DCC video

[VengerSatanis]

A little something to continue the discussion, from my point of view:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1u0BKIA3yOg

VS

[Clangador]

A little something to continue the discussion, from my point of view:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1u0BKIA3yOg

VS

Thanks for posting that.

[VengerSatanis]

My pleasure. There will be more videos focused on DCC RPG soon. Here's another:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6ixKLxV2ymA

VS

[VengerSatanis]

I started a new google+ community for DCC RPG. Just going to upload my vids there for people to watch if they're interested. Along with other DCC material. Feel free to join and post your own content, too.

https://plus.google.com/u/0/communities ... 8427124148


VS

[Clangador]

I started a new google+ community for DCC RPG. Just going to upload my vids there for people to watch if they're interested. Along with other DCC material. Feel free to join and post your own content, too.

https://plus.google.com/u/0/communities ... 8427124148


VS

Request sent. Cute baby!

[Michael Blake]

I'm enjoying watching your videos.

And I'm surprised at how similar our sentiments about RPGs are. I recently posted a 0-Level DCC RPG character sheet that might interest you, here.

I had the same thoughts while reading Hackmaster. Its complexity is over the top to the point of absurdity. Have you read the "Illustrated example of play" yet? On the one hand, it does a good job of explaining all the complexities of running a Hackmaster battle. On the other hand, in doing so they also make clear just how absurdly complex the Hackmaster system is - with all the check rolls, extra notes to take (for different types of damage, etc). It reads like a comedy sketch lampooning RPGing.

Reading through Hackmaster is an experience in deja vu, as you watch them repeat the mistakes that Chivalry & Sorcery made when it came out in 1997 to challenge the original D&D. As Peterson says in the final chapter of Playing at the World:

• 
  "Once the initial enthusiasm for the virtues of Chivalry & Sorcery wore off, its advocates began to apprehend the unwieldiness of combat resolution. As the realism rose to vertiginous heights, the playability of Chivalry & Sorcery precipitously plummeted."

As a computer game, with a computer tracking all the gameplay details, that level of fine grained detail could work. But played as a tabletop RPG it is unwieldy - so complex you're not likely to ever find two groups using the rules in the same way.

As you also mentioned, the the tone of the writing is so important too. Nowhere is that more obvious that when switching between reading DCC RPG and Hackmaster. The DCC RPG text grabs you and reads like a thrilling invitation to awesomeness right from the start. And it never lets you go. Hackmaster is often plodding (if meticulous) and is, at times, incongruously condescending.

How can you not love a tome like DCC RPG that is laden with hidden gems to delight and surprise you. Like this introduction to Alignment on p. 24:

• "In the beginning, there was the Void, where the Old Ones
  dreamed. In their dreams were Law and Chaos, inherent
  forces of unity and entropy. Through endless opposition
  these forces of unity and entropy elected champions who
  became gods, who in turn formed planes of existence that
  reflected their principles. On one such plane resides your
  trivial existence, tiny next to the vastness of Aéreth, even
  tinier next to the vastness of the cosmos. But you are connected
  back to the greater universe and the endless struggle
  by a fundamental choice: do you back the forces of Law
  or the forces of Chaos?"

[VengerSatanis]

It reads like a comedy sketch lampooning RPGing.

Yes, it absolutely does! It's like HM5e is trying to self-parody itself for excessively complex combat mechanics. Honestly, a couple of additional steps and it would easily cross the threshold into something like Toon. Hey, there's a thought...

I think this video will resonate with you, and other DCCers out there, too, I hope:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QNEpHtdNknY


VS