DCC seems like this weird gonzo take on AD&D, if it was remade from scratch. It is one attractive option, via the core rulebook that has been printed and sold for years on end. A complete game in one book.
I display it side by side, with my AD&D books, because it's an heir of sorts. I'm just waiting for the poor fellow who asks to play it.
Even if you don't want to support the company, many used copies exist.
To me it feels more like 3E on Acid...
I think Pundit has been running a DCC campaign for about 12 years, so it can sustain campaigns
If you mean legacy- it's ~15 years old, no 2e, just reprints (although they changed the language and newer prints seem of thinner paper stock. my 8th printing is built like a tank). I believe it's here to stay but can't see it coming close to mainstream
It's one of my most beloved systems
I feel like it is more than just a fever dream at this point, it completely became its own thing by now, a full blown waking vision-quest. Insane amounts of truly high quality material, system expansion into multiple different settings, active and productive community, just a well rounded beast.
I've been playing it actively since 2015 and, while I get that it isn't for everybody, I'm loving every moment of it.
I've been running a campaign in DCC for about 2yrs now. I really enjoy the setting. I have to agree with @a_wanderer about the new paper stock they are using and that it will never reach mainstream.
I am also a bit disappointed by their choice to move away from the OGL to a closed license (not that they moved away from the OGL, but that they chose to go with a closed license).
It is probably currently tied for my favorite system with Castles & Crusades (which I will note also moved away from the OGL to a closed license).
P.S. Edit: A question that comes to mind for me is; Do the games/companies (DCC/Goodman Games and C&C/Trolllords) have the ability to continue without their creators? Both are operated/owned by their creators and I have to image they will eventually want to retire and will inevitably pass.
Quote from: Man at Arms on December 17, 2024, 05:52:13 AMDCC seems like this weird gonzo take on AD&D, if it was remade from scratch.
"Seems like" is sort of an odd observation, as this is exactly the way it was advertised. (Well, OD&D and not AD&D.) Goodman's entire premise was to "go back to 1974" and remake original D&D, but with modern mechanics. He started this journey by taking the Gygax "Appendix N" of literary inspiration (from the AD&D DMG) and read everything on Gary's list. This inspired him to create the RPG.
It's a solid game system, but pretty gonzo in places. The spell tables seem pretty cumbersome, but can generate some pretty memorable effects depending upon the dice rolls. DCC is fundamentally a simple system (rules are something like 30 pages) but with a lot of twists and turns. Fighters, for example, can do a special action every turn if they want. The Goodman DCC modules (#66.5 and up) are highly innovative overall, with crazy new and unique monsters in each module. DCC RPG works well for one-shot adventures and for long-term campaigns.
I don't think it's anything like AD&D. For all the talk about Appendix N, nothing in DCC seems to actually fit those books, least of all not the 0th-level funnel crap which is the antithesis of sword and sorcery literature.
It comes off more like some moron thought he read Appendix N, completely missed the point, and made a game that doesn't at all fit what it's meant to portray. Because not one thing in DCC actually fits that. Sorcery doesn't work the way it does in DCC in sword and sorcery novels (his whole premise seems to be based on Sheelba and Ningauble from Lankhmar and they are extraplanar aliens, their mutations are not from being spellcasters since in one of the stories Fafhrd & The Grey Mouser face spellcasters who are basically just throwing lightning bolts from a balcony nonstop, without any issue at all, and in Conan sorcerers might make some deals with demonic powers but they aren't mutated), PCs are random dirt farmers who have to "earn" their levels, which isn't even close to a thing in the literary roots of the game, etc.
None of it seems to actually be what he's saying it is meant to be.
If you can't tell, DCC is one of the only RPGs that I actually loathe and think is completely worthless.
Quote from: finarvyn on December 17, 2024, 08:36:30 AMQuote from: Man at Arms on December 17, 2024, 05:52:13 AMDCC seems like this weird gonzo take on AD&D, if it was remade from scratch.
"Seems like" is sort of an odd observation, as this is exactly the way it was advertised. (Well, OD&D and not AD&D.) Goodman's entire premise was to "go back to 1974" and remake original D&D, but with modern mechanics. He started this journey by taking the Gygax "Appendix N" of literary inspiration (from the AD&D DMG) and read everything on Gary's list. This inspired him to create the RPG.
finarvyn always drops wisdom!
The typically obvious clue as to whether something uses OD&D or AD&D as a base is if they use race-as-class. Since DCC has both an elf and a dwarf class, that'd be OD&D (or Basic D&D).
I generally find race as class less appealing, though the each race has sort of custom classes in ACKS (Adventurer, Conqueror, King) has always intrigued me.
I finally picked up a copy of DCC this year at my FLGS, and it seems solid. If a friend was running it, I'd be very happy to play. There is a
ton of content for DCC and it seems like you can just use any classic adventures for it too, which is a plus.
For whatever reason though, reading through it just made we want to play Hackmaster 5th. Which wasn't the reaction I anticipated because I have mostly pivoted to lighter systems.
Quote from: Nobleshield on December 17, 2024, 08:53:40 AMI don't think it's anything like AD&D. For all the talk about Appendix N, nothing in DCC seems to actually fit those books, least of all not the 0th-level funnel crap which is the antithesis of sword and sorcery literature.
No game portrays books accurately as books tend to only show the heroic parts. Games are not books and the comparison has more to do with the background world than the heroes themselves.
For all you know Conan went through a heroic funnel on his way out of Cimmeria and REH didn't write about it because his readers wouldn't give a crap about the other ten guys getting slaughtered.
Quote from: Ruprecht on December 17, 2024, 11:02:05 AMQuote from: Nobleshield on December 17, 2024, 08:53:40 AMI don't think it's anything like AD&D. For all the talk about Appendix N, nothing in DCC seems to actually fit those books, least of all not the 0th-level funnel crap which is the antithesis of sword and sorcery literature.
No game portrays books accurately as books tend to only show the heroic parts. Games are not books and the comparison has more to do with the background world than the heroes themselves.
For all you know Conan went through a heroic funnel on his way out of Cimmeria and REH didn't write about it because his readers wouldn't give a crap about the other ten guys getting slaughtered.
If it wasn't written about, it didn't happen. Point remains that DCC has this ridiculous idea that's not in any of the sources. The funnel is probably the #1 reason I loath DCC, because it's garbage outside of very specific situations (maybe if everyone was a slave and escaping or lost on an island), and #2 is the awful "lol magic corrupts you" Warhammer bullshit which also isn't how magic actually works in sword & sorcery.
Quote from: Nobleshield on December 17, 2024, 11:14:35 AMThe funnel is probably the #1 reason I loath DCC, because it's garbage outside of very specific situations (maybe if everyone was a slave and escaping or lost on an island)
Yeah, but it's a game and this part of the game. It seems like you're mad that DCC isn't a S&S epic tale and instead an RPG that does stuff that might have no bearing on S&S epic tales.
This is the sort of disconnect I am tired of, people thinking that RPGs are fiction generators and not GAMES.
Quote from: Brad on December 17, 2024, 11:22:30 AMQuote from: Nobleshield on December 17, 2024, 11:14:35 AMThe funnel is probably the #1 reason I loath DCC, because it's garbage outside of very specific situations (maybe if everyone was a slave and escaping or lost on an island)
Yeah, but it's a game and this part of the game. It seems like you're mad that DCC isn't a S&S epic tale and instead an RPG that does stuff that might have no bearing on S&S epic tales.
This is the sort of disconnect I am tired of, people thinking that RPGs are fiction generators and not GAMES.
No, I'm mad that DCC claims to try to emulate Appendix N, which is 100% a lie, and mostly in part due to that funnel shit which just seems like taking the piss. Even in D&D/AD&D PCs were a cut above average, not some dirt farmer.
If someone like that, more power to them. But it's why I won't touch that game or anything from Goodman with a 10 foot pole.
Quote from: Nobleshield on December 17, 2024, 11:23:52 AMNo, I'm mad that DCC claims to try to emulate Appendix N, which is 100% a lie
Fair enough.
No, Goodman Games does not have the capability to take on the AD&D mantle.
Their spell rules are incredibly cumbersome and requires the players to have them in front of them when casting spells, that alone is stupid. Its one thing to have a basic spell failure chat but a 100 of them is retarded.
Their crit chain with additional special dice is super retarded and a gimmick to get you to buy their dice.
Lastly, do you like sucking tranny clit at their conventions, you don't well you are a bigot. Their rules for play are wokiest of woke.
Their older content be shifted into other RPG's easy enough and are playable. But their rules are arse, their staff is arse and the company is arse. It's red for a reason on the TTRPG guide.
Nobleshield, have you tried Barbarians of Lemuria (or Legend, the lighter version) and/or the Everywhen Sword & Sorcery Codex? Not trying to alter the entire thread, just asking one person a question.
As for DCC, it can be fun to run. I ran it in public for years at a bar as part of the Road Crew and the gonzo side can make for a raucous table.
DCC is a great game if you are at ease with its unpredictability and general Wolkswagen-van-airbrush-painting flavour.
It is clearly not for everyone, I would recommend to try it first.
The illustations are ultimately the best indicator of the feel of the game.
Quote from: bat on December 17, 2024, 11:43:48 AMNobleshield, have you tried Barbarians of Lemuria (or Legend, the lighter version) and/or the Everywhen Sword & Sorcery Codex? Not trying to alter the entire thread, just asking one person a question.
As for DCC, it can be fun to run. I ran it in public for years at a bar as part of the Road Crew and the gonzo side can make for a raucous table.
I have it, but only gave it a cursory glance.
On topic, I will say that as a PLAYER I'm intrigued by DCC (although I still really, really hate the funnel), it's just from a GM standpoint it's "this is garbage" (but I'm the same way with things like sandboxes/hexcrawls)
Funnels are really a tiny portion of the game that people focus on because they're a bit of a novelty and really fit convention play
DCC PCs are quite strong from level 1 onward and it gets quite crazy at mid-high levels
Quote from: Nobleshield on December 17, 2024, 12:11:01 PMQuote from: bat on December 17, 2024, 11:43:48 AMNobleshield, have you tried Barbarians of Lemuria (or Legend, the lighter version) and/or the Everywhen Sword & Sorcery Codex? Not trying to alter the entire thread, just asking one person a question.
As for DCC, it can be fun to run. I ran it in public for years at a bar as part of the Road Crew and the gonzo side can make for a raucous table.
I have it, but only gave it a cursory glance.
On topic, I will say that as a PLAYER I'm intrigued by DCC (although I still really, really hate the funnel), it's just from a GM standpoint it's "this is garbage" (but I'm the same way with things like sandboxes/hexcrawls)
There is also Marauders & Magi of Mu to snag from, it IS very S&S.
Players seem to really enjoy DCC, as a Judge it can be frustrating, however a spellcaster rolling bad is always a treat.
Quote from: Nobleshield on December 17, 2024, 12:11:01 PMit's just from a GM standpoint it's "this is garbage" (but I'm the same way with things like sandboxes/hexcrawls)
wow. hate the sandbox/hexcrawl campaign. why?
I don't like the funnel system either. But the fix is easy: don't use it and start at level one instead. It's not essential and doesn't really affect the game if discarded.
Quote from: blackstone on December 17, 2024, 01:49:29 PMQuote from: Nobleshield on December 17, 2024, 12:11:01 PMit's just from a GM standpoint it's "this is garbage" (but I'm the same way with things like sandboxes/hexcrawls)
wow. hate the sandbox/hexcrawl campaign. why?
Not to derail the thread but because it seems like a nonsense idea made up by "OSR" people based on how they THINK games actually worked; it comes off more like people who read someone talking about it once on a forum and was like "That must have been how people played in the 80s!" because no game that I played in the 90s or talked to people who played actually did that stuff. You had an adventure (homebrew or published) that you presented to the PCs and they were expected to take the "bait", not a list of rumors/quests and ask the PCs "what one do you want to pick" like a videogame. Hexcrawls make zero sense unless it's like an uncharted island (isle of dread), nobody played that way.
It's mainly the fact the OSR crowd seems to proselytize this as the "true way" of old-school gaming when that's an outright fabrication.
Do you mean carry on as AD&D like.. as a replacement? Or how so?
I think DCC has legs to keep being played for many years, in some ways because of goodman games, and in some ways despite goodman games.
If there are elements of it that you don't like, such as the funnel, you can completely ignore it and choose to play it like a branch of 3rd edition D&D, which is kinda what I do. There are some elements from AD&D1e/2e that are missing, like rules or guidelines for random generation of terrain, at least in the base rules/game. There's a lot of 3rd party content for DCC, most of which I haven't even read, so I'm not sure how much of the coverage of AD&D rules/systems have been brought into DCC or not.
I don't think it's true that DCC is carrying on the AD&D fever dream, given that it's much closer to 3e than AD&D, but it's a solid alternate take on what AD&D accomplishes. The whole "old school" sensibility it touts mostly just aesthetic.
Quote from: Banjo Destructo on December 17, 2024, 04:36:32 PMDo you mean carry on as AD&D like.. as a replacement? Or how so?
I think DCC has legs to keep being played for many years, in some ways because of goodman games, and in some ways despite goodman games.
If there are elements of it that you don't like, such as the funnel, you can completely ignore it and choose to play it like a branch of 3rd edition D&D, which is kinda what I do. There are some elements from AD&D1e/2e that are missing, like rules or guidelines for random generation of terrain, at least in the base rules/game. There's a lot of 3rd party content for DCC, most of which I haven't even read, so I'm not sure how much of the coverage of AD&D rules/systems have been brought into DCC or not.
Will it persist and remain active beyond a few scattered gaming groups, 5 or 10 years from now?
To answer the OP, I don't think it's really an AD&D "fever dream," but I do think it's carved out a strong enough niche in the hobby to carry on indefinitely. Goodman is pretty supportive of 3PP to the point of selling their stuff on Goodman's site and doing crowdfunding campaigns with them. And some of that Third Party stuff is absolutely first rate, like "Jungle Tomb of the Mummy Bride." They've also done a good job with their IPs like Dying Earth & Lankhmar (even though I don't personally care for either setting), and they've updated a revised classic adventures like "The Dark Tower" and "Caverns of Thracia," doing a good job with those as well.
Personally, I was unimpressed when I first checked out and read a few reviews of DCC, but then I decided to try it out about 4 years ago and liked it more than I thought I would. It is definitely better as a player than a GM and because of all the tables and varying spell effects, it plays a lot slower than say, B/X. But you get far more varied and unpredictable results, which is cool. I like race as class, so that's a plus and the little tweeks they make to the standard B/X classes are generally very cool, like having clerical healing vary according to alignment of the recipient vis-a-vis the caster, and differing advances for thief skills based on alignments. The random spell manifestations are fun, and I really like how they use deities and patrons for special effects, punishments, and the like. I also love the dice chain and I use it with my other OSR games. Way cooler than advantange/disadvantage IMO.
As for the Appendix N "feel," I think that's open to each person's interpretation to an extent. Sure, much of DCC doesn't quite fit those books. But what I think DCC excels at as capturing the spirit or vibe of those 1950s-70s fantasy and Sci-fi movies (and books to a degree) where anything could happen and even beginning heroes can save the world. This really comes out in the adventures, including the funnels (which aren't my favorite, but are alright). So I think you need to be in a certain mindset or mood to fully embrace DCC and I totally get why it turns people off. For me, it's not quite my preferred game (that's Castles & Crusades), but it's great when I want to fight aliens and weird monsters in the same setting and jump through portals to other planets.
Quote from: Nobleshield on December 17, 2024, 11:23:52 AMI'm mad that DCC claims to try to emulate Appendix N, which is 100% a lie...
DCC Lankhmar
DCC Dying Earth
DCC Empire of the East
DCC Purple Planet (pastiche of Barsoom and similar swords-and-planet fiction)
Martian Crawl Classics (H.G. Wells' "War of the Worlds")
All of those (and probably more) create an experience very similar to the fiction they are based upon.
I would agree with you that the funnel isn't very "Appendix N" at all. I was a playtester for DCC and I can't recall what got that funnel concept started, but I agree that it gets overused at conventions and game demo sessions. The emphasis of the DCC RPG was always supposed to be the notion that monsters in the books are rarely "just another orc or skeleton" but instead are unique and creepy tentacled-things or something like that. I think that the artwork conveys this, the monsters in the modules convey this, the unpredictable nature of spells conveys this. A lot of those features are highly represented in the older "Appendix N" books. (Some of them aren't, obviously. "Appendix N" covers a lot of decades and a lot of authors, many of which were very different in style from one another.)
The funky dice are there because Goodman wanted to have something unusual. In the 1970's polyhedral dice were strange but now they are commonplace, so Goodman's use of bizarre-sided dice was an attempt to capture the cool feel of having unusual dice again. Some like them, some don't, but it's easy to replace the dice chain with a series of simple +/- bonus numbers.
There's a lot one can like about DCC, and clearly a lot one can dislike. As a guy who played a lot of D&D in the 1970's, I applaud the attempt to bring back the strange and unexpected. Having said that, my crew played a lot of DCC for a while then moved onto other RPGs.
I like DCC's aesthetic and general vibe, and they have a knack for licensing literary settings that I like. The wacky dice and reliance on tables are a deal breaker for me though, at least as a DM. I'm much more likely to take their modules and run them with another OSR system.
As to its long term viability, in the past I would have said it's a top three most played OSR game, after OSE and Castles and Crusades. My only real metric is what I see of open games listed on Roll20 and foundry though, so not wholly representative.
Post covid there's been a general slump in people playing online, but there's still usually a DCC game or two being played. As for 10-15 years from now, hard to say. DCC's been plugging along for a good while already, but it feels like the OSR as a whole has lost some of its profile/momentum compared to about 5 years ago.
Quote from: Nobleshield on December 17, 2024, 04:36:03 PMNot to derail the thread but because it seems like a nonsense idea made up by "OSR" people based on how they THINK games actually worked; it comes off more like people who read someone talking about it once on a forum and was like "That must have been how people played in the 80s!" because no game that I played in the 90s or talked to people who played actually did that stuff. You had an adventure (homebrew or published) that you presented to the PCs and they were expected to take the "bait", not a list of rumors/quests and ask the PCs "what one do you want to pick" like a videogame. Hexcrawls make zero sense unless it's like an uncharted island (isle of dread), nobody played that way.
It's mainly the fact the OSR crowd seems to proselytize this as the "true way" of old-school gaming when that's an outright fabrication.
B2 Keep on the Borderlands was both a Hexcrawl (without hexes but functionally it was) and a sandbox (no fetch quests, minimal guidance on what to do). B2 is the most played module in D&D history.
Quote from: Nobleshield on December 17, 2024, 04:36:03 PMNot to derail the thread but because it seems like a nonsense idea made up by "OSR" people based on how they THINK games actually worked; it comes off more like people who read someone talking about it once on a forum and was like "That must have been how people played in the 80s!" because no game that I played in the 90s or talked to people who played actually did that stuff. You had an adventure (homebrew or published) that you presented to the PCs and they were expected to take the "bait", not a list of rumors/quests and ask the PCs "what one do you want to pick" like a videogame. Hexcrawls make zero sense unless it's like an uncharted island (isle of dread), nobody played that way.
It's mainly the fact the OSR crowd seems to proselytize this as the "true way" of old-school gaming when that's an outright fabrication.
I agree. For every sand-box module in the style of Keep on the Borderlands; TSR/WOTC put out far more modules of the "let's go on X adventure" style.
Module play was a Big part of the early AD&D-2e culture. The concept of the modern 'adventure path' didn't exactly spring out of a vacuum.
GM buys module, says hey I'm running this, players are like "Ok sounds cool!", has been the way most people have played the game for decades.
"But my group..." Yes, we know. Nobody cares.
TSR and WOTC didn't print up and sell all those adventures for no reason.
Quote from: Ruprecht on December 17, 2024, 08:20:38 PMB2 Keep on the Borderlands was both a Hexcrawl (without hexes but functionally it was) and a sandbox (no fetch quests, minimal guidance on what to do). B2 is the most played module in D&D history.
Absolutely true. It also true that it came with most every B/X game. Isle of Dread got a lot of play for the same reason. Then after playing those, most groups promptly defaulted to "GM presents adventure to PC's that take the bait..." adventure style that most every module after those had.
In my opinion; the sandbox style game is a superior game experience for the PC's as they have maximum agency in the virtual game world.
But the hard truth is that most groups can care less about that, which is why pre-made adventures and modules continue to sell.
Oh, DCC will at best, continue to just be a relatively niche game with extra dice. It endangers the popularity of no other D&D clones.
Quote from: Nobleshield on December 17, 2024, 04:36:03 PMNot to derail the thread but because it seems like a nonsense idea made up by "OSR" people based on how they THINK games actually worked; it comes off more like people who read someone talking about it once on a forum and was like "That must have been how people played in the 80s!" because no game that I played in the 90s or talked to people who played actually did that stuff. You had an adventure (homebrew or published) that you presented to the PCs and they were expected to take the "bait", not a list of rumors/quests and ask the PCs "what one do you want to pick" like a videogame. Hexcrawls make zero sense unless it's like an uncharted island (isle of dread), nobody played that way.
It's mainly the fact the OSR crowd seems to proselytize this as the "true way" of old-school gaming when that's an outright fabrication.
You are aware that a significant number of the posters here were actually playing RPGs in the 70s and/or 80s? The sandbox/hexcrawl was the
primary structure of my games in the 80s, and almost everyone I knew played similarly. Published modules were a very small portion of our gaming, and we didn't create "plot" or a set adventure often at all. Mostly it was, "Here's some rumors, what do you want to do?" and sometimes what we came up with had nothing to do with what the DM had prepped.
So, as someone there, it's not a "myth," it's exactly how I (and my groups) played...
Quote from: Eirikrautha on December 17, 2024, 09:18:29 PMYou are aware that a significant number of the posters here were actually playing RPGs in the 70s and/or 80s? The sandbox/hexcrawl was the primary structure of my games in the 80s, and almost everyone I knew played similarly. Published modules were a very small portion of our gaming, and we didn't create "plot" or a set adventure often at all. Mostly it was, "Here's some rumors, what do you want to do?" and sometimes what we came up with had nothing to do with what the DM had prepped.
So, as someone there, it's not a "myth," it's exactly how I (and my groups) played...
This is true, there has been a lot of sandbox/hexcrawl play since forever and there are some third party modules for D&D (like the Wee Warrior series currently sold by Precis Intermedia as reprints) are exactly that. Any adventure can be a sandbox when the players get wanderlust or are just being players.
Quote from: bat on December 17, 2024, 09:43:20 PMQuote from: Eirikrautha on December 17, 2024, 09:18:29 PMYou are aware that a significant number of the posters here were actually playing RPGs in the 70s and/or 80s? The sandbox/hexcrawl was the primary structure of my games in the 80s, and almost everyone I knew played similarly. Published modules were a very small portion of our gaming, and we didn't create "plot" or a set adventure often at all. Mostly it was, "Here's some rumors, what do you want to do?" and sometimes what we came up with had nothing to do with what the DM had prepped.
So, as someone there, it's not a "myth," it's exactly how I (and my groups) played...
This is true, there has been a lot of sandbox/hexcrawl play since forever and there are some third party modules for D&D (like the Wee Warrior series currently sold by Precis Intermedia as reprints) are exactly that. Any adventure can be a sandbox when the players get wanderlust or are just being players.
Fair enough, but through the 80s we played about 80-90% published modules, with the rest being homebrew. Then, 2e came out and most of the people I played with left D&D for other games. For me and my group it was MERP and we played entirely published material with the GM (me) linking the various adventures together loosely. So I think all these past experiences are situational/contextual.
I 'm in love with DCC. It really looks like ad&d with more gore. However, it's important to choose the best authors (harvey stroh and michael curtis imo)
I ran the funnel "The Hole in the Sky" leading into a homebrew campaign. Half of my players didn't like the funnel experience but, they weren't into old school type high fatality experiences.
On the other hand, they seemed to enjoy the unpredictability of the magic (especially the custom experiences of the first casting of a spell).
I think "old school feel" describes it right, but mostly because modules like Expedition to the Barrier Peaks and a lot of Judge's Guild stuff fits with the tone of the game.
Quote from: Ruprecht on December 17, 2024, 08:20:38 PMQuote from: Nobleshield on December 17, 2024, 04:36:03 PMNot to derail the thread but because it seems like a nonsense idea made up by "OSR" people based on how they THINK games actually worked; it comes off more like people who read someone talking about it once on a forum and was like "That must have been how people played in the 80s!" because no game that I played in the 90s or talked to people who played actually did that stuff. You had an adventure (homebrew or published) that you presented to the PCs and they were expected to take the "bait", not a list of rumors/quests and ask the PCs "what one do you want to pick" like a videogame. Hexcrawls make zero sense unless it's like an uncharted island (isle of dread), nobody played that way.
It's mainly the fact the OSR crowd seems to proselytize this as the "true way" of old-school gaming when that's an outright fabrication.
B2 Keep on the Borderlands was both a Hexcrawl (without hexes but functionally it was) and a sandbox (no fetch quests, minimal guidance on what to do). B2 is the most played module in D&D history.
I don't see where B2 is a hexcrawl at all (you have a map, you're not exploring the place), or even a real sandbox since it very clearly tells you the PCs are meant to go the Caves of Chaos, and then you can expand the Caves of the Uknown as you see fit. That doesn't sound like the sandbox people are talking about online where it sounds like there is no "main" piece it's ONLY a collection of rumors (a mission board like in a videogame), but it does sound like MY idea of the sandbox where the side things (lizardmen, the spiders, the mad hermit, rumors in the keep, etc) are side things that could be encountered or ignored. The Caves are still the "main" adventure, which you're supposed to try and herd the PCs into. Everything else is a side thing, but the point is to get them into the Caves.
Quote from: Eirikrautha on December 17, 2024, 09:18:29 PMQuote from: Nobleshield on December 17, 2024, 04:36:03 PMNot to derail the thread but because it seems like a nonsense idea made up by "OSR" people based on how they THINK games actually worked; it comes off more like people who read someone talking about it once on a forum and was like "That must have been how people played in the 80s!" because no game that I played in the 90s or talked to people who played actually did that stuff. You had an adventure (homebrew or published) that you presented to the PCs and they were expected to take the "bait", not a list of rumors/quests and ask the PCs "what one do you want to pick" like a videogame. Hexcrawls make zero sense unless it's like an uncharted island (isle of dread), nobody played that way.
It's mainly the fact the OSR crowd seems to proselytize this as the "true way" of old-school gaming when that's an outright fabrication.
You are aware that a significant number of the posters here were actually playing RPGs in the 70s and/or 80s? The sandbox/hexcrawl was the primary structure of my games in the 80s, and almost everyone I knew played similarly. Published modules were a very small portion of our gaming, and we didn't create "plot" or a set adventure often at all. Mostly it was, "Here's some rumors, what do you want to do?" and sometimes what we came up with had nothing to do with what the DM had prepped.
So, as someone there, it's not a "myth," it's exactly how I (and my groups) played...
While I don't doubt you and appreciate the insight, I never heard of anyone before the "OSR" crowd who actually played that way. A lot of people who evangelized how this was the "true way" to play but not anyone who actually did it.
It has been out for around 13 years now. There are, apparently, hundreds of compatible products with more coming out all the time. I'd say it already has pretty long legs.
Quote from: Nobleshield on December 18, 2024, 08:34:17 AMWhile I don't doubt you and appreciate the insight, I never heard of anyone before the "OSR" crowd who actually played that way. A lot of people who evangelized how this was the "true way" to play but not anyone who actually did it.
I did. I ran the game that way through most of the 80s. I don't think it's the one true way to play or that there is a one true way to play but I did play that way. It was pretty much the default way to play where I lived alongside kick in the door dungeon crawling.
I have seen it as a side to "Here's the big dungeon", which also seems to be the "traditional" sandbox not the OSR "zero prep, PCs decide everything where to go" approach. Like when you're tired of exploring the dungeon you go do something else based on a rumor you heard/job someone is offering, but the dungeon is always there as the "default"
I don't know about where you lived but this is generally how it went with the people I played with back in the 80s. You go to town. There are some jobs on a job board, some various rumors or something along those lines. You pick one. You go to where it is. There is some variation of a dungeon there. I mean a dungeon in a broad sense not just the underground complex sort of dungeon. Steading of the Hill Giant Chief took place in an above ground building but I would still call that a dungeon. Once you got there, you kicked in the doors, killed the monsters and took their stuff. Then it was back to town to buy/sell and get the next job or rumor. Wash, rinse repeat.
Quote from: yosemitemike on December 18, 2024, 09:15:39 AMI don't know about where you lived but this is generally how it went with the people I played with back in the 80s. You go to town. There are some jobs on a job board, some various rumors or something along those lines. You pick one. You go to where it is. There is some variation of a dungeon there. I mean a dungeon in a broad sense not just the underground complex sort of dungeon. Steading of the Hill Giant Chief took place in an above ground building but I would still call that a dungeon. Once you got there, you kicked in the doors, killed the monsters and took their stuff. Then it was back to town to buy/sell and get the next job or rumor. Wash, rinse repeat.
Yeah, roughly that. You go to town, there are rumors, you can pick a rumor to check out (side trek adventure) or just go to the dungeon ("main" adventure) and continue exploring it. Those rumors may change from time to time or be expanded/changed.
Anyway sorry to derail the thread
Quote from: Nobleshield on December 18, 2024, 08:32:27 AMI don't see where B2 is a hexcrawl at all (you have a map, you're not exploring the place), or even a real sandbox since it very clearly tells you the PCs are meant to go the Caves of Chaos, and then you can expand the Caves of the Uknown as you see fit. That doesn't sound like the sandbox people are talking about online where it sounds like there is no "main" piece it's ONLY a collection of rumors (a mission board like in a videogame), but it does sound like MY idea of the sandbox where the side things (lizardmen, the spiders, the mad hermit, rumors in the keep, etc) are side things that could be encountered or ignored. The Caves are still the "main" adventure, which you're supposed to try and herd the PCs into. Everything else is a side thing, but the point is to get them into the Caves.
From the players point of view it is a hex crawl. Nobody knows where the caves of chaos are and they need to find them. Just because the DM isn't rolling up content for each hex doesn't change things. It's exploration with a few set encounters and random encounters the same way Isle of Dread was. The only different is Isle of Dread gave a partial map.
I think you have a different defintion of a sandbox, possibly derived from video games. There is no mission in B2. You risk because of treasure but you are not tasked with anything. I've heard of groups that have attacked the Keep, others that allied with one faction in the caves against others. Very different than the typical adventure path style.
Quote from: Jaeger on December 17, 2024, 09:16:39 PMThe concept of the modern 'adventure path' didn't exactly spring out of a vacuum.
The modern 'adventure path' came out of Dungeon Magazine trying to create adventures in a serial fashion to sell more magazines. At the time the magazine was published by Piazo who continued the concept on their own adventures once they were kicked off that magazine. Prior to that most adventures were location based which allowed DMs to create their own sandboxes filled with a mix of their own and purchased adventures. Yes there were similar items in old school such as the G series and the D series but they started at very high level and didn't try to take a character through their entire career.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adventure_Path
Quote from: Eirikrautha on December 17, 2024, 09:18:29 PMYou are aware that a significant number of the posters here were actually playing RPGs in the 70s and/or 80s? The sandbox/hexcrawl was the primary structure of my games in the 80s, and almost everyone I knew played similarly. Published modules were a very small portion of our gaming, and we didn't create "plot" or a set adventure often at all. Mostly it was, "Here's some rumors, what do you want to do?" and sometimes what we came up with had nothing to do with what the DM had prepped.
So, as someone there, it's not a "myth," it's exactly how I (and my groups) played...
I'm another one of those from that era, and that's pretty much how we played as well. I owned some Judges Guild materials and the Wee Warriors Dwarven geomorphic adventure, but otherwise never owned any "modules" until sometime in the 2E era. My campaign started with a dungeon, then added a nearby town to go in between adventures and buy stuff, then added in a wilderness region where players could explore. Sometimes we did the job board thing or rumors, but often they just looked at a map and found some place with an interesting name and went there. (The Judges Guild maps were totally full of cool names without any actual adventure, so we had to make the adventure up.)
One of the other DMs in our group bought the G-series and then D-series modules at GenCon, but I didn't own any TSR modules from the AD&D era until a lot later, and the modern day railroady hardback module that we buy for 5E was nothing like the game we played in the 70's and 80's. Our early campaigns were very much hexcrawl and sandbox style affairs with a few rumors and/or DM-inspired plotlines but mostly creative choice by the players.
So, I assume some groups played structured campaigns back then but we certainly didn't. Even the Judges Guild materials of the time (CSIO, Thunderhold, Tegel Manor, etc.) were mostly places to visit and wander through without any pre-determined plotlines to follow.
Quote from: Nobleshield on December 18, 2024, 08:34:17 AMWhile I don't doubt you and appreciate the insight, I never heard of anyone before the "OSR" crowd who actually played that way. A lot of people who evangelized how this was the "true way" to play but not anyone who actually did it.
Yeah, everyone did. I guess you started gaming after that, but for those of us who started in the 70s and 80s, that's how it was. We didn't think of it as a "true way", it was the only way we knew.
Quote from: Eirikrautha on December 17, 2024, 09:18:29 PMQuote from: Nobleshield on December 17, 2024, 04:36:03 PMNot to derail the thread but because it seems like a nonsense idea made up by "OSR" people based on how they THINK games actually worked; it comes off more like people who read someone talking about it once on a forum and was like "That must have been how people played in the 80s!" because no game that I played in the 90s or talked to people who played actually did that stuff. You had an adventure (homebrew or published) that you presented to the PCs and they were expected to take the "bait", not a list of rumors/quests and ask the PCs "what one do you want to pick" like a videogame. Hexcrawls make zero sense unless it's like an uncharted island (isle of dread), nobody played that way.
It's mainly the fact the OSR crowd seems to proselytize this as the "true way" of old-school gaming when that's an outright fabrication.
You are aware that a significant number of the posters here were actually playing RPGs in the 70s and/or 80s? The sandbox/hexcrawl was the primary structure of my games in the 80s, and almost everyone I knew played similarly. Published modules were a very small portion of our gaming, and we didn't create "plot" or a set adventure often at all. Mostly it was, "Here's some rumors, what do you want to do?" and sometimes what we came up with had nothing to do with what the DM had prepped.
So, as someone there, it's not a "myth," it's exactly how I (and my groups) played...
I've had the exact same thought as Nobleshield, here. I rarely bring it up, because there's no way to get stats and it's pointless to argue against someone's memory. However, it is also my experience that if you look anywhere outside of OSR circles, the impression you'll get is that pure sanbox/hexcrawl games were never a clear majority when compared to published or semi-plotted homebrew campaigns.
My working theory to square this circle is that it's a kind of survivorship bias. The people who came up in the hobby playing open sandboxes are likely to be the ones that went on to become OSR people. The people who played plotted or semi-plotted campaigns in their youth are more likely to have accepted the new editions and stayed with published D&D (or moved to Pathfinder or other competitors).
Quote from: ForgottenF on December 19, 2024, 07:51:17 AMI've had the exact same thought as Nobleshield, here. I rarely bring it up, because there's no way to get stats and it's pointless to argue against someone's memory. However, it is also my experience that if you look anywhere outside of OSR circles, the impression you'll get is that pure sanbox/hexcrawl games were never a clear majority when compared to published or semi-plotted homebrew campaigns.
My working theory to square this circle is that it's a kind of survivorship bias. The people who came up in the hobby playing open sandboxes are likely to be the ones that went on to become OSR people. The people who played plotted or semi-plotted campaigns in their youth are more likely to have accepted the new editions and stayed with published D&D (or moved to Pathfinder or other competitors).
I suspect there is a difference between those who started with B/X in the early 80's versus those who started earlier. I started with the Red Box in '81, but everyone I knew that had played, that showed me the works, had started in the 70's. So when I got the Caves of Chaos and the Isle of Dread, I was already primed to run them as sandbox. However, I didn't really know what I was doing, and the instruction on laying out the dungeon in B/X were clear and influential. The upshot was that I didn't run a pure sandbox (and still don't) but I did run something that was half to 3/4s sandbox, depending on the moment.
There's also a separation between those who started when I did and those who started even 5 years later. Namely, a lot of us in that transition window didn't have much money. Because we were teens without a job who got B/X as presents, and then added in bits and pieces of AD&D as it came out. Even when the recession ended, money was still tight for awhile in our area at least.
Modules were a luxury. In fact, every module I ran (as well as non-D&D games for that matter) in that time frame were borrowed from an older gamer. It wasn't until '86 that I had the money to buy what I wanted in the way of RPGs.
The borrowed modules influenced how I did my games and wrote my own adventures, but they weren't something on a shelf that I could pull down and reference. It was all memory of how the game went, what worked and what didn't, and figuring out as I went, similar to but not exactly the same as the earlier gamers.
As far as I know in the 70s the idea was literally "Here's the dungeon, go explore" (not everyone did this but this was basically the default), with the "hexcrawl" stuff coming from the Wilderness part of the 3LBBs that talks about using outdoor survival but even that seems to indicate it's only when you're traveling to/from a destination, not as a mode of play. B/X which I've read (but didn't play as I was too young, Moldvay Basic came out a year before I was born anyway and Menzter came out when I was 1 year old) says 1-3 you should have no outside encounters at all, then 4-14 you can add in outdoor encounters, but nothing (outside of X1 anyway) seem to indicate those are anything more than random encounters while traveling to a destination, certainly not the modern "hexcrawl" that I've seen espoused on Youtube and social media.
I started in 90 although I played 1e briefly, then moved to the 1991 "Black Box" Basic set (with the weird cards to teach you the game and Zanzer's Dungeon), then quickly picked up AD&D 2e and never looked back.
I don't want to keep derailing the thread, if someone wants to make a spin off thread I'll be happy to further talk about it. I only wanted to initially voice my distaste for DCC :D
Quote from: Nobleshield on December 19, 2024, 08:38:35 AMI don't want to keep derailing the thread, if someone wants to make a spin off thread I'll be happy to further talk about it
Ok, will do. I'll make the topic. It's worth discussing.
Quote from: Nobleshield on December 19, 2024, 08:38:35 AMAs far as I know in the 70s the idea was literally "Here's the dungeon, go explore" (not everyone did this but this was basically the default), with the "hexcrawl" stuff coming from the Wilderness part of the 3LBBs that talks about using outdoor survival but even that seems to indicate it's only when you're traveling to/from a destination, not as a mode of play.
"Wilderness" adventuring was most definitely a thing in the 70s. I never heard the term "hexcrawl" until recent years. We called it "wilderness".
And yes, dungeoneering was the default, not "outdoor survival" (our "wilderness" adventures were rarely "survival" scenarios).
I'm not sure what any of this has to do with "sandboxing" though. No one I know uses the word "sandbox" to indicate wilderness vs. dungeon. Sandbox is about player agency, regardless of the "terrain".
Quote from: a_wanderer on December 17, 2024, 06:24:51 AMTo me it feels more like 3E on Acid...
I think Pundit has been running a DCC campaign for about 12 years, so it can sustain campaigns
If you mean legacy- it's ~15 years old, no 2e, just reprints (although they changed the language and newer prints seem of thinner paper stock. my 8th printing is built like a tank). I believe it's here to stay but can't see it coming close to mainstream
It's one of my most beloved systems
It'll be 12 years in early February.
I also wrote World of the Last Sun as a setting/sourcebook for it, and the Gonzo Fantasy Companion too.
It's a fantastic game for long-term play.
DCC always seemed to me to be the "Pearl Jam" of RPGs
a game (band) everyone is *supposed to like*, gets a lot of publicity, but really doesn't deliver imho. It really isn't all that good.
a few fun mechanics and ideas, but nothing that stands out. The game world and settings aren't anything new or exciting.
not a *bad* game, just nothing special.
it's like Shadowdark --a lot of hype
much better games out there
Quote from: MerrillWeathermay on December 20, 2024, 08:13:56 PMDCC always seemed to me to be the "Pearl Jam" of RPGs
a game (band) everyone is *supposed to like*, gets a lot of publicity, but really doesn't deliver imho. It really isn't all that good.
a few fun mechanics and ideas, but nothing that stands out. The game world and settings aren't anything new or exciting.
not a *bad* game, just nothing special.
it's like Shadowdark --a lot of hype
much better games out there
DCC is radically more different than Shadowdark, and was written much earlier (in fact, Shadowdark borrowed some ideas from DCC, as it did with other OSR games). And it is highly special, in the way it handles niche protection, and with the capacity it has at high-level play to make each class extremely effective, without just all being able to do the same things as each other.
It also manages to have a more effective ongoing death-risk for characters even at high levels, one of the common problems of D&D.
Quote from: RPGPundit on December 20, 2024, 05:41:49 PMQuote from: a_wanderer on December 17, 2024, 06:24:51 AMTo me it feels more like 3E on Acid...
I think Pundit has been running a DCC campaign for about 12 years, so it can sustain campaigns
If you mean legacy- it's ~15 years old, no 2e, just reprints (although they changed the language and newer prints seem of thinner paper stock. my 8th printing is built like a tank). I believe it's here to stay but can't see it coming close to mainstream
It's one of my most beloved systems
It'll be 12 years in early February.
I also wrote World of the Last Sun as a setting/sourcebook for it, and the Gonzo Fantasy Companion too.
It's a fantastic game for long-term play.
Having a big list of spell effects, based upon the level of the success of your die roll, for every spell in the book; is a cool take on spell effects. It's something different. A roll of 30, is far more successful than a 20.
Quote from: RPGPundit on December 20, 2024, 05:41:49 PMIt'll be 12 years in early February.
I also wrote World of the Last Sun as a setting/sourcebook for it, and the Gonzo Fantasy Companion too.
It's a fantastic game for long-term play.
Hmmm, I didn't know that. Well, two more products to buy. Also I saw this:
https://www.drivethrurpg.com/en/product/424141/rpgpundit-presents-the-gonzo-fantasy-companion
"Hipster Elves"
That's so random...
DCC reminds me of LotFP. Some really cool ideas and great adventures in a game that iv never seen anyone actually play. Its like its built to be a place other designers steal ideas from and not a real game.
Quote from: StoneDev on December 22, 2024, 05:32:11 PMDCC reminds me of LotFP. Some really cool ideas and great adventures in a game that iv never seen anyone actually play. Its like its built to be a place other designers steal ideas from and not a real game.
Any game that is not D&D is far less likely to be seen in the wild.
Quote from: Brad on December 21, 2024, 11:45:55 AMQuote from: RPGPundit on December 20, 2024, 05:41:49 PMIt'll be 12 years in early February.
I also wrote World of the Last Sun as a setting/sourcebook for it, and the Gonzo Fantasy Companion too.
It's a fantastic game for long-term play.
Hmmm, I didn't know that. Well, two more products to buy. Also I saw this:
https://www.drivethrurpg.com/en/product/424141/rpgpundit-presents-the-gonzo-fantasy-companion
"Hipster Elves"
That's so random...
Hipster Elves are part of the Last Sun setting. There are several kinds of elves in the setting: Hipster Elves, Smug Elves, Posh Elves, Shadow Elves... the Hipster Elves spent thousands of years living in utopian dome communities where their every need was tended to, and as a result became highly incompetent. Now most of those domes are falling apart, putting their people in crisis.
Quote from: RPGPundit on December 23, 2024, 12:37:39 AMHipster Elves are part of the Last Sun setting. There are several kinds of elves in the setting: Hipster Elves, Smug Elves, Posh Elves, Shadow Elves... the Hipster Elves spent thousands of years living in utopian dome communities where their every need was tended to, and as a result became highly incompetent. Now most of those domes are falling apart, putting their people in crisis.
Detecting a heavy Moorcock vibe here.
Quote from: Brad on December 23, 2024, 10:18:39 AMQuote from: RPGPundit on December 23, 2024, 12:37:39 AMHipster Elves are part of the Last Sun setting. There are several kinds of elves in the setting: Hipster Elves, Smug Elves, Posh Elves, Shadow Elves... the Hipster Elves spent thousands of years living in utopian dome communities where their every need was tended to, and as a result became highly incompetent. Now most of those domes are falling apart, putting their people in crisis.
Detecting a heavy Moorcock vibe here.
There's a lot of Moorcock in it, though with a bit more comedic aspects than Moorcock usually does.
Quote from: StoneDev on December 22, 2024, 05:32:11 PMDCC reminds me of LotFP. Some really cool ideas and great adventures in a game that iv never seen anyone actually play. Its like its built to be a place other designers steal ideas from and not a real game.
It's played a ton at various cons, they have a huge presence at Gen Con for instance, and the people who play it love it dearly, it's not the market leader like D&D but it certainly has carved out its own niche.
Quote from: Zalman on December 19, 2024, 10:18:48 AM"Wilderness" adventuring was most definitely a thing in the 70s. I never heard the term "hexcrawl" until recent years. We called it "wilderness".
And yes, dungeoneering was the default, not "outdoor survival" (our "wilderness" adventures were rarely "survival" scenarios).
I'm not sure what any of this has to do with "sandboxing" though. No one I know uses the word "sandbox" to indicate wilderness vs. dungeon. Sandbox is about player agency, regardless of the "terrain".
For my group, D&D in the 1970's went through several stages:
I) Started with dungeons. Lots of dungeons, and clearly the "default" for the game as we saw it.
II) At some point we needed a town so that we could buy and sell stuff. Which led to having to adventure overland to go between village and dungeon, and back again. Early adventures were simply of a "we roll twice for random encounters each way" sort of thing, and we hoped not to die on the way there or back. Occasionally a party got so damaged on the way to the dungeon that they had to return to the village without ever getting to enter the dungeon at all.
III) Area map with dungeon and village and other places to visit. We didn't use the term "hexcrawl" as I don't think our original maps were even done on hexpaper, but it was very much "explore mode" as characters wandered from place to place so I would say that it was very much a "hexcrawl" in philosophy where the players wandered and mapped the area a lot like they wandered and mapped the dungeons.
IV) We had heard about Arneson's Blackmoor campaign by 1977, and very much were interested in making castles and playing a "barony" type game along with the wandering. (We used the "castle construction" rules to buy our strongholds and design them from scratch, then hire mercenaries. This led to more wargame/miniatures style play with adventures on the character level having influence on battles fought on the barony level. Some of the guys were interested in conquering the area map.
V) This led to an expanded area map, with lots of nations and larger-scale events.
None of this was done with premade campaign settings, although I did have access to early Judges Guild products. I tried running a campaign on the JG Wilderlands map #1 but it wasn't as interesting to me at the time as my homebrew maps with JG places dropped into them. (The CSIO, for example, became a template for every city in my campaign. Every time characters reached a city I pulled out the same map.) The whole thing really grew organically from the small scale to the large scale as needed, as opposed to modern published settings that start big and then work small.
DCC has a really great vibe and I agree that it seems to have staying power. The innovations around patrons and spells really are well-done, as is the way they've gone back to Appendix N. I bought both the Lankhmar and Dying Earth box sets.
The sheer acid gonzo-ness of their adventures is really awesome too.
It took me a while to realize how linear their adventures are and how bloated their explanation text is. It hurt, but I decided to stop buying their adventures.
These strike me as really easy to fix, but with the success they are having I don't know that they have a reason to fix them.