Goodman Games

bholmes4 wrote:Actually the more issues I see with this game the more I think they should focus on levels 1-5 with "expert" rules next year for 6-10. I know there are lots of things I want changed in this game but that doesn't mean I don't support it 100%. I have zero problem shelling out for two core books.

bholmes4 wrote:Actually the more issues I see with this game the more I think they should focus on levels 1-5 with "expert" rules next year for 6-10. I know there are lots of things I want changed in this game but that doesn't mean I don't support it 100%. I have zero problem shelling out for two core books.

Michael Pfaff wrote:I agree with the levels 1-5 being fleshed out and fully operational sentiment. Especially if 6-10 isn't even in the beginnings of writing.

However, I've already plopped down $40 for a pre-order and I'm not sure if a Basic book with levels 1-5 is worth that.

finarvyn wrote:This was on page 5 of the "10-level" thread and I was afraid that folks would miss it. I see this as significant because so many posters voiced an opinon and Joseph heard them. How many game companies are willing to do that?

goodmangames wrote:Wow. First of all, thanks for all the dialogue. This kind of constructive debate is great to read. It's always interesting to realize how an action can be perceived. I have what I think are good reasons for the "level decisions," but reading the comments here makes it obvious that there will be gamers who infer alternate causality to the decision...and that might not be good.

Based on the thread here, I'll focus on getting the full 10 levels into the core book. The beta rules are already with the editor so they'll only have 5 levels. Perhaps that's good; you can get your PCs to level 5 then pick up with 6-10 from the core book. I think the most important point made in this thread is that, "players shouldn't have to wait for the next book to level up." I don't want a group to reach level 6 after continuous exciting DCC RPG play, only to then realize they can't level up until the next annual comes out! On the flip side, I personally don't feel like I have enough high-level play experience in DCC RPG (yet...) to properly do up the "broader" 6-10 rules right. By that, I mean the non-mechanical rules - things like fighters building keeps and wizards facing off with their patrons to establish true dominance once and for all. So for levels 6-10, the core rules may focus strictly on mechanics and encourage the judge to develop his own higher level plots. Which we all did fine in 1974-1979, so I think that may be okay.

I do indeed intend to include a slower advancement rate. My original idea was that it would take at least a year of once-a-week play to reach level 5. On the flip side, I think some of the ideas on the other leveling thread are brilliant - specifically, the "mini-levels" are a great way to provide "morsels" to a different generation of gamers. I'm personally a fan of level titles, and I think the concept of these "mini-levels" might finally be a great way to integrate titles properly into the XP system. What if each class had three different titles per level, and those titles represented level sub-strata? A level 1 thief is a bravo, then a thug, then a robber; a level 2 thief is a murderer, then a fence, then a racketeer; and so on. Each title could confer one "bonus of choice" from the next level (choose hit points, attack mod, spell, save, whatever), and then the third and final advancement carries the rest of the "full level benefit." Again, too late to catch the beta, but definitely something to play with.

A couple other random points:

CONVERTING CHARACTERS / CHARACTER POWER LEVEL COMPARISONS (from AD&D, from 1E, from 3E, from C&C, etc.): I don't really know how hard the conversion will be, since I haven't personally tried. Personally I believe conversions from other 3E-derived systems will be roughly compatible, due to the fundamentally same "power scale" of many concepts: same 1 HD per level, same general range of attack bonuses and save bonuses per level, etc. But how the power scale of spells precisely compares...not sure. We'll find out when someone decides to do a lot of conversion.

MIGHTY DEEDS OF ARMS:

GnomeBoy wrote: I just want to check in on MDAs: You have to roll a three or better on your small die and you have to hit the thing that you're performing the maneuver against. As you level up, you're also probably going to be facing some stuff that's harder to hit than the stuff you fought at 0-level or 1st level. So even if your MDA roll becomes "easy" to make, you may not be hitting any more often (and maybe less). That might be slicker than an AD&D fighter (depending largely on your DM), but compared to 3e, I'm not so sure.

To confirm what GnomeBoy said, that is correct on Mighty Deeds of Arms: the warrior has to succeed in his basic attack roll, AND roll sufficiently high on his extra "small die." You guys are right that the odds of rolling high on the "small die" get a lot higher at high levels. But you also have to hit opponents with higher armor classes! What I like about the "small die" at higher levels is that it allows the fighter to score lots and lots of cool moves against weaker foes -- the level 5 warrior will indeed constantly succeed in his Mighty Deeds when fighting hordes of kobolds -- but it balances against the higher ACs of more difficult foes. Against an AC 24 dragon, the Mighty Deed is still only going to succeed every third or fourth attack.

The Free RPG Day module is at the printer now, and the beta rules are with the editor. It will be a lot easier for us all to talk after June 18, when we're all looking at the same rules set!

In the meantime, here's the cover for the Free RPG Day module. Full details going up on the web site tomorrow. It includes two adventures, both short and sweet: a level 0/1 adventure by me, and a level 5 module by Harley. Both are a lot of fun. And wait till you guys see the maps. We spent a lot of time thinking about the art direction there. Doug knocked them out of the park -- they take "illuminated map" to a whole new level...

dkeester wrote:The level discussion spawned a couple of different threads. I will point you all to this one: http://www.goodman-games.com/forums/vie ... 46&start=0.

...

meinvt wrote:Thanks for posting that thread from well before many of us in this discussion were participants. It is obvious the only reason it is going to 10 is fan demand, so tough to argue with that. It does sound like the writing focus will be on 1-5, but with mechanical guidance up through 10.

1. Knowledge is scarce. There is no “encyclopedia of magic.” The internet doesn’t exist. Even the Gutenberg press does not exist! This is a medieval, feudal society without bookbinding technology. Knowledge is rare, and knowledge of spells and magic is even rarer. Obtaining that knowledge is as often as much a process of adventure than of reading. “Research” in the modern sense of going to a library with organized indices to retrieve certain books does not exist. Simply learning that a spell exists is a great accomplishment – much less learning how to cast it.
2. Wizards are jealous bastards. No offense, but it’s true. When knowledge is scarce, he with the most knowledge holds an advantage over his peers – and wizards want that advantage. Identifying, obtaining, and learning a spell represents a significant investment; no wizard gives away that investment for free. A wizard must pay some price to loosen the lips of those who would share with him.
3. The means are mysterious. Even when a wizard learns that a spell exists, and finds a source to teach him, the process of spellcasting may be beyond his grasp. Practice, practice, practice!
4. Obtaining magical knowledge should be part of the adventure. Finding new spells and magical knowledge should be a motivational goal for any wizard player.

goodmangames wrote:My intent is still to provide levels 6-10 in the core rulebook. So, before I get there, a little-known nugget of game business insight: having published an awful lot of adventure modules, I can tell you that low-level modules outsell high-level modules by an order of magnitude. In the d20 / 3E era, there was significantly higher demand for level 1-3 and 4-6 modules than for anything else. Now, nobody believes me when I say this, because what we always hear about in forums and online posts is, "I want more high level modules!" and "I want more epic level modules!" But what actually sells? Low level, low level, low level. Especially level 1 modules. It's what I call the "level pyramid"; draw a pyramid, and your low-level module sales are the bottom (wide and strong) and your high-level module sales are the top (much smaller!). If you go back and look at the 50+ modules I published for 3E, you'll start to see the trend in level ranges -- I inched upward but based on people "voting with their dollars" pulled it back and pumped out a lot of low-level modules.

In application to this conversation, my point is, even if DCC RPG "as published" includes rules for levels 6-10, I believe the majority of the play will still happen at lower levels. So the playtest burden is most significant at lower levels. Higher level play won't happen as often so any flaws in the rules are statistically less likely to "bust through" the seams. But at lower levels, rules flaws become rapidly revealed by the sheer number of people playing.

With that preamble, the biggest concern of higher-level play is the spells, as noted here. The main "polish" that the existing spells need is a good spreadsheet and a guy who likes to crunch numbers...I already have in my notes that I need to go back and normalize some of the mathematical results. However, that doesn't mean "make them the same." I am not an adherent of the more modern design philosophy that "every level X power should have the same mathematical output and just change the flavor text." Math is a part of game design, but just a part, and the play experience is most important of all. I acknowledge that magic missile may be too powerful now, compared to fireball, but when all is said and done, I intend to have some spells that are clearly "better" than others. Why? Well, a big part of the game is about finding and learning spells -- there should not be some assumption that just because a great spell exists, the character is able to have it. If magic missile is that much better than fireball, then you can be damn sure that the wizards who know magic missile will blast the bejeezus out of any up-and-coming apprentices who try to learn it. "Let the pyromancers have their pretty little fires, while we magician-archers maintain our superiority!" It should not be forgotten that the judge governs the acquisition of knowledge in this world. Quoting from page 140 of the beta rules:

1. Knowledge is scarce. There is no “encyclopedia of magic.” The internet doesn’t exist. Even the Gutenberg press does not exist! This is a medieval, feudal society without bookbinding technology. Knowledge is rare, and knowledge of spells and magic is even rarer. Obtaining that knowledge is as often as much a process of adventure than of reading. “Research” in the modern sense of going to a library with organized indices to retrieve certain books does not exist. Simply learning that a spell exists is a great accomplishment – much less learning how to cast it.
2. Wizards are jealous bastards. No offense, but it’s true. When knowledge is scarce, he with the most knowledge holds an advantage over his peers – and wizards want that advantage. Identifying, obtaining, and learning a spell represents a significant investment; no wizard gives away that investment for free. A wizard must pay some price to loosen the lips of those who would share with him.
3. The means are mysterious. Even when a wizard learns that a spell exists, and finds a source to teach him, the process of spellcasting may be beyond his grasp. Practice, practice, practice!
4. Obtaining magical knowledge should be part of the adventure. Finding new spells and magical knowledge should be a motivational goal for any wizard player.

I'm almost tempted to leave magic missile as it is, then note that only one wizard in the world knows the spell and all the rest are trying to steal it from him.

dkeester wrote:

meinvt wrote:Thanks for posting that thread from well before many of us in this discussion were participants.

I just thought it appropriate to remind people of the historical context to this issue. This way we are all on the same page.

goodmangames wrote: I am not an adherent of the more modern design philosophy that "every level X power should have the same mathematical output and just change the flavor text." Math is a part of game design, but just a part, and the play experience is most important of all. I acknowledge that magic missile may be too powerful now, compared to fireball, but when all is said and done, I intend to have some spells that are clearly "better" than others. Why? Well, a big part of the game is about finding and learning spells -- there should not be some assumption that just because a great spell exists, the character is able to have it. If magic missile is that much better than fireball, then you can be damn sure that the wizards who know magic missile will blast the bejeezus out of any up-and-coming apprentices who try to learn it. "Let the pyromancers have their pretty little fires, while we magician-archers maintain our superiority!" It should not be forgotten that the judge governs the acquisition of knowledge in this world. Quoting from page 140 of the beta rules:
to leave magic missile as it is, then note that only one wizard in the world knows the spell and all the rest are trying to steal it from him.

dkeester wrote:I think this and your other posts on levels would make a great additions to Joe Mucchiello's unofficial FAQ.

finarvyn wrote:

dkeester wrote:

meinvt wrote:Thanks for posting that thread from well before many of us in this discussion were participants.

I just thought it appropriate to remind people of the historical context to this issue. This way we are all on the same page.

Thanks for bringing this back up. I think we've had a huge influx of newcomers since early June and suspect that many of them haven't waded through all of the old threads. The historical perspective is important.

jmucchiello wrote:

dkeester wrote:I think this and your other posts on levels would make a great additions to Joe Mucchiello's unofficial FAQ.

Already updated with a link to your message above quoting Joseph from the older thread. (See Classes Q.3 Why only 10 levels?)

Also, message me here if you really want to bring a thread to my attention. I try to read them all but I tend to skim over stuff that doesn't interest me. (At the moment that is the actual play reports, though I tend to read the followups to see what others found interesting. Also the thread of user created spells is currently on my ignore list because I don't want to nick any ideas from it. I'm sure there are others that I just ignore without noticing consciously.)

meinvt wrote:And, I want again to emphasize that I'd love to see a first level Counterspell of some sort, precisely because I love the spell duel concept so much and think they should be part of play right from level one.

meinvt wrote:M:TG is a great example actually. I remember playing heavily when it first came out, and the thing is, early on, the rarity concept actually did work. It was cool that you had a Mox and Lotus because they were clearly better, and only two cards in your deck.

Where it broke down was when people started using money to override the original game design.

So, I think the variable levels of power thing can be fun, thematic and very cool. The key is that you never want a common to be strictly better than an uncommon, nor an uncommon to be strictly better than a rare. Of course, thematic changes and wacky powers can also fit better into rares just because they are less generally useful.

Now, I see the spells you roll for at first level as commons, spells available in the core rulebook as uncommons, and spells added through supplements and adventures as rares.

Treated like this, things can work well. It does mean that the either Magic Missile should be toned down or moved off the random initial spell list though.

And, I want again to emphasize that I'd love to see a first level Counterspell of some sort, precisely because I love the spell duel concept so much and think they should be part of play right from level one.