Goodman Games

Cross-posted from RPG.net:

At first glance, the implied setting of the Dungeon Crawl Classics RPG is one of ancient tombs, bizarre enemies, irresistable treasure and dangerous magic. DCC is a game of chances, where something is constantly happening. Characters can be stymied by fumbles or transformed into creatures by their own magic just as often as they can maim gargantuan enemies with critical hits or escape certain death with a lucky roll. The dice mechanics make these events relatively frequent, so that something is always happening in the scene and every decision involves a gamble. The effect is that the story being told is closer to a pulpy science-fantasy novel than the slow, predictable and calculated progression that roleplayers are used to. True, characters do become more powerful, but there is always danger and never a guaranteed payoff. DCC is gritty in the sense that players have to claw every gemstone and coin from the judge that they can. The judge should not always be perfectly impartial, either. After all, life isn't always fair.

In my opinion, if you are playing this game as you would D&D (a band of plucky heroes tasked with figuring out mysterious, fighting evil and protecting the innocent), then you are doing DCC a disservice. Of course, everyone knows the best playstyle for their group, but DCC characters will eventually become something that their rescuees will hate: scarred, mutated and cursed veterans that do not really belong in polite society. DCC heroes do not retire; they conquer until there is nothing left to conquer, and are left like restless and aged Conan on his throne.

I am interested in what everyone else is gathering from the implied setting of DCC. There is a lot to say mechanically just as there is a lot to gather from the setting covered in the rulebook and suggested by the artwork. The author seems intent on returning to a what-if D&D based entirely on the inspirational reading of Appendix N, but this requires "unlearning" D&D as such. What is this teaching us about 1970's fantasy?

Firstly, I think some of the lethality will have been ironed out in the released version of the rules (for instance, I believe the frequency of magic-induced corruption has been decreased). Never the less, it is likely to remain quite an edgy system, thus you are correct that a D&D mentality (especially a 4e D&D mentality) will lead to party disaster and probably player dissatisfaction. Thus....it's not for everyone. What I anticipate is that non-combat play will come out more and the dangerous scenes will become more epic in feeling. That's just fine by me.

Galadrin wrote: I am interested in what everyone else is gathering from the implied setting of DCC. There is a lot to say mechanically just as there is a lot to gather from the setting covered in the rulebook and suggested by the artwork. The author seems intent on returning to a what-if D&D based entirely on the inspirational reading of Appendix N, but this requires "unlearning" D&D as such. What is this teaching us about 1970's fantasy?

(Emphasis mine.)

Absolutely.

You don't need to unlearn D&D to play the DCC RPG, but it helps if you want to get to the heart of the game.

//H

I agree with some of the thoughts here. When I first started playing DCC RPG I played it very similar to my AD&D style, but now that I'm a few months in, and I see the emphasis placed on certain elements within the Beta rules and the early modules, I'm turning my game darker and weirder. My game is slowly become less Tolkien and more Friedkin/Cronenberg.