Have your attitudes towards DCC RPG changed since Jan. 3rd?

[jmucchiello]

I don't think DCCRPG is aiming at being a "draw people in the RPG world" kind of game. It's aimed at the long-time RPG player looking for something nostalgic yet still new.

My attitude to DCCRPG has climbed and dropped and climbed and dropped. Some parts of it are extremely appealing and others leave me cold. Much like the Trolls' C&C and other nostalgia games. Seeing the rules will show me which way my attitude goes.

[Sunderstone]

I don't think DCCRPG is aiming at being a "draw people in the RPG world" kind of game. It's aimed at the long-time RPG player looking for something nostalgic yet still new.

My attitude to DCCRPG has climbed and dropped and climbed and dropped. Some parts of it are extremely appealing and others leave me cold. Much like the Trolls' C&C and other nostalgia games. Seeing the rules will show me which way my attitude goes.

same boat.
Im not a fan of the Zocchi dice for one, but the main thing for me is the lack of 3.5 compatibility (for the cool DCC's of old). Ill take a look at the pdf instead of the dead tree version which I was planning to buy. If I like it and theres enough new DCC module support Ill pick up the dead tree version.

One question though (I havent been keeping up on the DCC RPG threads)... Will there be a new Campaign Setting for the new RPG or an updated Aereth?

[mshensley]

I find that the best and worst thing going for it is that it's still going to be basically D&D. I have a serious love/hate relationship with D&D. I love the tropes, but a lot of the mechanics bug me to no end. But just like Churchill said - D&D is the worst form of roleplaying except all those other forms that have been tried.

[finarvyn]

the main thing for me is the lack of 3.5 compatibility (for the cool DCC's of old).

My impression is that it will have a lot of elements in common with the 3.5 DCC modules. Not everything will be an exact conversion but I don't see why you couldn't use the old modules in the new system.

For example, it's possible that any NPC spellcasters would have to be adjusted to use the new spells instead of what is printed in the module. The level range for characters and NPCs may have to be re-scaled.

Overall, however, the basic plot elements and whatnot should be ready for use with the new rules.

[finarvyn]

I find that the best and worst thing going for it is that it's still going to be basically D&D. I have a serious love/hate relationship with D&D. I love the tropes, but a lot of the mechanics bug me to no end.

I don't quite know what that means because you haven't been very specific as to exactly what you don't like.

If what you dislike mechanically about D&D is the use of levels instead of skills, then certainly DCC won't make you happy because it's fundamentally built on the 3E system. It will have levels and hit points and armor class and lots of other familar elements that you see in D&D as well as many other RPGs. I like the fact that DCC will have elements which are familar that are integrated with elements which are new and/or different.

I've played D&D in one edition or another for 35+ years and I haven't had any real issues with the mechanics, so it's hard to anticipate what love/hate you have with them.

[DCCfan]

the main thing for me is the lack of 3.5 compatibility (for the cool DCC's of old).

My impression is that it will have a lot of elements in common with the 3.5 DCC modules. Not everything will be an exact conversion but I don't see why you couldn't use the old modules in the new system.

For example, it's possible that any NPC spellcasters would have to be adjusted to use the new spells instead of what is printed in the module. The level range for characters and NPCs may have to be re-scaled.

Overall, however, the basic plot elements and whatnot should be ready for use with the new rules.

I'm still buying old DCC adventures to fill out my collection and I agree that with a little work they should convert just fine. In fact I think I read that someone had converted an older edition module for a play test. I need to find that again and read how it went.

[mshensley]

I don't quite know what that means because you haven't been very specific as to exactly what you don't like.

My biggest problems with D&D are how hit points and armor work. They work well in a game sense as they are easy to use and allow for lots of combat but fail in a roleplaying sense as they are counter-immersive. If I hit someone with an axe, it should hurt. Nasty, horrible, long lasting damage should be the result, not nick, nick, nick, dead. Also, I should be able to keep myself from getting hurt by my skill at combat not just how much armor I'm wearing. Appendix N fighters wore little to no armor more often than not. The combat system of D&D makes this an almost impossible choice.

[JediOre]

If I hit someone with an axe, it should hurt. Nasty, horrible, long lasting damage should be the result, not nick, nick, nick, dead.

MSHensley, You just need to broaden you horizon regarding hit points. At first level, that axe will hurt and most likely drop most characters with one "hit." What you should do is have the players keep track of just how many hit points their character had at first level. That's the character's "real hit points." Then, as the characters rise in level, all the extra hit points really are just a reflection of their ability to parry, dodge, and escape with a nick instead of a belly wound. So at the end of a fight, a warrior with 45 hit points at full strength ends up with 25 hp, does not mean he has been heavily wounded from the hill giant's club, it means he's winded, scuffed, and bruised. Had that fighter got below his first level hit points, say 7, than he would be bleeding from a crushed arm that the giant's club broke.

You'll need to adjust the cure spells. I'd say it would take some heavy spells to return the above fighter to 7 hit points, since that is real damage. Perhaps make the cure spells only cure one hit point of damage, per level of the spell, i.e. cure light wounds cures 1 hit point, etc. Once the PC is brought back to the magic number of 7, the rest of the hit points should be easy to restore, with a night or two of sleep, since it only represents one's skills in combat. To me, that is a better reflection of how Appendix N's heroes operate.

[Hamakto]

I don't quite know what that means because you haven't been very specific as to exactly what you don't like.

My biggest problems with D&D are how hit points and armor work. They work well in a game sense as they are easy to use and allow for lots of combat but fail in a roleplaying sense as they are counter-immersive. If I hit someone with an axe, it should hurt. Nasty, horrible, long lasting damage should be the result, not nick, nick, nick, dead. Also, I should be able to keep myself from getting hurt by my skill at combat not just how much armor I'm wearing. Appendix N fighters wore little to no armor more often than not. The combat system of D&D makes this an almost impossible choice.

See DR thread to a long discussion on Armor, DR, and DCC. It was a lively conversation...

[Stainless]

MSHensley, You just need to broaden you horizon regarding hit points. At first level, that axe will hurt and most likely drop most characters with one "hit." What you should do is have the players keep track of just how many hit points their character had at first level. That's the character's "real hit points." Then, as the characters rise in level, all the extra hit points really are just a reflection of their ability to parry, dodge, and escape with a nick instead of a belly wound. So at the end of a fight, a warrior with 45 hit points at full strength ends up with 25 hp, does not mean he has been heavily wounded from the hill giant's club, it means he's winded, scuffed, and bruised. Had that fighter got below his first level hit points, say 7, than he would be bleeding from a crushed arm that the giant's club broke.

That is exactly how I house ruled it in AD&D all those years ago in the early '80s.

[mshensley]

MSHensley, You just need to broaden you horizon regarding hit points. At first level, that axe will hurt and most likely drop most characters with one "hit." What you should do is have the players keep track of just how many hit points their character had at first level. That's the character's "real hit points." Then, as the characters rise in level, all the extra hit points really are just a reflection of their ability to parry, dodge, and escape with a nick instead of a belly wound. So at the end of a fight, a warrior with 45 hit points at full strength ends up with 25 hp, does not mean he has been heavily wounded from the hill giant's club, it means he's winded, scuffed, and bruised. Had that fighter got below his first level hit points, say 7, than he would be bleeding from a crushed arm that the giant's club broke.

You'll need to adjust the cure spells. I'd say it would take some heavy spells to return the above fighter to 7 hit points, since that is real damage. Perhaps make the cure spells only cure one hit point of damage, per level of the spell, i.e. cure light wounds cures 1 hit point, etc. Once the PC is brought back to the magic number of 7, the rest of the hit points should be easy to restore, with a night or two of sleep, since it only represents one's skills in combat. To me, that is a better reflection of how Appendix N's heroes operate.

Yes, I understand all this and I usually just roll with it but it still bothers me and probably always will. shrug...

[smathis]

See DR thread to a long discussion on Armor, DR, and DCC. It was a lively conversation...

Very true. The Death & Dying one has some stuff on it too. Mostly a monologue, though. There's a good chatting up of the matter on the Healing & Clerics thread too.

I talk a lot.

Here are links...

• Damage Reduction in DCC RPG
• Death & Dying in DCC RPG
• Healing & Clerics

Regarding what mshensley mentions, I understand where he's coming from. I think it's exacerbated in 3e because of inflated hit point values. Hear that thud? That was me kicking that dead horse again.

But there are several possibilities to work something out. First is the idea that JediOre presented, with the first hit die being "fer realz" and all the others not. Then there's the Vitality/Wound Points from 3e's Unearthed Arcana and other d20 systems. Then there's the Wound thing I'd pitched based loosely on the Consequences/Stress mechanics from FATE.

JediOre's suggestion is far and away the simplest. And with a more modest approach to hit points -- which I think could be achieved by only allowing the CON bonus to modify hit points at first level -- I think it would work really well. I think that approach only runs into a problem when you've got characters with three-digit hit points doing things that strain the sense of immersion.

I think VP/WP are also a good approach. But I don't care for the extra stuff they add on to the rules. And I don't see Wound Points as being a first tier currency. But I think that could be mitigated by limiting how many Wound Points characters get (maybe 1 hit die + CON bonus instead of full CON).

I still like the Wounds thing as it evolved in that Healing & Clerics thread. There was so much you could do with those. I think the biggest drawback is that it's unfamiliar. As I point out in the Death & Dying thread, I think familiarity with a system leads people to feel it's less complicated than it is. While unfamiliar systems seem more complicated. But it's certainly not a super-lightweight mechanic. And it's unfamiliarity would undoubtedly piss off a whole bunch of people. (sigh)

Also worth noting is that the Wounds system I "endorse" is the last one in the Healing & Clerics thread. The one in the Death & Dying thread was my attempt at simplifying the system so that it wouldn't scare people off. And I broke it. And still scared people off (re: that Familiarity thing).

The last one in the H & C thread works well. And played well when we tried it. Opened up all sorts of different ways to represent fear, sanity, fatigue -- you name it -- through loss of hit points. Probably could stand to heal up a little more quickly. But there ya go...

As it stands, I'm leaning towards JediOre's approach -- with the caveats of keeping upper-level hit points lower. All that's in the Death & Dying thread.

[nanstreet]

I tend to think of hit points as representing combat prowress, anyway, rather than debilitating wounds. For me they represent the characters luck and stamina and ability. It sounds like DCC will have attribute damage for things like spellburn, and I think attribute damage would be a good way to simulate actual wounds, too, when hit points are gone.

I only heard about DCC after the second designers notes were posted. I am taken with DCC's description as following an alternate "what if" path paralleling the path of the first ever RPG. My big worry is that there will be too many charts; that eight-panel GM screen is the one thing that gives me pause.

[mshensley]

I think it's exacerbated in 3e because of inflated hit point values.

And made ridiculous in 4e.

This is why I prefer older versions of D&D and even those only at low levels.

[finarvyn]

I don't quite know what that means because you haven't been very specific as to exactly what you don't like.

My biggest problems with D&D are how hit points and armor work. They work well in a game sense as they are easy to use and allow for lots of combat but fail in a roleplaying sense as they are counter-immersive. If I hit someone with an axe, it should hurt. Nasty, horrible, long lasting damage should be the result, not nick, nick, nick, dead. Also, I should be able to keep myself from getting hurt by my skill at combat not just how much armor I'm wearing. Appendix N fighters wore little to no armor more often than not. The combat system of D&D makes this an almost impossible choice.

Okay, I get what you are talking about now.

For me, the abstract nature of hit points has never been a problem. Rather than thinking about combat as one guy thunking another with an axe, I tend to think of combat more like swashbuckling swordplay. Thrust, parry, jab, etc. Each time you lose some "hit points" as you fend off a near-hit or whatever. Eventually you actually start to hurt and bleed bigtime. A person with a lot of HP simply has the ability to keep himself from getting hurt by his skill in combat, by which we can infer that a hit that might kill an inexperienced fighter only grazes an experienced one.

Where I can't merge this model with D&D is that healing is so darned slow. If a hit point means you have gotten tired, why don't you regain HP faster. Um...

I find that I enjoy D&D combat/healing a lot more if I don't actually try to think about it.

[JRR]

Where I can't merge this model with D&D is that healing is so darned slow. If a hit point means you have gotten tired, why don't you regain HP faster. Um...

I find that I enjoy D&D combat/healing a lot more if I don't actually try to think about it.

I always look at it as actual damage. At first level, the 8 hp blow from an axe probably decapitates you. At 10th, you are more skilled. You manage to MOSTLY dodge/parry the blow. But not completely. It nicks you across the arm, leaving a nasty, but shallow gash. On it's own, it's not gonna hurt you much, but these add up. Each blow IS an actual wound, but it's not a full on crack upside the head with an axe.

[smathis]

And made ridiculous in 4e.

This is why I prefer older versions of D&D and even those only at low levels.

We're in agreement here.

[finarvyn]

Where I can't merge this model with D&D is that healing is so darned slow. If a hit point means you have gotten tired, why don't you regain HP faster.

I always look at it as actual damage. At first level, the 8 hp blow from an axe probably decapitates you. At 10th, you are more skilled. You manage to MOSTLY dodge/parry the blow. But not completely. It nicks you across the arm, leaving a nasty, but shallow gash. On it's own, it's not gonna hurt you much, but these add up. Each blow IS an actual wound, but it's not a full on crack upside the head with an axe.

I agree to a certain point, but it seems like a person should heal a certain percent of HP per day, not a certain number of points. That 10th level guy with the nasty but shallow gashes for 5 HP takes just as long to heal as the poor 1st level guy who nearly lost his life.

[smathis]

I agree to a certain point, but it seems like a person should heal a certain percent of HP per day, not a certain number of points. That 10th level guy with the nasty but shallow gashes for 5 HP takes just as long to heal as the poor 1st level guy who nearly lost his life.

I think finarvyn makes a good point. I've seen other house rules and such that say a character heals 50% of their HP at the end of an encounter or even after an extended rest.

I think that makes sense and fully support that approach.

[Hamakto]

I agree to a certain point, but it seems like a person should heal a certain percent of HP per day, not a certain number of points. That 10th level guy with the nasty but shallow gashes for 5 HP takes just as long to heal as the poor 1st level guy who nearly lost his life.

I think finarvyn makes a good point. I've seen other house rules and such that say a character heals 50% of their HP at the end of an encounter or even after an extended rest.

I think that makes sense and fully support that approach.

I have always been partial to... a character heals their CL+CON bonus per day. I have even seen systems of: CL+class bonus+CON per day. Where class bonus was Thief (+1), Cleric (+2), Fighter (+3).

This allows characters to heal in approximately the same rate over a period of time.

[vogless]

My attitude has sure changed.

I've gone from wanting nothing to do with RPG's as a whole after things with our groups went south with the arrival of 4E, to planning on pre-ordering this book.

I'm actually getting excited.

[JediOre]

My attitude has sure changed. . . I'm actually getting excited.

Excellent!

[Darksyntax]

But I will say one thing, I'm not sure how approachable "Dungeon Crawl Classics" will be to potential customers who are not familiar with the term. I fear that many will take one look at the name and assume it's something cheesy and so put it straight back on the shelf. Obviously many sales will go to those already familiar with the game's development and pedigree, but surely the best business model is to reach out to new customers and we all know that first impressions are extremely important. If it were me, I'd be trying to think of a more instinctive and distinctive name, but I understand if there's been too much invested in this already.

On this my friend we disagree. Let me explain, much like the era known as the great depression people long for a simpler time -- a place they remember. They want to be reminded of how happy they once were as its far simpler to be reminded of such than to freshly have those feelings.

Just take a look at the large retro toy markets that have emerged in the last 4-5 months. People will both buy and play this, some will fall the way side -- others will make it the game of choice.

Futher still we know Gamers, and by extension the target audience are adverse to change and cling to the past.

So my dear friend you and I disagree on this point.

[trancejeremy]

When I first heard rumors about DCC RPG, I was hoping for something like either 1st AD&D or BD&D.

I know there are clone systems of those, but most of them suffer from not being from actual game companies, but stuff you have to buy off of Lulu and such. (I know that sounds terrible, and I have bought games off of Lulu, but there's just a difference in feel.)

And the one other notable one, C&C, I just can't stand. The one thing that bugged me more than anything about AD&D/BD&D was the (secondary) skill system, where you just have a skill and have to roll under your attribute on a 20. While they didn't do that exactly, it's pretty close. But I just can't stand skill systems what the biggest factor in the attribute.

So basically what I was hoping for was a AD&D clone with a decent skill system (like that from 3rd edition, though that's not perfect, either, or maybe even just a % skill system, as AD&D had that for some skills) and from a professional company.

But the more I read about about DCC RPG, firstly, it seems geared almost entirely for tournament play, as opposed to campaigns. Not that there is anything wrong with it. To the contrary, it's a lot of fun. But I don't go to Cons anymore, so it's just not for me.

Secondly, it seems less like a different take on D&D, than simply someone's (in this case Mr. Goodman's) house rules. Of which a lot were around in the early 80s. Arduin, Arcanum from Bard Games, Palladium, etc. While these could be fun, at the same times, it's like watching a TV show or movie you know well dubbed into another language. It just seems...off.

So I'm probably not going to buy it. Maybe if I can get a cheap copy, and possibly some of the adventures for it

[finarvyn]

And the one other notable one, C&C, I just can't stand. The one thing that bugged me more than anything about AD&D/BD&D was the (secondary) skill system, where you just have a skill and have to roll under your attribute on a 20. While they didn't do that exactly, it's pretty close. But I just can't stand skill systems what the biggest factor in the attribute.

Sounds like our gaming styles are exactly opposite. In general I find that complex skill systems help the players define what they can't attempt (same problem with 3E feats) and tend to clog up an otherwise clean RPG system. The fact that C&C avoids that stuff with some simple rolls is, to me, one of the strengths of the RPG.

But the more I read about about DCC RPG, firstly, it seems geared almost entirely for tournament play, as opposed to campaigns. Not that there is anything wrong with it. To the contrary, it's a lot of fun. But I don't go to Cons anymore, so it's just not for me.

I'm not sure how you draw this conclusion, other than the fact that all of the public playtests to date have been at conventions. The game starts you out with a pile of 0th level characters, you go through a process to see which one(s) survive, then you continue to grow up to higher level. You can't simulate that in a convention game because there isn't time for it. This just screams "campaign" to me.

Secondly, it seems less like a different take on D&D, than simply someone's (in this case Mr. Goodman's) house rules. <snip> it's like watching a TV show or movie you know well dubbed into another language. It just seems...off.

Well, it isn't D&D. It never claimed to be D&D. If you think it's "off" somehow from D&D that's good because it's not a clone of D&D. It's an RPG based on Appendix N source material (I assume that you've read some of those books) that happens to use a core rules system similar to D&D. The rest will be "off" because it's trying to recreate a different literary style entirely.

So I'm probably not going to buy it. Maybe if I can get a cheap copy, and possibly some of the adventures for it

Good luck with that. Sounds like you won't like it, though.