[Design Question] DCC RPG and 10 Levels

[joela]

My point is simply that it's not D&D. That's all. Is it D&D-like? Sure. But it has to be different enough from D&D or any other game out there to warrant publishing it in the first place, right? Reinventing is just that.

Pretty much how I'm viewing the DCC. Currently, Dungeons and Dragons has 30 levels. Does that "invalidate" the earlier edition which "only" had 20 levels or descendants like Pathfinder and True20? Heck, DCC doesn't even use the same stat names! (And has one stat, Luck, that doesn't resemble anything currently in print).

[smathis]

It's not my intent to marginalize anyone's opinion, and frankly as far the development of the game goes my opinion doesn't count any more than yours does. My opinion should not be taken as representative of Joseph's or any of the other designers'. I'm just lucky enough to run some playtests here and there. Sometimes I forget not everyone has the same information I do, but in a couple months we'll all know the same stuff. Not fair of me to debate with insider info, sorry.

It's okay. It's hard for me to keep straight who has the rules and who doesn't. I was a little hot under the collar. My bad too. I'm sorry as well. I'll STFU too.

I just feel that people (not just you) are over-emphasizing this issue, and I'm trying to demonstrate that the game can be fun without comparing it to D&D, because it's a different game. I know I'm probably in the minority when it comes to preferring low-level play and not a lot of leveling (in fact, I think "leveling" is a silly concept to begin with...give me a point buy system or the-skills-you-use-improve system any day), but I think only 5 levels in the core book is win. You and I have strong differing opinions on this matter, and I don't want mine to go unheard any more than you do.

I think we're both in the minority. I've posted here and elsewhere that I'm not a fanboy for levels. But I feel like if DCC is going to have them, it may as well have them for real. 5 levels seems silly to me. It's like DCC doesn't want to do levels but then says "well, i'll give you FIVE just to keep you quiet".

The problem is no one's happy. The level-monkeys look at it and say "Five levels? What a rip!". Because they're assumption is there's going to be another book, and another book, and another book at 5 levels each (and believe me my regular group is filled with level-monkeys). And also because in the general lexicon, 5 levels isn't that far. Most people equate it to a few months of play. So DCC will be swimming upstream trying to convince people that its levels are meatier and more significant. But not giving them the bait to jump in in the first place.

And it's a ruse anyway. I don't see DCC's levels as being meatier or more significant. Not from my vantage point. Sure MDA on a good night trumps Feats. And the howitzer spellcasters come with plenty of boom built in. But a 5th level DCC Wizard is NOT comparable to a 10th level D&D Wizard. Maybe a 10th level AD&D Wizard. But still... I feel like the game is saying "There's only 5 levels! But our levels are more important!" but it's not true.

And if the levels really are meatier... Why not break them up? finarvyn, jmuchiello and geordie have given at least three possible suggestions that would make DCC extremely easy to sell to the level-monkeys.

A lot of what is right about levels is the reward structure. It's why RPGs are saddled with experience point systems and probably will be until the end of time. If DCC is going to have levels, I say it should go all in. Give us 10 or 20. Just don't let the inflation get out of hand. Do what finarvyn's talking about. Give us a lot of little levels instead of five big ones. Please.

I don't care if level 20 of DCC is equivalent to level 7 in AD&D. Actually, I'd prefer it if that was the case. And I don't see how it negatively impacts those who like the game as is. I think jmuchiello hits the nail on the head with his example of how the existing 5 levels can represent "tiers" in the RPG.

This is important to me because it means the difference between my group clamoring to play this game, me buying every adventure for it and them likely buying copies of their own versus my group playing it once or twice and it collecting dust on the shelf. Granted there are a lot of great games collecting dust on my shelf. But there are good reasons why. And a lot of them have to do with the designers having ignored or tacked on the reward system of play. Yes, it's artificial and, yes, I think RPGs would probably be better off without them. But levels keep people playing.

Now I'll make good on that STFUpping I talked about earlier in the post.

Thanks for getting back to me, Dieter. You're a stand-up guy.

[Hamakto]

Without reading the rules, it is my understanding that the levels are not equivalent to earlier edition levels. From the various forum posts and such, I believe that Joseph was attempting to scale down the game that kept getting upped and upped each time a new release of DnD came out.

By scaling back AC's and HP's back to the 'old days', there is no need to create a ton of rules to artificially expand out how much damage people do in combat.

This in turn, reduced the power curve necessary that 3e added to the game. It will be really interesting to see how everything scales.

If I had to give a WAG, my guess is that the characters in DCC are going to be fairly equivalent to 1e characters of equivalent levels. Maybe with a slight level bump at the higher levels...

(i.e. 1=1, 5=6, 10=12)

But then again, I do not know for sure and everything here is pure conjecture.

To address something that was posted earlier. Classes in 1e hit named levels at level 9 (for most classes). At that point Clerics and Warriors could establish a temple/stronghold.

Thieves could establish a guild at 10... and Wizards would do something special at 11 (forget what they got).

I think if DCC hit named levels around 7-8 that would be perfect.

I do applaud what they are trying to do, by bringing people down in levels a 15 level fighter cannot hack their way through 500 level 1 guardsmen. By limiting the levels, AC and HP's... a warrior cannot just go crazy all of the time. Remember a sixth level fighter (one of the great swordsman of the world) can still be taken down by a group of town guards if he gets out of line.

[GnomeBoy]

I'm just going to agree with the "levels come from the devil" notion, but also agree that they are an important feature for a lot of people.

And I want to re-iterate that I like that "random amid-level boost" idea -- gimme more random charts for this game, rolling three times per level to create the effect of 20 "tiers" within the 5 levels, and I think that could appease both the level-lovers and us level-indifferent folks...

Code: Select all

XP ......... Effect
0 .......... Level 1
350 .......  Level 1a (roll on chart)
700 ........ Level 1b (roll on chart)
1050 ....... Level 1c (roll on chart)
1400 ....... Level 2
etc.

[goodmangames]

Wow. First of all, thanks for all the dialogue. This kind of constructive debate is great to read. It's always interesting to realize how an action can be perceived. I have what I think are good reasons for the "level decisions," but reading the comments here makes it obvious that there will be gamers who infer alternate causality to the decision...and that might not be good.

Based on the thread here, I'll focus on getting the full 10 levels into the core book. The beta rules are already with the editor so they'll only have 5 levels. Perhaps that's good; you can get your PCs to level 5 then pick up with 6-10 from the core book. I think the most important point made in this thread is that, "players shouldn't have to wait for the next book to level up." I don't want a group to reach level 6 after continuous exciting DCC RPG play, only to then realize they can't level up until the next annual comes out! On the flip side, I personally don't feel like I have enough high-level play experience in DCC RPG (yet...) to properly do up the "broader" 6-10 rules right. By that, I mean the non-mechanical rules - things like fighters building keeps and wizards facing off with their patrons to establish true dominance once and for all. So for levels 6-10, the core rules may focus strictly on mechanics and encourage the judge to develop his own higher level plots. Which we all did fine in 1974-1979, so I think that may be okay.

I do indeed intend to include a slower advancement rate. My original idea was that it would take at least a year of once-a-week play to reach level 5. On the flip side, I think some of the ideas on the other leveling thread are brilliant - specifically, the "mini-levels" are a great way to provide "morsels" to a different generation of gamers. I'm personally a fan of level titles, and I think the concept of these "mini-levels" might finally be a great way to integrate titles properly into the XP system. What if each class had three different titles per level, and those titles represented level sub-strata? A level 1 thief is a bravo, then a thug, then a robber; a level 2 thief is a murderer, then a fence, then a racketeer; and so on. Each title could confer one "bonus of choice" from the next level (choose hit points, attack mod, spell, save, whatever), and then the third and final advancement carries the rest of the "full level benefit." Again, too late to catch the beta, but definitely something to play with.

A couple other random points:

CONVERTING CHARACTERS / CHARACTER POWER LEVEL COMPARISONS (from AD&D, from 1E, from 3E, from C&C, etc.): I don't really know how hard the conversion will be, since I haven't personally tried. Personally I believe conversions from other 3E-derived systems will be roughly compatible, due to the fundamentally same "power scale" of many concepts: same 1 HD per level, same general range of attack bonuses and save bonuses per level, etc. But how the power scale of spells precisely compares...not sure. We'll find out when someone decides to do a lot of conversion.

MIGHTY DEEDS OF ARMS:

I just want to check in on MDAs: You have to roll a three or better on your small die and you have to hit the thing that you're performing the maneuver against. As you level up, you're also probably going to be facing some stuff that's harder to hit than the stuff you fought at 0-level or 1st level. So even if your MDA roll becomes "easy" to make, you may not be hitting any more often (and maybe less). That might be slicker than an AD&D fighter (depending largely on your DM), but compared to 3e, I'm not so sure.

To confirm what GnomeBoy said, that is correct on Mighty Deeds of Arms: the warrior has to succeed in his basic attack roll, AND roll sufficiently high on his extra "small die." You guys are right that the odds of rolling high on the "small die" get a lot higher at high levels. But you also have to hit opponents with higher armor classes! What I like about the "small die" at higher levels is that it allows the fighter to score lots and lots of cool moves against weaker foes -- the level 5 warrior will indeed constantly succeed in his Mighty Deeds when fighting hordes of kobolds -- but it balances against the higher ACs of more difficult foes. Against an AC 24 dragon, the Mighty Deed is still only going to succeed every third or fourth attack.

The Free RPG Day module is at the printer now, and the beta rules are with the editor. It will be a lot easier for us all to talk after June 18, when we're all looking at the same rules set!

In the meantime, here's the cover for the Free RPG Day module. Full details going up on the web site tomorrow. It includes two adventures, both short and sweet: a level 0/1 adventure by me, and a level 5 module by Harley. Both are a lot of fun. And wait till you guys see the maps. We spent a lot of time thinking about the art direction there. Doug knocked them out of the park -- they take "illuminated map" to a whole new level...

[GnomeBoy]

Joe, I think a lot of people are going to be very, very pleased to read this post.

And honestly, I think things like building keeps and facing off against patrons is perfect supplementary material...

[smathis]

First off, thank you. I'm relieved, mostly. I'd had a good deal of anxiety over this. Silly, I know. But at least I care.

I think everyone wins here. I can't see a negative to anything that you posted.

On the flip side, I personally don't feel like I have enough high-level play experience in DCC RPG (yet...) to properly do up the "broader" 6-10 rules right. By that, I mean the non-mechanical rules - things like fighters building keeps and wizards facing off with their patrons to establish true dominance once and for all. So for levels 6-10, the core rules may focus strictly on mechanics and encourage the judge to develop his own higher level plots. Which we all did fine in 1974-1979, so I think that may be okay.

Maybe do what they did with old school monks? In order to level, you had to face off against one of the other characters in the world that was the level you wanted to attain. Sort of like Iron Chef or something. There are only so many 10th level characters. To reach 10th level, you have to kill or defeat one of the others.

Simple enough, I think. Especially if it kicks in at 8th level.

On the flip side, I think some of the ideas on the other leveling thread are brilliant - specifically, the "mini-levels" are a great way to provide "morsels" to a different generation of gamers. I'm personally a fan of level titles, and I think the concept of these "mini-levels" might finally be a great way to integrate titles properly into the XP system. What if each class had three different titles per level, and those titles represented level sub-strata? A level 1 thief is a bravo, then a thug, then a robber; a level 2 thief is a murderer, then a fence, then a racketeer; and so on. Each title could confer one "bonus of choice" from the next level (choose hit points, attack mod, spell, save, whatever), and then the third and final advancement carries the rest of the "full level benefit." Again, too late to catch the beta, but definitely something to play with.

Those are great ideas. I pushed hard for the sub-levels. They are brilliant. They throw a bone to the 3e/4e generation and they can be ignored by the disciples of old-school who don't feel a need for them. And I think the naming idea is great.

The Free RPG Day module is at the printer now, and the beta rules are with the editor. It will be a lot easier for us all to talk after June 18, when we're all looking at the same rules set!

I'm looking forward to it. Still willing to do some playtests up at Dragon's Lair. Cover looks nice and it's great that you guys put a low and high level adventure in there. Above and beyond.

Thanks again. I'm happy now. And will crawl back into my box until the forces of "Please don't do that" summon me once again from the black pits of Itzthattgyagin.

[Machpants]

Great post, covers all my worries. Covering those levels but leaving the niceties to GM discretion (I am not a big building keep type guy) and further supplements (which expand the existing core rather than being required for all games) sounds great. WIN!

[Stainless]

Each title could confer one "bonus of choice" from the next level (choose hit points, attack mod, spell, save, whatever), and then the third and final advancement carries the rest of the "full level benefit."

This is an excellent idea. Considering the artificiality of the whole level concept (as opposed to advancement through training and/or skill use which games like Traveller and CoC use), engaging the players further into a 'strategic mini-game' is a nice subtlety. It reminds me of the Trail of Cthulhu stability system; The Keeper lets you know that you need to make a stability test and that if you fail, you'll loose X points of stability. You then decide how many points of your stability to spend (you'll loose those points) to use as a bonus to your stability check. It becomes a cost/benefit calculation with risks of uncertainty. In this DCC concept, the players will try to anticipate what bonus will be most useful in the immediate future, knowing full well that the next encounter might pivot on having a bonus that they didn't choose. I think it will foster greater personal engagement with a character, which is fun.

[geordie racer]

Each title could confer one "bonus of choice" from the next level (choose hit points, attack mod, spell, save, whatever), and then the third and final advancement carries the rest of the "full level benefit."

This is an excellent idea. Considering the artificiality of the whole level concept (as opposed to advancement through training and/or skill use which games like Traveller and CoC use), engaging the players further into a 'strategic mini-game' is a nice subtlety. It reminds me of the Trail of Cthulhu stability system; The Keeper lets you know that you need to make a stability test and that if you fail, you'll loose X points of stability. You then decide how many points of your stability to spend (you'll loose those points) to use as a bonus to your stability check. It becomes a cost/benefit calculation with risks of uncertainty. In this DCC concept, the players will try to anticipate what bonus will be most useful in the immediate future, knowing full well that the next encounter might pivot on having a bonus that they didn't choose. I think it will foster greater personal engagement with a character, which is fun.

I agree, it's more interesting having it play-driven (than all planned out in advance) and furthers the concept of risk-taking that's threaded through all the mechanics I've seen so far.

[mshensley]

Joe, I think a lot of people are going to be very, very pleased to read this post.

I know I am.

And honestly, I think things like building keeps and facing off against patrons is perfect supplementary material...

In my 30 years of playing D&D (damn, i'm getting old), I've never once played or dm'ed a game where somebody built a castle or took over a country or fought a war. So, I can wait for that stuff.

[smathis]

In my 30 years of playing D&D (damn, i'm getting old), I've never once played or dm'ed a game where somebody built a castle or took over a country or fought a war. So, I can wait for that stuff.

Same here. Since 1981. Not castles or wars. I've done domain management with other games. Not D&D though.

[Hamakto]

Same here. Since 1981. Not castles or wars. I've done domain management with other games. Not D&D though.

Slacker! *grin*

In the 1e DMG, there was a table for randomly rolling troop types. We built fortresses and kingdoms so we could roll on that table and recruit armies to fight with!

But that was only for a while, then we went back to adventuring. Castles were too much work and too easy for your enemies to destroy/suck your money out of them.

[geordie racer]

In my 30 years of playing D&D (damn, i'm getting old), I've never once played or dm'ed a game where somebody built a castle or took over a country or fought a war. So, I can wait for that stuff.

Same here. Since 1981. Not castles or wars. I've done domain management with other games. Not D&D though.

Back in my AD&D days we didn't build many castles, we just took over a dungeon. I've done the 'endgame' stuff since (using Houses of the Blooded, Heroes: The Dark Ages rpg, Rules Cyclopedia) with varying degrees of success.

Domain management can be an important part of gaming beyond modules at high levels, as my fellow Newcastle gamer Matthew James Stanham said:'In some ways campaign settings are the adventure modules for high level games.' - in response to my ill-thought out Why High Level Modules Suck rant on the S&W forum.

I don't think it's as vital as planar travel, spell research and fighting demons but I would still prefer it to be there. It does give extra scope to a system.

[smathis]

Back in my AD&D days we didn't build many castles, we just took over a dungeon. I've done the 'endgame' stuff since (using Houses of the Blooded, Heroes: The Dark Ages rpg, Rules Cyclopedia) with varying degrees of success.

Domain management can be an important part of gaming beyond modules at high levels, as my fellow Newcastle gamer Matthew James Stanham said:'In some ways campaign settings are the adventure modules for high level games.' - in response to my ill-thought out Why High Level Modules Suck rant on the S&W forum.

I don't think it's as vital as planar travel, spell research and fighting demons but I would still prefer it to be there. It does give extra scope to a system.

I can see that. But previous editions of D&D relegated such things to tedious bookkeeping and wargame rules that were sub-par and overly complex.

I think Reign does a really nice job of presenting a simple system for a "meta-level" to the campaign. IMO, it allows for games resembling Song of Ice and Fire with a minimum of fuss and bookkeeping. And models both intrigue and warfare fairly well, if not granularly.

And I think it's also the case that once characters reach a certain level they're not so playable. Or at least, they come up less often in the narrative. Sort of like the way Ars Magica treats it. You've got a lackey, an apprentice and a Wizard. The Wizard may only come into play once in a while but his influence is there more often than not.

DCC could likewise represent this by allowing groups to setup new characters that are related to the high-level characters in some fashion to represent "lower level" interests on his behalf. So while your 10th level Fighter is busy with the task of ruling and building treaties and such with neighboring duchys, you could still play his 5th level man-at-arms to dive down into a dungeon and recover an artifact that he can gift to a potential ally.

I guess that's how I'd envision high level play. Or at least how I feel it's worked for me in the past. Not sure if that sort of thing needs core book treatment, though.

[geordie racer]

I can see that. But previous editions of D&D relegated such things to tedious bookkeeping and wargame rules that were sub-par and overly complex.

I agree, maybe a chart or three and some funky dice could be the answer.

.....I guess that's how I'd envision high level play.

Good ideas, I've used OD&D's rules for relatives in the past to generate heirs for epoch spanning campaigns.

Vignette play is also fun - where you flashback to a lower level and play extra adventures there (if the character dies, the player knows it just gets written off as an injury).

[smathis]

I agree, maybe a chart or three and some funky dice could be the answer.

That's one of the things I find endearing about DCC. It seems to find most of the answers in those things. It's no coincidence that I love those things as well.

Vignette play is also fun - where you flashback to a lower level and play extra adventures there (if the character dies, the player knows it just gets written off as an injury).

I ran a Hyborean HeroQuest game where we did that. We didn't write death off as injury, though. We jumped through serious hoops to keep players alive or get them back alive somehow. That was half the fun of it right there. Definitely fun though. Gonzo fun.

[jmucchiello]

Joe, I think a lot of people are going to be very, very pleased to read this post.

I know I am.

And honestly, I think things like building keeps and facing off against patrons is perfect supplementary material...

In my 30 years of playing D&D (damn, i'm getting old), I've never once played or dm'ed a game where somebody built a castle or took over a country or fought a war. So, I can wait for that stuff.

The only time I had a character with a castle was in a campaign we played specifically to do that. The players started at like 12th level and were designed from the ground up to own castles. (A huge country "conquered" a wild land and calls "all heroes" to tame it.) That was 2e game and the main villain was this 20th level mage whom we could never defeat completely until we reached 18th level or so. Obviously a very magic heavy game. Even my fighter (charisma 15) had a crystal ball and a couple henchmen who could use it for me.

[GnomeBoy]

Apropos of nothing, here is the chart I had started working on, back in those dark days of long ago when it seemed DCC RPG was only going to have 5 levels in the core rulebook. I never got to the stage of crunching any of the numbers in a simulated leveling-up kind of way, thus it may be wildly unbalancing, and so it ain't pretty (it is an uncompleted first pass, after all), but I thought it might be worth a laugh to show it off...

Some of these were meant to only apply once, with either rolling again or not receiving a bonus being the alternative if you were to roll up something you had rolled previously, but I didn't scribble in which ones I thought fell into that category, so I haven't marked them as such here.

Code: Select all

Mid-Level Improvement Chart

Roll the die type for your current level:
1st = 1d12......2nd = 1d14......3rd = 1d16......4th = 1d20......5th = 1d30

1 - Gain your level in HP.

2 - Receive a 3d14 gp inheritance.

3 - Once per day, lose 1 less Attribute point on a spellburn or skillburn.

4 - Gain +1 Initiative.

5 - Gain +1 AC vs. any designated foe in any fight (If gained multiple times, bonus can be applied only to different foes).

6 - Gain 100 XP.

7 - Once per adventure, when an ally in proximity to you would take damage that would reduce them to 0 HP, you can take that damage instead.

8 - Once per adventure, when you would take damage that would reduce you to 0 HP, you can make an ally in proximity to you take that damage instead.

9 - 

10 - 

11 - Once per day, add your level to one damage effect roll (before you roll).

12 - Once per day, add your level to one attack roll or spellcasting roll (before you roll).

13 - Gain a second Occupation.

14 - Bump your Crit Die up one size.

15 - Once per day, add +2 to any save (before you roll).

16 - Gain 2d4 loyal 0-level followers.

17 - Receive a 4d30 gp inheritance.

18 - 

19 - 

20 - Gain 3d7 loyal 0-level followers.

21 - Receive a 3d100 gp inheritance.

22 - 

23 - 

24 - 

25 - 

26 - 

27 - 

28 - 

29 - 

30 - Gain 3d16 loyal 0-level followers.

[moes1980]

Wow, alot of stuff going around on this thread. I just a few things for whatever its worth

I want to be able to go from farm boy to demi god in the rules. Yes, it might take 4 years of playing to do so, but I have had campaings last that long and they were a blast. And even if you don't start at level one, it still gives the option to play extreemly powerful characters if you want to by just starting at higher level. In a way, its like the game is three games in one: a game of commen people striving to do extoridinary things, or a game of seasoned vetrens on an important quest, or heros of legend whos deeds will help shape the cosmos. I am a big fan of having the game be rough and deadly at low levels, but part of that excitment is the idea that if you survive, you can gain real power, and "be somebody" in the campaign world. Caping the game out at 10th level seems to be a bit of drag on that point and I am not very fond of having the other level be avalible in another book that I have to wait for for a whole year or more to get. That dosn't sound like a "one core book game." It is a bit dissapointing also because my favorite modual is crypt of the devil lich but apperently I wont be able to convert it over to DCC RPG becuase it will not accomidate characters of that power level. I also don't like the idea of sub levels. why not just split out each sub level into its own level? why dose it have to be a sub level? We have to track levels and sub levels, sounds a bit silly for some reason, maybe because it sounds like your trying to throw a bone to people who want high level play without really addressing the issue: "Don't worry that it takes a year to get to level 5 and the game is caped at level 10, because you have sub levels!" (though I do like the idea of brining back titles for levels).

I have had three campaigns that went from level one to leve 15+. Two were 3.5 (one had a character that never died from level one, and the other game had two pcs that never died all the way from level 1 to 17). We also rolled up high level pcs for shorter campaigns taht were epic, as well as level 0 pcs for other adventures, just to try out different things. Right now I am in the middle of a 4th ed campaign that ran from level one to its current level of 17 and there is one player who has not yet died in the entier campaig. So it is dooable and so caping out the levels at level 10 makes DCCRPG feel alot less likely to become my gaming groups core game. If the game turns out to be extreemly fun, than I will deal with having to wait for the other ten levels for later. But to be honest, it sounds more like a book I will pick up to play a few games with, have some fun with wacky adventures, and than put it away and return to our main game of (shudders in sadness) 4th ed DnD as it SOUNDS like this game will be limited in options and play style that it can offer to players.

(don't get me wrong, if I could convince my players all we would ever play is DnD Basic out of the DnD rules encyclopedia, which I think DCCRPG mimicks more than d20. BUt the fact that there are no gnomes will irk one player, that you can't play a dwarven thief will irk another, the lack of specalist schools for spell casting will bother another, the fact that one pc could have awsome stats and another have crummy stats will bother alot of the players, and some of them won't even like the idea of level 0 play. And now, on top of all that, I have to tell them that the core game is caped at level 10? My gaming group will give it a try, but they are not likely to want to make this their dedicated game with so manythings missing. The more of a specialist nich you make this game, the harder it will be to find dedicated long term players. Afterall, there is a reason why DnD followed the trend of offering more classes, races, and levels as time went on, players wanted more options, not less!

While I personally don't mind that all elves play more or less the same as other elves (all elves are dual classed fighter mages, and never a thief, cleric, pure mage, or pure fighter), and I can deal with not having other races such as gnome and espicially drow, or classes like ranger and monk (and monk is even one of my favorites), I know other players wont like that those options are gone. And though alot of people don't mind that the game is caped at level 10 for the core rules, it is the first thing that I have heard that bothers me about this game. So I fear that by slicing away so many things that have developed in DnD over the years, you are moving to far in the oppisite direction. Why cut out half the levels from classic play? If one group dosent want to use them they don't have to, but for those who do want to use them, well, now they can't because they are not there.

I can understand wanting to cut away alot of the "bloat" in rules but if you cut away to many player options then, well, they will go play a game that dose offer those options to them.

Now, if you can tell me that the book on levels 11+ include all kinds of things like managing kingdoms, building strongholds, creating your own spells and magic items, and a very rules ligt wargame section for waging war against other kingdoms, creating and runing your own theives guild, creating kightly orders that your cleric or priest can run, than thats something different. If it offered stronger races and classes that are not an otpion at lower levels and are explicitly DM's discretion only, that would make my mouth water. That would be something I could dangle infront of my players to get them excited about playing this game, the fact that there are options down the road that most other RPG games don't offer. Getting a castle and small kingdom and army and waging war sounds alot cooler than getting a paragon path!

Also, if your interested in what some rules for a simple table top wargame that is designed to mesh with rpgs, and allow rpg player charecter's to take to the field of battle as generals, let me know Mr. Goodman and I will shoot you a copy of what I have been working on for the past couple of years. But if you don't want a table top version at some point, I suggest using the "war machine" in DnD rules encyclopedia as a guid line for how to do mass combat and wars without minitures.

[finarvyn]

I want to be able to go from farm boy to demi god in the rules.

I'm not sure that this really fits Joseph's "mission statement" for the game, unless I'm misunderstanding your use of demigod. Is Conan a demigod? Elric? Those are the kinds of characters that the DCC RPG will probably "max out" at.

Many of the characters in Appendix N literature weren't 50th level godlike guys; they were mortal and quite aware of the fact. Conan didn't die, but there were pleanty of times when he thought he might...

[mntnjeff]

This is a long thread, and I haven't read 100% of it, so if I'm covering things that have previously been talked about, then I completely apologize for wasting time.

I'm not a level nazi, but I certainly like the mechanic. D&D was my first role playing game back in '77 and it had levels then, and I like levels today. Like many, I've played all sorts of non-level based games since then and they've worked well. But like many, I've come back to D&D and the 'leveling system'. And there's a part of D&D that is written in stone in my memory; The adventures I've played in the past. Which include things like the 'G/D' series, 'Caverns of Tsojcanth' and 'Dark Tower'. In my mind, those are pillars of the game.

Quick question then: How would you re-imagine something like the 'G' or 'D' series w/in the framework of the DCC RPG? Would you have to rewrite the modules to include "lower level" giants of some sort? Sure, I know that:

1. This isn't Dungeons and Dragons
2. There are new monsters coming out w/ each module

But what about the iconic monsters? Giants, Vampires, Trolls, Demons, Liches etc? How does a DCC character face up to one of those? What if we don't want to run the modules put out by GG but would rather purchase the rules and blow the dust off of some memories and show the newer kids the magic of yesteryear? Can it happen w/ the DCC RPG? With the levels we're talking about in this thread, those modules I've listed would be slaughter fests. Unless of course I'm totally misunderstanding what "level 5" encompasses in this game.

Furthermore, I've heard some of you mention dragons, and defending kingdoms, or traveling the planes at levels 6-10. How? I'm obviously missing the boat here somehow. Last time I checked, the planes were pretty nasty places to hang out...a party of level 6 characters would have to be pretty lucky to live through a trip to any level of the Abyss. Especially when we're talking about a low magic game. (I'm pretty sure I've read that in past posts.) And a dragon? Unless it was one heck of a young dragon, forget about it.

I guess what I'm saying is this: I love the scope of Dungeons and Dragons. I like all the levels in those older editions (B/X - AD&D 1E) and I LOVED what you could do as you got higher.

[moes1980]

I want to be able to go from farm boy to demi god in the rules.

I'm not sure that this really fits Joseph's "mission statement" for the game, unless I'm misunderstanding your use of demigod. Is Conan a demigod? Elric? Those are the kinds of characters that the DCC RPG will probably "max out" at.

Many of the characters in Appendix N literature weren't 50th level godlike guys; they were mortal and quite aware of the fact. Conan didn't die, but there were pleanty of times when he thought he might...

Perhaps I over stated with the term demi god but basically, I liked that there were three stages in the level system that felt different. It seemed like once you hit level 3 or 4, you felt a little safer, you werent likely to die from a single crossbow bolt to the chest any more. From 4 to about 6 or 10 you were a strong character, perhaps well known in the local area, but you were not yet ready to take on the most legendary challenges (tomb of horros, crypt of the devil lich, etc). Once you started passing level 10, that is when you were strong enough to worry about really big problems and was usually when you could start to venture into places like the underdark, or other planes of existince to tackle bad guys that could do alot more harm to the world at large than the raiding goblins you killed at low level. Also, at in those higher tier levels, you just felt like yo ucould really kick butt and take names, and it was rewarding to get there after years of playing that character, and that campaign.

Now, maybe with the way spell casting and MDoA's and the luck mechanics work, maybe a level 10 pc in DCCRPG is more equivlent to a level 14 or 15 pc in older editions of DnD than what I first realized (as others have pointed out, a fighter is likely to get alot of MDoA at "high" levels of 6-10, and mages could be casting some pretty powerful spells if their power is based on a spell casting die). It is hard to say without the rules in my hand. But, today I was looking at my old DnD basic game, and the first rule book only covered levels 1-5, and alot of levels in the expanded Rules Encyclopedia seemed to kind of cap out at levels 8-11 (or something like that. And even for those classes that could level, they only got one HP after a certain point and it seemed like the point was that at a certain point a pc's power progression starts to level off, except maybe for mages).

Maybe my first post was an overaction, considering I don't even know how combat really works yet. I just hope that the game preserves that feeling of gaining power, being awarded for your acomplishments, and offers an incintive to players to do thier best because down the road, real riches, power, and glory are waiting and not a sudden cap in power, and a perpetual "pc's getting their arse handed to them" for their entire adventuring careere.

[finarvyn]

Perhaps I over stated with the term demi god but basically, I liked that there were three stages in the level system that felt different. It seemed like once you hit level 3 or 4, you felt a little safer, you werent likely to die from a single crossbow bolt to the chest any more. From 4 to about 6 or 10 you were a strong character, perhaps well known in the local area, but you were not yet ready to take on the most legendary challenges (tomb of horros, crypt of the devil lich, etc). Once you started passing level 10, that is when you were strong enough to worry about really big problems and was usually when you could start to venture into places like the underdark, or other planes of existince to tackle bad guys that could do alot more harm to the world at large than the raiding goblins you killed at low level.

Well, sounds like our level ranges are a little different but not too much. I'll bet you are more of an AD&D guy (20 level max) rather than OD&D (typically 10-12 level max) and that would certainly explain our different perspectives.

My three ranges are a little lower. My first range goes from 1-4, topping out at Hero. My second is 5-8, reaching superhero and when most PCs retire. My top tier is 9-12, which is mostly reserved for those nasty NPCs. I figure that if I let characters get too high, then those nasty creatures get boring. Dragons, for example, should never just be another kill. They should scare the crud out of even a hero.

That's the way I do it, and DCC should fit my level scale quite well.

[smathis]

Now, if you can tell me that the book on levels 11+ include all kinds of things like managing kingdoms, building strongholds, creating your own spells and magic items, and a very rules ligt wargame section for waging war against other kingdoms, creating and runing your own theives guild, creating kightly orders that your cleric or priest can run, than thats something different. If it offered stronger races and classes that are not an otpion at lower levels and are explicitly DM's discretion only, that would make my mouth water. That would be something I could dangle infront of my players to get them excited about playing this game, the fact that there are options down the road that most other RPG games don't offer. Getting a castle and small kingdom and army and waging war sounds alot cooler than getting a paragon path!

From my understanding, this is sort of what Joseph is working out for levels 11+. His initial idea was to stop the game at Level 5 and have Levels 6+ start to tackle some of these things. I don't know about anyone else but my group would've had a hard time considering an rpg with only 5 levels as anything other than a one-shot.

But Joseph's giving us Levels 0-10 because he's awesome and he got tired of hearing our ululations.

The reason why there's a stop there at Level 10 is because Joseph envisions playing at that level to take on a very different feel -- planar travel, strongholds, etc.