dkeester wrote:The houserules document which we are compiling based on these forums is perhaps a good place for this. Yes, some of it has been standard D&D fare for decades, and therefore probably does better belong in the main rulebook since it is more in the realm of accepted rules than houserules. Just like the various systems for rolling up attributes it will get documented somewhere.
I'd appreciate it if Joseph included
some house rules in DCC. If you look at
Swords & Wizardry Complete -- which is really nice btw, there are all these little grey and double-outlined, white boxes in the book. They point out common variants like Ascending AC, Traditional Saving Throws, Optional Rules for Dual Classing, Optional Advancement Rules, Three Different Approaches to Initiative.
It's a toolbox approach. There's the
core rules. Which are the ones that
aren't in the little boxes. Then there are these
optional variants that people can take or leave as it suits them.
And I think it's important to note that none of these are BIG rules. Just small ones. Comparable to "Shields Shall Be Splintered" or mtnjeff's "Dutch Courage".
I'd like to see some of those in DCC too. The ability to turn a dial on a game is important (to me at least) because it means I can increase or decrease a facet of the game with a small tweak. I think that increases the replay value of a game. Because all of a sudden I can use that game to play John Carter, Conan, Lord of the Rings or Fantasy ****ing Nam.
And I'm not talking about genre bending. Not trying to make DCC do the Justice League.
I'm talking about ways to augment or diminish lethality. Or up the Epic (play, not level). Or ways to reskin magic. Or go without healing magic altogether. Or do without demi-humans. Or make them freakier.
Just little ideas in those directions would be a huge value, IMO. Because now we're talking about DCC being more than slogging through a sewers and tallying a body count. We're talking Tolkeinesque Fantasy, Dark Fantasy, Pulp Fantasy, Weird Fantasy, Swords & Blasters... all with unobtrusive, yet intentional, modifications to the core.
dkeester wrote:I envision games which span characters. In DCC RPG the plot probably shouldn't end when the characters do, as often happens in my 3e/PFRPG & C&C games. Friends, relatives, & neighbors should get involved when the current adventuring group falters and loses members. There should be many ways to deal with death, either by avoiding or by overcoming.
I'm cool with character death. Down with it, in fact. I do "Save or Die" the way Michael Jordan does lay-ups. I wouldn't advocate against removing the threat of death.
But I've played in a
lot of grind-it-out types of games. Aftermath, perpetually low level AD&D... others I'd just as soon forget. They are fun. And there is a sense of accomplishment when some poor schmoe makes it out of the gutters. Then that poor schmoe dies. And it's rinse-repeat. This is fun for a while. Then you get to the point where you just want to
do something with a character, besides re-roll him.
I'd like it if DCC gave us both options. Otherwise, I fear we'll just have the same misguided house-rules we've had for three decades to band-aid the same issues in early D&D -- Roll 4d6, take best 3. Max hp at 1st level. CON score in HP at 1st level. I'm sure we're familiar with most of them.
I've covered this before on the
Death & Dying thread. But I would advocate that DCC increase (slightly) hit points at the lower levels, while lowering them on a per level basis. Or at least offer a variant that allows groups to do so.
This would allow for a pulpier, more Conan feel without making things ridiculous at 10th level. As an example, say you could start out at zero level with 6-8 hit points and then move to first with 11-15. While still remaining in the 35-50 range at 10th level. A bit more heroic at the lower levels. A lot more, in fact. But actually a little more killable at the higher levels.
dkeester wrote:One thing is definitely true about my experience with this game and these forums so far. My views on gaming and my approach to games in general is changing. I am not used to thinking of level 10 as "high-level." I am not used to the lethality of the game. I am not used to the "gritty Appendix N" feel. So far, however, I like it and I think I could really get used to it. It all just needs to be taken in stride. But, that is just my experience. I guess I am biased as well.
But... on the other hand... Appendix N also covers Burroughs and Zelazny's Amber series... So... gritty? Lethal?
It certainly appears that DCC has aligned with Leiber and Howard in terms of power levels. Which I think is good. But that's just something to consider when we're talking about Appendix N. Having the
option to take a somewhat pulpier approach would be nice, IMO. Even if it's just a little grey box here or there.