Who handles the tables?

[midges]

Hi there!
I'm new to DCC and have only read the rules so far. Now I am trying to figure out how certain things would work best to emphasize the unique aspects of DCC.

I am wondering how other judges handle tables like Mercurial Effects and Mighty Deeds.
Should the players have access to the tables and look up the results for their characters? I would fear that the players would know all the results pretty quickly and just "play by numbers" as with fumbles in PF et al.
The unique effect of these features would quickly wear off i suspect. I've seen the same happening with the Crit-Deck in Pathfinder.
The other option would be that the judge handles all the table lookups and describes the outcome so that the players never know if they hit the same result as last time or if it is something completely different.

What do you think?

cheers,

midges

[Raven_Crowking]

They do, usually, with the understanding that the tables are only suggestions, and do not trump my input.

[RevTurkey]

I've run it where I handled all the tables etc. it worked just fine and I enjoyed that they didn't know what would happen for various results etc...I made them jot down notes to learn how their spells play out for various success numbers.

I would strongly advise writing down all the related page numbers though or use the Crawler app if you enjoy modern new fangled technology.

I think it works both ways just fine, the more you play the more they remember what numbers give which results but for the first run of games I found the mystery enjoyable

[NJPDX]

All of the players I've refereed get a copy of the excellent reference sheets from peoplethemwithmonsters.com, so they can quickly look up pertinent results, and then I reserve the right to adjust, adjudicate or narrate the results when I feel it's necessary (particularly with "mighty deeds") and I lean pretty heavily on the Crawlers Companion on my Android phone for quick lookups of spell results, monster crits, etc.

The bottom line is that most players I have gamed with like to know "stuff" vs. having the rules be a mystery. They all have access to the rules in either book form or pdf and make printouts of the stuff that is relevant to their character, esp. spell results for known spells.

In any case I've found that there's still plenty of unknowns and frightening things in the game world to keep people on their toes.

[finarvyn]

The first couple of times I use a table I like to keep it hidden, just because of the "surprise and wow" factor, but after a while the players can chart out a lot of the table anyway so I turn it over to them to handle so that I can focus on other details of the game.

[midges]

I am still not convinced buy the "tables are only suggestions" thing. The Mighty Deed thing for example is something that is praised in all the reviews. But if it is not something that players feel that theres a mechanic behind it, what is the point then? Whats the difference to making an arbitrary acrobatics check in any other D20 game if the outcome and the DC is something that I just make up on the fly?
It would be great if there where a lot more deed-tables (maybe from 3PPs) to choose from.

[Pesky]

I am still not convinced buy the "tables are only suggestions" thing. The Mighty Deed thing for example is something that is praised in all the reviews. But if it is not something that players feel that theres a mechanic behind it, what is the point then? Whats the difference to making an arbitrary acrobatics check in any other D20 game if the outcome and the DC is something that I just make up on the fly?
It would be great if there where a lot more deed-tables (maybe from 3PPs) to choose from.

Hi Midges, welcome to the group! Certainly, the mighty deeds can be used exactly as written. I even let my players know what is on these tables so if they want to burn luck in a clutch moment, they have the option. However, they are also useful as a "suggestion" for your player to make his warrior unique, like none other; this is the idea behind the "signature deed." For example, in my group one of my players, Steven Bean, wanted to create his own mighty deeds for his spear wielding warrior, Laurent. While deed tables are cool, I find that my players are way more invested in combat if they are using deed of their own invention, even if they came up with it on the spur of the moment. Steve and I worked together to create the following list:

3: Laurent has batted aside his opponent's attack with the forepart of his spear and followed up with a strike with its butt. The opponent has -2 to his next attack.

4: Laurent has anticipated an opponent's attack and has positioned his spear to deflect it with the butt then spun his spear around to perform a crippling stab or slash with the point. The opponent has -4 to his next attack roll and may only move at half speed

5: Laurent has anticipated his opponent's attack so early that he is able to brace his spear to intercept his opponent at the start of his rush or lunge. The opponent impales himself on the spear with great force, doing +2 damage and he receives -8 to all attack rolls and is immobilized until the end of his turn the following round.

6: Spear vault. Laurent uses his spear to vault to a position more advantageous for combat. He can move 15’ in any direction and can clear a 10’ vertical barrier without penalties for leaving melee. He attacks with great force, knocking an opponent up to twice his size prone. He may use his next action to continue to pin down the opponent forcing him to remain prone. Exceptionally strong (STR >= 15) may make an opposed strength check to disrupt this continuation and stand.

7+: Spear dance: Laurent becomes a whirling dervish with a spinning spear. All opponents adjacent to him take 1d4 damage and must make a reflex save against his attack roll or suffer a -4 to hit him until the end of his next turn. He also gains a +4 to AC versus missile attacks while in the dance.

In this way, the mechanic aspect of the mighty deed persists, but the printed ones serve as suggestions/examples. By the way, if you are interested, Laurent is one of the pregens for this year's DCC Free RPG Day Module, Elzemon and the Blood-Drinking Box; look for the pregen download link on this page.

Hope that helps,
Terry Olson

[Stretch]

I prefer to keep as many of the tables and rules out of the players hands as possible. I have a few printouts that I can give to players to keep track of their spells and their mighty deeds and such on. When they cast and get a '19' result for the first time they can then enter it into the sheet. Until then they are unaware of what the 19 does for them in relation to that spell. I do the same with mighty deeds. Crits get adjudicated at the table based on the combat and what could happen vs the roll result on the table. Some results just don't work for that particular combat.

I am not running DCC. I am running my campaign based on DCC. There is no rules lawyering to speak of but there are negotiations based off of what is going on at the moment that can be renegotiated later if we see that a judgement call at the table was maybe wrong or either didn't have enough forethought to see the problems it would cause later.

With that knowledge the 'tables as only suggestions' works just fine. Because basically the whole rulebook is a suggestion. Change what works for you and your group and keep the game and the fun moving along.

With all that being said if a player goes to the effort to look up stuff on his own time there is nothing I can do about that. My goal is to limit the knowledge of mechanics so that the players just have to worry about what they want to do. And not how they work exactly.

This mindset comes from playing games where the DM, sometimes mid-fight, would want to stop and tell you how and what he is doing so you can be impressed with his ideas/concepts, etc... and sometimes that led to me looking at it and going, wait...that don't seem right. It took me out of the game into the rules. I didn't like it. I finally started stopping him mid sentence with, We wouldn't know that information / We don't need to know that information / Tell us later.

It really depends on your players tho. Some players have to know everything. I played a campaign where the DM didn't let us know our hit points. We had to deduce how hurt we were by his descriptions. It worked great. I loved it. One player it drove completely batty. Eventually the DM relented and let him know his hit points because it was taking the fun out of the game for him.


As to mercurial magic results - those are rolled at the time of the first casting in game. I know some feel that they would already know that as they had to cast it as they were learning it. And I get that. I just prefer you learning what your spells do at the table, including mercurial effects.

And one other thing of note...the more you get into it the more you will find other resources out there. There is an Alternative Occupations pdf over at Drivethru that is great. There are other spells out there from the modules and game settings. Tales of the Fallen Empire has some good ones in it. And there are a lot of good people putting out work here and G+. Just because they have the book and they are looking through the tables doesn't mean that is the table I am rolling on. Sometimes it is a table I made myself. I recently did a table for Magic Missile Manifestations that I submitted over at Tower of the Archmage. Don't be afraid to alter/change/throw out anything that doesn't work for you. Keeping the unique feel to DCC isn't just about the tables tho. It's about letting your mind roam out of the traditional feel of the dungeon crawl. Read the appendix n literature. Watch odd films you might never watch just to steal a concept or idea. Keep a notebook handy to track all your ideas. They may not be all winners but they are a good source for inspiration.

If you keep to the core philosophy that DCC is where your fight all the cool weird stuff you would have to wait till higher levels in other games to see....and then you move up to level one then it doesn't matter what you do with the charts.

And lastly, welcome to the community (probably should have led with that...) This is by far the nicest, most helpful, most polite roleplaying community that I have been around. Even the disagreements come with tea and crumpets. Their loaded with corruption but I always wanted that third arm. No, really I did.

[JediOre]

I, the DM, do. I can change up the 'flavor text' at will and keep the mechanics of the roll. For example, when my work friends scored a critical on a war worm, I ignored the "strike to the kneecap" and changed what the damage looked like but kept the dice damage and the slowed movement.

[GnomeBoy]

I am still not convinced buy the "tables are only suggestions" thing. The Mighty Deed thing for example is something that is praised in all the reviews. But if it is not something that players feel that theres a mechanic behind it, what is the point then? Whats the difference to making an arbitrary acrobatics check in any other D20 game if the outcome and the DC is something that I just make up on the fly?

Well, for one thing, the Deed doesn't require an acrobatics check -- just the Deed roll and a successful hit. Deeds have a LOT of flexibility, and that's the point and beauty of them. You just couldn't set up charts for jumping off the back of a demon frog in order to gain enough height to hit the flying things above it...

The charts that are there are pretty mundane, in my opinion (and almost misleading, again IMO). I'd let players try anything, and there's next-to-nothing for me to 'arbitrarily make up on the fly' -- the dice do most of the work, honestly. Maybe in an extreme case I'd say "you need a four" or something higher, but so far in the GMing I've done, I haven't had anyone push things that far...

[jozxyqk]

I am still not convinced buy the "tables are only suggestions" thing. The Mighty Deed thing for example is something that is praised in all the reviews. But if it is not something that players feel that theres a mechanic behind it, what is the point then? Whats the difference to making an arbitrary acrobatics check in any other D20 game if the outcome and the DC is something that I just make up on the fly?
It would be great if there where a lot more deed-tables (maybe from 3PPs) to choose from.

Here's what the book says about the tables:

"To help provide some general framework for understanding the concept behind Mighty Deeds of Arms, we have provided seven general categories below. These are merely suggestions to give a sense of possibility and scale. The guidelines that follow should help the judge decide which benefits to apply to a high deed die roll." (emphasis in original).

They *are* only suggestions. DCC is not pathfinder or 3.5. The rules are specifically set up such that granular action is not adjudicated by pre-designed rule.

I've never used the tables in the sense that a PC says "I'm going to try and trip the beast man" then he rolls and I look up a result. That sounds incredibly boring.

[GnomeBoy]

I've never used the tables in the sense that a PC says "I'm going to try and trip the beast man" then he rolls and I look up a result. That sounds incredibly boring.

Seconded. If the Deed put forth doesn't sound too outlandish, it takes a hit that also includes a 3 or higher on the Deed Die. One roll (two dice) and you know if it worked or not without any reference look ups.

[midges]

Thank you for all the great feedback!
I guess I have to try the deeds thing in real gameplay.

[GnomeBoy]

Thank you for all the great feedback!
I guess I have to try the deeds thing in real gameplay.

You're certainly welcome.

If you're used to games where what a character can do it restricted by the rules, at first it can feel like "what did I just let them get away with??". But when it becomes clear that it is fun to invent unexpected maneuvers and have them work, you know you're doing it right.

[JediOre]

If you're used to games where what a character can do it restricted by the rules, at first it can feel like "what did I just let them get away with??". But when it becomes clear that it is fun to invent unexpected maneuvers and have them work, you know you're doing it right.

Hear! Hear!

[Jobe Bittman]

I also released a Mighty Deeds record sheet way back in Episode 6 of Spellburn.

http://spellburn.com/2013/07/17/episode ... s-of-arms/

It's a blank sheet for a fighter or dwarf to design their own signature mighty deeds at the table.

http://spellburn.com/wp-content/uploads ... Record.pdf

[midges]

I also released a Mighty Deeds record sheet way back in Episode 6 of Spellburn.

http://spellburn.com/2013/07/17/episode ... s-of-arms/

It's a blank sheet for a fighter or dwarf to design their own signature mighty deeds at the table.

http://spellburn.com/wp-content/uploads ... Record.pdf

Very nice, thanks a lot!
Although I might never use them as my players from different groups refuse to play DCC so far
The game is such a good reading... how comes that people independently say "na, thats not for me" when I tell them about it.
All of them started playing in the 80s and when we remember the good old days of playing the first DSA (German D&D clone) adventures were foes were mainly enlarged versions of animals, everyone agrees that it was lots of fun. Are they brainwashed now?

Main objections are:
- I want to know what my spells do, otherwise I cant choose which one to use.
- I want to freely choose my spells
- The patron thing sounds nice, but I would want to choose one to my liking / my background
- It all sounds too random and arbitrary.
- It's english and has a lot of tables with texts to read (although they play pathfinder with english rules :/)

I know that I could work around some of these things easily but the more I think about it, there are really some things in DCC that read well but might not make too much sense at the table (correct me if I'm wrong).

1) A large number of the available adventures are funnels. All adventures I read so far are kinda one-shot style. Some comments in the book also seem to support that kind of disregard towards a well defined setting. Now the whole Patron concept seems to demand the complete opposite, campaignstyle, evolving background, setting, giving back favors and such.

2) In most appendix n stories that I read the group of protagonists comes from a variety of different backgrounds. Although largely stereotyped, these add color to the story. In all funnels that I had a look at so far, the crowd of wannabe heroes come from one and the same hillbilly village. Imagine Fafhrd being the brother of the Mousling's sister's spouse

3) These villages must be quite multiculti, where the Elven navigator, the Halfling Mariner and the Dwarven Miner live door to door with the Gongfarmer and decide to save their relatives from the nearby Stronghold of Evil. An and dont forget that none of the aforementioned has ever traveled more than a few miles away from that village. This might be a little too picky but what I'd want to say is that if you stick to the rule and let the dice decide this might be sth that you have to deal with.

I have the feeling at the moment that DCC is more of a treasure trove of fantastic ideas and very well written, atmospheric adventures, than a consistent gamesystem. Am I also brainwashed by the last two decades of games?

cheers,

midges

[cjoepar]

I hear you, Midges. I play rpgs with a group of about 10 to 12 semi-regulars. We've played D&D almost exclusively through the years, and advanced through the different editions, but the group has largely stayed on 3E. 4E was so bad that no one has any interest in even trying 5E, and about half of them are not the least bit interested in trying DCC. <shrug> What can you do? I hear a lot of the same objections you've listed, plus the other one that I think really chases people in my group away is that the mortality rate is so high at low levels. Some players want to get through the low levels in a hurry, and it can be challenging to get them to try a new system where it might literally take them a year to get a character to second level! But some of the people have been willing to give it a try, and I convinced them by asking if they would be willing to play just one session with no commitments to keep playing. Every one of the 5 people who agreed has been happy to keep playing it, and we even recruited another old gamer who stopped played 3E with us years ago because he had gotten bored with it.

DCC does lend itself well to playing one-offs, but the campaign approach can be just as good. And most funnels can be very easily modified to suit 1st level characters, so there's a good deal of pre-made material out there to get you through many gaming sessions in a campaign. What I have found is that the mortality rate of 1st level characters is much better than the funnel but still very high, at least the way I run things. Typically, a party of level 1 characters will see about a third to half of them die in each adventure, so there is almost always a bunch of new zero level recruits, especially early on when everyone is 1st level. Then, eventually one or two characters make it to 2nd level, and that has been the tipping point for us, so that the rest of the party has been able to keep their characters alive long enough to advance as well. Once we had almost everyone at the 2-3 level, the party survival rate has improved significantly. Half of my party is second and half is third and honestly, I'm lucky if I can kill one of them in an adventure now.

I have used home brew adventures almost exclusively, especially after I got the hang of how the system worked, so I can't really speak to the availability of higher level adventures (and let's face it, with the exponentially higher xp's you need at each level, you'll need more and more adventures as the party gains level). But I would think that almost any module can be modified fairly easily to adjust the difficulty to a higher level if you don't like to build adventures from scratch.

[Golgothmog]

Although I might never use them as my players from different groups refuse to play DCC so far
The game is such a good reading... how comes that people independently say "na, thats not for me" when I tell them about it.
All of them started playing in the 80s and when we remember the good old days of playing the first DSA (German D&D clone) adventures were foes were mainly enlarged versions of animals, everyone agrees that it was lots of fun. Are they brainwashed now?

I had trouble finding Players when I first became obsessed with DCC too. I ended up looking outside of my regular gamer friends and recruited some fresh blood from folks I knew enjoyed games and fantasy but hadn't roleplayed much. Less jaded and set in their ways they had no complaints and our games continue.

Main objections are:
- I want to know what my spells do, otherwise I cant choose which one to use.

Well, you know what the spell's baseline effect is... and as long as the Spell Check goes off you'll get at least that. So I'm guessing it's really that they don't like spells having a chance they might fail? Again, the rules give ways to boost their chances... if they're willing. To me the big attraction of DCC is the magic system... how it's unpredictable... a bit of gambling with danger. But some Players are very 'risk averse'.

- I want to freely choose my spells

That's what research is for... read up on legendary spells... suss out where you might find a copy... get a group of adventurers together to go out and find/steal it. Adventure hooks metastisize like goblins out of obsessed wizards looking for new spells.

- The patron thing sounds nice, but I would want to choose one to my liking / my background

Why not? The same with spells... dark rumors and legends... whispers from homunculi... visions that come in dreams. The wizard becomes aware there are greater forces out there that are willing... eager... to bargain with him... so seek out a suitable one and make friends.

- It all sounds too random and arbitrary.

I'd agree it's not for Players that don't like surprises or a bit of mystery.

1) A large number of the available adventures are funnels. All adventures I read so far are kinda one-shot style. Some comments in the book also seem to support that kind of disregard towards a well defined setting.

A bunch of the adventures I've bought are for mid-level groups... and I've got a few that were designed as a series... such as the Purple Duck AL modules.
That said... I've yet to run a prefab module for DCC. Our campaign so far has been strictly urban... within a huge ancient pile I cobbled from The City State of the Invincible Overlord, Middenheim, Vornheim and Cadwallon. I've seen no reason why DCC inherently discourages longer campaigns... we've even had one PC 'retire' to run a city guild... though he still keeps his hand in the game now and then.

2) In most appendix n stories that I read the group of protagonists comes from a variety of different backgrounds. Although largely stereotyped, these add color to the story. In all funnels that I had a look at so far, the crowd of wannabe heroes come from one and the same hillbilly village.

Like I said, our games have been in a big city, no lack for variety there.
Maybe have the funnel generate near a large tavern or inn full of travelers from all over... "Oh! The floor of the common room has fallen in and swallowed a half our patrons... there seem to be some sort of cave or tunnels down there... I do hope they'll be able to find their way out safely!"

3) These villages must be quite multiculti, where the Elven navigator, the Halfling Mariner and the Dwarven Miner live door to door with the Gongfarmer and decide to save their relatives from the nearby Stronghold of Evil. An and dont forget that none of the aforementioned has ever traveled more than a few miles away from that village. This might be a little too picky but what I'd want to say is that if you stick to the rule and let the dice decide this might be sth that you have to deal with.

Maybe the non-humans don't come from the village or wherever... maybe they're found inside the funnel once it's started... prisoners of the mad mage who built the place or are teleported in by some mishap of magic gone wrong. Have the initial group of PCs find them frozen in carbonite in a treasure room (along with a burned out light saber). Loads of ways to introduce PCs besides having them all start out as friends and neighbors.

I have the feeling at the moment that DCC is more of a treasure trove of fantastic ideas and very well written, atmospheric adventures, than a consistent gamesystem. Am I also brainwashed by the last two decades of games?

I think there's been a stretch of Players expecting RPG rulebooks to do all the work for them... to sort out rules and setting as the border of their imagination... 'Beyond here be monsters!' Some folks want that... others, like me, really jump at the DIY approach where the rulebook is just a bunch of suggestions to riff off of. It feels like more of a 'hobby' when I'm supplying a good portion of the creative input... rather than waiting for it to be ladled out for me.

[NJPDX]

@Midges

I think the biggest issue I've run into with people that object to DCC RPG without playing it, is that they feel like this for two particular reasons.

1. They've been playing MMOs and CRPGs for so long that their expectations of tabletop games is now more informed by the way those types of games are designed than the other way around; they are used to games that are either very heavily railroaded and proceed at a predictable pace or they are all about stat-driven character building and power fantasies.

2. They are more comfortable with looking at a character sheet or the rules and thinking "this is everything my character can do." Instead of thinking, "I can do whatever I can imagine and now I'm going to put the pressure on the judge to make a ruling."

My longtime gaming group couldn't get past these issues, but when I introduced the game to some friends who were tabletop newbies, who didn't have any preconceived notions about RPGs, they've embraced it wholeheartedly.

To sum up, I think the success (or failure) of a DCC game depends on playing with people who are able to accept it on its own terms and enjoy it for what it tries to accomplish through its design: That the dice are fickle and rolling them should be avoided as much as possible. That magic use should be respected and/or feared and that lethality can be fun.

People that like to write 3 pages of back-story on their character before play even starts or who think that "magic" should be a predictable, functional stand-in for technology, or feel that the game should reward them with progression just for showing up and putting in the time, probably won't find much to their liking here. Which is perfectly fine, because there tons of games that will scratch that itch.

[Golgothmog]

@NJPDX
You make good points.

I guess I don't understand the desire to always play the same game, same sorts of games.
Video gamers and boardgamers I know generally like to mix it up and try a lot of different games... but most RPGers I know are very stubborn about trying new things.

And it's not like DCC is THAT far off in the forest, doing weird things to squirrels... when you consider the wide swath of RPGs that exist it's still awful darn close to vanilla D&D.

I've played a wide variety of RPGs... most all have been fun... and the rules matter FAR less than the other people at the table. I think, with the right group of Players, I could play just about anything and enjoy myself.

[NJPDX]

It's certainly close in spirit to OD&D, BECMI or AD&D 1st edition, but for people that cut their teeth on 3.x or 4th or didn't like the older TSR versions, they seem to really be put off by DCC's style. In my old gaming group I had one person complain about the art (blasphemer!) another person couldn't get past the fact that all of the feats were gone and another thought that rolling 3d6 in order was inherently "unfair." I tried to convince them to play a funnel once just to see if they'd like it and although they reluctantly consented, I could tell that they were never going to give it a chance.

It occurred to me later that almost none of the people in my old group have their "fantasy literacy" rooted in fiction; it's mostly "vidjya gaems," comic books, anime, movies and D&D itself. They all know who Conan and Cthulhu are, but not from reading the original stories, it's all through a filter of modern media. Which isn't to say you have to be an aficionado of Weird Tales to get into DCC, but without either an appreciation of TSR era D&D or a love of the old pulps, it's almost like there's a language barrier that has to be overcome to make people "get it." For instance, with the people I play with now, a few of them are either horror fans or Lovecraft readers, so it seems much easier to get them into the frame of mind that unspeakable horrors and gruesome death are something to look forward to rather than wrinkle their noses at.

[Golgothmog]

Yeah, I think my appreciation of DCC is firmly rooted in my love of horror, Lovecraft, old horror comics... Heavy Metal magazine... and underground comics.
I never did play much old TSR D&D, never read many superhero comics...