Goodman Games

rabindranath72 wrote:There is no way I am interested in a 30 levels game, when I can only play once or twice a month, and if the advancement is as slow as AD&D or BECMI.
The last campaign I ran was with BECMI, we played for a few months, with a group of 7 PCs and going strictly btb, only 4 of them made to 2nd level.

I had that same problem getting my group to stick with a B/X-based game (LotFP). The leveling was way too "slow" for them. They wanted to level a lot and have a lot of headroom to allow for more leveling. And that was one of the big problems (for me) of having a game that only went to 5 levels where each level would take 7 or more sessions to acquire.

That's why the idea of "mini-levels" is so great, IMO. It's kind of a hybrid between the idea of levels and skill points. Players see the benefits of leveling more often but the inflation of actually leveling is greatly reduced.

For a group of 40-somethings (of which I count myself a member), this is ideal (again, IMO). Because even if we never get to bona-fide Level 10, we're encouraged to play because we're seeing the benefits of the next level more quickly. So, I'm level 1. In a B/X game say I'd need 4800 XP to get to level 2. That puts me currently at 2400 XP. Instead of having to slog through 8 sessions trying to achieve level 2, I'd get a benefit every 800 XP (or however Joseph breaks it up). So at 3200, say I choose to take the extra hit points or my spell bonus from level 2. Then at 4000 XP I get something else. Then at 4800 I get all the stuff I didn't take.

All while staying on the same "Level Track" that allows people to say "I'm Level X" and keeps them wanting to play to the next one.

That's something that would resonate with both the younger members of my group (who want to play in a game with lots of levels and want to get to them at an accelerated pace) and with the older members of both my regular group and my other group who would be less inclined to play a game that leveled more slowly for exactly the reasons you describe.

The other group. let's call them the irregular group has a hard time with both scheduling and cohesion. I think a lot of that is because they tend to play games without a well-defined reward system. So they're more likely to get together for a short run of Traveller, Trail of Cthulhu or Mountain Witch. While the "D&D group" is by-far the most regular gaming I've had in the last five years. You can set your calendar by them.

I was never a fan of levels. I went through a period where I hated them. Really. But I've come to respect them as a reward framework that does it's job at getting people back to the table. I know there's at least a half-dozen sessions of the regular group where I would've phoned in but chose not to because I wanted to be there when the group leveled.

rabindranath72 wrote:At the moment, I would prefer a game which doesn't have too many levels, and in which every level brings something a bit more significant than hit points.

I don't think the "3e/4e meme" is really a factor here. I don't have much experience with 4e or 3.5e, but you can definitely build engaging roleplaying encounters for 1st level characters in 3.0e; I have served the PCs' a**es on their shields more than once, often without even fighting.

From my experience the advancement rate of 3.0e seems ideal, and a game going up to 10th level within that framework definitely fits within the "heroic tier." Anything beyond that goes outside the boundaries of Appendix N stuff.

The 3e/4e meme is a factor for me from the standpoint of recruiting players and getting my current players on board. 1/3 of the regular group knows of 3e but has never played it. Yet 2/3 have played, at least, AD&D. 1/3 have played OD&D. Another 1/3 have played B/X or BECMI (prior to LotFP). All of us have played 4e. There are 6 people in that group. So the thirds was easy math.

The irregular group's not much different, despite age differences and very different interests in gaming.

The only problem with 3e advancement is the inflation. At some point around or after level 10 (depending on class), things can get a little out of hand. The cool thing about what Joseph is talking about is that DCC will have a similar reward structure to 3e. Actually a better one, IMO, because rewards will come sooner and more regularly throughout the play experience. But it will not have the inflation issues that 3e runs into. Or at least it shouldn't.

I can't see it being a worse option for a group of 40-somethings than a game with 5 levels where the expectation is it would take a year to get to 5th level. That's exactly the same BECMI issue described in your post.

The mini-levels mitigate that a good deal.

Isn't it past time for a new designer's blog post?

dkeester wrote:One of the things that really has me hooked, is that this is the first time I have ever playtested a game. I am not sure how much my contributions have changed the game, but I definitely feel a sense of ownership.

My other experiences as a playtester have been entirely negative. You play the game when it's not working right yet and you're encouraged to keep an eye out for flaws all the time, but you rarely see any positive response to your input and often suffer from a feeling that the design tenets are just fundamentally wrong way and it's too late to change anyone's mind.

Playtesting the DCC RPG has been the sweet, sweet exception. I've seen substantial improvements (in what was already an exciting and well-designed game) as a result of feedback from players in games I've run, and a real openness to ideas from playtesters, from fans, and from the collective hoard of thinking about RPGs that's happened since 1974.

mshensley wrote:Isn't it past time for a new designer's blog post?

Yes. I want #4!

Tavis wrote:My other experiences as a playtester have been entirely negative. You play the game when it's not working right yet and you're encouraged to keep an eye out for flaws all the time, but you rarely see any positive response to your input and often suffer from a feeling that the design tenets are just fundamentally wrong way and it's too late to change anyone's mind.

Pretty much my experience too. As a rule, I'm cynical about playtesting. First off, I often doubt the procedure (in its general application) is designed to return valid results. Most of the playtests I've been associated with have been geared more towards (A) can someone understand the rules as written and (B) is your group able to have fun.

And in the instance where actionable results do come back, I've found designers and developers to be too endeared of their work that no amount of data or playtester opinion could squeeze an inch of design change out of them. At that point, playtesting is more of a marketing exercise, IMO.

Tavis wrote:Playtesting the DCC RPG has been the sweet, sweet exception. I've seen substantial improvements (in what was already an exciting and well-designed game) as a result of feedback from players in games I've run, and a real openness to ideas from playtesters, from fans, and from the collective hoard of thinking about RPGs that's happened since 1974.

I agree. Joseph has been generous in his willingness to listen to even uninformed feedback (such as my own). And has shown a commitment to making the best game possible. It's a breath of fresh air and I think it will result in a game that really sets a new standard.

Those mini-levels that some members suggested and Mr. Goodman indicated would likely be in the final version are a plus. I once played in a kobold campaign where the DM had us go up "kobold levels", so that in the end our mighty twelf level kobolds were equivelent to about 4th level characters. The mini-levels were a lot of fun.

Other than that, my opinion hasn't shifted too much. My initial reaction was that this game looked like it would be a blast to play, and would be great for one shots or mini campaigns (sort of the niche that Boot Hill serves me and my gamer friends at the moment). I have also learned from these boards that the game plays fast, which is another big plus. I don't have a lot of gaming time and I want to get the most out of it as possible.

My biggest fear at the moment is still that there will be Too Many Charts. June 18th is fast approaching, and I'll get a good idea then if that is so.

I still don't have Zocchi dice. Of course, now that I know that they exist, I want them anyway, whether or not DCC calls for them, because they are dice and they are weird. I also know what some of my friends will be getting for Christmas, because they need them too, whether they know it yet or not.

I'm really looking forward to the open playtest.

nanstreet wrote:My biggest fear at the moment is still that there will be Too Many Charts. June 18th is fast approaching, and I'll get a good idea then if that is so.

IN play I haven't had much problem with this. I created a simple GM screen with a few key critical hit and fumble tables on it, but otherwise there doesn't seem to be a need for a lot of wacky charts. Of course, I ran 0-level characters through an adventure so I didn't have to deal with spell charts yet, but I don't think it will be too tough. (I will probably run off a few spell sheets to hand out to players...)

nanstreet wrote:I still don't have Zocchi dice. Of course, now that I know that they exist, I want them anyway, whether or not DCC calls for them, because they are dice and they are weird.

I have some and they are neat, but my players don't have them yet so we mostly improvised by rolling two dice. For example, roll a d12 and a d6; on the d6 a 1-3 is keep the d12 as-is and on a 4-6 add 12 to the d12 -- instant d24.

I'm gonna place an order for more dice soon, however. It'll be more fun to enjoy the game with a full set of dice to play with!

finarvyn wrote:IN play I haven't had much problem with this. I created a simple GM screen with a few key critical hit and fumble tables on it, but otherwise there doesn't seem to be a need for a lot of wacky charts. Of course, I ran 0-level characters through an adventure so I didn't have to deal with spell charts yet, but I don't think it will be too tough. (I will probably run off a few spell sheets to hand out to players...)

Good to hear. The report of the eight panel screen kinda scared me.

Me and my friends tried Rolemaster once, way back in the days when the charts were all shaded grey for some reason and copy machines of that era couldn't handle that, so the GM spent all his time flipping from one chart to the next because none of us could have our own charts. We could see some seeds of fun in the system, but it was too cumbersome. We redubbed it Chartmaster and never played again. I'm afraid it made me leery of chart based games.

I have some and they are neat, but my players don't have them yet so we mostly improvised by rolling two dice. For example, roll a d12 and a d6; on the d6 a 1-3 is keep the d12 as-is and on a 4-6 add 12 to the d12 -- instant d24.

I'm gonna place an order for more dice soon, however. It'll be more fun to enjoy the game with a full set of dice to play with!

I wonder if we are experiencing the feeling that the first D&Ders had over the weird dice required to play that game?

It seems semi-blasphemous to incorporate much technology into real gaming, but I know the MachDice app for idevices will roll d24s and d30s for you.

kataskicana wrote:It seems semi-blasphemous to incorporate much technology into real gaming, but I know the MachDice app for idevices will roll d24s and d30s for you.

You're right. Now you must burn for your suggestion.

("I hadn't expected the Spanish Inquisition..." )

Honestly, using a d6 and d12 to simulate a d24 wasn't that much of an inconvenience. It took one of my players about 30 seconds of staring at me in disbelief as I kept explaining what to roll before she got it, but once she caught on it was a no-brainer.

nanstreet wrote:

finarvyn wrote:IN play I haven't had much problem with this. I created a simple GM screen with a few key critical hit and fumble tables on it, but otherwise there doesn't seem to be a need for a lot of wacky charts. Of course, I ran 0-level characters through an adventure so I didn't have to deal with spell charts yet, but I don't think it will be too tough. (I will probably run off a few spell sheets to hand out to players...)

Good to hear. The report of the eight panel screen kinda scared me.

The Goodman playtest "GM Screen" is 8 sheets of paper, which could fill up a four-panel screen on both sides. Maybe that's what you heard about.

Frankly, some of those pages duplicate somewhat. We're looking at critical hit tables divided up by class and level combinations. My plan will be to replace the lower level ones with the higher level ones in my screen as characters level up.

Also, the screen I threw together had some artwork downloaded from the 'net. There would be room to add more stuff if I had to.

The anticipation was too much so I grafted on a few of the proposed DCC rules (MDoA, Spellburn) to a lite d20 ruleset to play a few sessions before the Beta release. So far, so groovy

finarvyn wrote:Honestly, using a d6 and d12 to simulate a d24 wasn't that much of an inconvenience. It took one of my players about 30 seconds of staring at me in disbelief as I kept explaining what to roll before she got it, but once she caught on it was a no-brainer.

It's not that it is difficult; it is that I can think of situations where it might be fussy. Suppose I don't have the weird dice, and I want my first level Warrior to use two short swords in battle, like the Irish of old? I'd need a high/low die and a d8 for the d16, and a high/low die and a d8 reroll 8s for the d14, and a d6 divide by 2 for the Warrior's d3. Quite frankly, I'd rather just have the zocchi dice at hand.

I'm curious, how many times does the average character need to roll dice for things like to hit rolls, spells, saving throws, crits and fumbles during a session? I know it could vary wildly, but some sort of ballpark figure would help.

mshensley wrote:Isn't it past time for a new designer's blog post?

ahem...