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

[finarvyn]

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.

I'm not sure that it's a 3E/4E thing because earlier editions (AD&D and 2E) both had charts that brought characters up to 20th.

This goes back to my "what is a level" thread, since clearly the concept of what a level represents is different for everyone. Here are some things to ponder:

1. Dave Arneson's original Blackmoor campaign from 1971 had characters advance from "flunky" to "hero" to "super hero." Isn't that a three-level game system? A 3rd level character in that game would be pretty darned awesome.

2. Posters like Geoffrey McKinney on Dragonsfoot have argued that one could use "Holmes Basic" as the basis for an entire campaign, and it only goes up to 3rd level.

3. I've run many C&C campaigns where I start characters out at 4th level and never advance them and they seem to be fine.

4. In all of my years of gaming, characters have only legitamately topped 10th level a handful of times. In my games, they hardly ever reach 8th. A rules set that goes only up to 5th could fit a lot of my group's needs just becasue I hardly ever use higher stuff. (Although it would be nice to have a couple more levels of material, just in case.)

Basically, it all comes down to what a level means and how often you get them. In a 5-level campaign, each level becomes a precious thing instead of just another way to measure progress.

Just my two cents.

[geordie racer]

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.

I understand what you're saying about each 'level group' having a flavour. Adventures written for a particular range do take on a different tone when another range of PCs are used. I don't think this is a bad thing, but it can take a bit more thought and effort. e.g How does the Keep's Castellan react to the arrival of a bunch of 'Name level' tomb robbers turning up with their entourage of henchmen?

There is no 'one way' to play a good module.

Having played Holmes-only D&D I know how lethal it is to encounter Purple Worms when you're a first level MU - it's that Bilbo vs. Smaug experience, combat is not your first resort. You are Cugel rather than Elric. It feels very different to 3e.

For anyone who's worried about power levels - take a look at Frog God Games where they're converting their Pathfinder modules to S&W and vice versa. The power level is completely different but they're making it work.

[smathis]

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.

If it were just ME, playing in a black box, with some dice and random voices in my head acting as the DM and other players, then -- sure -- I wouldn't care about the levels. The levels in and of themselves DON'T MATTER TO ME.

I've played and run more games than most people have probably seen in a well-stocked RPG store. So please allow me to be clear. Levels. To Me. Don't Matter.

But what does matter is getting OTHER PEOPLE to play THIS game WITH ME.

And you're right, Stainless, that 3e/4e meme has penetrated deeply into the modern gamer market. Not only because it's 3e/4e but because that's what people do every time they fire up a Playstation or Xbox. The expectation I fight almost every time I bring a new game to the table is that the players will "level" early and often -- even if (as I've stated ad infinitum) those levels mean practically NOTHING in terms of power increase.

For those who are able to lock down a group to play Holmes Basic for years struggling to approach the meagerness that is Level 3, I applaud you. But I live in a different world.

I've given what I feel are solid reasons for why I think the levels should go to 10 or beyond. I've backed up other highly constructive, useful and applicable suggestions that allow for such a structure without advancing beyond level 5 in power level.

If someone doesn't "get it" by now, it's due to TLDR syndrome. God knows, I've got the word count on the topic. In a nutshell, only going to level 5 is going to make it HARDER for me to convince a group to PLAY THIS GAME. Which makes it, overall, less useful to me. Oh look, an empty space between Starblazer Adventures and Puppetland! Just what I needed, ANOTHER game on my shelf that I've only gotten to play once.

But what's REALLY sticking in my craw right now is I pre-ordered a game that was advertised as going from levels 1-10. Now that game is going from 1-5. So the substance of what I ordered, from my limited viewpoint at this time, is that the product is now 1/2 of what I ordered. And we haven't had any solid explanation for why that's so... other than "I think it will work better this way". Why? Is it because the power levels are broken past level 5? We've heard play is "different". How so? What rules are going to be required? If LotFP can put in strongholds and name-level adventuring in their small 5 x 7, saddle-stitched booklet of rules, why can't DCC? What's in DCC now that wasn't before that makes levels 6-10 unpublishable? None of those have been answered.

So yeah, call that a complaint. But it's bugging me a little. And it's a separate issue from the one preceding it. Maybe the pre-orders up to this point can get a free PDF of that Annual that has levels 6-10, if it sees print?

I'm hanging on in the hope that either something is done, these concerns are addressed (or at least acknowledged) or that DCC really does turn out awesome. I have a lot of faith in Joseph and Harley. Read the first page of this thread if you don't believe that.

I just don't know why no one's willing to take that step that will help me sell this game to the level-monkeys out there. I think there's been some strong and well-reasoned opposition (and even compromises) expressed on this forum. I just don't get why that's all getting ignored all of a sudden.

It doesn't seem "very much the case" that anyone with a lifeline to the actual rules is listening.

[mshensley]

And we haven't had any solid explanation for why that's so... other than "I think it will work better this way". Why?

I'm guessing that the spell tables and crit tables take up a whole lot more space than they first expected and now they need to chop the game down to make it fit into the size book they want to make.

[mshensley]

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.

It's all about expectations. I love Traveller and CoC. I don't expect to gain a whole lot of power in either game. But DCC is another story. It's supposed to be (or so I thought) a replacement for D&D. And in that mode of thought, 5 levels is gimped. 5 levels is a crappy basic set meant to get me to spend more money later on the "real game". Now whether that is true or not doesn't really matter because that is exactly what the majority of D&D players will think. If they really want to make a lower powered game, they need to distance it further from D&D into something truly its own. Get rid of levels entirely and do something different. For example, something more WFRP-like with it's career system seems more appendix N in its approach than levels do.

[Hamakto]

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.

I would like to comment on this. With any RPG in today's world, there has to be a mix of pure RPG and 'gaming for levels'. That is because I have never met a group of players (i.e. more then 3-4 people) that all agreed on exactly the same style of play. From past posts, Joseph has mentioned that he is not trying to get a game that will be accepted by the broad population. But instead he is attempting to target a specific sub-segment of the population.

The problem is that while many of us on the board are the sub-segment (to a lesser and greater degree), not all of our players fall into that category. I with the recent posts that indicate that level 5 is considered a top tier level, I fear that DCC RPG will be relegated to a secondary game for our group. We have eight players in our group that play... with a group that size, you have to have a balance of RP, game play, and character building. It does not have to be to the extent of 3e/4e by any means. But it does need to be a little bit of each.

Not leveling up after a point is fairly cool works well for Thief and Warrior characters. Clerics and Wizards can get stale with only the same X spells in their prayer books/spell books.

I looked around, but I cannot find the post where I thought Joseph was shooting for a thinner book that would cover all the base levels. It was my understanding that the single book would cover levels 1-10ish and that there would be 3pp supplements to flesh out the game. I could be totally off base here. There are a ton of posts on the forum now so finding tidbits of information like that are not quick and easy to do now.

I would rather see a 1-10 level range in one book if possible. I really would not be a fan of the first book having spells of levels 1-3... the second book having spell levels 4&5.

Plus, what would really be in a second book? There are no feats... no skills... Joseph indicated earlier he wanted to keep to the core classes in the core books? So the level 6-10 books would be a short section on each class (covering the additional level progressions) and spells?

[jmucchiello]

And we haven't had any solid explanation for why that's so... other than "I think it will work better this way". Why?

I'm guessing that the spell tables and crit tables take up a whole lot more space than they first expected and now they need to chop the game down to make it fit into the size book they want to make.

As I said in an earlier thread, you can fit about 3 spells the size of the sample Magic Missile spell on a page with decent formatting, and Joseph agreed with my assessment. But he wants to fill the book with pictures and leave only one spell per page. I suspect the same logic will be applied to the monsters part of the book. (Can you imagine a book with lavishly illustrated spells and infrequently illustrated monsters 10-12 to a page?) So the page count is quickly chewed up by spells and monsters.

My disappointment with the book started with the 1 spell per page concept. (Illustrations should be 1/4-1/6 page or full plates.) The 5 level cut off is just inevitable because of the artwork requirements.

[jmucchiello]

I would rather see a 1-10 level range in one book if possible. I really would not be a fan of the first book having spells of levels 1-3... the second book having spell levels 4&5.

Plus, what would really be in a second book? There are no feats... no skills... Joseph indicated earlier he wanted to keep to the core classes in the core books? So the level 6-10 books would be a short section on each class (covering the additional level progressions) and spells?

And monsters.

I don't think there will be 5th level spells. Even if the book goes 1-10, 5th level spells introduces teleport and similar spells that just aren't right for the game. I'd actually expect "powerful" magic, available only to NPC, to be handled through a ritual system. And with this game's love of charts, rituals could be very crazy things.

[geordie racer]

Plus, what would really be in a second book? There are no feats... no skills... Joseph indicated earlier he wanted to keep to the core classes in the core books? So the level 6-10 books would be a short section on each class (covering the additional level progressions) and spells?

I think it would be more - domains, mass combat, spell-research, planar travel, fighting demi-gods - for an experience more like Hour of the Dragon, Rhialto the Marvellous or Nine Princes in Amber.

[Hamakto]

My disappointment with the book started with the 1 spell per page concept. (Illustrations should be 1/4-1/6 page or full plates.) The 5 level cut off is just inevitable because of the artwork requirements.

Not to put words in your mouth...

But I think I agree with what you are saying, you would rather have more crunch than more artwork.

[finarvyn]

I'm not sure how to say this without sounding like a jerk or someone who is overly critical, so I'll just put it out there and hope that no one feels offended.....

For me, I have some biases and preferences about which levels I like to play in the best, but I'm not sure I would use that as the main criteria as to whether or not I buy a game. For example, I've enjoyed AD&D a lot even though I only use the lower half (or less) of the designed levels. I've enjoyed 4E even though I've only played in the level 1-3 range (since the freebie character builder only went to 3rd).

I'm just a little surprised at the negative reaction that the 5-level model has had here, and I hope that this isn't the one "deal breaker" for what seems like a fun RPG to play.

I'm sort of curious as to what level is a "minimun" in order to have folks be interested in the DCC rpg. Would it have to go up to 8th level instead of 5th? Would it need to go to 10th? What's the "magic number" for this?

[mshensley]

I'm sort of curious as to what level is a "minimun" in order to have folks be interested in the DCC rpg. Would it have to go up to 8th level instead of 5th? Would it need to go to 10th? What's the "magic number" for this?

I'm not sure that numbers really mean anything. It's the power range, granularity, and depth of the game that is the real issue. We really don't have much to go on except comparisons to D&D and especially d20 D&D as this is a d20 based game. And level 5 in a d20 game is only just starting to get interesting. Hell, that's about where Conan starts in power.

[smathis]

I'm sort of curious as to what level is a "minimun" in order to have folks be interested in the DCC rpg. Would it have to go up to 8th level instead of 5th? Would it need to go to 10th? What's the "magic number" for this?

From my previous attempts at selling groups on E6 -- both successfully and unsuccessfully, I'd say 8th for most of the people that signed on. I could probably strongly pitch 7.

However, and this is where the whole thing gets EXTREMELY frustrating for me, I see no reason the game can't go up to 10th level using your suggestion of "Illusory Levels". If it is a power level or a space issue... that doesn't preclude using the IL approach.

And I could easily get a group to play what they equate to "heroic tier", even if the actual power at level 10 only equates to what DCC now calls Level 5.

With Illusory Levels, I win because I have more of a "game" to pitch to my group. The low-level crowd wins because they have everything low-level. The AD&D crowd wins because "Name Level" is now Level 10 where most of them are used to it. And the level-monkeys win because, well, they'll level a lot. Page count wins because you're only adding 5 more rows to a chart and shuffling level bonuses somehow. Like a "hit die" every odd level. Some other benefit every even one.

The only ones who lose in that scenario are those who want to convert DCC directly to D&D. But, by all indications, they're losing no matter what.

I view it as a workable compromise.

[smathis]

I'm not sure that numbers really mean anything. It's the power range, granularity, and depth of the game that is the real issue. We really don't have much to go on except comparisons to D&D and especially d20 D&D as this is a d20 based game. And level 5 in a d20 game is only just starting to get interesting. Hell, that's about where Conan starts in power.

I'd also like to add that, like it or not, that's how MOST people are going to view the game.

5th level hasn't been a big deal since OD&D. And the vast majority of people encountering this game on the shelf will have never read, played or random encountered the LBBs.

There's hardly any way I'm going to lure the average gamer used to 30 levels of Pathfinder and 4e, 20 levels of S&W, 20 levels of AD&D, 36 levels of BECMI or 20 PLs of M&M away with the promise of five levels of DCC. And every session that extra level is dragged out is another session that I get to hear how gimped the characters are in DCC and how we should go back to C&C/4e/Pathfinder. Secret Sauce = Level Early x Level Often.

With only 5 levels, gamers are going to think (A) you're selling a "Basic" set (as mshensley pointed out correctly) or (B) the power levels of the game are woefully low.

Both of those are reasons for a lot of people not to buy or play the game. And DCC will be fighting an uphill battle trying to re-educate gamers on the fly all the way. I think the funny dice are already a barrier to entry. Just like I'd be fighting to convince them that Level 5 in DCC is really like being Paragon Tier in 4e.

Paragon Tier with 30 hit points, they'll say. And we'll be back to 4e...

[geordie racer]

It's the power range, granularity, and depth of the game that is the real issue. We really don't have much to go on except comparisons to D&D and especially d20 D&D as this is a d20 based game. And level 5 in a d20 game is only just starting to get interesting. Hell, that's about where Conan starts in power.

But the d20 power scale is grossly inflated in comparison to 1974 where Level 5 was a big deal. Though DCC aims to be 'generally compatible'** with d20, it first and foremost seems intended to play like OD&D.

**and as yet no-one's convinced me that conversion is impossible. Is it that it's a lost DM-ing skill or something ?

If LotFP can put in strongholds and name-level adventuring in their small 5 x 7, saddle-stitched booklet of rules, why can't DCC?

Buying a mansion and making investments (snore) suits Raggi's milieu - but it's not old school domain management and it damn well isn't fun. I hope DCC at levels 6-10 is as run, risky and innovative as at 1-5.

[geordie racer]

And the vast majority of people encountering this game on the shelf will have never read, played or random encountered the LBBs.

or pre-D&D sword and sorcery, cause surely the kids would prefer anime ubercool. Let them play the game and find out. I could sell this game to players on the strength of the spellcasting alone, nevermind the MDoAs !

There's hardly any way I'm going to lure the average gamer used to 30 levels of Pathfinder and 4e, 20 levels of S&W, 20 levels of AD&D, 36 levels of BECMI or 20 PLs of M&M away with the promise of five levels of DCC

No gamer has played 20 levels of S&W yet - statistically they probably won't, given that the average length of a campaign is less sessions than it takes to level that high up. Very few played all 36 levels of BECMI etc. Yes the potential is there, but DCC will have 10 levels, just not all 10 in the core rules.

Saying DCC only has 5 levels is like saying Pathfinder has no monsters - because there's none in the core rulebook - and that would be crazy.

[GnomeBoy]

My jets have slightly cooled with the 5-level announcement -- mainly on the front of getting my group to try it. I'm as happy with 5 as I would be with any number, but it's going to be slightly more effort than it was before to get others interested enough to give up playing games they know they like, I think.

I liked the 'levels-within-levels' idea mentioned in another thread or two, and I will definitely be developing some kind of 'sub-levels' and my own XP chart to 'expand' those 5 levels.

If levels 6-10 come in an annual, well, I guess I can expect that I'll be getting at least one of the annuals (though I really liked the idea of a complete game under one cover. Not that 1-5 can't be complete, I mean -- ah, well, I could go on and on...).

[smathis]

**and as yet no-one's convinced me that conversion is impossible. Is it that it's a lost DM-ing skill or something ?

No one will. Because conversion is, of course, possible. Just trickier than it otherwise might be. If Joseph slowed down the Spell Bonus progression and the MDoA die progression, it would be much easier. And we'd likely get 7 bona-fide levels out of the core book.

As far as I could tell by playing with math, the problem is that character's "special" capabilities progress at a faster rate than their hit points, saves and such. So putting some in-between levels in there would not only make conversion simpler because a 5th level DCC character would be a lot closer to a 5th level 3e character. It would make the rest of us roustabouts happy as well because we'd milk a couple more levels out of this thing.

I fail to see how either side loses in that.

Buying a mansion and making investments (snore) suits Raggi's milieu - but it's not old school domain management and it damn well isn't fun. I hope DCC at levels 6-10 is as run, risky and innovative as at 1-5.

Actually... it is a lot like old school domain management. Raggi just has more rules around it. He doesn't have the mass combat rules but, frankly, D&D was ALWAYS a snore at the domain management level. It's strength was always the dungeon crawl. Point me to any single adventure by TSR that dealt solely with domain management. Birthright is about as good as it got. And even that was hit-and-miss for a lot of people.

And I'm not ticked off that domain management stuff isn't in the core book. I'm disappointed. But that stuff isn't key to the experience, IMO. I'm upset because we hit "domain management" at a level where most gamers I know will assume an "Expert" set will come along to fill out the rest of it. (And by "Expert" set I mean the other levels one needs before "domain management" sets in, not "domain management".)

Again, drop intermediate levels between the big ones and everyone wins.

Everyone.

I fail to see a downside.

[smathis]

or pre-D&D sword and sorcery, cause surely the kids would prefer anime ubercool. Let them play the game and find out. I could sell this game to players on the strength of the spellcasting alone, nevermind the MDoAs !

Then you are a better salesman than I. Can you help the charismatically challenged and give us either 7 bonafide levels or 5 "real" levels with 3-5 sub-levels mixed in? It would be greatly appreciated.

No gamer has played 20 levels of S&W yet - statistically they probably won't, given that the average length of a campaign is less sessions than it takes to level that high up. Very few played all 36 levels of BECMI etc. Yes the potential is there, but DCC will have 10 levels, just not all 10 in the core rules.

But they could. And that potential is part and parcel of what it's all about. My group will see 5 levels (even if I conveniently fail to mention it) and then exclaim that they don't want to have to wait for another book to come out to keep playing after 5th level. And it will become a reason to not stay with the game.

And if it takes them a year to get to 5th level, they'll be unhappy because they're not leveling enough.

Saying DCC only has 5 levels is like saying Pathfinder has no monsters - because there's none in the core rulebook - and that would be crazy.

That's a silly analogy. Especially considering the answer to both of us being happy is staring us right in the face.

Let's let down the blast shields for a minute.

For all we know Harley and Joseph sat down and decided they'd do shots and stop the level progression at the last shot of whoever passed out first.

No one will be upset if they spread out the progression a couple of levels. No increase in page count if power level stays roughly the same. If done judiciously, it actually makes conversion easier.

Sure, it will be lame to have spells broken up into two books. But I'm more concerned with getting my peeps to PLAY THIS GAME. And DCC isn't making that easy on me.

You'd think that would be a priority, especially given that it could be achieved with such an unobtrusive change.

[smathis]

I think it's only fair to post that my outlook on DCC is once again sunny with a chance of Dragons after Joseph's most recent post on the level topic.

Sorry I ever doubted him.

As for recent discussions on the matter, I hope geordie and Stainless are cool by this. I don't see how it could be a negative for any of us. I think we all win here.

If I see you guys at a convention, you can each punch me hard in the arm and then we'll go buy each other drinks. But I'm not buying until I get feeling back in my hands. And, depending on how y'all feel about it, that could be a while.

[GnomeBoy]

Did someone say 'free drinks'?

I cast a shield spell, so you can buy the first round.

[smathis]

Did someone say 'free drinks'?

I cast a shield spell, so you can buy the first round.

[geordie racer]

As for recent discussions on the matter, I hope geordie and Stainless are cool by this. I don't see how it could be a negative for any of us. I think we all win here.

I agree, as I said on Fin's thread I like the sub-levels idea. I don't need it to sell the game to me, but as Joe says, the perceptions people have about the included level range matter and these level threads prove how contentious it could be. It's always better to have these discussions before the game is finalised than in hindsight. So yes, totally cool with it and relieved for those of you that have found the level range worrying

Why is it only people on other continents offer to buy me drinks !

[Stainless]

As for recent discussions on the matter, I hope geordie and Stainless are cool by this. I don't see how it could be a negative for any of us. I think we all win here.

I'm completely cool on this. I was never objecting to a system that has more levels, just voicing my opinion that I couldn't see what the fuss was all about. Since I haven't played an RPG that uses the level concept since AD&D 1e (I probably played my last game back in the late '80s), my perspective was obviously highly skewed.

As for punching you up at a convention, I should be so lucky as to get to one, let alone one where anybody on these forums is also present. (But if you ever go to a Traveller Open Day at Mongoose HQ, I'll most likely be there, and I'll shake your hand rather than wallop you).

[rabindranath72]

If the target demographics of DCCrpg is the people who have read/heard of the stuff in Appendix N, there is another factor which would impact on the level spread: the density of playing sessions, which for people of ~40 years or more tends to be quite low.
There is no way I am interested in a 30 levels game, when I can only play once or twice a month, and if the advancement is as slow as AD&D or BECMI.
The last campaign I ran was with BECMI, we played for a few months, with a group of 7 PCs and going strictly btb, only 4 of them made to 2nd level.
At the moment, I would prefer a game which doesn't have too many levels, and in which every level brings something a bit more significant than hit points.

I don't think the "3e/4e meme" is really a factor here. I don't have much experience with 4e or 3.5e, but you can definitely build engaging roleplaying encounters for 1st level characters in 3.0e; I have served the PCs' a**es on their shields more than once, often without even fighting.
From my experience the advancement rate of 3.0e seems ideal, and a game going up to 10th level within that framework definitely fits within the "heroic tier." Anything beyond that goes outside the boundaries of Appendix N stuff.