DCC uses special dice......

Quote from: Razor 007;1072294DCC uses special dice......

Not the same thing.  DCC uses non-traditional numbered dice (i.e. D3, D5, D7, etc.) - the dice folks here are referring to are things like pictographic dice and other nonsense.

Not the same thing. Just as annoying though. Proprietary dice, specialty dice made just be damn different same thing to me.

Except, the weird-number dice aren't exactly proprietary, there just aren't many people making them.

I like the idea of what DCC is trying to do with them.

I appreciate what they did with DCC. It's also myself being pretty much wanting to use the standard set of dice. It's what's stopping me from buy the book. I may still buy it though my group will probably not be interested because of the dice.

Quote from: sureshot;1072313I appreciate what they did with DCC. It's also myself being pretty much wanting to use the standard set of dice. It's what's stopping me from buy the book. I may still buy it though my group will probably not be interested because of the dice.

Yeah, I would have bought the book a year or more ago, except for the oddball dice required.

Quote from: sureshot;1072293Not a fan of that either. Thankfully the only rpg that uses them that I own is Star Trek Adventures. Even then one can get by with regular dice.

Which is a black mark aganist it for me. Not a deal breaker but certainly makes me less likely to play the game.

Quote from: Daztur;1072315Which is a black mark aganist it for me. Not a deal breaker but certainly makes me less likely to play the game.

To be fair one needs D20s abd D6s and you can get by playing STA.

RPG design follows the Hegelian dialectic as we approach the best of all possible worlds. Thus each newer iteration is objectively better than its predecessor, as a form of technology. Though these technologies improve within different foci as its design pendulum swings between the Gamist and Simulationist aesthetic.... bwa ha ha ha!  Sorry, I tried.

Yeah, dude, it's just some rules on "Let's Pretend!" to resolve "Nuh-uh!" "Are too!" arguments. Some people had their needs met earlier than more recent offerings. Some people are still looking for that personally sublime Goldberg Machine of dancing widgets. 'Better or worse' categorization is gonna be a rather frustrating topic here, I believe.

I think it goes 3-steps forward, 2-steps back.

Game Design has certainly gone a long way into different directions to help synthesize at the *very* least how people prefer different styles of play. But I still maintain there is an evolution of tastes that certain systems have a better/longer hangtime with.

Quote from: tenbones;1072365I think it goes 3-steps forward, 2-steps back.

Game Design has certainly gone a long way into different directions to help synthesize at the *very* least how people prefer different styles of play.

I think this is true for Game Design in theory -- that is, new and better elements of game design have emerged over the years. But as to RPGs themselves, as materially realized, the trend looks different to me: for every new and better game design element that an RPG provides, 2 lame ones (new or otherwise) are also included. So while game design moves forward in theory, in practice the quality of RPGs winds up hovering about the same place.

I honestly think the hacks (White hack, black hack, blue hack, and so on) got it right along with Kevin Crawsford's osr rpgs.  Now only if there was a perfect mix of the two...

Quote from: Opaopajr;1072333RPG design follows the Hegelian dialectic as we approach the best of all possible worlds. Thus each newer iteration is objectively better than its predecessor, as a form of technology. Though these technologies improve within different foci as its design pendulum swings between the Gamist and Simulationist aesthetic.... bwa ha ha ha!  Sorry, I tried.

Yeah, dude, it's just some rules on "Let's Pretend!" to resolve "Nuh-uh!" "Are too!" arguments. Some people had their needs met earlier than more recent offerings. Some people are still looking for that personally sublime Goldberg Machine of dancing widgets. 'Better or worse' categorization is gonna be a rather frustrating topic here, I believe.

My personal take on the RPG Design Hegelian Dialectic:
-People had trouble with 70's RPG design because it resulted in wildly inconsistent play from table to table, which was a problem for running competitive touraments and for all those people who wrote deeply emotional letters to Dragon magazine about how falling damage wasn't realistic. As a result people made less flexibile and more "realistic" rules.
-People had trouble with 80's RPG design due to cumbersome "realistic" rules bloat. As a result people tried to focus more on the story than on the rules.
-People had trouble with 90's RPG deisgn due to focusing on the "story" often meant being herded through your DM's unpublished novel. As a result people tried to bake the story into the rules so that the story came out from play organically not through a fuckign railroad.
-People had trouble with 2000's RPG design due to *insert any of a 1001 rants about Forge-based design.* As a result people went back to basics.

Of course that's an over-simplification since 90's-style design in D&D goes back to the DL series of modules in the 80's but that's close enough.

The next decade will be a reaction to the OSR or a continuation of it.

Makes total sense to me, Daztur.

Perhaps the 2000s rant had also to do with the rigid mechanicism of the solutions (both Forgite and D&D3) and thus "rulings not rules" and "fiction first" came back strong.

Quote from: Daztur;1072408My personal take on the RPG Design Hegelian Dialectic:
-People had trouble with 70's RPG design because it resulted in wildly inconsistent play from table to table, which was a problem for running competitive touraments and for all those people who wrote deeply emotional letters to Dragon magazine about how falling damage wasn't realistic. As a result people made less flexibile and more "realistic" rules.
-People had trouble with 80's RPG design due to cumbersome "realistic" rules bloat. As a result people tried to focus more on the story than on the rules.
-People had trouble with 90's RPG deisgn due to focusing on the "story" often meant being herded through your DM's unpublished novel. As a result people tried to bake the story into the rules so that the story came out from play organically not through a fuckign railroad.
-People had trouble with 2000's RPG design due to *insert any of a 1001 rants about Forge-based design.* As a result people went back to basics.

Of course that's an over-simplification since 90's-style design in D&D goes back to the DL series of modules in the 80's but that's close enough.

The next decade will be a reaction to the OSR or a continuation of it.

Throwing the baby out with the bath water--a staple of game design from the very beginning.