Quote from: Exploderwizard;462877Shit, as far as throwaway characters go, ALL characters were like that back in day. I have no problem rolling random stats and taking what you get.

Creating 4 at a time seems pointless though. There is no guarantee that any of them will survive so why bother. Roll up your character, buy equipment and just fucking play. If the character dies then repeat the process.

I guess the idea is that if you roll a few characters in advance then you just play when it comes to the game, and you just don't have to bother buying your equipment, checking out spell choices or whatnot for X minutes before getting back into the game, potentially. Makes sense to me.

Quote from: Akrasia;4628482. The 'old school machismo' tone that runs through some of the text is grating (e.g., all ability scores must be rolled randomly in order; most of your 0-level PCs will be killed; the brutal 'corruption' spell failure chart; etc.).

3. The game, overall, seems to have a very specific interpretation of what 'old school' role-playing is like, and this interpretation has been hard-wired into the rules.  Unfortunately, it's not my view of what 'old school' role-playing is like (but maybe I'm getting too soft in my old age).

Yeah, I am on the same mind. Zero-level characters aren't really a good way to play D&D fantasy (1st levellers aren't splatty enough? wuh?). On the other hand, the art is great, and it is entertaining to watch Grognards.txt go apeshit over it, so all is forgiven. Well done, Goodman Games. :cool:

Quote from: Benoist;462899I guess the idea is that if you roll a few characters in advance then you just play when it comes to the game, and you just don't have to bother buying your equipment, checking out spell choices or whatnot for X minutes before getting back into the game, potentially. Makes sense to me.

This is exactly what was done in the early D&D games I played in, with various dictatorial DMs back in the day.

Each player individually made anywhere from a half-dozen to two dozen (or more) characters in advance, for the game.  It made things run faster, than having to create a new character every session on the spot.

Quote from: Benoist;462899I guess the idea is that if you roll a few characters in advance then you just play when it comes to the game, and you just don't have to bother buying your equipment, checking out spell choices or whatnot for X minutes before getting back into the game, potentially. Makes sense to me.

I think it enforces this feeling that the survivor PCs are really special and it may contribute to making them dear to players. It's like natural selection through game design or sth.

LOVE IT so far...glad I pre-ordered and cant wait for the full deal!

Quote from: boulet;462904I think it enforces this feeling that the survivor PCs are really special and it may contribute to making them dear to players. It's like natural selection through game design or sth.

That's how first ed played to me back in the day. It was really tough to get to level 2, on purpose. I must have gone through a half-dozen to a dozen characters before I made it there, and there certainly was a sense of accomplishment. That's the way to which I came back now, basically. Yes, it's tough for characters to survive. That makes the challenge more exciting though, for the players who like that.

Quote from: Benoist;462899I guess the idea is that if you roll a few characters in advance then you just play when it comes to the game, and you just don't have to bother buying your equipment, checking out spell choices or whatnot for X minutes before getting back into the game, potentially. Makes sense to me.

That idea isn't strange at all. Being part of the standard character generation process is the part that stands out.

I've downloaded and scanned the rules. It's like a lot of the games I bought in the late 70s and early 80s, I doubt I've ever play it but I'll borrow a few ideas I like from it.

Why I'll probably never play it:

* Weird dice that cannot be emulated with standard RPG dice with just one roll. A D16, for example can be emulated with a D8 and any other die with odd on the other die meaning add 8 to the D8 result. You never need roll more that once. Using a d8 to emulate a D7 by rolling again on a result of 8 means at least one in eight rolls will need to be rerolled at least once, slowing things down.

* Too many unique tables. I have no problem with using tables, but I prefer them to be a bit more generic than in this game. For example, I've used a spell success system in the past where the spell effects varied with the roll, but there was one table that applied to all spells with the GM interpreting how the generic effect applied to a given spell. Here, each spell has its own table which means creating new spells goes from a quick task of writing a few sentences describing the spell to needing to create a table of effects by casting success for each spell. Too much work for too little gain, IMHO.

* From what I've seen of the system in the Beta rules it would be hard to adapt to two of my three standard campaign worlds. It'll work for a campaign set in the Judges Guild Wilderlands, but probably would not work for the Hidden Valley and definitely would not work for Arn. This is the primary reason I'd probably never play it. I lack the time and interest to create a world that would do the system justice.

What I really like:

* As an option, the idea of starting with four 0-level totally random characters and playing the survivors sounds like fun. But it really needs to be an option as it makes it harder to add a replacement character when a player's character dies in the game above level 0. Also it could be unwieldy for large groups of players. I can just see trying this with the 9 players in my current game. That would be 36 0-level characters to work with -- and none of them hirelings that can fade into the background much of the time.

* Mercurial Magic: I like the idea that each mage learns a spell just a bit differently just because magic is fickle.

* Supernatural Patrons: I've used similar ideas in my Arn games in the past, but this is handled in a fairly clean and simple way.

Everyone is commenting on the artwork, I definitely like it. However, I don't buy games for their art. There is a higher art pages to text pages ratio than I really like in a set of game rules here -- especially as practically none of the art is used to illustrate rules in use. Yes, I know I'm a curmudgeon when it comes to this issue, but when I'm buying a rule book I really don't want to spend much of that money on art.

If the DCC RPG comes out in an affordable PDF (say $10-15), I'll probably buy a copy. I doubt I'd spend more than that nor would I buy it in print as I am just too unlikely to ever play it.

I really like the special powers each class is given, the fumble/crit table is also excellent.  The layout/art is also consistent and good.

But at the end of the day after skimming through it I can't help but think would I ever bother running it.  To which I answered, no.  If I was in the mood for something with an old school kill the dungeon style of game I'd run Old School Hack.

But what I could see myself doing is taking Old School Hack and some of the ideas from DCC (the powers in particular and maybe fumble/crit) and coming together some where in the middle.

Just a quick reply to those wondering why the game starts off with 0 level characters (no idea where the idea with having 4 of them comes in). It seems to be a nod to one of the best loved DCC adventures in the 3E era:



In that module you start off as 0-level adventures and village nobodies.* Only if you make it to the end (which isn't easy) do you even embark on a proper adventurer's career.

I find the idea charming, but wonder whether building it into the game as a default option was all that wise. Perhaps having the option for 0-level characters in the system would have sufficed. (I remember Jeff Rients once asking on his blog about playing a peasant nobody in D&D 3.x, and he was advised to pick one of the NPC classes in the DMG to start his lvl 1 character.)

* Cf. also the opening teaser to chargen (p.8 of the DCC RPG Beta) - "You are no hero."

I've only had a skim but looks interesting. Nice production values.

I was skeptical about the Zocchi dice (notwithstanding that I already had a set) but they seem to be putting them to good use. Having two attacks at d20 and d14 is probably less messy than 3E iterative attacks where you have to apply different attack modifiers to each die, for instance.

Skimmed thru it.  Won't play it.


Art:  I could give  two shits about art that reminds me of art from D&D books in the  70's.  Call me a heretic, but I didn't think that the original  D&D art was that great in the first place.  It was cartoonish.   People in my high school could doodle better crap than that at their  lunch break.
 
I'm not at all a sophisticated or classy  person.  For art to be good to me, it has to either 1) make me scared,  2) make me cry, 3) make me happy 4) make me say WTF!?!?! or 5) give me a  boner.  That's it.  1970's DnD art does none of that.
 
Ask  yourself---is the artwork good in its own right?  Or is it good because  it just reminds you of happier more carefree days of playing  DnD all weekend with your friends in the 80's?


Spells  and their tables:  Yeah, lets complicate shit unnecessarily.  Good  idea.   No one really likes reliability in their spellcasters anyhow.


Dice:   Where the fuck do I buy them?  Its hard enough to get people to play  your old school games now---so lets throw in some required dice that no  one owns and has never heard of before whydontcha.  


Ask  yourself this:  Is the game just overall neat on some indescribable  level?  Reminding you of good times in the past?  Will you just be  stealing stuff from it?  Using it as inspiration? Or will you actually  play the thing?


It seems to me that the value in a game  is proven when people actually play the thing with other people, and as  a result those other people then go out and buy it.  If that doesn't  happen, what's the sense?  Go ahead, steal shit from it, read it and get  ideas, take a stroll down artwork memory lane.  But if you do so, call  it what it is---a splatbook, or a source of alternative rules, like  Arcana Unearthed.


If most people use it as a  splatbook, or source of inspiration or a source for some alternate  rules, then as a game in its own right it is a failure.


I'll  take some bloggers word for it that it is old school in style.  If  thats the case, and it draws more people to the old school tables, than  hurray.  I hope it works out that way.  I just don't think it will,  because of the above.


We'll see how it works out.

Quote from: Joethelawyer;462953Call me a heretic, but I didn't think that the original D&D art was  that great in the first place.  It was cartoonish.

Art is a matter of taste so if people don't like the DCC art, or vintage D&D art, I'm not going to argue that. But I call bullshit on using "cartoonish" as a synonym for "bad."

Quote from: Cole;462958Art is a matter of taste so if people don't like the DCC art, or vintage D&D art, I'm not going to argue that. But I call bullshit on using "cartoonish" as a synonym for "bad."

Maybe I should have said bad cartoonish?

Ask  yourself---is the artwork good in its own right?

Yes.

Or is it good because  it just reminds you of happier more carefree days of playing  DnD all weekend with your friends in the 80's?

No.