Goodman Games

Crawl! no.6 Print& Digital editions are now on sale. Here's the intro by my editor, Brad:


Buy the Print Edition Here!

I love this issue. It's solid. We worked hard with the writers to give you guys solid, fair, but interesting new classes. A lot of thought and hours went into these I stand by them 100%. I think that not only are they solid interpretations of AD&D classics, but probably some of the BEST VERSIONS of these classes I've seen in any game. That's how proud of them I am. If you have any questions about how something works, or if you find something that is broken, please share it. Please note that there is nothing "official" about these classes, but they're official in my personal game. I also acknowledge that there are other versions of these classes out there, and they were just as awesome. But these are the ones that were voted on and thus the ones I promised to publish.

And incase you weren't aware, Crawl! fanzine is now available in Digital PDF editions at the d20pfsrd.com Shop and RPGnow.

Thank you all for supporting my zine, and thanks and congratulations to the creators of these classes. And the awesome artists too. Please hire them for freelance work!

I'm going to use my own version of these classes in my campaign, but still, this is a goddamn solid and entertaining issue. Well done! Now people can't complain about the number of classes available in DCC RPG.

Great issue for sure! great art too!

There are presently 4 CRAWL! issues in RPGNOW top 10 sellers!
(that's more than there are original D&D PDFs recent re-release!)
Hurrah!

Got my print copy and this is an awesome issue! Well done, I can't wait to include a Gnome gardener...

How are folks finding the custom Thief rules? Clear and easy enough?

Colin

reverenddak wrote:Crawl! no.6 Print& Digital editions are now on sale. Here's the intro by my editor, Brad:


Buy the Print Edition Here!

I love this issue. It's solid. We worked hard with the writers to give you guys solid, fair, but interesting new classes. A lot of thought and hours went into these I stand by them 100%. I think that not only are they solid interpretations of AD&D classics, but probably some of the BEST VERSIONS of these classes I've seen in any game. That's how proud of them I am. If you have any questions about how something works, or if you find something that is broken, please share it. Please note that there is nothing "official" about these classes, but they're official in my personal game. I also acknowledge that there are other versions of these classes out there, and they were just as awesome. But these are the ones that were voted on and thus the ones I promised to publish.

And incase you weren't aware, Crawl! fanzine is now available in Digital PDF editions at the d20pfsrd.com Shop and RPGnow.

Thank you all for supporting my zine, and thanks and congratulations to the creators of these classes. And the awesome artists too. Please hire them for freelance work!

I was going to order from the site (google) but had a couple questions:

1) Does the $3.95 include the shipping cost? Seems low. The print item and shipping is less than $4.00?
2) How is it shipped? Is the booklet shipped inside a protective mailing package or is the booklet stamped and mailed as is? For I had magazines shipped without being protected and when they arrived, in the mail, were a mess...cover torn, pages bent over and looked like crap.

thx

I received my issue yesterday in sunny Florida... Woot! Love the art, the cover is money. I dug all the classes, but I don't like the ranger dual wielding thing. At. All. I'd cut that part out in my campaign but use the rest "as is". Love the new spell. Love the thief article, but I worry about player optimization....

EXCELLENT issue!

Got mine yesterday too, along with my Judge's Guild Ready Reference Sheets (1978 baby!). I love CRAWL!, but I don't care for any of the new classes, but that's just me. The Thief customization is really awesome; I'll probably use that going forward, although my thief player seems to like being Lawful, on the Path of the Bawse.

MrHemlocks wrote:1) Does the $3.95 include the shipping cost? Seems low. The print item and shipping is less than $4.00?
2) How is it shipped? Is the booklet shipped inside a protective mailing package or is the booklet stamped and mailed as is? For I had magazines shipped without being protected and when they arrived, in the mail, were a mess...cover torn, pages bent over and looked like crap.

1) Yes, that's the price including shipping, which is why the prices are different for US, Canada, and Overseas. Yes it's low; Crawl! ain't profit-focused.
2) The fanzines are shipped in sturdy envelopes; I've had copies sent to me here in the UK and not a one has arrived damaged in any way.

Colin

Thanks for the kind words on the Thief article, by the way; it was pretty easy to reverse-engineer how Thieves are set up in DCC, and it just gives a bit more flexibility in terms of matching a concept.

Colin

MrHemlocks wrote: I was going to order from the site (google) but had a couple questions:

1) Does the $3.95 include the shipping cost? Seems low. The print item and shipping is less than $4.00?
2) How is it shipped? Is the booklet shipped inside a protective mailing package or is the booklet stamped and mailed as is? For I had magazines shipped without being protected and when they arrived, in the mail, were a mess...cover torn, pages bent over and looked like crap.

thx

Only $3.50 for the back issues.

They're shipped 1st class, literally like a greeting card, in an envelope.

If you want it shipped in a protective sleeve to keep it "mint" condition, it'll definitely cost a bit more. But they're not intended to be "collected" as they're not fancy in anyway and there is really no such thing as a mint condition zine when they're hand made. They're meant to be used, written on, and replaced if they fall apart. Which they will if they're given the proper love. (You should see my Moldvay Basic Book.)

I've really liked Crawl, but I was disappointed by this issue. The thief class is an invitation to optimization, which I consider anathema to DCCRPG. The other classes seem to be just warmed-over versions of D&D classes with pretty much the same abilities etc. (Gnome illusionists? Dual wielding rangers?) I didn't see any Appendix N flavor or originality.

Still, I guess I relinquished my right to complain by not taking part in the polling/discussion choice. Also the cover art of this issue is boss. Oh well -- here's to issue 7 and something I can use in my game (I loved issue 4)!

jozxyqk wrote:The other classes seem to be just warmed-over versions of D&D classes with pretty much the same abilities...

There seems to be a strong pull for some folks to have the bits from that other game in their DCC. To each his own. But I'm in your camp.

GnomeBoy wrote:

jozxyqk wrote:The other classes seem to be just warmed-over versions of D&D classes with pretty much the same abilities...

There seems to be a strong pull for some folks to have the bits from that other game in their DCC. To each his own. But I'm in your camp.

Me three. It was pretty clear that we were in the minority when class stuff was getting hashed out... and I lost steam on doing my write-ups because of it, heh. Ah well. NBD. CRAWL! still roxx0rz the bl0xx0rz.

beermotor wrote:

GnomeBoy wrote:

jozxyqk wrote:The other classes seem to be just warmed-over versions of D&D classes with pretty much the same abilities...

There seems to be a strong pull for some folks to have the bits from that other game in their DCC. To each his own. But I'm in your camp.

Me three. It was pretty clear that we were in the minority when class stuff was getting hashed out... and I lost steam on doing my write-ups because of it, heh. Ah well. NBD. CRAWL! still roxx0rz the bl0xx0rz.

There's always that "Non-Traditional Classes" issue coming up...

GnomeBoy wrote: There's always that "Non-Traditional Classes" issue coming up...

Yup, I'm down, but that sh*t aint gonna write itself. heh. *hint-hint*

For what they are, I think they're solid. Personally I'm a core-class kind of guy, I've never played anything but fighters, clerics and elf fighter-mages, so yep, what can I say. Plus I think the balance between DCC "flavored" and "classic/iconic" was accomplished very well. They do the job and provide what folks wanted (voted for...)

jozxyqk wrote:I've really liked Crawl, but I was disappointed by this issue. The thief class is an invitation to optimization, which I consider anathema to DCCRPG. The other classes seem to be just warmed-over versions of D&D classes with pretty much the same abilities etc. (Gnome illusionists? Dual wielding rangers?) I didn't see any Appendix N flavor or originality.

Still, I guess I relinquished my right to complain by not taking part in the polling/discussion choice. Also the cover art of this issue is boss. Oh well -- here's to issue 7 and something I can use in my game (I loved issue 4)!

Sorry you don't like the custom Thief rules, but for me and my group at least it's not a problem because none of us are munchkins and we use it for concept purposes (and because we don't feel concept should necessarily be strictly dictated by Alignment). Besides, it's not like characters are balanced in DCC anyway (what with random stats, random Occupation, no real telling who'd survive the funnel, the impact of crits, etc. over time), and optimization will be more or less useful depending on what sort of adventure you're running.

If you want to see more Appendix N flavour and originality, there's the obvious thing to do: get writing. No one gets paid, it's not a for-profit gig, but we submit anything and everything we think may be fun/useful, so it's always going to be very varied and subjective. Want to see something more to your tastes? The only way to ensure it is to produce and write something you like. Crawl! can always use more articles from a variety of folks about a variety of things. The more the merrier.

Yep, if you didn't make your voice heard in the polls, you're pretty much out of luck there. I didn't want to see the common D&D sub-classes myself either (and argued for more unusual classes personally), but clearly a lot of folks did, so I certainly can't begrudge the majority of folks getting what they want. Even if I'm not keen on the classes in concept, there's always something I can pillage for my own use.

Colin

reverenddak wrote:For what they are, I think they're solid. Personally I'm a core-class kind of guy, I've never played anything but fighters, clerics and elf fighter-mages, so yep, what can I say. Plus I think the balance between DCC "flavored" and "classic/iconic" was accomplished very well. They do the job and provide what folks wanted (voted for...)

Abso-freaking-lutely.

Colin

reverenddak wrote:

GnomeBoy wrote: There's always that "Non-Traditional Classes" issue coming up...

Yup, I'm down, but that sh*t aint gonna write itself. heh. *hint-hint*

For what they are, I think they're solid. Personally I'm a core-class kind of guy, I've never played anything but fighters, clerics and elf fighter-mages, so yep, what can I say. Plus I think the balance between DCC "flavored" and "classic/iconic" was accomplished very well. They do the job and provide what folks wanted (voted for...)

Oh, I'm not against them -- just wasn't as nearly interested in them as in something NEW, or at least a new take on the old races/classes.

I do wonder if the thread tended to draw the attention of people that wanted paladins and half-orcs, etc. and other folks weren't looking in as much...?

And my Gnome Class is available for dusting off at any time. I even have a drawing or two I could brush up to go with it.

Can't wait to get my copy in the mail. Now to snap up them earlier digital editions.

Colin wrote: Sorry you don't like the custom Thief rules, but for me and my group at least it's not a problem because none of us are munchkins and we use it for concept purposes (and because we don't feel concept should necessarily be strictly dictated by Alignment). Besides, it's not like characters are balanced in DCC anyway (what with random stats, random Occupation, no real telling who'd survive the funnel, the impact of crits, etc. over time), and optimization will be more or less useful depending on what sort of adventure you're running.

Not to thread-jack too much, but I think this is an interesting discussion. The usual caveats apply -- to each his own, etc. I don't mean this as a criticism of Colin's thief rules in particular. To the contrary, I am enormously grateful to those who put in unpaid time and effort to enhance the gaming experience for the entire community, even if not every product fits into my game.

That said, I want to address the general idea of enhancing players' ability to tweak their characters' mechanics.

(1) For me a huge part of the charm of DCC RPG is that it is virtually *impossible* to optimize/munchkin or mechanically build a character to fit a "concept." With DCC RPG, I get to play a game where fate is dictated by the dice, not by the ability of Joe to parse the rules such that his character is optimal, or the inability/unwillingness of Bob to do the same. I love that. I don't need to try and gather a group of paragons who completely reject power gaming (incidentally, I have never encountered such a group of gamers in 20 years of play). I don't even need to think about whether or not my players are inclined to optimize or not. Indeed, I know that some of them are, but DCC RPG makes it easy to play with them alongside non-optimizers.

Relatedly, my experience is that the opportunity to tweak mechanical abilities invariably nudges players towards at least some level of power gaming -- whatever their protestations to the contrary. Hell, I hate power gaming but if a rule system requires me to "build" a character, making the rules work for him is definitely in the back of my mind. My sense is that for almost anyone, it's just about impossible to resist choosing options that are perceived as more "useful" in game, which leads to stagnation and lameness. ("Why would you choose the toughness feat?" "Uhh... I want Rath to be tough." "Well it sucks. If you want Rath to be tough, you need to do X, Y and Z.").

Certainly this is not true in every case, but I've seen it a million times where an avowedly staunch proponent of character development/RP/etc. just "happens" to choose the most badass options for "character concept" reasons.

(2) I'm not hugely concerned about balance. For me at least, an unbalanced party is fun so long as the dice dictate it. It's not fun when it's dictated by the willingness/ability of players to maximize their characters' power under the rules.

Interestingly, although the game uses 3d6 in order, there already are key chargen elements that are down to Player choice (and therefore potential optimization). One classic example is the oft-overlooked 2nd paragraph on pg. 21 that states that Players can select their Occupation and need not roll for it. Yep, a lot of folks assume you have to roll Occupation, but by the rules it states:

DCC RPG wrote:Note that a character’s occupation need not be determined randomly. If a player has a strong sense of the character’s background, he should feel free to use it. Starting trained weapon and trade goods can be determined thematically with the judge’s approval.

Not only can a Player choose an existing Occupation (essentially selecting background knowledge, skills, and gear, leading to potential optimization based on the class likely to be selected) but with the Judge's approval they can even make up their own Occupation based on a different concept.

Plus, of course, a Player can also choose the class their character enters (if they survive) which means that invariably most will play to whatever strengths and weaknesses the dice dealt them. "Hmm, my character has Strength 15 for their highest attribute; Fighter it is then!"

In fact, it's far from "virtually impossible" to, if not strictly build a character to concept, certainly tweak and push one in a definite direction rather strongly, using the rules. The only area it is really impossible is in terms of what attributes you roll. But then again, given that most folks run funnel intros and have a wide selection of characters rolled, there's still a reasonable chance that they have one or two decent characters they want to play anyway (and if they're really concerned about optimization, they'll probably strive to keep said characters alive at the expense of others).

It may not be optimization to the extent that "build-orientated" editions like 3e and 4e were obsessed, but there's still some possible optimization there.

Finally, I write rules that make sense to me and provide options, and rely on Judges being able to exercise their right to say, "No." to any given rule or houserule. Writing rules that assume a lack of Judge-Player trust, or that assume Players are going to be munchkins, leads to the madness of things like 4e. :shudder:

Colin

DCC RPG wrote:Note that a character’s occupation need not be determined randomly. If a player has a strong sense of the character’s background, he should feel free to use it. Starting trained weapon and trade goods can be determined thematically with the judge’s approval.

Not in my game! Reeks of optimization to me. In those times you didn't pick your occupation, as least not in your early years.

cthulhudarren wrote:

DCC RPG wrote:Note that a character’s occupation need not be determined randomly. If a player has a strong sense of the character’s background, he should feel free to use it. Starting trained weapon and trade goods can be determined thematically with the judge’s approval.

Not in my game! Reeks of optimization to me. In those times you didn't pick your occupation, as least not in your early years.

Wow, that's so harcore optimization. It's going to totally ruin the game and make those zero level characters almost godlike. Where's the challenge if you can choose between a peasant with d4 HP and a blacksmith with d4 HP? True hardcore DCC judges don't even let the players choose class for their characters!

cthulhudarren wrote:

DCC RPG wrote:Note that a character’s occupation need not be determined randomly. If a player has a strong sense of the character’s background, he should feel free to use it. Starting trained weapon and trade goods can be determined thematically with the judge’s approval.

Not in my game! Reeks of optimization to me. In those times you didn't pick your occupation, as least not in your early years.

They (the characters) aren't picking their Occupation; the Player is (at least those who aren't rolling; ime, most Players prefer rolling just because it's fun). Prohibiting any Player choice is a common houserule though, so much so that a good number of folks assumed that was actually how the rules were written and were surprised when I pointed out paragraph two before.

Colin