BETA: What has been learned?

[Black Dougal]

I don't want you to shove off. I'm just saying that the best place for discussion on various topics is in the thread on those same topics.

We can't do much here until Joseph gives his say.

I think the whole board's at an impasse at the moment apart from a few cool ideas. Until we know how the power curve is going to be spread over 10 levels (splitting gains between levels still?) it's hard to crunch the numbers.

I agree with your sentiment that the board is at an impasse. I think an update to the Beta document is sorely needed. Especially since I have done some playtesting with rules that may be newer than the Beta document. (They are definitely different in some places.) It is a bit confusing for me knowing which rules are the most up-to-date. Also, I would like everyone to be on the same page with the rules, and would like to see what changes the discussion here has caused. That way perhaps some of the things that we have rehashed a few times can be put to rest in favor of new topics. It is starting to feel like we are going in a circle with some of the discussion, and before anyone gets upset for me saying that, I am just as guilty of that as anyone of going in circles.

The bottom line for me is that we need an official rules update. I hope we get one RSN (real soon now).

As regards Actual Play - there seems to be a lot of funnel activity (understandably) but little beyond that. There's this impression out on the blogs that this is a gritty non-heroic game, which maybe doesn't tie in with the pulpy heroics in Appendix N.

I have played in one session of a level-5 playtest. (Harley needs to get back home so we can keep playing. ) There were a few instances of pulpy heroics to be found as well as gritty "are we going to die if we go into that room?" sort of moments. I quite enjoyed it. After one game it seems like the system plays well at level-5.

[jmucchiello]

The bottom line for me is that we need an official rules update. I hope we get one RSN (real soon now).

That's highly unlikely. Read up this thread where Joseph asks for time to consider all the comments made here. He still has a week or two left on the month he asked for (and that's not a real time limit, IMO).

Especially since I have done some playtesting with rules that may be newer than the Beta document. (They are definitely different in some places.) It is a bit confusing for me knowing which rules are the most up-to-date.

Actually there are very few ACTUAL rules changes. All of them are listed in my FAQ, I think (Stuff like "No dwarven thieves"). The ideas in this thread are purely community driven ideas that more than one community member has given a +d~9 to.

[Black Dougal]

Actually there are very few ACTUAL rules changes. All of them are listed in my FAQ, I think (Stuff like "No dwarven thieves").

There are probably multiple rules changes which Joseph hasn't made public yet. I believe he said on one of these threads that the rules in the Beta document were finalized around April. There has been much playtesting since then.

The ideas in this thread are purely community driven ideas that more than one community member has given a +d~9 to.

Thanks for pointing this out, I think I understood it the first time. My point was that these community comments aren't just being sent out into the aether. As you said, Joseph is considering the comments made here. I would like to see how these "purely community driven" ideas have been received and how the game has changed, or not, in response to them.

Like most of the people here, I just want to make sure I am playing with the most up-to-date version of the game.

[Stainless]

It looks to me like the GG crew are not writing on these forums as much as they were when the beta rules were initially released. I think this is a good sign as they're probably too busy beavering away on revising/updating/correcting the manuscript. Plus, Joseph has a day job to keep an eye on as well.

Having said that, a little update on how development is progressing and if the game is still on target for its release would be appreciated.

[Abchiptop]

I've been putting thought into the d10 for non-class appropriate checks, I'm not sure how good the "roll 2 10s in a row for auto success" works out probability-wise, there should probably be *no* auto success on these checks, imo. Rolling 2 10s is a 1% chance; which means that even a wizard with 4 str could pull off an amazing feat of strength.
No automatic success means that even with 2 10s (1% chance), your wizard would still be bound to whatever the total was rolled.
Now, I'm completely for the d10 method of roll again on a 10 (WoD style). Have a 1 on either roll equal a fumble, else handle it like 2d10. Then, you have a a 5% chance of 20 on the die, and a 15(!)% chance of a fumble, thus garunteeing no auto success, but a significant level of risk.
Keep your players on their toes

[jmucchiello]

In my world, skills have no auto success. If the DC is 22 and you are rolling a d10. You automatically fail unless you have a +12 modifier or better. There simply exist something things that cannot be done by a given character.

[abk108]

In my world, skills have no auto success. If the DC is 22 and you are rolling a d10. You automatically fail unless you have a +12 modifier or better. There simply exist something things that cannot be done by a given character.

+d16
again i agree with jmucchiello

[finarvyn]

It looks to me like the GG crew are not writing on these forums as much as they were when the beta rules were initially released.

Keep in mind that "the GG crew" is mostly Joseph and Harley, and Harley has been on vacation.

Actually, overall posting has diminished a lot. (I wish I had kept day-by-day data, but for a long time I was okaying several new posters each day and now I only have one or two every few days. Big difference.)

I assume that most folks had some quick opinions and are now waiting to see what officially gets endorsed or not, then we move on to round 2.

[Coffeedragon]

...a little update on how development is progressing and if the game is still on target for its release would be appreciated.

+D16+1

[bholmes4]

Really hope there is a rules update. I almost feel like there is no point posting about the game as you have no idea what/if anything is being considered or what alterations have been made...

[meinvt]

Really hope there is a rules update. I almost feel like there is no point posting about the game as you have no idea what/if anything is being considered or what alterations have been made...

I'd be happy with just a thumbs up or down to various ideas that have been floated so we know which discussions are actually fruitful for Joseph to continue.

[goodmangames]

Hi guys,

Here's a quick rundown on some of the alternate rules suggested in this thread.

But first, as a general status report, the time "from beta to November" is dedicated to revising, re-writing, polishing, playtesting, and generally finalizing the core rule book. The release of the core rule book is the "rules update from the beta"; there is no in-between. All your feedback (plus a mad sprint to finish the freaking manuscript) is what I've allotted us several months to process.

In addition to the core rulebook, we're working on the modules. Harley just turned in another manuscript this past week; Doug sent me roughs on three more module covers; and some other module authors, not yet revealed, have sent in their work as well. The way this whole "publishing thing" works is I need to keep publishing more books. Thus, it never ends...I always have to be working on several projects at once...and there are always several past the horizon line of what seems to be right in front of me! Trust me, you guys wouldn't enjoy having a core rulebook with no modules behind it. Right now there's a lot of work being put into the modules, which I hope to announce in early to mid August. The manuscripts are complete for 8 modules, by the way, and by mid August we should have final cover art and/or solid cover mockups for at least 7 of them, hopefully all 8 - enough to show off some of the extensive support you will see flowing on the heels of the core rulebook.

And, in addition to that, there is some "business stuff" I've been attending to...working on the 3PP license, finalizing some considerations on dice manufacturing, printer quotes, and so on. (Anybody else interested in a limited run leatherette cover variant for DCC RPG? That's what I've got quotes cooking on right now...)

So, long story short, I've been a little bogged down by other things. I'll try to stop by the boards more often to give more brief updates. But keep in mind that the beta rules are only a part of the final core rulebook, and the core rulebook is only part of the overall project, and I've still got many tens of thousands of words to write over the next couple months...ay yi yi, I'm psyching myself out here!!

With that said, feedback on some of the notes in this thread:

Until we know how the power curve is going to be spread over 10 levels (splitting gains between levels still?) it's hard to crunch the numbers.

I may be reading too much into this comment related to the old "mini-levels between levels" question, so first I'll answer that then get to the other question. Regarding mini-levels, I love the concept of them but that won't be part of the core rules. I might reference it as an optional rule with some basic ideas on how to do it, but there are two strong reasons to keep "discrete levels" in DCC RPG.

First, easy point of entry for existing D&D players. Although this may sound anathema to some of you, I do want to maintain some conceptual links between DCC RPG and D&D. Many of you have noted that DCC RPG isn't "pure" Appendix N - i.e., there's still a cleric class, which, though debatable, clearly doesn't share the same provenance to Appendix N as classes like the fighter or magic-user. It's important for me that existing D&D players -- as well as "lapsed" D&D players -- be able to quickly and easily pick up the basic concepts of DCC RPG. Certain D&D "foundations" thus have to be kept: hit points, armor class, attack rolls...and levels. DCC RPG is fundamentally a "highly flavored variant" of D&D 3E, and levels are part of that.

Second, compatibility with other D&D 3E variants. This is more of a business reason than something game-driven, but the market right now is already quite fragmented compared to several years ago. I'd like to retain some loose compatibility with C&C, Pathfinder, and other 3E-derived games. This goes beyond just levels but they're one of the "building blocks" that allow some conversion across similar systems.

As to the core question of the note above, related to play at levels 6-10, that's something I'm putting to paper right now. Writing a game is a funny process...you can PLAY a game without a lot written down. It's getting everything on paper that's the slow part! As levels 6-10 take shape they'll continue to evolve with play on this end and, eventually, your comments from publication of the core rulebook. They're a different beast than levels 1-5 so I'm following my commitment to include the basic rules in the core rulebook, but there won't be much on the "additional campaign elements" such as building keeps and towers.

"CLASS DIE for all classes"

No plans to do a class die for all classes. One of the quirks of OD&D which I've always loved is the proliferation of mini-systems within the basic rules. In modern game design parlance this is a thing of horror, much like the walking dead and upside-down crosses. Mini-systems?!? Lock the doors and get the shotgun, somebody's gotta die!! But personally I love it: it's the "spirit of adventure" in a rules system, where the creators are trying out new things, playing with options, and picking the right rules for a situation rather than maintaining consistency with a "system" at all costs. With that preface, I want to keep the class dice as a fun mini-system that makes certain classes distinct. The concept really works well with fighters, and works pretty well with thieves. I don't want to force it onto other classes where it doesn't naturally fit. And I'd rather have a distinctive feel (and a distinctive mechanic) for each class. One of the things I like least about 4E is how every class feels the same. (I don't mean to start a 4E flame war here -- just my personal observation on one element of the game.) The last thing I want to do is introduce mechanical similarity across classes in DCC RPG.

What I'd rather do is take some of the play challenges and find a good rules mechanism to resolve them, whatever that mechanism might be. Keep in mind that DCC RPG play went on for a good 6 months or so before the Mighty Deeds idea (and the class die idea) ever appeared. They definitely add a lot to the game but DCC RPG existed without this idea and, frankly, could continue to be played without this idea. And the Mighty Deed appeared as a reaction to the fact that everyone in the private playtests thought wizards were awesome and warriors seemed lame by comparison. The challenge wasn't a mechanical one; it was a play challenge: "How can we make warriors more fun to play?" So the challenge now is not, "How can we introduce class dice to other classes?" but "What areas of play still aren't fun enough, and what rules would make them more fun?" I'd rather think in terms of play challenges, and find the mechanics to make the play better. That's what keeps a game fun, even if it doesn't fit a modern concept of design elegance. So class dice may appear elsewhere if they're the best fit for resolving a play challenge...but I try to avoid applying a mechanic simply for its own sake.

"No skills, just ability checks (and d10 for actions inappropriate for class)"

Agreed on the use of d10 for unskilled checks. That was a great idea. As for no skills entirely, I'm going back and forth. Pros: You're right that there is basically no skill system now, so it's almost the same mechanically as what exists now. And it's more straightforward. Cons: A generation of players were raised on 3E skills, and the "skill system" forms a common bridge.

Did I ever tell you my story about spell names? I know I've told this before but there are some new people so here goes. In the earliest DCC RPG rules, every spell had a unique name, like Cadixtat's Axe of Unmaking. I remember running games at cons and giving the players their spell lists...and I'd get these blank stares. Every spell was a unique name and the players had absolutely no idea what to do. On top of that there were these weird charts and spell check dice and ay yi yi it seemed too complicated!! So I took the names back to conventional D&D spell names. At the next con I handed the wizard player his table of spells and I said, "So this spell is like magic missile but there's this table of results -- you roll d20 and add your level instead of just taking the same result every time." Using familiar spell names reduced the learning curve by 15 minutes, and made the game much more accessible. Learning the rules became a conversation about how the spell check system worked, about the important part of the new game, rather than a conversation about naming convention. The common spell names form a lexicon we all share...the unique spell names, on the other hand, were cool but restarted the learning curve from ground zero.

It's the same with skills. Everybody knows what a Spot check is, what a Listen check is, what a Jump check is...etc. These terms provide a common lexicon for everyone who has played D&D in the last 10 years. And they're a bridge for people coming in from other systems currently in play. Removing that could inadvertently change the conversation on learning the rules from something simple to something more complicated.

I need to actually try a few games at cons without the traditional skill names and see how people react. A lot of this is the "ease of entry" I mentioned above - shared terminology makes a big difference in how easily people transition into a new game. Right now, DCC RPG has a skill system that basically isn't a skill system...it pretty much is an attribute-based system. But the use of skill names makes it easy for a certain set of players to grasp. There's value in that, but it's hard to pin down how much.

"Birth Augur as a flat +1 (to mitigate fluctuating luck)"

Dude...Conan was born on the battlefield. And look what it did for him!

Maybe I need to emphasize the nature of birth augurs...there is definitely a mechanical element, but there's a reason the game names them and calls them birth augurs. Appendix N is filled with prophecies, legacies, and birth rights. Not just Conan -- all of Lovecraft's myriad bachelors who inherit haunted properties, Robert Wolff in the World of Tiers series, etc. This is all part of the character funnel: the idea is that chance can have a big impact on what kind of person you become. The birth augur is meant to be a bit of role playing, not just a mechanical convention. And it's not always positive...a lot of Lovecraft's bachelors end up dead or insane...

But I can see what you mean from the perspective of making stat calculations easier. You're right that it's a pain to recalculate stats. Maybe there's some in-between there. Maybe it's a flat +1 or -1, depending on whether your Luck enters positive or negative territory? But then you can't have the "awesome factor" of rolling an 18 Luck and having it modify your spell checks (a natural-born wizard!)...something to chew on here.

"get rid of infravision"

Heresy.

"smaller funky dice in place of big negative modifiers"

Love this idea and plan to use it in several places.

"No spell levels"

Went down this road early on, and rejected it. As a level 1 wizard, would you like to select from a massive list of 150 spells?? Levels serve a valid purpose in organizing information for the player.

A separate question is the risk vs. reward in casting higher-level spells: a roll of 12 succeeds in casting a level 1 spell but fails in casting a level 4 spell, so should a roll of 20 be more powerful for the level 4 spell than the level 1 spell? "Yes," I think, but there's more to it and I haven't completely solved that puzzle yet.

"scrap electrum pieces"

I like electrum pieces...in part because they're illogical and weird.

Race as Race

Race and class have generated an awful lot of discussion. I'll save this one for a more lengthy discussion elsewhere...don't want to get too sidetracked here. Not that it's not important but this is a can of worms all in itself...

Spells having individual spell failure charts related to the effects of the spell

Love this idea. I actually have a long list of things I'd like to further do with spells. I think the mercurial magic table is currently too narrow. What I originally wanted to do with that list was make it a massive set of cross-referenced tables that tied together alignment, birth augur (yes, birth augur!), and school of magic (originally I had each spell tied to one) so there was even more variability in results. Right now the same mercurial results crop up too often if you play a lot. Tied to that, there would also be a wider range of spell failures, not just the generic ones, as well as more possible crits - imagine a unique, specific critical result for each spell! It could be really cool.

But all that is a tremendous amount of word count and published space for something that won't add materially to the game experience. Even just doing unique spell failures would be a lot of effort for modest reward, and potentially take up page count for something that wouldn't crop up that often. (I'm already facing the decision of "what to cut" on some rather neat material.) Or, to phrase this slightly differently: would you pay $5.00 more for the finished book to have these features? I agree the idea of unique spell failure charts is cool, but right now I have a bunch of other stuff to finish up before November! Maybe for the first annual... actually, that would be a great place for these...

So, hopefully that addresses a few of the questions out there. What else did I miss? Post the one-liners here and I'll try to address them as they come up.

Let's avoid having this thread turn into discussion of the individual topics listed above - save that for the many threads already out there. This can be the "Joseph answers questions in summary form" thread, if that helps any...

Thanks,
Joseph

[jmucchiello]

Hi guys,

Thanks for doing this. I didn't want to end up looking pushy if I ended up reminding you about the "month deadline."

The release of the core rule book is the "rules update from the beta"; there is no in-between.

Expected by me, probably a disappointment for others.

And, in addition to that, there is some "business stuff" I've been attending to...working on the 3PP license,

Info wanted. Need to know if I'll ever bother making my gnome.

"CLASS DIE for all classes"

No plans to do a class die for all classes. One of the quirks of OD&D which I've always loved is the proliferation of mini-systems within the basic rules. In modern game design parlance this is a thing of horror, much like the walking dead and upside-down crosses. Mini-systems?!? Lock the doors and get the shotgun, somebody's gotta die!!

I'm disappointed. Your goal and the class die concept are not mutually exclusive. The description I made for class die was a universal die used completely differently by all classes. Fighters would use it for MDoA, Thieves would add it to ability checks related to thieving, wizards would using it for spellcasting (in place of caster level), clerics would using it for lay on hands, turning checks and other faith effects. See a single "rule" creates a proliferation of mini-systems.

"No skills, just ability checks (and d10 for actions inappropriate for class)"

As for no skills entirely, I'm going back and forth. Pros: You're right that there is basically no skill system now, so it's almost the same mechanically as what exists now. And it's more straightforward. Cons: A generation of players were raised on 3E skills, and the "skill system" forms a common bridge.

I think the common bridge is itself a con against having skills. The last thing I want is someone saying "I should get an Intimidate check to sway the guard."

It's the same with skills. Everybody knows what a Spot check is, what a Listen check is, what a Jump check is...etc. These terms provide a common lexicon for everyone who has played D&D in the last 10 years. And they're a bridge for people coming in from other systems currently in play. Removing that could inadvertently change the conversation on learning the rules from something simple to something more complicated.

I'm sorry but this make so sense. DCCRPG should be the return to "tell me what you want to attempt and I'll tell you what to roll." The player should never be suggesting what "rule" to use to Judge. "I want to make a Listen check" should result in the Judge saying, "You whack yourself in the ear, hearing a loud thump. Yes, your hearing is still working."

"Birth Augur as a flat +1 (to mitigate fluctuating luck)"

But I can see what you mean from the perspective of making stat calculations easier. You're right that it's a pain to recalculate stats. Maybe there's some in-between there. Maybe it's a flat +1 or -1, depending on whether your Luck enters positive or negative territory? But then you can't have the "awesome factor" of rolling an 18 Luck and having it modify your spell checks (a natural-born wizard!)...something to chew on here.

I think you missed the point here. The problem with birth augur now is Luck as it currently stands is highly volatile. If Luck never changed, then the birth augur would be fine. But one day you are awesome with a sword and the next day you forget which end is which. The Birth Augur should be immune to fluctuations in luck.

"No spell levels"

Went down this road early on, and rejected it. As a level 1 wizard, would you like to select from a massive list of 150 spells?? Levels serve a valid purpose in organizing information for the player.

I don't understand what you are saying. Would I like to select... I have a choice? Sorry, no, the chart where you learn spells from should be skewed toward the lesser spells. But if a 1st level wizard gets access to wish, heh. Could be fun. Besides, how do you fit 150 spells into the main rule book at one per page?

A separate question is the risk vs. reward in casting higher-level spells: a roll of 12 succeeds in casting a level 1 spell but fails in casting a level 4 spell, so should a roll of 20 be more powerful for the level 4 spell than the level 1 spell? "Yes," I think, but there's more to it and I haven't completely solved that puzzle yet.

This is actually the problem of spell failure. I think every result of 20 should be relatively even but the "4th" level spell will have a 38-39 and 40+ effect that the 1st level will not.

Race as Race

Race and class have generated an awful lot of discussion. I'll save this one for a more lengthy discussion elsewhere...don't want to get too sidetracked here. Not that it's not important but this is a can of worms all in itself...

Race as class at 0-level opens a larger can of worms. Hopefully you will address this elsewhere soon.

Spells having individual spell failure charts related to the effects of the spell

Love this idea....
But all that is a tremendous amount of word count and published space for something that won't add materially to the game experience. Even just doing unique spell failures would be a lot of effort for modest reward, and potentially take up page count for something that wouldn't crop up that often. (I'm already facing the decision of "what to cut" on some rather neat material.) Or, to phrase this slightly differently: would you pay $5.00 more for the finished book to have these features? I agree the idea of unique spell failure charts is cool, but right now I have a bunch of other stuff to finish up before November! Maybe for the first annual... actually, that would be a great place for these...

No it wouldn't be. It would not be in the same place as the spell. Most spells have 1/3 of page of blank space on them. You could shrink up the charts immensely by putting range, duration, casting time and save on two lines instead of four lines. And spell level could be (removed or) moved to the spell name line. Those lines on those charts also waste a lot of space. I don't buy it.

Thanks again.

[abk108]

"No skills, just ability checks (and d10 for actions inappropriate for class)"

As for no skills entirely, I'm going back and forth. Pros: You're right that there is basically no skill system now, so it's almost the same mechanically as what exists now. And it's more straightforward. Cons: A generation of players were raised on 3E skills, and the "skill system" forms a common bridge.

I think the common bridge is itself a con against having skills. The last thing I want is someone saying "I should get an Intimidate check to sway the guard."

It's the same with skills. Everybody knows what a Spot check is, what a Listen check is, what a Jump check is...etc. These terms provide a common lexicon for everyone who has played D&D in the last 10 years. And they're a bridge for people coming in from other systems currently in play. Removing that could inadvertently change the conversation on learning the rules from something simple to something more complicated.

I'm sorry but this make so sense. DCCRPG should be the return to "tell me what you want to attempt and I'll tell you what to roll." The player should never be suggesting what "rule" to use to Judge. "I want to make a Listen check" should result in the Judge saying, "You whack yourself in the ear, hearing a loud thump. Yes, your hearing is still working."

The point with skills is... you don't need them. As Jmucchiello said, the PCs should just describe the action and the Judge will call for an ability check. I usually allow the Players to suggest a different ability to use if they disagree with me, and rephrase the action properly to justify why they're climbing with Agility rather than Strength.

"Birth Augur as a flat +1 (to mitigate fluctuating luck)"

But I can see what you mean from the perspective of making stat calculations easier. You're right that it's a pain to recalculate stats. Maybe there's some in-between there. Maybe it's a flat +1 or -1, depending on whether your Luck enters positive or negative territory? But then you can't have the "awesome factor" of rolling an 18 Luck and having it modify your spell checks (a natural-born wizard!)...something to chew on here.

I think you missed the point here. The problem with birth augur now is Luck as it currently stands is highly volatile. If Luck never changed, then the birth augur would be fine. But one day you are awesome with a sword and the next day you forget which end is which. The Birth Augur should be immune to fluctuations in luck.

This could be solved by giving the Birth Augur a flat +/-1 as suggested, based on the STARTING luck of the character. So if he had 13 LUCK, and applied his +1 (since 13 has a positive modifier) to attack rolls, even if later on he'd spend 6 points of luck and be down to 7, his birth augur would still be +1 (it's a BIRTH augur, not a LIFE augur- it souldn't change)

"No spell levels"

Went down this road early on, and rejected it. As a level 1 wizard, would you like to select from a massive list of 150 spells?? Levels serve a valid purpose in organizing information for the player.

I don't understand what you are saying. Would I like to select... I have a choice? Sorry, no, the chart where you learn spells from should be skewed toward the lesser spells. But if a 1st level wizard gets access to wish, heh. Could be fun. Besides, how do you fit 150 spells into the main rule book at one per page?

I agree. Keep the random chart for level 1 wizards. After that, the Judge will have complete control over which spells the wizard will have access to. I mean, these could serve well a plot: the young wiz wants a powerful spell to burn the academy to ashes and take revenge on his teachers. He researches and learns a 5th level "Inferno" spell, and tries to cast it, spellburnig and luck burning like crazy to achieve at least the 20+ results.

Spells having individual spell failure charts related to the effects of the spell

Love this idea....
But all that is a tremendous amount of word count and published space for something that won't add materially to the game experience. Even just doing unique spell failures would be a lot of effort for modest reward, and potentially take up page count for something that wouldn't crop up that often. (I'm already facing the decision of "what to cut" on some rather neat material.) Or, to phrase this slightly differently: would you pay $5.00 more for the finished book to have these features? I agree the idea of unique spell failure charts is cool, but right now I have a bunch of other stuff to finish up before November! Maybe for the first annual... actually, that would be a great place for these...

No it wouldn't be. It would not be in the same place as the spell. Most spells have 1/3 of page of blank space on them. You could shrink up the charts immensely by putting range, duration, casting time and save on two lines instead of four lines. And spell level could be (removed or) moved to the spell name line. Those lines on those charts also waste a lot of space. I don't buy it.

Thanks again.

Agreed. Besides, i noticed that the spells on the beta can be printed as 2 pages per sheet and still be perfectly readable... that would halve the page count for spells

[bholmes4]

Off to work so I will comment fully later today. First off though, thanks for replying like this and clearing some things up.

One thing I will say is that I completed a play-test yesterday where the players rolled their starting Luck score and that modifier determined their Birth Augur for the rest of their lives. I just stated this was something that was determined at birth and as luck fluctuated in their lives it was not subject to these changes. Thus if you were born with 18 luck you still got a +3 birth augur and you remained so even when your luck dropped later in the adventure. Everyone grasped it and it was never an issue in play, in fact it was much easier for everyone.

*Note that I also gave a mininum of +1 bonus (ie. if you were born with 8 luck you were still +1, not -1), such that you may be unlucky everywhere else in life but that is the one thing you seem blessed at, but that is not necessary. The players did like this extra addition though. It's not like the +1 bonus keeps you from going on 'unlucky' streaks and such.

I also bumped the range of "none" for mercurial effect from 10-13 to 10-23 and rolled on a d30 chart which helped make things a bit easier in play.

[finarvyn]

I'm glad that Joseph weighed in on some key issues here. He told me that he hadn't been aware of this thread, and he got here pretty quickly once alerted to its existance.

I'm afraid that much of the problem is a misunderstanding of the open playtest process planned here at GG. Clearly the plan of "GG releases rules, fans offer suggestions, GG makes decisions and publish" was interpreted by many posters as "GG releases rules, fans debate and improve them, GG releases updates, fans debate and improve them, and so on until the community thinks they are ready to be published." Bottom line is still that it's Joseph's game. He puts his name and cash on the line and he gets the final say on what it looks like. He clearly has put a lot of thought into the ideas posted on these boards and this has guided his thinking on some topics, hasn't changed his opinion at all on others.

Historically, RPGs have been all about options. While publishers always encourage the consumer to play a game the "official" way, we've seen for decades that folks always tweak things to suit their own preferences in their home campaign. And they love to share their ideas. Early on this appeared as Dragon articles, today as blogs and forum posts. I can't count the number of articles I read in Dragon and thought "that's cool, but not my thing" and then forgot about it, and that's okay because I picked up a few things I liked along the way as well.

I guess what I'm saying here is that we've had chances to voice our opinions on a wide variety of topics and Goodman Games has listened, whether they agreed or not. I say we continue to hash out ideas and toss in suggestions as we have been doing all along.

I think that the thing to keep in mind here is that the game isn't "done" when it gets published. Joseph has hinted at possible "annuals" and as far as I know Level Up will still be published at regular intervals. Seems to me like some of the ideas suggested here can be written up as articles for one of those formats, or simply aired out on these boards. And, yes, jmucchiello should write up his gnome!

[Stainless]

Firstly, thanks for the update. I keep reminding myself that you have a day job as well, so my hat's off to you for juggling job plus passion.

Question: Will there be any decrease in the probability (and so frequency) of corruption?
It has been a concern of many that corruption will happen too often and, although fun to roleplay, will end up being a real hindrance to fun as it becomes compounded. I suggest either decreasing the probability somehow or making corruption 'curable' somehow.

Question: Have you rethought how 0-level races and wizards/elves miraculously gain 1st-level abilities after leveling up?
In my own playtest, I found it difficult to work out which of the halfling and elven racial abilities to give the 0-level PCs. Infravion seemed reasonable, but halfling two-handed weapon proficiency was more problematic. If anything, I suggest some clearer guidance in the rules as to what 0-level characters have and some hand-wavium to explain why and how gaining 1st level creates such a dramatic change.

Lastly, there is an old saying; "Sleep on it". The reason this is viewed as a truism is because very often a pause from the creative process allows one to view your work with 'fresh' eyes upon return. Often, faults that you couldn't initially see become glaringly obvious. I'm a little concerned that with so much still in flux, the November deadline will not provide sufficient "sleeping on it" time and so there may be some regrets about what ends up in print. I'm not advocating a second round of beta testing, just that a reflective pause and final review before publishing would be wise.

[meinvt]

Joseph,

Thanks for the update!

Any feedback on the comments that right now the game results in Luck and Ability score death spirals? I've found that a typical character in my campaign is losing a few luck and a permanent ability score about every other session, if they don't die entirely.

Actually, let's make that a couple questions:

* What about the idea of more long term and less permanent losses for luck and abilities?

* Any feedback on the notion of the various systems to give a +1 boost to scores when advancing levels (at whatever interval)?

[jmucchiello]

I'm afraid that much of the problem is a misunderstanding of the open playtest process planned here at GG. Clearly the plan of "GG releases rules, fans offer suggestions, GG makes decisions and publish" was interpreted by many posters as "GG releases rules, fans debate and improve them, GG releases updates, fans debate and improve them, and so on until the community thinks they are ready to be published." Bottom line is still that it's Joseph's game. He puts his name and cash on the line and he gets the final say on what it looks like. He clearly has put a lot of thought into the ideas posted on these boards and this has guided his thinking on some topics, hasn't changed his opinion at all on others.

As I said, I never expected a beta2. But that doesn't mean a beta2 is a bad idea. Playtesting is key to good RPG rulesets. If you had not posted the Fireball spell, would the book in November still have the unbalanced Magic Missile? We understand Joseph is taking all the risk. That doesn't mean we can give him advice on how we think he could improve the game. And it won't stop us from being impassioned about some of the things that we think are critical. Frankly, I'd hate to be where Joseph is now. He has a forum full of people tugging him in different directions and that deadline is looming. And that deadline is probably less than 2 months away. The book still needs to be edited, layout, proofed and then sent to the printer in time for release in November.

I think that the thing to keep in mind here is that the game isn't "done" when it gets published. Joseph has hinted at possible "annuals" and as far as I know Level Up will still be published at regular intervals. Seems to me like some of the ideas suggested here can be written up as articles for one of those formats, or simply aired out on these boards. And, yes, jmucchiello should write up his gnome!

This I completely disagree with. Flaws in the initial release cannot be fixed in an annual if people don't buy the annual because of flaws in the game. You only get one chance to make a first impression. Role-players are picky people. They won't play systems that have perceived flaws.

And making the gnome depends on the licensing. I'm not going to make up 40-50 spells for gnome illusionists unless I have faith in the game. But if I do, it will involve its own quirky subsystem based on the class die.

[abk108]

Also, it has been suggested:

• 6 different Occupation charts, so that a PC's occupation depends on his higher stat: no more 3 INT wizard apprentices and 3 STR soldiers. Also, the distribution of demihuman professions on these charts could give back the feeling (dear to 3E players) that certain races have slightly different stats.
• Patron taints instead of corruption, so that there won't be any unnecessary claws, but more snake tongues for snake-worshippers and stony skins for worshippers of earth elementals.
• Patron spells for Clerics as well. It makes sense that if Bobgublibiz gives extra powers to a mercenary magic-user, he'd give at least the same powers to someone who faithfully worships him without asking anything in return.

[goodmangames]

Question: Will there be any decrease in the probability (and so frequency) of corruption?

Yes, the idea I like the most is that a wizard can burn a point of Luck to offset a corruption result.

On a similar note, I've also been playing with a "cosmic balance" rule that every fumble on an attack roll restores one point of burned Luck. It can't take you past your starting max but can restore a lost point.

Question: Have you rethought how 0-level races and wizards/elves miraculously gain 1st-level abilities after leveling up?

I'm sure we all have hobbies and pastimes that we pursue, and we've all experienced the "ah-ha!" moment of finally "getting" something. For myself, doing various martial arts over the years, there was definitely a moment when the roundhouse kick stopped being a mechanical combination of motions and flowed naturally. I myself don't see it as miraculous; I just see it as the way talents develop. There are clear "tiers" and one day you suddenly realize you're a lot better at Task X than you were a couple years ago. So, for me, there's nothing weird about abilities developing from level 0 to level 1, even "racial" abilities that seem hard-wired. Should a 0-level dwarf have infravision? On the one hand, yes; on the other hand, baby birds can't fly until their parents push them out of the nests, and whales are born without knowing how to swim. Having a "racial" ability to do something doesn't mean you're good at it or even practiced at it. It doesn't seem that odd to me that a peasant who had never explored a dungeon, never wielded a weapon, and never been in life-or-death combat wouldn't really know how to use his abilities until he'd gotten a little practice. At the moment I think 0-level play is most fun with no special abilities whatsoever (it's more about the players being creative in solving problems since their characters are practically useless) but I think the use of infravision at 0-level where racially appropriate does need to be clarified. And maybe some of the elf limitations. But for the rest of the class abilities, I don't see anything strange about having them "miraculously" appear at level 1. Then again, if your players insist that baby birds can fly at birth and baby whales can swim at birth, then what the heck, give the level 0 guys some abilities.

As parallel, think of non-combat abilities...given the historical precedent set by fantasy literature, it might also be reasonable to assume that halflings have a racial ability to consume prodigious quantities of food and ale. How does this ability "level up"? I would say that there's some other class of halflings out there -- call them the "peasant halflings," who don't adventure but focus more on "hobbit-hole" activities -- who can consume more ale than their adventuring brethren. Sure, it's a "racial" trait, but spending time focusing on drinking (instead of adventuring in a dungeon) will make you better at that "racial" trait. The halfling ability to fight two-handed means nothing if you've never drawn a sword before...

Lastly, there is an old saying; "Sleep on it". The reason this is viewed as a truism is because very often a pause from the creative process allows one to view your work with 'fresh' eyes upon return. Often, faults that you couldn't initially see become glaringly obvious. I'm a little concerned that with so much still in flux, the November deadline will not provide sufficient "sleeping on it" time and so there may be some regrets about what ends up in print. I'm not advocating a second round of beta testing, just that a reflective pause and final review before publishing would be wise.

While the time may seem short to you guys...remember that I've been working on this game since 2009.

No game is perfect, and every game goes through "waves of understanding" as players get better and better at using the rules. It's natural. DCC RPG is already an awesome step forward from where it started. The beta wasn't perfect, nor will be the November release. But the November release will be pretty darn good, with a lot learned, and those elements that are legitimate misses (as opposed to differences in play or judging styles) will be easily sorted out with the annuals.

We all have different play styles, too...in the early days, it was interesting how often I got TPK's where Harley or Tavis would run the same adventure and not get TPK's. A lot of the game comes down to play style, and I know most of you guys are experienced gamers who are going to tweak a lot of the rules anyway. Like, remove the skill system. If I can provide a framework that's 95% right, I'm pretty sure the rest will be sorted out okay.

[finarvyn]

Frankly, I'd hate to be where Joseph is now. He has a forum full of people tugging him in different directions and that deadline is looming.

Absolutely, and I've said this from the onset because so many posters have had this "good, so we're agreed" type of philosophy without getting a thumbs up or thumbs down from Joseph. I think when it's all done there are going to be a lot of happy customers and a lot of folks who will be ticked off because their ideas didn't make the final cut.

I know that I tossed some ideas Joseph's way back in March, thinking that I'd saved the world and gotten the "thanks, but it's not the direction I want to go" reply. In the boards it's clear that most ideas pitched by some are directly opposed by others, which is always a problem with an open playtest, but I think in general that the direction taken is a good one.

Look back at the "Designer's Blog #1: What It Is, And What It Isn't" thread if you want to remind yourself about the big picture.

[goodmangames]

6 different Occupation charts, so that a PC's occupation depends on his higher stat: no more 3 INT wizard apprentices and 3 STR soldiers. Also, the distribution of demihuman professions on these charts could give back the feeling (dear to 3E players) that certain races have slightly different stats.

I was going to answer these items specifically, and I will below, but I should say first that I want to retain the notion that "what makes my character different from yours" is largely NOT mechanical. D&D ran on this idea for many years in its beginning, and it's the foundation of role-playing (in my opinion). Why is my dwarf different from your elf? Because I play them differently. It also avoids the first step down the path toward adding lots of differentiating modifiers to characters. I'd like DCC RPG to have very few "decision points" for character generation; it is these decision points that bog down modern RPG's, make them take too long, raise barriers to entry, make it difficult for a judge to "let the dice fall where they may" on killing PCs, and make new people hesitant to invest hours in playing. Not to say they're not fun -- if you're an advanced, experienced gamer, it's fun to spend 2 hours on your character build -- but that's not the game I'm going for. I want something that, while targeted at experienced players, makes it very, VERY easy to get new players into the game. I'd like a game that can generate a character in 10 minutes with my cousins who have never played before. Back to the point, interjecting too many "decision points" (i.e., different occupation table depending on X or Y) and building in reasons for mechanical differentiations between characters (i.e., possibility of dwarf having different stats than elf) starts down a different path than what I want, so I'm really hesitant to take that first step.

I do like the idea of a broader occupation table; I have some scribbled notes here on occupations I think I should add in. I'm just not sure on keying them to abilities. Lots of people choose professions that they're not particularly suited for in "real life." I was thinking at one point about making the demi-human entries reference a separate table ("65-69: reference Elf Occupation Table") but that would still just be for flavor, nothing mechanical.

Patron taints instead of corruption, so that there won't be any unnecessary claws, but more snake tongues for snake-worshippers and stony skins for worshippers of earth elementals.[/b]

Yes, totally agree with this. Eventually I'd like to do a specific corruption table for each patron. And I'd love to have generic corruption tables specific to schools of magic; i.e., corruption on a fireball burns off your eyebrows but that certainly can't happen with a charm spell. It's just an awful lot of word count and time investment between now and November. If I can finish it in time, "yes"...otherwise, maybe something for the annual.

Patron spells for Clerics as well. It makes sense that if Bobgublibiz gives extra powers to a mercenary magic-user, he'd give at least the same powers to someone who faithfully worships him without asking anything in return.

Agree with this as well. I was originally thinking something along the lines of less negative impacts for clerics...after all, the wizards bargain with great powers, not always on friendly terms, while the clerics are the "chosen" of the deities. So the clerics could potentially have neutral or positive impacts -- not quite "corruption," let's call it "boons" -- of some kind.

[abk108]

6 different Occupation charts, so that a PC's occupation depends on his higher stat: no more 3 INT wizard apprentices and 3 STR soldiers. Also, the distribution of demihuman professions on these charts could give back the feeling (dear to 3E players) that certain races have slightly different stats.

(...) I want something that, while targeted at experienced players, makes it very, VERY easy to get new players into the game. I'd like a game that can generate a character in 10 minutes with my cousins who have never played before. Back to the point, interjecting too many "decision points" (i.e., different occupation table depending on X or Y) and building in reasons for mechanical differentiations between characters (i.e., possibility of dwarf having different stats than elf) starts down a different path than what I want, so I'm really hesitant to take that first step.

I do like the idea of a broader occupation table; I have some scribbled notes here on occupations I think I should add in. I'm just not sure on keying them to abilities. Lots of people choose professions that they're not particularly suited for in "real life." I was thinking at one point about making the demi-human entries reference a separate table ("65-69: reference Elf Occupation Table") but that would still just be for flavor, nothing mechanical.

The thing that i suggested would just mean sorting occupation in 6 tables, like 10 per table.
The after you've rolled your stats, you check "higher AGI", and there you roll 1d10 (?).
It's just as random and as "time-consuming", dice-rolling wise, as BETA is.

The point about demihumans is that for example if you put 3 dwarven professions under , say, "higher strength" (miner), "higher stamina" (blacksmith, herder), you will end up with TOTALLY random dwarves that have a little more flavour attached to them (as they will have a nice STR or STA if confronted with their other stats) and have a little more connection with their (forced) level 1 class. Makes sense?

[Ducaster]

Or, to phrase this slightly differently: would you pay $5.00 more for the finished book to have these features?

In a word. YES!

DCC is developing a unique feel regardless of any desire to keep it D&D ish. I fully understand the compatibility issues you mention in your reply sir. But surely making it a game that folks wanna play BECAUSE it has its own feel and a sense that "This is the way it should have been" should be paramount?

A given DM will always house rule stuff in or out of any game rulebook. So why not give us the maximum amount of options. Please allow the individuals that have already pre ordered your product sight unseen as wide a field of rules and options as possible?

If this means a huge appendix of "official optional rules" so be it! I'd still buy it even if most of them didn't fit my play/DM style. There are a heap of good suggestions on these boards right now it would be stimulating, if some of them at least, made it to the optional appendix.