn't have an "entry" in any monster book anywhere (including the DCC RPG core rulebook)...it's all creatures I made up for this adventure, and they all fit and make sense.

In games, players are constantly unsure of what they face. Is that weird cultist with no face more powerful than me, or not? The four-legged lizard with the gold horn and the hypnotic eyes...how powerful is it? The enormous devil-frog that's the size of a house...it's big, but how dangerous is it? (I love that one because EVERY group assumes it has a sticky-frog-tongue attack...which it doesn't...but it IS psionic...) You get the idea: no player has any idea of the nature of their opponents, beyond what is described, and many of the creatures are truly weird and unusual.

The DCC RPG also encourages judges to make minor changes to monsters in order to make them more interesting for players to encounter. Make your orcs blue instead of green, and watch what happens. "What are these blue humanoids? What powers do they have?" Well, they have the same stats as orcs but the players don't know that! For undead, give them perfectly preserved bodies and normal skin-and-bones. Why do they have to rot? A zombie or ghoul with pale white skin and a normal, if glassy-eyed, appearance is far more terrifying than rotting flesh, especially when they don't bleed when wounded and advance in a a lurching fashion.

I can go on and on (and I do so in DCC RPG ), but the point is that I don't want any one monster to get re-used that much. The DCC RPG core book will include rules for all the archetypal monsters, but I am on the fence about doing any monster books. Gamers love them but I don't want to end up in a rut where the creatures come from a predictable place. Every adventure needs to have specific foes that are thematically appropriate and maintain the sense of true fantasy and novelty.

So, that's a roundabout way of saying that I'm not sure how many monster books I'll publish. What do you guys think? Do people want a lot of monster books? Or, knowing that it's very simple to create new monsters, would you rather just create your own?

Thanks for this write up, Joseph. It really sounds cool, but I struggled a bit with it. I guess I am still wrapping my mind around the concept of being "pre-D&D" yet playable like Classic D&D.

I like the idea of the DCC modules having a moratorium on using existing monsters, at least partially. I would occasionally like to see some of the classics make a cameo. It is kind of like the comfort food of fantasy RPGs. Sometimes you just want something bog standard and well known. Keeping the players on their toes is a good thing, however. Keep the creatures unpredictable, but part of that unpredictability could include not knowing when something well known is going to be thrown at them.

Whether or not to do monster books hung me up for a bit, until I thought about Chaosium's Call of Cthulhu book. (I am rereading it because I haven't run it in years and recently came up with a good idea for it.) The CoC book contains a fairly short section on the main Mythos monsters and other assorted creatures that are likely to show up in adventures. As far as I know there has never been a specific "bestiary" sort of book published for CoC by Chaosium. Then I reread your post. As long as most of the standards are included in the main DCC book (kobolds, orc, goblins, etc.) I will be happy. The more esoteric stuff can be the realm of 3PP. Whether or not GG splits out the monster section into its own book, I don't think GG should get into the WoTC situation of publishing monster manual after monster manual. I just want to see the basics covered.

I would still like to see the "Dungeon Denizens" book ported, but as long as conversion from 3.x or 4.x to DCC is easy, I guess it won't be a big deal.

To avoid rulebook bloat in general, I'm leaning toward only doing one additional rulebook a year after the core book. The additional one would be called the "DCC Annual" (for 2012, 2013, etc.) and would include any new rules, errata, clarifications, and generally cool ideas that came up in the last year. That would be on top of lots of modules, of course, and the basics like a DM screen. That ought to keep it simple.

I like this idea, with the exception of "new rules, errata, clarifications". I don't think that the "Annuals" should be required purchases. Like others posting in this thread, I don't want to see a ton of modules that require Annuals x, y, and z in order to be played. Make any new rules presented in the Annuals be optional rules. Maybe also have a section in published modules which has suggestions for integrating certain Annuals into the adventure. As for errata and clarifications, definitely include these in subsequent printings of the rulebook to which they apply. Also have the errata for a specific book be a free download from the website. Having rules changes be spread out across multiple books will get confusing, and makes the Annuals required purchases. If the Annuals have really cool additions to the game, like all monsters from published DCC modules in the past year, they will desirable on their own.

I really like the idea of the core DCC book being the only book necessary for play, just like the core CoC book is the only one a Keeper needs to buy. Every other additional rulebook should be an optional addition to the game. In 1e AD&D things like UA, the Dungeoneer's Survival Guide, and the Wilderness Survival Guide were optional extensions to the game. I would like DCC to adopt this philosophy.

[Hamakto]

I say a big NO to monster books. I will never buy another monster book. I agree with James Raggi (while acknowledging hyperbole) in his excellent Random Esoteric Creature Generator: "The idea of a standardized monster list for anything other than exemplar purposes is probably the worst thing that happened to role-playing."

Not to be contrary, but I disagree with this statement. The standardized monster is a double edged sword in fantasy games. The benefits of it are that you can bring someone into your game and go, you see 10 orcs on the horizon. They can fill in images and get a general idea of the monster combat abilities (if they are a veteran gamer).

Otherwise, if you being someone new into your campaign... you will need to educate them on the world and every monster in it. It does create a great deal of EXTRA work.

For a person totally new to a RPG, it can go both ways. If they have seen LoTR or a Conan movie, you can use names from those movies as a point where they can immerse themselves in the game. Yes, i can have Blue Orcs.. called Orgnocks. But they are just an orc with a funny skin color and a name change.

To help DCC become more popular, GG will need to publish at least a monster manual or an online list of 'standard' monsters already converted to DCC. Orc, Ogre, Giant, Goblin, Sprite, Zombie, etc...

1. To allow an experienced DM to see how to translate things to DCC RPG
2. Allow those of us with jobs and kids to convert existing DCC's or custom campaigns to a DCC Campaign.

Without a framework like this, you will probably turn off all but the hard core gamer who is REALLY enthused about the product.

[mntnjeff]

The benefits of it are that you can bring someone into your game and go, you see 10 orcs on the horizon. They can fill in images and get a general idea of the monster combat abilities (if they are a veteran gamer).

Otherwise, if you being someone new into your campaign... you will need to educate them on the world and every monster in it. It does create a great deal of EXTRA work.

Alright, now I'm going to be the contrary one here Hamakto. I think this is exactly what the game is trying to avoid. The sense of wonder and "newness" is produced by the unknown. And presenting an "orc" as an "orc" is already setting a specific tone to the game.

I don't think that it's ever up to the DM to "educate" when it comes to things like this. In fact, the education comes from experience. e.g. "Oh a pig-nosed, blue skinned warrior savage from the jungles of Chult? Yeah... those are nasty."

Just my $.02. I've personally got enough monster books to last my lifetime. And if it's as easy as Joseph claims to stat out a monster, then I'll be porting things if the situation calls for it. Otherwise, surprise me, both as a DM AND a player! I love not knowing...

[Harley Stroh]

The benefits of it are that you can bring someone into your game and go, you see 10 orcs on the horizon. They can fill in images and get a general idea of the monster combat abilities (if they are a veteran gamer).

Otherwise, if you being someone new into your campaign... you will need to educate them on the world and every monster in it. It does create a great deal of EXTRA work.

Alright, now I'm going to be the contrary one here Hamakto. I think this is exactly what the game is trying to avoid. The sense of wonder and "newness" is produced by the unknown. And presenting an "orc" as an "orc" is already setting a specific tone to the game.

I don't think that it's ever up to the DM to "educate" when it comes to things like this. In fact, the education comes from experience. e.g. "Oh a pig-nosed, blue skinned warrior savage from the jungles of Chult? Yeah... those are nasty."

Just my $.02. I've personally got enough monster books to last my lifetime. And if it's as easy as Joseph claims to stat out a monster, then I'll be porting things if the situation calls for it. Otherwise, surprise me, both as a DM AND a player! I love not knowing...

MtnJefff has the right of it. The aim is to make monsters monstrous again, and magic, magical.

//H

[GnomeBoy]

To help DCC become more popular, GG will need to publish at least a monster manual or an online list of 'standard' monsters already converted to DCC. Orc, Ogre, Giant, Goblin, Sprite, Zombie, etc...

I think it's been covered that some 'standard' monsters will be in the rulebook. Correct me if I'm wrong, anybody...

[Black Dougal]

To help DCC become more popular, GG will need to publish at least a monster manual or an online list of 'standard' monsters already converted to DCC. Orc, Ogre, Giant, Goblin, Sprite, Zombie, etc...

I think it's been covered that some 'standard' monsters will be in the rulebook. Correct me if I'm wrong, anybody...

Here you go:

I can go on and on (and I do so in DCC RPG ), but the point is that I don't want any one monster to get re-used that much. The DCC RPG core book will include rules for all the archetypal monsters, but I am on the fence about doing any monster books. Gamers love them but I don't want to end up in a rut where the creatures come from a predictable place. Every adventure needs to have specific foes that are thematically appropriate and maintain the sense of true fantasy and novelty.

[Harley Stroh]

I think it's been covered that some 'standard' monsters will be in the rulebook. Correct me if I'm wrong, anybody...

DougK and GnomeB are correct. There are "standard" monsters in the rulebook, to give judges a sense of where to go with their own nightmares.

I suspect there is a 3p product for the publisher willing to do "conversions" of classic monsters. Perhaps even chap books dedicated to certain monstrous types?

//H

[goodmangames]

Don't worry guys, subsequent reprints of the core rulebook will include any sort of errata or corrections. I'd like to say the first printing will be perfect but I've been in this business long enough to know that something will need to be corrected in the second printing. What I do anticipate as potential content for the annuals is ideas that are based on the DCC RPG mechanics, but which I never thought of. For example, a core mechanic of DCC RPG play is the spell check: a d20 roll to determine if a spell succeeds. Over the course of the last couple months this idea has also evolved to encompass spell checks used to activate magic items, magical places, magical devices, and so on. Luckily this development has happened among the designers and playtesters helping me with the game, so it will make the core rulebook...but what other interesting implications of spell checks will be dreamed up by creative DMs once the core rulebook is released? I'm sure someone will come up with something cool that I never thought of. Plus there are all the detailed spell tables, the crit tables, the fumble tables, the Mighty Deeds of Arms, the prospect of new classes, the idea of spellburn...all these ideas that could come about once many people are playing the game. I see the annuals as a place for those: not so much "here's the new rule that you need to do grappling different" but "here's a cool new spell that makes use of the spell check mechanic in a different way" or "here's a different way to interpret the Appendix N concept of a sorcerer, Lovecraft-style"...that sort of thing. New material that's not necessarily a module or monster stat block or revised rule but is very interesting and apropos to many games.

[Black Dougal]

Don't worry guys, subsequent reprints of the core rulebook will include any sort of errata or corrections. I'd like to say the first printing will be perfect but I've been in this business long enough to know that something will need to be corrected in the second printing. What I do anticipate as potential content for the annuals is ideas that are based on the DCC RPG mechanics, but which I never thought of. For example, a core mechanic of DCC RPG play is the spell check: a d20 roll to determine if a spell succeeds. Over the course of the last couple months this idea has also evolved to encompass spell checks used to activate magic items, magical places, magical devices, and so on. Luckily this development has happened among the designers and playtesters helping me with the game, so it will make the core rulebook...but what other interesting implications of spell checks will be dreamed up by creative DMs once the core rulebook is released? I'm sure someone will come up with something cool that I never thought of. Plus there are all the detailed spell tables, the crit tables, the fumble tables, the Mighty Deeds of Arms, the prospect of new classes, the idea of spellburn...all these ideas that could come about once many people are playing the game. I see the annuals as a place for those: not so much "here's the new rule that you need to do grappling different" but "here's a cool new spell that makes use of the spell check mechanic in a different way" or "here's a different way to interpret the Appendix N concept of a sorcerer, Lovecraft-style"...that sort of thing. New material that's not necessarily a module or monster stat block or revised rule but is very interesting and apropos to many games.

I like it. That is basically what I meant by optional content. Stuff that is cool but not intrinsic to the game.