Goodman Games

I just finished the second session of DCC at Genghis. Again, I had a great time. I laughed and talked so much my throat is scratchy. Thank you, Harley for running!! I am totally stoked after playing for two four-hour sessions today.

I won't give any spoilers for "Blades Against Death" or "Beyond the Black Gate", since I hope to see them both in print some day. I will say that the system is much more polished. I think that the cleric and wizard rules work rather well. It was fun being a returning player and getting to see how the game has evolved. There were also several first time players that left the gaming table at the end jazzed to learn more about the game, and perhaps play more. I think this game is going to be huge. It is fun, pure and simple.

I am also totally overwhelmed and proud that my character, Gareth the one-handed thief, could play a pivotal role in "Beyond the Black Gate". It made the game intensely personal for me. I think he is going to be reused in future games. I am also happy that he actually survived both sessions. He was character number 2 for my in the first session of the day. Harley's body count for the four playtest sessions which I have played in is now up to 5 of my characters. I wonder how many he is going to kill next con? Character death has never been so much fun for me.

Now I just need to put some cash in my PayPal account so that I can pre-order the book, and I need to collect some Zocchi dice.

Sorry if I sound like a hopeless fanboi, but I can't wait for more.

dkeester wrote:Sorry if I sound like a hopeless fanboi, but I can't wait for more.

Sorry if I sound envious, but I really want to play this thing and your review sounds so cool!

Hey all, as promised, here's a review of my experience. It's rather chaotic and not well wrought. More of a mind dump rather than a review actually. But if you're interested:

<http://rollad20.blogspot.com/2011/02/dc ... eport.html>

Bottom line: It's a super game and Harley is a wonderful DM. Give it a go if you get the opportunity.

I'll write more later after I get some rest. Tired... so tired.

Cheers!

working link-

http://rollad20.blogspot.com/2011/02/dc ... eport.html

mshensley wrote:working link-

http://rollad20.blogspot.com/2011/02/dc ... eport.html

Ah, thanks much Mike!

If anyone else knows of any game-play recaps, please post them. I'd love to compare notes going forward and see how things are shaping up w/ the rules.

Cheers!

mntnjeff wrote:Hey all, as promised, here's a review of my experience. It's rather chaotic and not well wrought. More of a mind dump rather than a review actually. But if you're interested:

<http://rollad20.blogspot.com/2011/02/dc ... eport.html>

Bottom line: It's a super game and Harley is a wonderful DM. Give it a go if you get the opportunity.

I'll write more later after I get some rest. Tired... so tired.

Cheers!

Thanks for that write-up, mntnjeff. It's also great to hear more about the game.

That "stunt" rule sounds interesting. I've always wanted something like that. Here's hoping it makes the cut.

I also agree about the "Gandalf rule". One of the biggest complaints of some of my compatriots is that they can't play a decent magic-user with a sword unless they play an Elf. It's really kind of a bogus limitation, IMO. Much like Clerics who can only use maces and clubs. I can understand needing a hand free so some sort of limitation on two-handed weapons makes sense. But a short sword? Why not?

If "balance" is a real concern, why not drop them down one damage die when they try to use one? That way the option is still there but they're not as capable with the weapon as a fighter. So I could have a magic-user that does 1d4 damage with a short sword or 1d6 with a long sword -- while the fighter does 1d6 and 1d8, respectively.

No harm, no foul IMO.

Great summary, mntnjeff. Thanks for putting it out there.

Melee for warrior types is kind of neat. You get one of those wacky dice to roll w/ your d20 when you roll to hit. The number of sides goes up every "X" amount of levels. It reminded me of the wild dice in Savage Worlds a bit. Except w/ this system you actually added the two together.

Joseph had just come up w/ a new mechanic for the fighters as well. If you were descriptive enough in your attack, wanted some type of cool outcome (not on the scale of critical) and if you rolled above a certain number on your extra dice, the DM would come up w/ some mechanical advantage. (e.g. -4 on the monster's next dice roll due to blood in the eye, etc.) It worked out well I think. It may be a bit vague on the differences between a critical and this "cool" affect.



Definitely new. Joseph, could you elaborate on this?

Thank you for the write up and the high praise, Jeff! It was great to play with your group – one of my favorite sessions, to date. The DCC RPG is intended to reward creative, enthusiastic play, and you guys rose to the challenge.

Quick clarification, re: Gandalf's Rule. Joseph's rules as written *do* permit wizards with long swords. It just happened that this wizard wasn't carrying one.

I need to record all the play test notes while they are still fresh, but a con summary coming up, soon.

dkeester wrote:I am also totally overwhelmed and proud that my character, Gareth the one-handed thief, could play a pivotal role in "Beyond the Black Gate". It made the game intensely personal for me. I think he is going to be reused in future games. I am also happy that he actually survived both sessions.

Gareth was fantastic. Well played, Doug.

Magmar the (un)Lucky, a PC from Tacticon, makes an appearance up in one of the upcoming DCC adventures. I wouldn't be surprised to see Gareth One-Handed, too.

//H

Harley Stroh wrote:Quick clarification, re: Gandalf's Rule. Joseph's rules as written *do* permit wizards with long swords. It just happened that this wizard wasn't carrying one.

Yay! I'm happy that's the case.

Harley Stroh wrote: I was great to play with your group

God, what an EGO.




Totally kidding!

: P

Editing above.

//H

dkeester wrote:"Blades Against Death"
"Beyond the Black Gate"

Those would be great module titles.

finarvyn wrote:

dkeester wrote:Sorry if I sound like a hopeless fanboi, but I can't wait for more.

Sorry if I sound envious, but I really want to play this thing and your review sounds so cool!

Yes, you need to play. The system rocks.

Also, if you get the chance, play in a game which Harley runs. The game that mntnjeff and I played in was spectacular.

As one of the "first time players" in this session I wanted to add my two cents.

First off, as dkeester and mntnjeff both pointed out, the adventure and Harley's DMing were both superb. Most of my convention time is usually spent playing formulaic RPGA adventures. While perusing the event listings I saw this playtest and let me tell you, it was a welcome change to play in an adventure where I had no idea what was going to happen next. Add on top of that the epic feel of the adventure!! I'd love to find out more about the mysterious item that Gareth the "7-Fingered" had in his possession.

For reference, I played Trathgar the Pious, the cleric of the party.

A couple of thoughts about the game..

1. When the first combat erupted and our "combat map" consisted of a piece of scratch paper and some scribbles denoting rough location I felt as if I had just traveled back in time. Mntnjeff put it well in his review how everyone was focused on what was said, you couldn't tune out and then just look at a board to see what was happening. That's where the power of the player's imagination becomes the greatest weapon in a character's arsenal.

The battle was more akin to a narrative with some dice rolling, each player contributing their own piece versus a gridded chess match utilizing miniatures. I recall at one point in the fight when the barbarian was faced off against 3 opponents. My action consisted of "moving to the berserker's side to prevent him from being surrounded" which came in handy during the next round when the barbarian was knocked off of his feet and would have been at the mercy of his attackers were an ally not at his side.

Now..having heavily invested in minis over the years (or plasticrack as I refer to them) I plan to use them during the open beta but scrap the whole "snap to grid" concept. I'm anxious to see how this works out at the table.

2. The cleric's spell selection was decent in my opinion. I was pleasantly surprised to find some spells that would typically come at higher levels already available, the augury one (Second Sight maybe?) being one of those.

3. I'm a little torn on how I feel about their healing...

Being able to cast multiple heals, awesome.

The alignment chart determining how much healing you actually do, also awesome though it did feel like the "min/max" alignment would default to something like Neutral Good (I'm in the camp that no player can be truly neutral, you shade in some direction and I'm not sure the game even allows a true neutral character). Maybe I'm recalling the chart incorrectly but as a Chaotic Good cleric, I would have been able to only heal a minute amount of damage to a Lawful Good companion. I dunno, that's my first impression.

"Unlimited" heals, at least that's what it looked like the cleric's capabilities were at the time. Having only partaken in this one playtest, I obviously didn't see all of how the cleric works. One thing I love in rpgs is the challenge of limited resources and figuring out how to best use what little you have, be it torches, not enough rope, not enough heals, etc.

All in all it was a great time and after four hours of exposure I'm hungry for more. Hopefully there are more opportunities for playtesting in the Denver area or possibly at Gencon 2011 (speaking of I've missed the DCC booth and the DCC Tournament. Come back soon PLEASE!!) I'm already working on some plot ideas so I can test out the beta with my regular group.

Last but not least, I want to give a shout out to not just DCC and Harley but also all the players in that round. I thought everyone jumped in with both feet and made it incredibly enjoyable. Thanks for a great time.

Thank you for the write up, Sarge!

SgtPepper76 wrote: "Unlimited" heals, at least that's what it looked like the cleric's capabilities were at the time. Having only partaken in this one playtest, I obviously didn't see all of how the cleric works. One thing I love in rpgs is the challenge of limited resources and figuring out how to best use what little you have, be it torches, not enough rope, not enough heals, etc.

Agreed. We've discovered that previous mechanics were too punitive to clerics (to the point where they avoided casting spells altogether) but over the course of the weekend I ran games for 2 clerics that couldn't be stopped. I'm interested in hearing how Joseph's games at Dundracon went, because – to me – it feels like we haven't found the right balance yet.

SgtPepper76 wrote: Last but not least, I want to give a shout out to not just DCC and Harley but also all the players in that round. I thought everyone jumped in with both feet and made it incredibly enjoyable. Thanks for a great time.

Agreed. It was a great group of players. It was so much fun to see you all support Gareth's madness and then find a solution (without killing him!).

//H

Fantastic write-up Sarge!

I was thinking a bit more about the magic and I might make two more suggestions:

1. For more of an "unknown" feel I might take the spell check list away from the player. Just knowing that a high roll is good and a low roll is bad is probably enough in my estimation. Here's why I say this, there might have been added another level of trepidation and wonder when I was trying to "sleep" that giant if I didn't understand exactly what a high roll might net me. It's very similar to what the "cruddy" table does I suppose, it adds this "what happens next?" vibe that's pretty mysterious. Yeah, it might put a bit more work in the lap of the DM, but I also think that it might allow the DM a bit of wiggle room when things go drastically south and they're not necessarily as blood thirsty as the game calls for. I know, I know, sacrilegious.

Actually, now that I think a bit more carefully about what I just said there, it might be a little too much work for the DM. Each spell has a chart, and that would be a total PITA for a DM to be switching between charts like that. Let me cogitate a bit more on that. At first blush I'd say a "universal" chart might work. Something that states "1 = way badness, roll on the cruddy chart", "2 - 11 = fail and lose it", "12 - 15 = 20% increase, roll on chart II", "16 - 18 = 40% increase, roll on chart IIA", etc. Still sounds like a lot of work though... Hmmm, maybe it's not worth the "feel". Thoughts from some of you luminaries out there?

2. And on that same topic, I might also keep high = good throughout the system. In other words, if I roll a '1' on a magic check, then another '1' is bad, not good. Just subtract spell level instead of adding.

I would have relished the chance to look a LOT more closely at each of the character sheets pre-game. I had the opportunity but I was too busy chatting away. The cleric sounded really cool. Sarge played him well and in defense of the system, I for one saw each of those "heal" rolls and like I said earlier, he never rolled lower than a 15. That's not a rules issue as far as I know. If someone rolls like that, they deserve to be rewarded.

Heck, Harley rolled poorly for a large portion of the game. For which I was thankful. I have the distinct feeling that our party would have ended up as paste on the end of a large iron mace if it wouldn't have been for some fortuitous rolls on our side and some poor rolls on the DM's.

When Joseph and Harley spoke to "balance" earlier, they weren't kidding. The game pulls no punches in that department (i.e. Not linear at all). Our scenario really forced us to do a couple things that I certainly wouldn't even think of in a 4E game, we played the gorilla tactics card while trying desperately to keep 7-Fingers in check. Not an easy thing to do btw. But it was an eye opening experience as a third level character w/ 7 HPs.

Come to think of it, when Harley said "giants"... I almost laughed out loud. I did that funny little cartoonish double take at my 7 HPs and thought "We're dead". But hey, we made it.

mntnjeff wrote:Come to think of it, when Harley said "giants"... I almost laughed out loud. I did that funny little cartoonish double take at my 7 HPs and thought "We're dead". But hey, we made it.

Off topic, but those worthless giants couldn't hit the broad side of a barn. I kept waiting for that fateful 20 so I could pull out the giant crit table. But instead you guys played smart, were quick on your feet and weren't leaving anyone behind. It felt like everyone earned their survival that game.

//H

Thanks guys. Once I saw the conversation here and mntnjeff's blog I just had to contribute.

mntnjeff wrote:
Actually, now that I think a bit more carefully about what I just said there, it might be a little too much work for the DM. Each spell has a chart, and that would be a total PITA for a DM to be switching between charts like that. Let me cogitate a bit more on that. At first blush I'd say a "universal" chart might work. Something that states "1 = way badness, roll on the cruddy chart", "2 - 11 = fail and lose it", "12 - 15 = 20% increase, roll on chart II", "16 - 18 = 40% increase, roll on chart IIA", etc. Still sounds like a lot of work though... Hmmm, maybe it's not worth the "feel". Thoughts from some of you luminaries out there?

In recalling the spells the cleric had, I'd think you'd need to provide the spell chart to them based on the fact that the effects of the spell could change, sometimes drastically, based on what was rolled. For instance in the first fight I attempted to cast Paralysis on Gareth's "opponent" while they were wrestling 20' away. Paralysis is normally a touch spell but if my spell check was high enough, the range of the spell became 30'. In the end I rolled poorly and nothing happened but I wouldn't have thought to even attempt it had that range extension comment not been included on the spell check chart that the players had access to.

It's a tough line to walk between giving the players information they need and keeping an element of "I have no idea what's going to happen" in the game. If it's a straight combat spell that deals damage, I could see a chart that the players wouldn't necessarily need in front of them. For more multipurpose spells where the effects of the spell need to be known so the players can brainstorm unique ways to use them, you pretty much have to give that information to the players. I'm visualizing a spell check chart for Fireball now..."If the player rolls 5 consecutive 20's they inadvertently open a portal to the Elemental Plane of Fire and ignite their world's atmosphere in a conflagration more devastating than anything the gods have ever wrought. All living creatures make their Save with a -50 modifier. Console the player with the knowledge that their opponent died first."

Continuing on with spells, I did have a question based on what happened at the very end of the playtest. At the bitter end the mage cast Color Spray and critted. Thanks to the chart we discovered that the effect was so powerful it knocked out everyone but the mage. While epicly cool and definitely worth the visual and laugh afterwards I'm curious, can a player have a choice to select a lesser ability than the one they rolled for on the chart? For instance I make a spell check roll of d20+4 and end up with a result of 23. Can I select the spell effect that happens in say the spell check range of 15-19 or do I have to use the result in the 20-24 band?

I can see it argued both ways. A. The mystical energies that the caster is tapping into are wild and unpredictable so the caster just has to hope for the best and takes what they can get. B. A caveat could be that if you roll a natural 20, for the duration of that particular spellcast, the caster is in utter control of the magical energies they are channeling and thus can select exactly what effect they want (based on their roll or lower on the spell chart).

mntnjeff wrote: 2. And on that same topic, I might also keep high = good throughout the system. In other words, if I roll a '1' on a magic check, then another '1' is bad, not good. Just subtract spell level instead of adding.

I think this is a good point here just so players don't get confused. The one change I might make is on the random result tables and in that case I could use a homebrew solution for various results. At some point your players become rather familiar with the roll results of certain charts. ex. A caster casts the same spell 30 times or so, he's seen most of the "random" spell effects. For variety and a "WTH!?!" expression on my players' faces I change the arbitrary start point on the chart. A roll of a 5 on the die maps to the #8 result on the chart. A roll of a 6 equals #9, a 20 equals #4. Just a little house rule to change up a few things here and there.

And on the offtopic...Gareth's goddess must have been messing with Fate because I don't know how else those giants could have missed him or us as often as they did. I know I cringed a couple of times thinking it was game over only for the critical rolls to come from the player's side of the screen.

SgtPepper76 wrote:I'm visualizing a spell check chart for Fireball now..."If the player rolls 5 consecutive 20's they inadvertently open a portal to the Elemental Plane of Fire and ignite their world's atmosphere in a conflagration more devastating than anything the gods have ever wrought. All living creatures make their Save with a -50 modifier. Console the player with the knowledge that their opponent died first."

I see you a Joseph have been spending time together.

SgtPepper76 wrote:Continuing on with spells, I did have a question based on what happened at the very end of the playtest. At the bitter end the mage cast Color Spray and critted. Thanks to the chart we discovered that the effect was so powerful it knocked out everyone but the mage. While epicly cool and definitely worth the visual and laugh afterwards I'm curious, can a player have a choice to select a lesser ability than the one they rolled for on the chart? For instance I make a spell check roll of d20+4 and end up with a result of 23. Can I select the spell effect that happens in say the spell check range of 15-19 or do I have to use the result in the 20-24 band?

Someone made the same suggestion in a subsequent playtest. I think it makes sense. A high role indicates mastery over the spell, and PCs shouldn't be punished for doing well. The wild magic has an allure, but maybe that is restricted to certain spells.

//H

Harley Stroh wrote:Someone made the same suggestion in a subsequent playtest. I think it makes sense. A high role indicates mastery over the spell, and PCs shouldn't be punished for doing well. The wild magic has an allure, but maybe that is restricted to certain spells.
//H

Or maybe it costs one point of Spellburn to reign in the forces that have been summoned on the spellcaster's behalf? It's not unusual for a spellcaster to call up the forces of magic, get more than they bargained for and try to curtail its power at the cost of some degree of physical exertion.

That way, it's not a severe penalty. But the price fits the stories its trying to emulate.

I kinda wish you guys would give that wounding thing a look-see. I've been messing around with it and it would be effortless for a spellcaster to take on a "minor wound" for this sort of thing -- instead of ability damage. It's been playing well (as far as house rules go), except for a "critical wound" effectively meaning the "party's over" so to speak.

Harley Stroh wrote: Off topic, but those worthless giants couldn't hit the broad side of a barn. I kept waiting for that fateful 20 so I could pull out the giant crit table. But instead you guys played smart, were quick on your feet and weren't leaving anyone behind. It felt like everyone earned their survival that game.

//H

LOL. I think you mean that everyone played it smart except me. As soon as you said giants I assumed Gareth was going to be dead inside of five minutes. It is never smart for a thief with 13 hit points to charge towards an approaching giant, much less do it several times in a row. By all rights Gareth should have been splattered instead of taking a couple of them out almost single-handedly.

EDIT:
Come to think of it, there are several places in that adventure where Gareth should have died. Like when he jumped into that deep, dark chasm which formed as the book was disappearing below ground.

smathis wrote:Or maybe it costs one point of Spellburn to reign in the forces that have been summoned on the spellcaster's behalf? It's not unusual for a spellcaster to call up the forces of magic, get more than they bargained for and try to curtail its power at the cost of some degree of physical exertion.

That is a solution I like. I like magic being wild and uncontrollable, but giving the wizard some options to reign it in is not a bad thing, and that's a great justification for it.

The first couple playtests I ran I kept the spell charts to myself. It did end up being a bit too much page-flipping for me, so in later tests I gave them to the players. I justified it by telling myself that the wizard has spent quite a bit of time studying and casting that spell, so even though he doesn't know exactly what result he'll get every time, he should have a pretty good idea of what results are theoretically possible.

smathis wrote:

Harley Stroh wrote:Someone made the same suggestion in a subsequent playtest. I think it makes sense. A high role indicates mastery over the spell, and PCs shouldn't be punished for doing well. The wild magic has an allure, but maybe that is restricted to certain spells.
//H

Or maybe it costs one point of Spellburn to reign in the forces that have been summoned on the spellcaster's behalf? It's not unusual for a spellcaster to call up the forces of magic, get more than they bargained for and try to curtail its power at the cost of some degree of physical exertion.

That way, it's not a severe penalty. But the price fits the stories its trying to emulate.

I kinda wish you guys would give that wounding thing a look-see. I've been messing around with it and it would be effortless for a spellcaster to take on a "minor wound" for this sort of thing -- instead of ability damage. It's been playing well (as far as house rules go), except for a "critical wound" effectively meaning the "party's over" so to speak.

As the mage who took out his party with color spray, I agree. The suggestion I had is to allow you to choose lesser effects within a range of your roll equal to your caster level minus the spell level. Taking color spray as an example, if the spell(level 1) has 8 ranks of magnitude and as a level 3 wizard you roll to get the the 6th rank then you would get to choose from ranks 4-6. I think this would be a simple model for spell mastery. When you are first able to learn spells of a certain level they can be unpredictable. As you gain experience they are easier to control.

Right now I give out the spell charts to the players, EXCEPT for the patron invocation spells. As Dieter noted, I think the wizards should have a sense of what is possible, even if they can't reign in the magic well enough to control it.

That said, I do not believe in giving wizards any ability to focus in on specific results. A roll of natural 20 should be the highest result on the table. Sometimes a wizard unleashes magic he was not prepared for. Such are the things to beware of when dabbling in magic. As the core rules note:

"Wizards do not use spells to light corridors. Use a torch, fool. It is much safer.

As a side note, for those not aware, there is a strain of magic that deals in supernatural patrons (as noted above). This is evocative of, "Blood for Arioch!" - the wizard offers a favor, exchange, or bounty in exchange for aid for a supernatural patron, but he cannot always predict what aid he will get (and these results are far more varied than traditional spells). Highly unpredictable, lots of fun, very dangerous for the caster, but potentially very powerful. In my session Saturday, we had one wizard who relied heavily on invocation of the Demon God of Amphibians, Bobugbubilz. In five successive patron invocations:

* He summoned a monstrous devil-toad that fought by his side for a few minutes
* He summoned a swarm of thousands of tiny toads that attacked his enemies but also smeared the ground with their innards as they were stomped in combat
* He felt a surge of supernatural strength as Bobugbubilz sent him power
* He witnessed an enormous frog-mouth burst from the dungeon floor, engulf his enemy in a mighty bite, then vanish back into the floor, ne'er to be seen again
* And finally, on his fifth casting, after I had warned him that his demonic patron was growing weary with his constant requests for aid and he could only cast this spell once more today, he rolled a 1 on his spell check. Spell failure! His roll for the specific result of spell failure: natural 20 - highest (worst) result on the table! The result was epic, and classic: a demon (in this case, Bobugbubilz) claimed his soul. He took 3d6 damage, a -2 penalty to all ability scores, and a -2 penalty to Luck. A gigantic devil-toad mouth burst forth from the earth, grabbed his character, and dragged it down to Hell where his soul was claimed.

Patron invocation is powerful...but don't go too far...and don't roll a "1"!

Keep in mind these 5 results were all from casting the same spell (with spellburn aid, as is common in one-shots of this game).

elzod wrote:As the mage who took out his party with color spray, I agree. The suggestion I had is to allow you to choose lesser effects within a range of your roll equal to your caster level minus the spell level. Taking color spray as an example, if the spell(level 1) has 8 ranks of magnitude and as a level 3 wizard you roll to get the the 6th rank then you would get to choose from ranks 4-6. I think this would be a simple model for spell mastery. When you are first able to learn spells of a certain level they can be unpredictable. As you gain experience they are easier to control.

Trust me, I can sympathize with the spell check results that take out parties...I have seen similar results.

Tavis Allison ran a game where a wizard cast Ward Portal and got the result where the portal is not only held shut, but it actually VANISHES. Unfortunately the wizard had cast it on a door that was the only escape route, and the duration of the spell result exceeded the party's food supply...

Noted that the variability can create problems sometimes. Part of me likes it, part of me acknowledges there are situations where some resolution may be needed, part of me takes the Gygaxian Tomb of Horrors approach of, "Well, sometimes your characters simply die..."