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

[smathis]

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.

I have to agree with finarvyn here. Prior to 3e, I never heard "I roll Bluff!" and ESPECIALLY never heard "I roll Diplomacy!" Now, in both 3e and 4e, that's the defacto way of handling any sort of non-combat situation. In 3e and 4e, players don't solve puzzles. They roll Arcana or Religion or History.

I recently gave my 4e group a bona-fide puzzle in a game. They stared at me blankly for a second. Then looked at each other as if to ask "Can he do that?" Then a lightbulb went off after a few minutes and they had a great time with it.

I find complex skills systems to be intrusive and radioactive to immersion. It makes it too easy for characters to become reliant on the skill roll to solve all their problems, instead of roleplaying or using their noggin.

[JediOre]

. . . I have to agree with finarvyn here. Prior to 3e, I never heard "I roll Bluff!" and ESPECIALLY never heard "I roll Diplomacy!" Now, in both 3e and 4e, that's the defacto way of handling any sort of non-combat situation. In 3e and 4e, players don't solve puzzles. They roll Arcana or Religion or History. . . . I find complex skills systems to be intrusive and radioactive to immersion. It makes it too easy for characters to become reliant on the skill roll to solve all their problems, instead of roleplaying or using their noggin.

Amen to that. Both Finarvyn and Smathis express my thoughts on the 3.X skill system as well. I want the folks at the table to interact with this part of the game, not "roll the dice" like its a combat with words or brain power.

[finarvyn]

And I really hope I didn't come off as a jerk in my post.

I think that each person needs to look at what they like and dislike in a RPG and find one that fits those criteria. I love the concept of RuneQuest (and Stormbringer and all of the other games based off of BRP) but just don't like the skills. That totally kills those games for me most of the time, and while I'm willing to run short-term campaigns I know that those aren't long-term choices for me.

I got into C&C at the ground level and was able to help offer ideas and playtest the system. I love the fact that C&C doesn't get bogged down with details, and in many ways it reminds me of OD&D in style. And C&C also has the advantage that it uses spells from the SRD so my 3E players are familiar with them. And I can use 3E modules (such as Goodman Games' DCC) with little effort. Those are major advantages for my style of play and my game group's style.

I'm a little uncertain as to how the DCC RPG will fit into my gaming group. They are whimsical sometimes but I can't decide if they prefer being silly in a serious system or prefer having the system be silly to them. They are enthusiasitc about a playtest even though I'm not sure if they really appreaciate what they are in for.

All I can say is that what I've seen of the DCC RPG seems to fit my style and by extension I think my group will have a blast with it. Others will certainly be looking for other rules systems that do other things, and that's fine.

[Geoffrey]

Skills kill a game for me.

[Ravenheart87]

I have no problem with skills, if they are done right. If skills only cover things like professions, it's fine. Knowledge skills are still okay for me. Once social skills come into the game, the whole gameplay begins to fall apart, especially if a game promotes the overuse of skill systems - like 4e does.

I like having skills in my game, but only use them when they are really neccessary, there's enough chance for failure, and failure has consequences. In my Swords & Wizardry Complete + Wilderlands of High Fantasy campaign, I use my own rules, which are based on Empire of the Petal Throne's skill system.
All the skills in my game are professions, languages, weapon and armour use, and knowledge. You get one or two at first level, and they are put into three tiers, based on difficulty - the higher the tier, the more money and time that skill requires. That's all - no skill points or slots, it only needs time, money and a teacher. All the PCs began with one skill, now some of them have learned another one (the elf magic user learned botany, and the orc fighter and the antill assassin learned katana). They are around level two-three, adventuring for two months now, and they are dirt poor, thanks to blowing all their money on teachers, wine and women.

[nanstreet]

I like having skills in my game, but only use them when they are really neccessary, there's enough chance for failure, and failure has consequences.

Yes, this. I think skills give characters more definition. I know in my 2e days that players loved adding things like cooking or brewing or sewing to their characters, even if they hardly ever used a die roll-- though I did have a couple of characters in my campaign who kept trying to one up each other in cooking every time they set up camp, so they did more than the average ammount of dice rolling. Usually, dice are not necessary, unless the roll really matters.

In my Swords & Wizardry Complete + Wilderlands of High Fantasy campaign, I use my own rules, which are based on Empire of the Petal Throne's skill system.
All the skills in my game are professions, languages, weapon and armour use, and knowledge. You get one or two at first level, and they are put into three tiers, based on difficulty - the higher the tier, the more money and time that skill requires. That's all - no skill points or slots, it only needs time, money and a teacher. All the PCs began with one skill, now some of them have learned another one (the elf magic user learned botany, and the orc fighter and the antill assassin learned katana). They are around level two-three, adventuring for two months now, and they are dirt poor, thanks to blowing all their money on teachers, wine and women.

I think weapon and armor skills (along with spellcasting) should be tied to class and level, but I would be on board with other skills being learned through taking the time and finding a means to learn the skill. For example, I think if one hangs out in goblin territory long enough, one should be able to learn to speak goblin. Maybe with a limitation to the total number of things that can be learned based on how smart the character is.

[finarvyn]

blowing all their money on teachers, wine and women.

I'm a teacher, and feel honored to be included in the same statement as wine and women!

[Machpants]

Yeah my attitude has changed... I am getting more and more and MORE ....

IMPATIENT!

[finarvyn]

Yeah my attitude has changed... I am getting more and more and MORE ....

IMPATIENT!

Really? You weren't impatient from the start? Be honest now...

[mshensley]

Yeah my attitude has changed... I am getting more and more and MORE ....

IMPATIENT!

Well another month has passed by so it's time for another designer's blog!

[smathis]

As sort of a pulse on my own anticipation, I'll necro this thread. My attitude towards DCC has tanked since the levels thing.

I don't see the harm in using any of the number of ideas proposed by multiple members of the board to allow more levels without increasing the power scale.

What does it hurt to have a Level 10 DCC character equate to what is now a Level 5? What does it help? Well, it would help me to get people to play the game. And keep playing the game.

I've pretty much sunk into melancholy at this point. I tried my best. Likely tried too hard. And... sigh. I don't feel there's anyway this gets heard.

Two weeks ago I was cleaning off a space on the gaming shelf for all the DCC books and adventures I intended on buying. I was, and have been, working on a hexmap setting for use exclusively with DCC. I was hoping to hop into the 3PP pool.

The anticipation was through the roof. And that's an understatement. Now I'm conflicted. I still have my pre-order. I'm still hoping to playtest DCC. And I'll try to be as objective as possible. And who knows? Maybe that playtest will get me back on the happy wagon.

But I'm lacking a lot of enthusiasm I had half a month ago. And I have questions as to whether DCC is going to be my go-to game or not. So much so that I'm revisiting both C&C and S&W as alternatives.

I still have a wait and see approach. I'm just a lot less anxious about the "see" part. I'm also just a bit grumpy because I feel I pre-ordered a complete game and now I feel I'm getting about half of that. Again, wait and see. I know.

I'd also labored under the impression that DCC would allow me to dust off some of those old D&D adventures and play them with a new, awesome system that would be DCC. I'm now feeling that impression was false. So no matter what DCC turns out to be... If I want to journey back through Dark Tower or Against the Giants, it's going to have to be with C&C or S&W.

Maybe those 5 levels will be the most awesome levels ever put into print. I hope so.

But even still, I think I'd actually get to play all five if they were numbered 1-10. I don't think there's any way my group hops on board for a 5-level romp that takes them a year to get to level 5. Kids these days want to level early and often, even if the power increases are fairly illusory.

Oh well. Some will say sucks to be me. Some will say good riddance. I'm fatigued of the matter at the moment. Not sure how I feel about it all.

[mshensley]

As sort of a pulse on my own anticipation, I'll necro this thread. My attitude towards DCC has tanked since the levels thing.

I'm kind of feeling the same way since the 5 levels comment myself. That combined with having to buy a bunch of weird dice will make selling this to my group awfully tough to do. Besides, if I wanted another gimped game I already have some- HackMaster Basic and Dragon Age come to mind.

[Sunderstone]

I think I was hoping for something like a "D20 Basic". Between the weirdo dice and other changes, I'm not sure I'll get behind this one after all. I went from "will buy a hardcopy" to "will buy a PDF" to "possibly buy a PDF".

[geordie racer]

I'd also labored under the impression that DCC would allow me to dust off some of those old D&D adventures and play them with a new, awesome system that would be DCC. I'm now feeling that impression was false. So no matter what DCC turns out to be... If I want to journey back through Dark Tower or Against the Giants, it's going to have to be with C&C or S&W.

I'm not being flippant but I don't understand. The recommended levels on the TSR modules weren't written in stone anyway as comments in this great post point out.

Back in the day, badass modules like Runequest's 'Snakepipe Hollow' didn't specify the quality or number of characters 'required'. Up where I live, we just played whatever the shop stocked that had a cool cover. The players needed to their tactics together and get the most from the characters and their resources, to have any chance of surviving, nevermind reaching their 'goal'.

[jmucchiello]

I was going to post a new thread titled "Have your attitudes toward DCC RPG changed since Apr 3rd?" But I guess I don't need to. The level 5 talk has cooled my jets a bit as well.

[smathis]

I'm not being flippant but I don't understand. The recommended levels on the TSR modules weren't written in stone anyway as comments in this great post point out.

Back in the day, badass modules like Runequest's 'Snakepipe Hollow' didn't specify the quality or number of characters 'required'. Up where I live, we just played whatever the shop stocked that had a cool cover. The players needed to their tactics together and get the most from the characters and their resources, to have any chance of surviving, nevermind reaching their 'goal'.

I think it's pretty straightforward. DCC characters are only going up to Level 5. Their capabilities in terms of "feat output" and potential spellcasting will be above that -- likely in the 6th level range. But their hit points, saves and pretty much everything else are solidly 5th level.

To run old school D&D modules beyond the 4-7 milestone, everything will need to be adjusted down. Saves, monster damage, number of encounters, spells cast against them, monster abilities, monster AC... everything. And, even then, those modules are likely deathtraps for them.

The level ranges are ballparks, yes. Unfortunately, DCC characters in the corebooks are not invited to the ballpark for a good number of classic D&D adventures and 3e adventures published by Goodman Games.

I don't see where Maliszewski infers that 1-5 level characters are appropriate to a 9-12th level adventure in that post. So I'm not making a connection between his blog and the point being made. Maybe the link is wrong?

[geordie racer]

I think it's pretty straightforward. DCC characters are only going up to Level 5. Their capabilities in terms of "feat output" and potential spellcasting will be above that -- likely in the 6th level range. But their hit points, saves and pretty much everything else are solidly 5th level.

To run old school D&D modules beyond the 4-7 milestone, everything will need to be adjusted down. Saves, monster damage, number of encounters, spells cast against them, monster abilities, monster AC... everything. And, even then, those modules are likely deathtraps for them.

Surely they'll be enough monsters and hazard ideas in the corebook to aid conversion.

I don't see where Maliszewski infers that 1-5 level characters are appropriate to a 9-12th level adventure in that post. So I'm not making a connection between his blog and the point being made. Maybe the link is wrong?

Sorry, in the comments:

The "recommended levels" were not originally a part of the standard cover layout. The monochrome modules, e.g., seldom mention them, and not generally as a numerical range. The monochrome G modules, e.g., all suggest "average level of 9th" (though holding the door open to characters as low as 6th!). The monochrome D modules all say "average level of 10th". The distinction between D1-2 and D3 that James mentions above are fairly arbitrary labels attached to the later full-color cover editions by later editors. S1, the fearsome Tomb of Horrors, is all over the place in its last two pages, which is the only place suggesting levels: on one end, four characters of levels 9-14; on the other, ten characters of levels 6-9.

[smathis]

Surely they'll be enough monsters and hazard ideas in the corebook to aid conversion.

Maybe? But thanks for trying to cheer me up.

Sorry, in the comments:

The "recommended levels" were not originally a part of the standard cover layout. The monochrome modules, e.g., seldom mention them, and not generally as a numerical range. The monochrome G modules, e.g., all suggest "average level of 9th" (though holding the door open to characters as low as 6th!). The monochrome D modules all say "average level of 10th". The distinction between D1-2 and D3 that James mentions above are fairly arbitrary labels attached to the later full-color cover editions by later editors. S1, the fearsome Tomb of Horrors, is all over the place in its last two pages, which is the only place suggesting levels: on one end, four characters of levels 9-14; on the other, ten characters of levels 6-9.

That's actually worse for DCC in that case. Sigh.

I guess 3 PCs per player will become the default mode for DCC? At least when it comes to dusting off the old modules...

[jmucchiello]

The "recommended levels" were not originally a part of the standard cover layout. The monochrome modules, e.g., seldom mention them, and not generally as a numerical range. The monochrome G modules, e.g., all suggest "average level of 9th" (though holding the door open to characters as low as 6th!). The monochrome D modules all say "average level of 10th". The distinction between D1-2 and D3 that James mentions above are fairly arbitrary labels attached to the later full-color cover editions by later editors. S1, the fearsome Tomb of Horrors, is all over the place in its last two pages, which is the only place suggesting levels: on one end, four characters of levels 9-14; on the other, ten characters of levels 6-9.

The cover says 10-14.

The demi-lich at the end can chew up unprepared 15th level characters. And the only way to be prepared for that combat is to have read the module ahead of time. There's no list of rumors at the being telling you a forget spell will get you a one minute respite from the terror that is Acererak.

Total aside: My favorite trick ever was to put a skull that rises into the air in a totally unrelated dungeon after two trapped room. "Demi-lich! Run!" Party runs out of the room. I blew it though by laughing.

[Machpants]

I am not sure where you got the backwards compatible vibe from, it has never seen that way to me. Being d20 based (like so many games) I reckon conversion will be easy and hopefuly doable on the fly. But I am totally down on the 5 levels thing and I think that is the norm on this very enthusiastic fan board. I am interested to see what Mr Goodman comes back with after all this negative feed back.

[DCCfan]

I don't know What to think now. Why five? I guess I really need to play this game to see what it is all about. For now I'm ice cold. I think we are going nuts speculating about every little detail while waiting to play the dang thing. I'm kinda tired of this already.

[JediOre]

The level 5 as a cap of sorts is also puzzling me. I will be very interested in seeing the beta before I pass judgment on the game.

I will confess, one of my hopes was to convert the characters my gang has been gaming with using C&C, and I've been posting on these boards, to this DCC RPG and continue to use DCC adventures. From what I've read, I'm not sure such a conversion will work. Again, I'm waiting to see the game in play with the beta.

Regardless, I've already ordered the game and much of what I've read seems very interesting. Perhaps the DCC RPG is destined to be an occasional break from C&C, in lieu of direct competition, at the Jedi's table?

[jferngler]

It's pretty obvious that I'm new around these parts, but I lurk this forum several times a day waiting for updates and smart talk about this game. Lately that talk has gotten really negative. Without hearing from Joseph or Harley about these particular complaints about spell and character levels, I think it's way too early to even talk about jumping ship or cooling jets or whatever.

I mean, read the playtest reports - they're pretty uniform when it comes to how much fun the game is in actual play. Isn't that what the game is supposed to be about? I feel like that's really the only promise involved in the design documents we've seen: a game that's fun to play, for a session or multiple sessions, and maybe forever, and maybe not. Who says you have to stop playing a barbarian apothecary at level five because the rules say there isn't anything beyond level five? My barbarian apothecary isn't going to stop adventuring because he's at the limit of experience provided in the game. So what if he doesn't go up in levels? It's not about levels. It's about adventuring, it's about the sense of adventure found in Appendix N. It's also probably about dying a lot initially until you get a feel for how the game works, and then still dying, but maybe less often.

Then again, I haven't seen the beta, and I haven't played in a test session either, so I could be as wrong as the naysayers are. But come on, let's reserve judgement, everyone, until there are more concrete details to work with.

[Stainless]

Personally I have no problem with the level range as I'm more attuned to Traveller (no levels), Trail of Cthulhu (no levels) and Call of Cthulhu (slow progression). In those games it's about roleplaying not leveling up like some sort of computer game. I remember the awe of playing when I first started back in 1978 and we, characters included, were all neophytes. I think that's a large part of the idea of the DCC RPG.

Also, I believe (just forum-gossip) a supplement will come out later to cover the levels up to 10. What's the problem with that, considering the rulebook-bloat that exists with so many RPGs these days? It actually sounds refreshingly conservative, leaving me more money to buy modules. The only potential fly in the ointment is how long will it be before the supplement comes out (Dragon Age RPG anyone?). I suppose if you're pressing the level 5 boundary before the supplement is released you could house rule via the best extrapolations you can make and retrofit once the supplement comes out.

To me the complaints sounds a lot like a "gaming for the levels not the roleplaying" mentality. Perhaps the 3e/4e meme has penetrated more deeply than many realise.

[JediOre]

To me the complaints sounds a lot like a "gaming for the levels not the roleplaying" mentality. Perhaps the 3e/4e meme has penetrated more deeply than many realise.

Stainless, I can only speak for myself here, but it's not levels for levels sake. Its the concept I've grown accustomed to regarding the various power structure from AD&D. High level characters, say 10 to 14, were tackling modules like S3, Expedition to Barrier Peaks, S1, The Tomb of Horrors, and Q1, Queen of the Demonweb Pits. Those difficulties were impossible for mid level, say 5 to 10, and low levels, 1 to 4. Each "level group" had it's own flavor and I've become very used to this approach. A group of high level PCs would easily take control of the Keep on the Border Lands, B2, if the players so desired, but it's design was for low level PCs. I hope you understand where I'm coming from and I'm not just rambling.

I'm unsure how or if this approach will be represented in the DCC RPG. It may not be, and that may be a good thing, just not what I'm accustomed to. That's why, for me at least, I need to see and feel the beta before I can possibly pass judgment on this product.