Which one would you prefer to run or play right now and why?  It seems like DCC is in some ways more crunchy and in others almost free form compared to 5e.

I've run DCC but only Played a few games of 5e online.
Still... it's DCC for me.
Its main layer of crunch seems to be in the random spell charts. Outside of those, like you mention, it feels more free-form to me... with the Fighter's 'Mighty Deeds' being up to the player's imagination... and the lack of Feats and Skill lists. It's a big book but plays fast and free.

5e is definitely more to my liking than 3rd and 4th editions (or 2nd for that matter, from what little I know of it)... but still a bit kludgy... with skills and various options that in all likelihood will not be seen as optional by most Players. The fast healing thing... meh.
I'd happily play it again, but I don't want to run it.
For my tastes, it's no replacement for DCC or LotFP or S&W... though I'm hoping it does well and fires up some interesting 3rd party stuff (the official adventures so far don't look very interesting to me). I'm already seeing lots of fun ideas for 5e on the blogs... stuff I can pretty easily use in the OSR games I prefer.

Quote from: RabidWookie;785335Which one would you prefer to run or play right now and why?  It seems like DCC is in some ways more crunchy and in others almost free form compared to 5e.

I lean to 5e because it's far more familiar to me but the spells/corruption of DCC is so Mage the Awakening 2e to me....there HAS to be a way to steal that for my future 5e game.

DCC is sriracha & tequila shots.

5e is Miracle Whip on Wonder Bread.

Quote from: Spinachcat;785342DCC is sriracha & tequila shots.

5e is Miracle Whip on Wonder Bread.

Neither of which is a bad thing

Quote from: Marleycat;785340I lean to 5e because it's far more familiar to me but the spells/corruption of DCC is so Mage the Awakening 2e to me....there HAS to be a way to steal that for my future 5e game.

There is.  Use the DCC magic system but all the other rules of 5e.  A few weeks back, I had the spell caster roll on the mercurial magic table every time she cast a spell.  It was a one-shot, so we never bothered with corruption.  Worked great!

VS

This is how I see it:

I'd use D&D 5e for a game that feels like post-Dragonlance, middle-to-new-school D&D. Forgotten Realms, Eberron, your favorite TSR AD&D 2e-era setting or Paizo adventure path, or that homebrew setting you came up with when D&D 3.0e came out and you returned to D&D after years of playing White Wolf or GURPS or whatever.

I'd use DCC for super-gonzo, old-schooler-than-old-school D&D from TSR, Judges Guild and the OSR. The first D&D setting you created, Greyhawk with the 1982 World of Greyhawk book, the First Fantasy Campaign, your favorite TSR or Judges Guild module, Anomalous Subsurface Environment, Vornheim, Dwimmermount, Rob's Majestic Wilderlands and Blackmarsh, Aos' Metal Earth, Jack Shear's World Between, VectorSigma's Wampus Country and of course, the very evocatively named and illustrated adventures from Goodman Games.

DCC in spades.  It at least resembles D&D.

I've been a player of DCC for a while now, and am itching to run 5e.

DCC is more free-wheeling, make-it-up-as-you-go-along in play (Mighty Deeds, skill DCs by occupation etc.).
Magic has a stronger sword&sorcery bent to it, due to the possibility to achieve epic effects even with lvl 1 spells, and due to corruption.
Divine Magic is more evocative due to the Patron Disapproval table.
Monsters are easier to crib from other OSR sources as the stat blocks are much closer (at least for now - maybe the 5e DMG or MM1 will have better conversion notes). OTOH cribbing spells is a real pain in the neck as you need to come up with misfire, corruption and some dozen spell effects.

5e is more structured and more geared towards balance - there is no such thing as killing someone 100 miles away with a magic missile due to a good roll and a blood sacrifice. But neither is there the risk of corruption, making it a better fit for settings where magic is a neutral force that can safely be harnessed by men.
What 5e offers is more cogs and wheels for character customization. In addition to the mix of races and classes (which you don't have in DCC RAW), there are backgrounds, sub-classes, and optionally feats (which are actually rare and have immediate impact, unlike 3.x feats).

Both are good games, and I would play both of them. As for running, I would rather run 5e, but that maybe due to it being fresh und untested yet, and may change in some months as I got my fix of 5e.

Um. I'll bite.

What's DCC?

Quote from: Will;785378Um. I'll bite.

What's DCC?

Dungeon Crawl Classics RPG - Goodman Games self-proclaimed "Appendix N" role-playing game.
The official page is here: http://www.goodman-games.com/dccrpg.html
A review by Pundit is there, which lists all the important bits: http://therpgpundit.blogspot.com/2014/04/rpgpundit-reviews-dungeon-crawl.html

I've played and run both and am a fan of both, and I find this a tough choice. And, unfortunately, it feels like a choice I have to make because there are only so many hours in the day and I don't think I can keep a campaign going for two different high-fantasy D&D variants at the same time.

DCC is clearly the more creative and interesting book. Much of the art is fantastic. And its most distinguishing traits — the funnel, deeds of arms, spell tables, corruption, luck — are all terrific game play ideas. If I'm going to sit and leaf through a game book to relax, it is DCC all the way.

On the other hand, it can be a pain to run. You are constantly flipping around to find the right spell and crit table. I can never remember just how I'm supposed to adjudicate patron magic and corruption. Deeds of arms are a kind of piggy-in-the-middle system: in practice more like a set of wrote fighter abilities than you might think, and the exceptions when someone makes up a new trick often amount to 'I declare that I miraculously win this fight I'm losing!'. It can be hard to DM an player who wants to use these rules to always get his way.

5E maintains the scent of corporate sleeze given off by all WoC products. But it is a fucking good game. And totally easy to run. And it has either jacked or effectively jacked nearly everything I like about DCC's system. 0-level funnel? Super easy: have campaigns start with characters who have backgrounds and commoner HP but no class. Deeds? The battlemaster abilities plus creative use of ability checks pretty much covers it all. Magic? Between sorcerer wild magic and warlock patrons there are plenty of outlets for gonzo fun, but the core remains the rock-solid, fast playing magic system that has always been a D&D strength.

For these reasons, much as I like DCC I'm basically taking its adventures and vibe and using them to fuel 5E games.

I love DCC but I have one pet peeve: Mighty Deeds of Arms.

I've been doing special combat moves ever since my D&D RC days, with modified attack rolls for combat maneuvers such as tripping, disarming, forcing movement, etc. When I got Iron Heroes I really enjoyed the "combat challenges" which were essentially suggested guidelines for the same sort of inventive combat action.

Not to diss on DCC's particular implementation of the concept, but I don't see why they should be Warrior-specific. I'm more than okay with the Warrior being vastly better at if than anyone else, but I feel the Thief, too, should get a shot at throwing a dagger right into a cyclops' eye to blind him, and the Wizard also gets to trip a goblin with his staff.

Since a 1st-level Warrior has to roll a 3 on 1d3 in addition to his attack roll landing, you can demand any additional roll with a probability lower than 1/3 in addition to a regular attack roll for non-Warrior deeds. I'd suggest 4 on 1d4 for a Thief and 6 on 1d6 for a Wizard but anything less than 1/3 should be good.

This is a minor thing, though. There's still a lot to love about DCC. It reads like B/X on crack and because of this I think it goes great with a lot of what the OSR has cranked out.

D&D 5e is different. It's new school, it appeals to a very different vibe and aesthetic. But so far it's a new school fantasy game I can totally get behind, which is something I've been missing from my game shelf for a while now (I was even looking into Dungeon World to fill the niche). Looking forward to the MM and DMG.

DCC has a wonderful punk-rock energy to it and has it's own "Feel" that really sets it apart from other D&D cover bands. It's a great game and I had a blast the two times I played it.

However... almost every action requires rolling on charts. It would be almost physically impossible to play DCC without having multiple copies of the rulebook and/or access to a PDF copy and a printer. So, D&DV wins by a nose.

Quote from: Larsdangly;7853965E maintains the scent of corporate sleeze given off by all WoC products.

LOL, I love D&DV but I know exactly what you mean.