I was download #1421.
First of all, the art. Holy crap, this is some awesome old school art.
Second, rules.
Default character generation has the player rolling 4 0-level characters, which are expected to be "culled" in the first adventure. There's a random table for determining occupation and equipment (a sword, a goat or a cart full of dead bodies all are possible results).
Character classes are BECMI style, with races as classes.
Fighters and Dwarves get Mighty Deeds of Valor, or Deeds for short, a loose mechanic for making up Feat-like combat maneuvers (e.g. disarms, trips, pushbacks).
Clerics can "turn unholy" which includes not just undead, but other critters, depending on their choice of deity. Cthulhu is one of the sample deities.
Wizards get to choose a supernatural Patron (divine or otherwise) to call upon in dire times.
Thief ability progression varies based on alignment.
There's a spell check roll, with each spell having a unique result chart. Wizards only forget spells on failed spell checks. Clerics never forget spells, but get a cumulative -1 for the next spell check; i.e. after casting 10 spells it's a -10.
Looks pretty cool. More when I have the time to get back to it.
Holy fuck does Joe Goodman know how to put a layout together... :eek:
The artwork, especially the ones by Peter Mullen, remind me of the webcomic Clandestinauts (http://www.timsievert.com/clandestinauts)
The art is setting my brain on fire. This is really beautiful.
Funky-sided dice (d3, d7, etc.). throw away characters, endless tables to reference, horrible spell layouts. This looks more like bad school than old school...
Quote from: The Butcher;462826...
There's a spell check roll, with each spell having a unique result chart. Wizards only forget spells on failed spell checks. Clerics never forget spells, but get a cumulative -1 for the next spell check; i.e. after casting 10 spells it's a -10...
Well, the consequences for Wizards if they roll a natural '1' when casting look to be pretty dire (see pp. 97-99). I suspect that higher level wizards frequently will have beaks, bull horns, scales, gills, etc.
Clerics also face serious problems if they roll a natural '1' when casting (pp. 100-101).
Quote from: AnthonyRoberson;462843Funky-sided dice (d3, d7, etc.). throw away characters, endless tables to reference, horrible spell layouts. This looks more like bad school than old school...
Some people's shit are other people's gold, I guess.
Quote from: AnthonyRoberson;462843Funky-sided dice (d3, d7, etc.). throw away characters, endless tables to reference, horrible spell layouts. This looks more like bad school than old school...
With the exception of funky-sided dice, some of this stuff could be the equivalent of "rpg porn" for some individuals I know in person. :rolleyes:
My initial impressions (after a 20-minute skim):
Positive:
1. I very much like the art. (Perhaps there is too much? It is almost overwhelming.)
2. I like that the game is dedicated to the recently departed Jim Rosloff (a fine artist from TSR's early days, whose work influenced my earliest impressions of D&D).
3. I dig the critical and fumble charts (brings back good memories of MERP!).
4. I like that magic is unpredictable (but perhaps it is too unpredictable?).
Negative:
1. I dislike the whole 'start with 4 0-level PCs which you cull in a killer dungeon' idea. It might be cool as an option for beginning players, but these days I prefer to let players choose what kinds of characters they want to run.
2. 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).
Overall:
Based on this skim, I doubt that I'll ever play this game. But I'll likely get a copy of the core rules simply for the art.
Quote from: AnthonyRoberson;462843Funky-sided dice (d3, d7, etc.). throw away characters, endless tables to reference, horrible spell layouts. This looks more like bad school than old school...
The unorthodox dice is annoying, I agree. I find 'throw away characters' irritating these days as well (I'm no longer in high-school with infinite spare time).
However, I'm fine with charts and tables. Indeed, this is probably the one aspect of the game of which I'm most fond.
Quote from: Akrasia;462848...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)...
BINGO. My version of 'old school' roleplaying involves simple rules and freewheeling fun. It does not involve ripping away player control and beating them over the head with a blunt object.
Quote from: Akrasia;4628481. I dislike the whole 'start with 4 0-level PCs which you cull in a killer dungeon' idea. It might be cool as an option for beginning players, but these days I prefer to let players choose what kinds of characters they want to run.
In principle one can just start at a higher level, by DM fiat?
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.).
This is exactly the sort of stuff which would be "rpg porn" for some individuals I know in person offline. :rolleyes:
Quote from: AnthonyRoberson;462850It does not involve ripping away player control and beating them over the head with a blunt object.
This was exactly my experience when I first started to play D&D.
The DMs I gamed with at the time, were very dictatorial.
Quote from: ggroy;462851In principle one can just start at a higher level, by DM fiat?
Sure. But any rule can be changed by DM fiat. My judgement concerns the rules that have been written down, and the play style they imply.
Quote from: Akrasia;462855Sure. But any rule can be changed by DM fiat. My judgement concerns the rules that have been written down, and the play style they imply.
Rules changes by DM fiat are to me a given. That's not to be dismissed: that's just a reality. So just going "oh my god stats HAVE TO be rolled in order" is kinda lame in terms of criticism, to me. Of course they don't 'have to'.
As for "old school" being rules light and free wheeling, in some corners of the hobby sure, that's very much the case, and I like these kinds of games very, very much, but since I consider games like AD&D and Role Master to be very much "old school"
as well, that doesn't quite match my own definition of the term. I'm fine with a guy having a particular view of what his game ought to be - this is something I welcome, actually, because then as a GM I know what the game is and is not, and whatever purposes it'll best serve at my game table.
Quote from: Benoist;462856Rules changes by DM fiat are to me a given. That's not to be dismissed: that's just a reality. So just going "oh my god stats HAVE TO be rolled in order" is kinda lame in terms of criticism, to me. Of course they don't 'have to'.
I'm simply commenting on the rules
as written, and the way in which they are intended to shape and determine the way the game is played.
Consequently, I don't think commenting on the 'rules as written' is 'lame'.
Sure, a DM can change
anything in any game. But does this mean that there is no point on commenting on the rules that actually are included in the
text? That seems like a very strange position to hold.
(E.g., a Keeper in a CoC game could certainly ignore CoC's sanity rules, but surely it is legitimate to consider CoC's sanity rules when judging the rules of CoC overall?)
Quote from: Benoist;462856As for "old school" being rules light and free wheeling, in some corners of the hobby sure, that's very much the case, and I like these kinds of games very, very much, but since I consider games like AD&D and Role Master to be very much "old school" as well, that doesn't quite match my own definition of the term.
Is this comment directed at me? :confused: As an old Rolemaster fan, I don't disagree with you.
Quote from: Benoist;462856I'm fine with a guy having a particular view of what his game ought to be - this is something I welcome, actually, because then as a GM I know what the game is and is not, and whatever purposes it'll best serve at my game table.
Um, "I'm fine with a guy having a particular view of what his game ought to be" as well. All the more power to Goodman!
I'm just saying that what Goodman thinks his game "ought to be" isn't what
I want in a game. (Or so I think -- I haven't read the rules carefully.)
(From skimming the open beta document).
If I didn't know this was a "serious game", I would have wondered whether this game was actually a parody (or spoof) of 1E AD&D, trying to pass itself off as a "serious game" in a manner similar to the Sokal hoax (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sokal_affair).
I don't get the issue with the wonky dice. It's not as if the game presupposes you to buy Zocchi dice. In fact there's a whole side bar early on in the book which explains how to get round it. And I'd be surprised if no one here wouldn't have hit upon that idea on his own anyway. E.g. for d7 roll d8 and reroll 8s.
The other thing I'm a bit surprised about is how this game is faulted for having an attitude, when one of the major beefs some people have with most retroclones is how they are bare mechanics with little else besides. E.g. check this vid (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qn9-kX_Zctg) from 10:30 to 11:40.
It's very clear to me how DCC's style, visually and textually, borrows quite a bit from Hackmaster (http://www.rpg.net/reviews/archive/12/12222.phtml). So are we going to have that old "But that's not how I ever played D&D back then!' wave of indignation again? Apparently so.
I doubt I'll play this game, when I haven't had time to explore Dragon Warriors and S&W Whitebox yet, but it's not as if this game offends me for trying to be different and original. I do predict, however, that several players in the OSR scene will take issue with it, and perceive it as an infringement on their proprietary rights of being the torch bearers for 'how it was back then'. In depth dissections of the game's many 'historic shortcomings' and 'quixotic misunderstandings' are probably in the works already.
Quote from: Akrasia;462857I'm simply commenting on the rules as written, and the way in which they are intended to shape and determine the way the game is played.
Consequently, I don't think commenting on the 'rules as written' is 'lame'.
Well, we're touching on another subject really, but yes, I do think more and more that bitching about rules as written is lame.
Basically, the Oberoni or Rule 0 Fallacy (http://community.wizards.com/go/thread/view/75882/19573422/The_Oberoni_Principle_and_the_Rule_0_Fallacy) is total bullshit, because a rules system has no value beyond the game table that employs it.
Quote from: Akrasia;462857Sure, a DM can change anything in any game. But does this mean that there is no point on commenting on the rules that actually are included in the text? That seems like a very strange position to hold.
Not at all. It's a position that values actual play before the text of the rules, and acknowledges the fact that not all changes are equal: some rules changes are easy to make and a matter of deciding "ok, we're going to distribute X points between stats instead of rolling them", whereas other changes will necessitate so much work as to make it more trouble than it's worth, where another game might just do it best (changing all the rules of magic in the DCC RPG might fit in that category).
Quote from: Akrasia;462857(E.g., a Keeper in a CoC game could certainly ignore CoC's sanity rules, but surely it is legitimate to consider CoC's sanity rules when judging the rules of CoC overall?)
Yes, but so would be the position that just axing the Sanity rules from the game creates this, this or that consequences, and that playing the game this way could create this specific game experience you might be searching for instead. Now that said, not all changes are equal: some of them will necessitate so much work as to just not be worth the time when compared to simply using some other game that already does it for you for the same results (i.e. using BRP rules sans Sanity instead of Call of Cthulhu).
Quote from: Akrasia;462857Is this comment directed at me? :confused: As an old Rolemaster fan, I don't disagree with you.
Nah, it wasn't. It was directed at Anthony above.
Quote from: Akrasia;462857Um, "I'm fine with a guy having a particular view of what his game ought to be" as well. All the more power to Goodman!
I'm just saying that what Goodman thinks his game "ought to be" isn't what I want in a game. (Or so I think -- I haven't read the rules carefully.)
That's fine by me. Just stating that a game with a particular focus, whether I like it or not, is better than no focus at all, to me at least. *cough* hence the reason I would rate AD&D2 as a worse game system than 4E D&D, btw *cough*
I might actually pick up this DCC core rulebook after all, just to get a good chuckle out of the "in your face" machismo and hubris of the writing style and design.
:rolleyes:
Quote from: Benoist;462861Well, we're touching on another subject really, but yes, I do think more and more that bitching about rules as written is lame.
I'm not sure why you feel the need to describe criticisms of rules as 'bitching' or 'lame'. Why the anger and snark?
And why shouldn't people be free to express their impressions, positive or negative, of what is
written in the rules book for the game in question? I don't understand why you think such views are illegitimate.
:confused:
Quote from: Benoist;462861...
Not at all. It's a position that values actual play before the text of the rules, and acknowledges the fact that not all changes are equal: some rules changes are easy to make and a matter of deciding "ok, we're going to distribute X points between stats instead of rolling them", whereas other changes will necessitate so much work as to make it more trouble than it's worth, where another game might just do it best (changing all the rules of magic in the DCC RPG might fit in that category)...
Sure, some rules changes are more weighty than others.
But I still don't see why critically evaluating the rules that are written down is illegitimate simply because the GM can modify or ignore any of those rules (with varying amounts of difficulty).
:idunno:
Quote from: Akrasia;462864I'm not sure why you feel the need to describe criticisms of rules as 'bitching' or 'lame'. Why the anger and snark?
And why shouldn't people be free to express their impressions, positive or negative, of what is written in the rules book for the game in question? I don't understand why you think such views are illegitimate.
:confused:
We've got no problem here, mate. We're just talking! I'm not angry or whatever. Just used the comments as a springboard to make comments of my own is all. :)
Now, one reason why I pointed out the Rules 0 Fallacy as some piece of internet bullshit is not because I think you, particularly, are a great offender and I should chastize you for it (sorry if it felt that way). It's just that I feel this sort of complete theoretical crap (let's talk about the RAW and nothing but the RAW) is part of the problem, and not the solution, when it comes to discussing about games, what we do with them, and how we might employ them to get the exact game experiences we are searching for.
Notice that my position above is not 'either/or' or 'one or the other'. I do think that discussing about what's actually written in a game is valuable to understand what kind of purpose the game has and how you might employ it from there, but at the same time I despise the Rule 0 Fallacy because it basically states that actual game experience, with all it implies of tweaks and ipso facto house rules, just do not matter when it comes to discussing rules in action. And that leads directly to the current gaming culture that states that 'the rules are the game, the game is the rules', that there's nothing of value beyond what the book states, that gaming is about playing by RAW, and gaming the rules as a mini-game in and of itself, etc etc, ad nauseam, bis repetita.
That's what I have in mind behind all this.
Quote from: Akrasia;462864Sure, some rules changes are more weighty than others.
But I still don't see why critically evaluating the rules that are written down is illegitimate simply because the GM can modify or ignore any of those rules (with varying amounts of difficulty).
:idunno:
I didn't say this is illegitimate. I said it was "kinda lame", and further posited that answering that you can easily house rule the system to do whatever you want it to do with a minimum of trouble is just as legitimate a position.
Well the art is relatively attractive and sets a very consistent tone.
Although I find it kind of funny, comparing the procedures and tone of this game with Gygax's own house-rules for OD&D that he came up with later in life. Pretty stark contrast - Gygax's own procedures were much more forgiving for starting characters.
At the very least this could be fun just for shits & giggles if you want to do a crazy 0-level Fantasy Fucking Vietnam session leading up to something else, but overall it's not my bag.
Shit, 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.
Quote from: Benoist;462865... And that leads directly to the current gaming culture that states that 'the rules are the game, the game is the rules', that there's nothing of value beyond what the book states, that gaming is about playing by RAW, and gaming the rules as a mini-game in and of itself, etc etc, ad nauseam, bis repetita.
Well, I'm certainly
not part of that gaming culture! (Otherwise I would've never written these (http://akraticwizardry.blogspot.com/2009/07/swords-sorcery-house-rules-index.html).)
I
do think that the RAW of a RPG is an important starting point for judging a game, however, as well as providing a 'common vocabulary' for gamers belonging to different groups.
Quote from: Benoist;462865... that you can easily house rule the system to do whatever you want it to do with a minimum of trouble is just as legitimate a position.
Okay, but given the plethora of RPGs now available -- including many 'old school' RPGs -- I'm inclined simply to pick another system to play rather than modify the DCC RPG into something I'd be happy with.
But maybe after a more careful read I'll reconsider my view of DCC RPG.
I didn't mean to imply you, particularly, were part of that culture either, mate. Relax! :)
Quote from: Benoist;462881I didn't mean to imply you, particularly, were part of that culture either, mate. Relax! :)
Sure, no worries. :cool:
Quote from: Akrasia;462886Sure, no worries. :cool:
Awesome. :)
I love the art. A few pieces are near copies of old D&D art, and some are just turnarounds (like the play on Emerikol).
I don't like all the spells having their own tables. It feels like it would slow down a game a lot.
I also don't like the funky dice. It'll just annoy people for no good reason.
Not sure about race as class. I generally don't care for it, though.
Is the game really going to be limited level 5, or is there going to be an "Expert" set later?
Beta isn't the full set. The full set will go to level 10.
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 (http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3098558&userid=0&perpage=40&pagenumber=998) 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:
(http://cf.geekdo-images.com/images/pic986941_md.jpg)
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.
Quote from: Joethelawyer;462959Maybe I should have said bad cartoonish?
You obviously have poor taste, whereas we have awesome ones. :D
Quote from: Benoist;462963You obviously have poor taste, whereas we have awesome ones. :D
that wouldnt be the first time i've heard that...this week even :)
I like the art. There is such a thing as an old school style, and there are such things as good old school art, and bad old school art. And I do like the art presented in the DCC beta.
The "character funnel" looks fun, I'd love to try it, but I don't see the problem with rolling a 1st-level PC, or rolling 4d6-drop-lowest and arranging to taste, etc. I'm not impressed by the "do it exactly RAW or you're doing it wrong".
Speaking of which, to me it's crystal-clear that the heavy-handed authorial voice is a deliberate imitation of the "High Gygaxian" style characteristic of AD&D 1e. Bad idea, Goodman. I'm not sure whether this is a sincere tribute, or caricature, and I don't know which would be worse.
I am also ambivalent about Mighty Deeds of Valor. Like thief abilities, I feel special maneuvers, tactics and stunts in combat should be every character's prerogative, with one class (Fighter for combat stunts, Thief for thieving abilities) doing these things better than others.
I don't care either way about the Zocchi dice. I don't have them, but they look easy enough to simulate with different dice.
Generally speaking, though, I really enjoyed reading the beta. I really loved their takes on the Cleric, Wizard and demihuman classes. I love the result charts for each spell. I like their orcs:
Quote from: DCC Beta p. 155Orcs are brutish humanoids created in magical cauldrons by a long-dead wizard. They are a product of dark sorceries and sutured body parts. Once commanded by a great general, orcs now wander the wilderness in small bands, raiding and squabbling, never settling. They have piggish faces with tusked mouths and green or grey skin.
Looks like a clever and fun game, and I'd love to give it a try, if and when I have the chance.
The idea of starting at level 0 actually seems more 'epic fantasy' than 'sword and sorcery' to me.
For example compare Luke Skywalker and Bilbo and Frodo Baggins on the one hand, to Conan, Fafhrd & the Gray Mouser and Elric on the other.
I also think "you start at level 0 with minus 100 XP" could sound like it's encouraging abusive DMing. It would have been better to call your starting point level 1, and 0 XP. I get that they do it to show that you're starting from an earlier point than in other games, but still.
I like the idea though.
Quote from: Joethelawyer;462953No one really likes reliability in their spellcasters anyhow.
Arguably, unreliable spellcasting is more like fiction. That seems to have been the intention anyway.
Quote from: Joethelawyer;462953Ask 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?
I suspect most people will take ideas to use in their existing games. That's what I intend to do. But I don't agree that this counts as 'not playing it'.
Quote from: The Butcher;462971I am also ambivalent about Mighty Deeds of Valor. Like thief abilities, I feel special maneuvers, tactics and stunts in combat should be every character's prerogative, with one class (Fighter for combat stunts, Thief for thieving abilities) doing these things better than others.
+1. I agree with that as well, actually. I don't know how I'd houserule this away either, since the deed rules work off the bonus +d3-d7 fighter die that only fighters get to roll.
Not sure about the cleric's penalties for healing those of different alignments, either. I imagine the full cleric rules will have more alignment-specific stuff that might balance this, but as written the Neutral cleric just gets better healing than anyone else.
Quote from: Age of Fable;462977The idea of starting at level 0 actually seems more 'epic fantasy' than 'sword and sorcery' to me.
For example compare Luke Skywalker and Bilbo and Frodo Baggins on the one hand, to Conan, Fafhrd & the Gray Mouser and Elric on the other.
Epic fantasy where Frodo and Sam die when Father Willow sucks their brains out, and they are replaced by Bromwine the Hobbit and Sam's Cousin. Then Merry and Pippin steal a cache of magic items from Tom Bombadil, and so decked out, breeze through the wilderness to Bree. There, Sam's Cousin and Bromwine are killed in an ambush where lowlives try to get at the magic items, and they are saved by a mysterious man named Strider, who is added to the party. Sam III joins a bit later. They set off towards Rivendell at a leisurely pace.
Mind you, I would play that game.
Quote from: Joethelawyer;462953Ask 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?
Nice line of reasoning. Why don't you come to Japan and ask people if rice and miso soup is good in its own right, or if they just eat that stuff because they were spoon-fed it when they were kids and it reminds them of happier days...?
I can see the charm in the randomization of the characters, but it seems to me, that the demi-humans really get the worst deal. If you are a roll a human occupation and survive to level one, you can pick the class that fit the stats of the character best. If you roll a demi-human occupation, you are forced into the demi-human class, no matter what your stats say, and end up with a really whimpy dwarf or an elf with bad spellcasting abilities.
Yes, this of course more fun-with-randomness, but it will end up making the demi-humans suckier than their human counterparts most of the time and seem a bit dodgy, and stupid, to me.
... when I first thought of this, without checking the rules, I imagined the 0-level characters "coming out" as Halflings/elves/dwarfs when reaching level 1... "yes, you know me as Harvey the Ditch Digger, who fought side-by-side with you in the dungeon of the Kobolds, but all along I was actually... a Halfling!"
Quote from: Windjammer;462932Just 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:...
This goes back WAY further than 3E! There was a goofy ass rule in Unearthed Arcana that had Cavaliers starting at 0 level (-1 level really) and there was a 1E module that started characters at 0 level called Treasure Hunt that was the obvious 'inspiration' for the Goodman one.
Here (http://www.thefantasygame.org/2011/06/opinions-about-dungeon-crawl-classics.html) is (http://yourdungeonissuck.wordpress.com/2011/06/08/i-read-it-for-like-10-more-minutes-and-now-im-done/) a (http://batintheattic.blogspot.com/2011/06/delving-into-dungeon-crawl-classic-rpg.html) great (http://lotfp.blogspot.com/2011/06/dcc-comments.html?zx=df4629179365c6f8) demonstration (http://noschoololdschoolgames.blogspot.com/2011/06/yet-another-dungeon-crawl-classics.html) about (http://unto-the-breach.blogspot.com/2011/06/my-impressions-of-dungeon-crawl.html) why (http://greyhawkgrognard.blogspot.com/2011/06/dungeon-crawl-classics-rpg-first.html) forums (http://aldeboran.blogspot.com/2011/06/obligatory-dungeon-crawl-classics-post.html) will (http://wondrousimaginings.blogspot.com/2011/06/goodmans-new-game-dcc-rpg.html) continue (http://strangemagic.robertsongames.com/2011/06/old-school-artwork-clones.html) to (http://blog.retroroleplaying.com/2011/06/first-comments-on-dcc-rpg-beta-rules.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+retroroleplayingblog+%28Retro-Roleplaying%3A+The+Blog%29) be (http://5stonegames.blogspot.com/2011/06/dungeon-crawl-classics-rpg-1st.html) superior (http://www.tenkarstavern.com/2011/06/dungeon-crawl-classics-beta-its-all.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+blogspot%2FCOwX+%28Tenkar%27s+Tavern%29) to (http://discourseanddragons.blogspot.com/2011/06/first-blush-dcc-rpg.html) this (http://haqueinblack.blogspot.com/2011/06/dcc-rpg-beta-playtesting-begins.html) "blogosphere" (http://www.risusmonkey.com/2011/06/look-at-shiny.html) bullshit. (http://quicklyquietlycarefully.blogspot.com/2011/06/art-in-dungeon-crawl-classics-wow.html) Seriously, the fuck?! :duh:
EXCELLENT review/critique of the DCC Beta rules:
http://www.rpggeek.com/thread/662022/not-really-very-impressed-and-heres-why
excellent except for the minor bit about "this is based upon a two readings of the beta DCC rules and no game play as of yet."
also don't care for the "it's not what Gary would have done.." bit.
Quote from: The_Shadow;462991Nice line of reasoning.
And probably pretty accurate. I can't imagine someone who has never seen a red box or first edition book seeing much of the DCC art as anything particularly good or special. The DCC is nostalgia product - that it's art is and is meant to call up nostalgic feelings isn't strange or out of place.
Myself, I looked through the PDF and I'm sure I'm passing on this one. I thought I might, but special dice, loads of characters, complicated magic...meh. I have many copies of the boxed sets of my youth in my basement.
Seanchai
Quote from: Melan;462983Epic fantasy where Frodo and Sam die when Father Willow sucks their brains out, and they are replaced by Bromwine the Hobbit and Sam's Cousin. Then Merry and Pippin steal a cache of magic items from Tom Bombadil, and so decked out, breeze through the wilderness to Bree. There, Sam's Cousin and Bromwine are killed in an ambush where lowlives try to get at the magic items, and they are saved by a mysterious man named Strider, who is added to the party. Sam III joins a bit later. They set off towards Rivendell at a leisurely pace.
Mind you, I would play that game.
It does sound fun.
Age of Fable's right though. Starting at level 0 is zero to hero territory, hero's journey and all that.
To be honest, having tried to use it for such I actually think the whole old school D&D is good for sword and sorcery play thing is massively overstated.
Quote from: Melan;462983Epic fantasy where Frodo and Sam die when Father Willow sucks their brains out, and they are replaced by Bromwine the Hobbit and Sam's Cousin. Then Merry and Pippin steal a cache of magic items from Tom Bombadil, and so decked out, breeze through the wilderness to Bree. There, Sam's Cousin and Bromwine are killed in an ambush where lowlives try to get at the magic items, and they are saved by a mysterious man named Strider, who is added to the party. Sam III joins a bit later. They set off towards Rivendell at a leisurely pace.
Precisely. The whole comparison to fiction is taken WAAAYY overboard.
RPGs, and D&D, don't play like pieces of fiction. Fucking deal with it people already.
Quote from: Benoist;463046Precisely. The whole comparison to fiction is taken WAAAYY overboard.
RPGs, and D&D, don't play like pieces of fiction. Fucking deal with it people already.
Yes, but people routinely want to play games inspired by fiction. They have done since, oh, the 1970s. Deal with it.
Quote from: D-503;463065Yes, but people routinely want to play games inspired by fiction. They have done since, oh, the 1970s. Deal with it.
Bah. Keep having your problems with your games and arguing about shit that ultimately doesn't matter, then. Have fun.
Needing weird dice is a killer for me. Even if I somehow managed to buy the things we'd then only have one set for the group.
Plus it just seems gimmicky.
The spell botch table too looks way too vicious. Assuming I have managed to level up my mage I'd be annoyed after all that work to lose them to some random spell failure. Fine at low levels. Less funny later on.
The roll four guys and funnel thing may not work. We used in my group to roll up two and the second would come online as soon as the first died. Sometimes we allowed someone to roll up a few and make a choice.
More than once, because it is random, someone ended up with four pretty similar fighting men. Random can lead to the same outcome each time, it doesn't guarantee any kind of range.
Quote from: Benoist;463068Bah. Keep having your problems with your games and arguing about shit that ultimately doesn't matter, then. Have fun.
I game every week and most of the time we have a great time. I'm fine with that.
I'll tell you what else was common in the '70s and early '80s. Looking to fiction both in print and film for inspiration. Nowadays rpgs are insular. They look to rpg tropes for their inspiration. That's not how it always was though.
I think the refusal of much rpg design to look outside the hobby has led to an impoverishment of design compared to the creativity of the early hobby. Your philosophy allows for no Bunnies & Burrows, no Gangbusters, no Traveller. All of them were inspired by fiction beyond the hobby itself.
Quote from: D-503;463073I game every week and most of the time we have a great time. I'm fine with that.
I'm glad you have a good time.
It's just that when I see so many discussions on gaming boards about "my players won't follow the adventure path" or "my GM is railroading" or "this game sucks because it isn't like [insert TV/book/comics franchise here]" or "I've modified X game N times to try and recreate [insert TV/book/comics franchise here] plots and I'm getting frustrated" or any of the gazillion other subjects that come up on message boards on a
daily basis like this, I can't help but think that something's gone terribly wrong for these people. They're not having fun: they're obsessing over recreating a very specific fiction genre, all the while wondering what they're doing wrong, while the answer really is: don't try using role playing games to write collaborative pieces of fiction; actually play a role playing game.
But hey. Like you mentioned earlier, the well's been poisoned in that regard a looong time ago. It's unlikely to change, particularly when the approach of RPGs as serial pieces of fiction and 'canon' and all these kinds of things basically helps publishers roll out the supplement treadmill (oh yes, all this stuff is linked). I'm just going to say my piece and move on. Maybe somebody will pick up something out of our exchange, maybe not. All you can do is open your mouth and hope someone might listen.
Quote from: D-503;463073I think the refusal of much rpg design to look outside the hobby has led to an impoverishment of design compared to the creativity of the early hobby.
I have a near polar opposite opinion. I think RPGs have been impoverishing themselves from the very start by constantly trying to be something they are not, instead of assuming they are actually role playing games, which are great games to play on their own merits, with their own processes and specificities, as a medium of their own.
Unreliable magic and retarded dice, alone, are deal-breakers. Add that this is Yet Another D&D-alike and I can safely kick this one to the curb. I have D&D; I don't need anything else.
Benoist,
I actually agree with pretty much everything in your last comment.
If that seems to contradict my previous position I can only inform you that, like the tripartite god, my position makes sense but not necessarily a sense comprehensible to mere mortal man.
Quote from: DKChannelBoredom;462992... when I first thought of this, without checking the rules, I imagined the 0-level characters "coming out" as Halflings/elves/dwarfs when reaching level 1... "yes, you know me as Harvey the Ditch Digger, who fought side-by-side with you in the dungeon of the Kobolds, but all along I was actually ... a Halfling!"
Huh, I may be wrong but when I read it I thought you picked your class at level 0, you just didn't get anything from your class till you reached level 1. I noticed in the XP table that they gave XP for each individual class at level 0.
So, you'd roll your random occupation, then choose what class you wanted to be, and then go out on an adventure that will probably kill you.
Quote from: D-503;463109Benoist,
I actually agree with pretty much everything in your last comment.
If that seems to contradict my previous position I can only inform you that, like the tripartite god, my position makes sense but not necessarily a sense comprehensible to mere mortal man.
I'll take that at face value. All good, man, no worries. :D
Based on my first read, I want to play a demo of the game, but no pre-order because I doubt it will be worth playing more than what I already own.
GOOD
Variable spell effects
Criticals & fumbles
BAD
Too many "been there, done that" D&Disms
Author voice is offputting, like Hackmaster minus the funny
Level 0 / 4 dudes thing
UGLY
Lame dice
Quote from: Bloody Stupid Johnson;462980+1. I agree with that as well, actually. I don't know how I'd houserule this away either, since the deed rules work off the bonus +d3-d7 fighter die that only fighters get to roll.
I was thinking of simply applying the very same rules across the board, for every character of every class; Fighters should still be better at it on account of the attack die (or whatever it's called). Other classes should roll a normal attack roll (possibly with a penalty?).
I had a good laugh reading the indignation blowing at the face of the nitpickers here (http://strangemagic.robertsongames.com/2011/06/old-school-artwork-clones.html) (you can skip to the last comments for the punch line)
I've down-loaded a copy of the beta, and I'm impressed. The important thing for me is that this is a set of rules that has a real old-school sense of passion and enthusiasm about them; there no post-modern angst here, as far as I can see anyway. This is expressed in things like the wonderful artwork, the entertainingly eclectic mix of game mechanics, the naïve enthusiasm for 'funky dice', and a clear authorial voice that lets you know that the writer is passionate about rpgs and what the 'agenda' is for their rules. All these things make me like the rules and want to play.
People who are getting bent out of shape about the zero level characters stuff are rather missing the point, I think. Sure you could ignore this, or make it a special option, but this would simply serve to make the game blander and rob it of one of its UGPs (unique gaming points); with so many fantasy rpgs around, there needs to be something that makes a game stand out from the crowd, otherwise why bother? I guess you could say that the funky dice and plethora of tables you roll on are enough of a UGP for the game, but personally I think that the 0 level character rules do a lot to distance the game from the kind of 'character optimisation' tropes that are typical of modern play. It also does a lot to focus the game on the old school 'story through play' approach; the lack of control over the creation of your character means that you will find out about your character through play too. This won't be for everybody, I'm sure, but there are so few games that take this approach now that I'd be loath to see it down-played in the final version of the rules.
If I was going to give Joseph Goodman any advice, it would be to think long and hard about making a really good GM's screen to tie into the launch of these rules. With so many charts to refer too, a GMs screen is a must, I think.