Goodman Games

Ok, given that creatures in DCC are a mystery from the players POV (yay!), are unique/special in keeping with Appendix N (cool!), and given that there is no encounter balance mechanic - (huzzah!) ... I'm just wondering why the whole level system has been retained?

Don't get me wrong - I'm really, really, REALLy excited about the DCC RPG, and I don't have anything against levels per se. I'm just wondering with so much accrued rpg expectations/standards being thrown out, what was the reasoning behind retaining levels?

For example - 30 odd years ago I played a lot of D&D and a lot of Traveller. Now we loved 'leveling' up in D&D, and all that went with it (still do), yet in Traveller we had equally as much fun, but never missed 'leveling.'

Characters in Traveller needed to rely on their starting skills, aquired equipment and Player smarts - a gun shot is the same to a young inexperienced noble, or a seasoned mercenary (armour excepted)

From a cursory Appendix N perspective:

Dying Earth characters were defined by their known spells or magical posessions (although their wits are most important)

Was Conan that much stronger/more able by the time he was king?

Were any of the Hobbits in LotR anything more than emotionally different by the end of the books (Ent draughts excepted)?

maxam wrote:I'm just wondering why the whole level system has been retained?

A couple of thoughts here:

1. The DCC RPG is "built" using rules from the 3E SRD, which is level based instead of skill based. It's easier to use levels when the source material has levels.

2. One could have created a game similar in mechanics to Traveller or RuneQuest or other games from the 1970's, but the plan was to create a "what might have been" kind of RPG rooted in Appendix N but parallel to OD&D from 1974.

3. As a blend to #1 and #2 above, keep in mind that Goodman Games has produced 50+ DCC modules for 3E. I think that having some measure of compatibility with those modules was an important part of the design process, and basing the DCC RPG off of a skill-based game would have diminished this somewhat. The new game won't be 100% compatible -- since that would be recreating 3E -- but it should have enough similar features to make conversion workable.

That's just a couple of reasons off the top of my head.

Usually having no levels need focusing all the progression on skills, so a pretty different approach from the classic D&D style.

I understand reservations about levels. They are explicitly artificial gamey aspects of an RPG, especially when viewed from this long into RPG history. However, I think it fits in with the old school feel that the DCC RPG is trying to capture. Along with the sense of the unknown and adventure, part of the initial thrill of D&D in the old days was the reward of leveling up.

I would guess is that DCC is meant to be a new version of D&D heavily based on Appendix N, not simply an RPG based on Appendix N.

Personally I am glad it uses levels. I have simply never enjoyed games without levels near as much.

bholmes4 wrote:I would guess is that DCC is meant to be a new version of D&D heavily based on Appendix N, not simply an RPG based on Appendix N.

Kind of, yes, although Joseph doesn't want to associate too much with D&D simply because too many people bring over their misconceptions and bias about the game before they try it. I know that it took me a while in reading and re-reading his posts before I really started to see what makes DCC special.

bholmes4 wrote:Personally I am glad it uses levels. I have simply never enjoyed games without levels near as much.

This is my experience as well. I've played both, I've GM'ed both. I can play either but I prefer to GM level-based games.

finarvyn wrote:

bholmes4 wrote:I would guess is that DCC is meant to be a new version of D&D heavily based on Appendix N, not simply an RPG based on Appendix N.

Kind of, yes, although Joseph doesn't want to associate too much with D&D simply because too many people bring over their misconceptions and bias about the game before they try it. I know that it took me a while in reading and re-reading his posts before I really started to see what makes DCC special.

bholmes4 wrote:Personally I am glad it uses levels. I have simply never enjoyed games without levels near as much.

This is my experience as well. I've played both, I've GM'ed both. I can play either but I prefer to GM level-based games.

This has been my experience as well. I have a bunch of preconceptions from various versions of D&D which I am finding don't totally fit with DCCRPG. It has hints of D&D for that retro feel, but DCCRPG is really its own game.

I'll throw in with bholmes4 and dkeester here too. Levels are fun. They usually don't make any sense from a narrative standpoint. But a game with levels is almost Pavlovian in its capacity to keep players engaged and coming back to the table.

I've played all sorts of games over the last 30 years. Games with levels "stick" for what it's worth. I've played some very innovative, awesome and fun games that didn't use levels. Those rarely went more than 4-6 sessions before the players wanted to move on to something else -- usually D&D related.

smathis wrote:I'll throw in with bholmes4 and dkeester here too. Levels are fun. They usually don't make any sense from a narrative standpoint. But a game with levels is almost Pavlovian in its capacity to keep players engaged and coming back to the table.

I've played all sorts of games over the last 30 years. Games with levels "stick" for what it's worth. I've played some very innovative, awesome and fun games that didn't use levels. Those rarely went more than 4-6 sessions before the players wanted to move on to something else -- usually D&D related.

I feel the opposite, and I'm sure most of the people in my old group would agree. I always got frustrated playing games where I had to sit through quite a few sessions before my character changed at all. I'd much rather have small incremental improvements every session. Not only does it feel more realistic to me, but I get the satisfaction of watching my character change every single time we play...and in the best games, I get to choose every aspect of my advancement too, I'm not limited in what I can do by silly "classes" and stuff.

I rarely played D&D from about 1991 to 2003ish, and the only reason I came back at all was a quirky little thing called "DragonMech"...

But to get back on the topic, pretty much what finarvyn said.

mythfish wrote:I feel the opposite, and I'm sure most of the people in my old group would agree. I always got frustrated playing games where I had to sit through quite a few sessions before my character changed at all. I'd much rather have small incremental improvements every session. Not only does it feel more realistic to me, but I get the satisfaction of watching my character change every single time we play...and in the best games, I get to choose every aspect of my advancement too, I'm not limited in what I can do by silly "classes" and stuff.

I rarely played D&D from about 1991 to 2003ish, and the only reason I came back at all was a quirky little thing called "DragonMech"...

But to get back on the topic, pretty much what finarvyn said.

So, you like games where you level quickly, and levels are hidden.

Whew - started something off here!

For the record (something I tried to make clear in my original post), I love levels - I really, really do! I'm not an anti-level kinda guy by any means.

I was just curious about the reasoning behind retaining them, when so much else of the game seems to be going against in-built prejudice/expectations that gamers might have.

For example, you might say - "DCC is not D&D - monsters are mysterious, deadly and non-generic, magic is wild, powerful and unpredictable not to mention, handled completely differently, oh but you still have levels to grind"

Again, not that this is a bad thing! Levels are that irresistible Rube Goldberg hampster wheel/carrot contraption that scratches a very deep itch and keeps gamers coming back for more.

I am quite happy that they are in the DCC RPG - I was just interested in the thought process behind including them.

mythfish wrote:I feel the opposite, and I'm sure most of the people in my old group would agree. I always got frustrated playing games where I had to sit through quite a few sessions before my character changed at all. I'd much rather have small incremental improvements every session. Not only does it feel more realistic to me, but I get the satisfaction of watching my character change every single time we play...and in the best games, I get to choose every aspect of my advancement too, I'm not limited in what I can do by silly "classes" and stuff.

I rarely played D&D from about 1991 to 2003ish, and the only reason I came back at all was a quirky little thing called "DragonMech"...

But to get back on the topic, pretty much what finarvyn said.

Hence the push for "sub-levels" to scratch that Pavlovian itch more and more.

My only problem with point-buy systems is I often find I'm waiting even longer to improve my character than with level-based systems. At a rate of 1 character improvement point per game (sometimes two) it could take 4 sessions to boost one rank in a skill.

My preference is non-existent. Done well, point-buy is really good. HeroQuest did a great job with how they tied their Hero Points into advancement. Unknown Armies' character advancement was uninspiring (for me) and seemed to take forever. Marvel FASERIP advancement? Well, it's best not to even think about advancing an MSH character.

But I see good and bad in levels. The only games I've been able to sign people on to play long term are level-based. I don't know if that's because it's intrinsically better. Or if it's because D&D is the elephant in the room (and it's level-based). Or if it's because so many point-buy systems are tedious or lack those goalposts that people keep going for.

I do think Classes and Levels have been mishandled since AD&D. There's no reason they couldn't have used "sub-levels" for more incremental improvements. Instead, it took 3 decades and Monte Cook to try that out. And the way classes became synonymous with a character's profession (instead of more of an archetype) introduced all sorts of problems.

maxam wrote:...you might say - "DCC is not D&D ...

I am quite happy that they are in the DCC RPG - I was just interested in the thought process behind including them.

Or you could say "DCC is D&D" -- with the disclaimer that it is 1974 D&D-ish. Levels were the cutting-edge character advancement technology of the time. Monsters' abilities were unknown. Who knows what magic will do, exactly?

As you say, it's not going against in-built prejudice of the game circa 2011, it's going against in-built prejudice of gamers circa 2011, taking us back to 1974 or thereabouts (the mileage on your Delorean may vary, Marty) for an experience that attempts to get as close to our first sessions of D&D as we've been since our first sessions of D&D. And hopefully, keep us there.

GnomeBoy wrote:As you say, it's not going against in-built prejudice of the game circa 2011, it's going against in-built prejudice of gamers circa 2011, taking us back to 1974 or thereabouts (the mileage on your Delorean may vary, Marty) for an experience that attempts to get as close to our first sessions of D&D as we've been since our first sessions of D&D. And hopefully, keep us there.

A nice idea but you don't get to frame the "debate" inside the other person's head. If they construe D&D-like to mean all the things they hate about D&D, you've already lost them. Saying it isn't D&D-like gets you over that first hurdle (unless they are total D&D-fanbois in which case you lose them).

jmucchiello wrote:If they construe D&D-like to mean all the things they hate about D&D, you've already lost them. Saying it isn't D&D-like gets you over that first hurdle (unless they are total D&D-fanbois in which case you lose them).

So either way, if they aren't willing to listen past one sentence, we've lost somebody.

I'm tempted to say, "if that's their attention span, we haven't lost anybody important." But that's too snarky.

I felt like part of what I was saying, was paraphrasing Mr. Goodman from the top of the playtest I was in back in February. He talked about recalling the first time you saw the funky dice (hence 'new' funky dice in DCC RPG), and how we didn't know what the monsters could or could not do, etc.

I think the catoblepas in the room with this game is that as much as it's about "Appendix N", it's also about D&D. I understand emphasizing App. N. But it is called "Dungeon Crawl Classics", and those 'dungeon crawls' are (mostly) D&D experiences for most of the folks picking up a product with 'Dungeon Crawl" on the cover. The RPG seems firmly founded on the idea of re-creating a player's early D&D experience*, and is designed to keep you in that state of 'early' experiences to as great a degree as game mechanics make possible.

At least, that's how I understand it.

Making a pitch to someone who hasn't heard about it, might take knowing a bit of what they already like or don't like. But I suppose that's true of any game (Risk is like Monopoly, but different). I'd like to think I'm somewhat creative, but I can't at the moment think of an enticing way to say the RPG is both like and not-like D&D, and do so both with and without mentioning D&D.



* Whether that was 1975 or 1985 or 2005, and even if someone started with, say, RuneQuest or another system (particularly in the early years when those systems were 'inspired by' and/or 'reactions to' D&D).

I don't know why exactly levels work so well but they do, it's been my experience with every group I have played with. Sure there are times we try other games without levels and rave how great they are, but it never lasts. We always come crawling back to D&D and it's level-based system.

If I had to explain it I guess I would compare it to someone offering me 1 beer a day or 4 beers every 4 days. I would always take the 4 beers every 4 days deal because I know I would feel something on those days (maybe buzzing, maybe drunkeness,... I would feel something though). 1 beer a day is just a tease however and I can live without the extra calories.

That to me sums up why I prefer a level system and why I come back for more. If every bar had a 1 beer limit I would always drink at home...

bholmes4 wrote:I don't know why exactly levels work so well but they do, it's been my experience with every group I have played with. Sure there are times we try other games without levels and rave how great they are, but it never lasts. We always come crawling back to D&D and it's level-based system.

If I had to explain it I guess I would compare it to someone offering me 1 beer a day or 4 beers every 4 days. I would always take the 4 beers every 4 days deal because I know I would feel something on those days (maybe buzzing, maybe drunkeness,... I would feel something though). 1 beer a day is just a tease though and I can live without the extra calories.

That to me sums up why I prefer a level system and why I come back for more. If every bar had a 1 beer limit I would always drink at home...

I like the way you explain things in terms that any beer drinker can understand.

bholmes4 wrote:I don't know why exactly levels work so well but they do, it's been my experience with every group I have played with. Sure there are times we try other games without levels and rave how great they are, but it never lasts. We always come crawling back to D&D and it's level-based system.

All beer references aside, I think that levels work because of their simplicity. There's a reason why major league baseball has levels (A, AA, AAA, MLB) or the educational system has levels (1st grade, 2nd grade...). It's because you can use a simple label to represent many things.

In a skill-based game I need to know the value of every individual skill, but in a level-based game knowing that a character is a 2nd level thief tells me hit points, combat numbers, ability to pick pockets, and much more. True, some of these things can be modified by stats, but in general you have a simple model which gives a lot of data.

This is particularly important to me as a GM. Players only need to track one pile of data, so having complex skills isn't so bad, but a GM needs NPC stat blocks and monster stat blocks and all other kinds of stuff like that. As a GM a skill system drives me nuts.

Just my two cents.

Hi. Im new to the forums. BTW happy new year for everybody.

I understand the no-levels style of play. I prefer with no-levels too (less hack and slash, and more "role").
With some house rules I will play DCC RPG without levels (also without random abilities and without races&cleric). My players will have:

Common guys. (0 Level characters)
Veterans (+HP +Bonuses)
Adventurers (Warriors/Rogues/Wizards)

I customized the classes (Adventurer level) a little bit (for example the rogue can be a Ranger or a Thief) but only minor changes (Except the magic). Overall I made all more powerful, but there is no leveling up and no clerics.

For the magic (the most difficult to change without leveling)... The Wizard can start with 4 spells (Choosing from spell levels 1 to 3 but picking at random). I allow to learn more spells to the Wizards through adventuring, and the spells are cast spending Mana points equall to the spell level (All wizards have 6 mana points per day). Also I removed the random of the spells, eliminating the results of failure (now the spells only can Missfire/Corruption or being succesfull with the different results for the degrees of success).

After all, I changed the game a lot, and appears another game. But I love DCC RPG because it made me to do this, it gave me the inspiration. And this is why DCC RPG is great, because is a lot inspirational, and thats the important.

I hope will be annuals in the future, not for extra rules, but for more and more cool ideas and inspiration for the game.

If you want to play without levels, just do it!

Rerturn to the glory days of fantasy with the Dungeon Crawl Classics Role Playing Game. Adventure as 1974 intended you to, with modern rules grounded in the origins of sword & sorcery. Fast play, cryptic secrets, and a mysterious past await you: turn the page...

Levels were part of the 1974 experience, right?

Greetings, Atrus. May your zombies remain intact.

Atrus wrote:If you want to play without levels, just do it!

Honestly, some of my best campaigns have essentially been level-free, which is to say that I had players create characters of a given level (usually 4th) and they never advanced. I just said "okay, you're a hero..." and they played until the campaign was done.

Of course, my campaigns tend to last only a few months before I blow 'em up and start anew.

Interesting thread. For me it is kind of a wash. Levels are fun and that's probably the best reason to keep coming back to them. My biggest problem for levels is that some players feel pigeon-holed into a trope or archetype (elf-ninjas aside) and if they want to take their character in an original direction, the rules don't provide a mechanical outlet for unique character growth. These are often the same players who marry the rules to their imagination, and most players find creative ways to express their characters within the framework of class/level mechanics -despite the limitations.

Some skill based systems like WFRP (1st or 2nd ed) and BoL make character customization easier and more fun for some types of players. In these games players can apply their XP in small packages towards whatever goals they see for their characters, allowing for greater customization and differentiation. Other players are at a loss with these systems and prefer the simplicity of character definition provided by class/level systems.

While I like both sorts of games, overall, I think that more players enjoy the simple measurement that levels provide.

As for differences in raw power, level based games tend to be more arbitrary and feel more fantastic than skill based games. High level play gets downright silly without a good deal of moderation and explanation from the DM. I remember discovering in 1980 that my 10th level fighter was superhuman. Deltar was "captured" by brigands who held a sword to his throat, and I thought "go ahead, roll your d8 damage and see what that gets you." I stood there and gleefully took the damage full of the knowledge of my own invincibility - an extreme example perhaps, but this was a pretty common experience back in the day. It made me think 'wait a minute, maybe this leveling thing is out of control.'...and to an extent it still is. Deltar should have been dead and though it is easy enough for the DM to say "If he cuts your throat your dead, period" the superhuman powers of high level characters are still in place and they manifest in different ways throughout the game. I'm just sayin that I agree with Maxam to a point. Conan wasn't 10 times more powerful personally and physically in the Hour of the Dragon then he was in The Tower of the Elephant. Levels with their "I get better at everything in leaps and bounds, periodically" approach require some abstraction and interpretation of the rules, and perhaps a little more suspension of disbelief.

I never run games past about 10th level because suspension of disbelief becomes problematic and games lose their mortal human flavor. I applaud Goodman for capping the game at 10th level. Other than Elric, there weren't many appendix N protagonists that felt like high level characters, and even Elric (unlike Deltar) was critically aware of his limitations and mortality.

maxam wrote:
Were any of the Hobbits in LotR anything more than emotionally different by the end of the books (Ent draughts excepted)?

I'd say the Hobbits are a great example of leveling. They leave the shire with nothing but britches, waistcoats, and cook pots, are constantly running and hiding from anything and everything, and are completely clueless. By the time they come back one has Mithrill armour and a magic sword, one has the arms and armour of Rohan, one the arms and armour of Gondor, and one has . . . britches, waistcoat, and cookpots. Okay, but Sam's just the gardener and not a gentleman Hobbit. Anyway, by the time of the Scouring of the Shire they've faced Orcs, Trolls, Uruks, Shelob, manish warriors, Olyphants and one has helped slay a Nazgul. The Hobbits in chapter 1 would have run from Saruman and his half-orcs or died if they tried to fight 'em. The Hobbits in the Scouring of the Shire organise their Hobbit npcs and take 'em down pretty tidily.

Lots of good feedback but I wanted to add that levels are also a forced progression of character development...just the thing to kick a stagnant player in the pants

Another quick comment, games like WFRP aren't good examples of a skill based system. All those incremental improvements were just a means towards an advanced career (aka level/class amalgam).
Hero system, gurps, brp, CoC...those are skill based (often point buy *yuk!) systems. They work great for one-shots