DCC RPG- having problems getting it to work for me/us.

[Stainless]

Regretably I have to agree completely with Ogerpuppy. I'm also a 40-something university lecturer and I see the same issues with the "younger generation" (no insult intended for any younger generation readers here). Sadly the same mind-set invades their education. e.g., my colleague was running a physics tutorial where he was getting the class to derive an equation from first principles. They wipped out their iPhones and looked up the answer via Google. They simply couldn't understand the educational (let alone esthetic) reasons for deriving an equation from first principles since the easy (lazy) option was available via their iPhone. The best I can put my finger on is that we now live in a world dedicated to the cult of instant gratification (born of things like cable TV, Amazon orders, Google searches, and expressing itself in things like 4e ).

Sorry, rant over.

[Ogrepuppy]

Regretably I have to agree completely with Ogerpuppy.

* whew *

I thought I was just crazy in my observations of people 30-something-or-less. Hopefully I didn't step on any toes or offend.

.......much.

[RevTurkey]

Hi

Trying to get a group of young gamers to play DCC is a good thing. If 4e is what they undertand and they are finding it hard to get to grips with this new game then like it was said before...simplify it and introduce elements slowly.

If the going gets tough and new gamers used to things like 4e and Warcraft are not encouraged to play a more 'old fashioned' style of game with more storytelling elements and much more unpredictable play then that style of play will probably fade away. So we must applaud these youngsters for even trying the new system and (to them) a more antiquated version of P&P roleplaying.

Two hours is long enough to have a good game if the DM is well organised and prepped. Only just but do-able.

Sometimes a group just has a bad experience with a game for whatever reason. No matter how I tried I couldn't get any traction from the new Hackmaster system and yet it has many fans and cool elements.

I would give DCC another shot with this group and hopefully it will work out

If it doesn't... They could try Castles & Crusades or maybe Labyrinth Lord. Both nice crisp clean, quick playing games that still maintain that old-school vibe (LL is of course D&D).

Anyway, good luck in Grimsby. I am sorry to hear you struggle to find players. I don't know what I would do if I lost the little group of gamers that I grew up with. Only four of us left. I think it would be difficult to find new ones and my local gaming store only seems to have people who have never heard of soap in it. Phew, honestly guys (&girls) go try having a wash.

[Raven_Crowking]

Just for the record, my regular RCFG playtest group included no one over 25.....and my design hopes were to produce play reminiscent of the early pulp authors, including (but not limited to) those of Appendix N. Lots of people who started with 3e can "get it" if they are given a chance to! My eldest and his friends have been involved in playtests, and I have even turned some of them on to the original Robert E. Howard stories at least.....The influence of REH on D&D is as obvious to young readers as it is to old. Er....older. I'm only in my mid-forties!

These are the same folks I am expecting to shift to DCC.


RC

[smathis]

Hi all. Throwing out two coppers here. These have been my favorite suggestions in the thread thus far...

One more thought: strip out anything that you don't grasp off the bat, and add it in when you get more at home in the rules. We did it in 1979, why not now?

You should try running DCC RPG with a white-board program and video/chat like G+. Lots of Old-school games are run this way because of the free-flowing nature of old-school games. Maptools seems way over-kill for DCC RPG.

DCC is an old school style game. But I wouldn't qualify it as simple. It isn't complex from a rules-set standpoint. But I think the charts and randomness add perceived complexity during play. That can translate to what I would call "table friction" -- which would be a factor of play that makes getting from point A to point B slower. Maybe the most frictionless play experience is the OD&D Fighting Man. But even the DCC Warrior requires more "work" just to swing a sword.

Of the old school style games, I'd put forth that S&W and C&C are probably the most frictionless -- and I'll get to why I'm using that term in a minute. My ideal tabletop fantasy roleplaying game is probably a mix of C&C, LotFP and DCC.

My current group includes gamers in their 40s, 30s, late 20s and early 20s. I've also run DCC for teens -- some of whom only ever played computer games if any games at all. What I've learned about the "younguns" isn't so much that they want "instant gratification" -- I think that's oversimplifying things a bit -- I've learned that they are easily frustrated by friction during gameplay. They want things to do. But they don't want to encounter a lot of resistance to do them. It's not so much that they want a reward -- unless playing the game is the reward itself. It's that they want to be engaged in the play experience without jumping through a lot of hoops.

The 20-somethings in my group quickly lost interest in LotFP because there weren't mechanical truffles that they could dig up and consume. They liked DCC better. But they were flummoxed a bit by what I'd consider a lot of "little rules" -- like Lucky Rolls and such. The older gamers get wild with Mighty Deeds. The younger gamers, thus far, have just used the Attack Die for bonuses.

And I'd like to state that even this is an over-generalization. Everyone is a little higher or lower on the chart, regarding how much 'table friction' they're able to absorb before frustration starts to set in.

I've tried in TA/TG to create something that is a little more frictionless but obviously I have to draw a line to prevent TA/TG from becoming too divergent from DCC. A good example is dropping to 0 hit points in DCC. Getting from Point A to Point B is figuring out whether or not I'm dead. Well, in DCC, there's bleeding out and then Recovering the Body -- each with it's own minor sub-systems that could introduce some table friction in determining something the player really wants to know right now. For us old-schoolers, we make that roll to recover the body and we're like "whew". But for those who have less tolerance for these things, they've already moved on to what their next character is going to be (in their heads) and then they're pulled back into this character they thought was dead. Introducing friction for them. And possibly frustration. Over time, the more friction they experience the more frustration they'll encounter. And, as mentioned earlier, I've found some "younguns" exhibit a lower overall tolerance to this sort of situation.

But in TA/TG, Dying is just ONE THING. There is no bleeding out. There is no recovering the body. It's just one thing. And thus far it's been frictionless.

Here's some other things I've done at the table to reduce friction for players...

• I handle all the spell tables. I don't have the players look up the spells. I tried that before and it was miserable. Having me look up spell results allows me to describe what's happening. I can also handle any subsequent dice rolls quickly when looking at the charts. So casting a spell in my game goes like this: (Player) "I'm casting Unseen Humidifier" (Me): "Are you using Spellburn?" (Player): "Yes/No/What's That?" (Me): "(Follow up).... Then roll your Action Die and don't forget any spellcheck penalties. What'd you get?" (Player): "[Random integer]". I rifle through the PDF. Roll a couple of times and describe the effects. It's just easier that way.
• The Lucky Rolls are highly contentious. So I've drifted towards making them a flat +1 always.
• I have players describe what they want to do and then suggest whether or not they're using a Mighty Deed. I also handle "counting off" their actions in my own head. "I run across the room, draw a flintlock and cap that S.O.B. point blank". That might be a Mighty Deed. Or might require and Agility check. Whatevs. As long as I'm consistent, there won't be a problem.

One thing I've considered (that isn't in TA/TG) is Saves against spells. I think they're fine for the PCs. It gives them a last defense and all. But I don't much like them for Monsters/NPCs. A player rolls a modified 23 on a spellcheck and the LAST thing they want is to have that effect nullified by a successful save from one of the targets. I'm toying with the notion of just applying the target's Save bonus as a negative to the spellcheck. Since I handle translating all the results from the spell tables, this is pretty easy to do on the fly and requires less of a "pause" in the play experience.

Anyway.... Long post getting longer. Sorry about that.

[smathis]

Post. Fail.

[smathis]

One thing I've considered (that isn't in TA/TG) is Saves against spells. I think they're fine for the PCs. It gives them a last defense and all. But I don't much like them for Monsters/NPCs. A player rolls a modified 23 on a spellcheck and the LAST thing they want is to have that effect nullified by a successful save from one of the targets. I'm toying with the notion of just applying the target's Save bonus as a negative to the spellcheck. Since I handle translating all the results from the spell tables, this is pretty easy to do on the fly and requires less of a "pause" in the play experience.

Anyway.... Long post getting longer. Sorry about that.

And before any conclusions are leapt toward on this last part... The actual result of the spellcheck is the modified roll. The effect it has on the creature/NPC is the modified-with-save-bonus entry. So no player is going to get Corruption or lose a spell based on me knocking it down a few notches due to the target's save bonus. This will be easier with TA/TG spell entries. I've just found that players don't care about Monster Saves. The less friction tolerant just want that one roll and then to know how much damage they do.

[meinvt]

One thing I've considered (that isn't in TA/TG) is Saves against spells. I think they're fine for the PCs. It gives them a last defense and all. But I don't much like them for Monsters/NPCs. A player rolls a modified 23 on a spellcheck and the LAST thing they want is to have that effect nullified by a successful save from one of the targets. I'm toying with the notion of just applying the target's Save bonus as a negative to the spellcheck. Since I handle translating all the results from the spell tables, this is pretty easy to do on the fly and requires less of a "pause" in the play experience.

I love this idea.

Standard monsters get a fixed (low) negative modifier to your appropriate spell check.
'Special' enemies get that modifier plus a low (d3 to d10) additional rolled negative to your spell check.

Then you don't need to make an 'additional' saving throw for the enemy after you get your result.

I'll be stealing this.

[ScrivenerB]

One thing I've considered (that isn't in TA/TG) is Saves against spells. I think they're fine for the PCs. It gives them a last defense and all. But I don't much like them for Monsters/NPCs. A player rolls a modified 23 on a spellcheck and the LAST thing they want is to have that effect nullified by a successful save from one of the targets. I'm toying with the notion of just applying the target's Save bonus as a negative to the spellcheck. Since I handle translating all the results from the spell tables, this is pretty easy to do on the fly and requires less of a "pause" in the play experience.

I love this idea.

That's pretty great! Excellent idea.

[jasmith]

Fortunately, I only run old school games nowadays, so anyone who's played at my table knows what they're getting themselves into.

All that aside, there's enough fiddly bits that I wouldn't try running DCC without thoroughly grounding myself in the rules. Also, I'm used to handling crits ad hoc, using my own rules for special maneuvers, etc., so I'll really need to get the DCC procedures firmly set in mind, before running the game. The game is a lot of fun to read though, so no complaints there.

[Galadrin]

I agree with Stainless and Ogrepuppy completely. Check the priorities of your group before selecting the right system. If they want to "win Dungeons & Dragons," choose one of the recent versions of the game that encourages this playstyle (it is completely incompatible with earlier editions, so don't even try to mix these). If you want to test what kind of players you have, throw Holmesian (i.e. too dangerous) encounters at them until they either get smart or despair.

Something we often forget, in the drive to recreate the earliest ambience of playing the Original Dungeons & Dragons game, is that players in the 1970's basically encountered the three little booklets in a complete vacuum from other roleplaying games. They didn't presume that the game should be hard or easy, or have a low or high mortality rate—they just trusted the basic design of the game (and house-ruled everything they didn't understand). The early variants (Warlock, Arduin, Tunnels & Trolls etc) only came about because the authors felt D&D was too difficult to understand, not because they wanted to promote a different playstyle. Later editions of the game came out because fans and designers thought they were doing everyone a favor by maximising and exaggerating parts of the game that they thought were the best ("ooh I like hot fudge! Let's halve the ice cream, drop the walnuts and quadruple the hot fudge!").

Nowadays, it is unavoidable that your players have had previous experience with other roleplaying games that have completely different priorities. Since we cannot bring that naïveté back, rather than fight their expectations, we must now work with the expectations of our players. If the players are young enough, you may be able to throw that Holmesian "tough love" at them and see if they come around, but understand that their cooperation is not guaranteed. On the flipside, Joe is trying something very noble with DCC (and I am curious to see how well it works) and really spells out his attempt to "start from scratch" on page 10 of what my wife is lovingly calling the "big physics textbook." If you want to reteach your players what 1974 means, at least make page 10 mandatory reading (and explain it to them, and give them extra reading for homework).

For MapTools, my advice is either drop that program like a bad habit (MapTools games are already painfully slow by nature) or at least give up programming macros. While it makes a lot of sense to macro a 4e game (which has a lot of special abilities), it doesn't really make sense to macro DCC. DCC is all about using innovative dice mechanics, which are a nightmare for standardized macros. Aside from the charts, however, DCC actually has fairly streamlined dice rolls (thanks to its old school D&D foundation), so it should be fast without macros. Just use a chat program and ask the players to roll a d30 at home and tell you the result. This makes a lot more sense than using macros.

[yell0w_lantern]

Lots of good observations and advice here. There are any number of ways you could proceed.

I agree that Castles and Crusades is an easy system. I also recommend Tunnels and Trolls if you want fast. Palladium Fantasy 1st edition is also decent. Other good ones include: Dragons at Dawn by D.H. Boggs (Lulu; heavy on DM rulings), any of the Swords & Wizardry game books (complete is probably my favorite) and keep an eye the new Hackmaster (Basic is already available). I understand that Adventurer, Conqueror, King system is excellent.

You could always just keep 4E.

You could dispense with the fumble tables and just abuse the character with whatever comes to your mind. You could use the Mythic system GM Emulator to substitute for a lot of rolling on random tables even the fumbles I think.

You could substitute GURPS magic spells for the magic in DCC. A good starting point for this is the online guide to using GURPS magic in 4E oddly enough.

[jozxyqk]

I have not yet played DCC RPG (preordered my copy at my FLGS--excited to see it soon!), but I am annoyed by how many posters have taken what seems to me to be a fairly straightforward post about DCC RPG's complexity as to new players, and twisted it to advance a preconceived narrative of "DCC RPG vs. Newfangled-Power-Gaming" or "old school story-based gaming vs. mechanic-based WOW."

I recognize that people are invested in those narratives, but they're simply not happening in this case. The players in question really liked the deadly character creation funnel. They obviously aren't obsessed with optimization or not having "enough 18s," etc. They don't seem to be afraid of "Holmesian" gaming. There is nothing in the post at all about story-based vs. crunch-focused gaming.

Where the problem to be addressed is that "DCCRPG feels unnecessarily clunky and complex and I am having trouble explaining it to new players," it is simply not helpful to respond with "DCC RPG (and by extension, me) is hardcore--a system for people who can handle flawed characters and character death. Coddled noobs who want to play demigods at 1st level and 'win D&D' need not apply." It is similarly not helpful to respond with "well they probably don't appreciate storytelling elements."

To me, complexity and unwieldy rule systems are not Old School. In my mind one of the best facets of old school gaming was its simplicity. (Kudos to the people suggesting alternative rule systems that are simpler)

[Raven_Crowking]

I have not yet played DCC RPG (preordered my copy at my FLGS--excited to see it soon!), but I am annoyed by how many posters have taken what seems to me to be a fairly straightforward post about DCC RPG's complexity as to new players, and twisted it to advance a preconceived narrative of "DCC RPG vs. Newfangled-Power-Gaming" or "old school story-based gaming vs. mechanic-based WOW."

I agree that's not particularly helpful, although it is helpful to realize that no system is for everyone, and that this system might not be for you or your players (esp. if it feels too clunky).

You can try this for a Wizard explanation:

Magic is not science. Magic is unpredictable; it has will and reasons of its own.

When you learn a spell, you roll on the Mercurial Magic table to see how that spell interacts with you in particular. Whatever is rolled always applies to your casting of that particular spell. Roll for each spell when you learn it.

When you cast a spell, you roll a spell check, and that determines how the spell works this particular time. In some cases, you may not be able to cast the spell, just this once or until the next day. A natural "1" is always a failure, and bad things are likely to happen. A natural "20" is a critical success, and you add your Caster Level to the check again.

In some cases, the magic may backfire, having an unexpected effect. "Corruption" is a special unexpected effect that targets the caster. Rolling high is always good.

You may "spellburn"; that is, take attribute damage in order to increase your roll. This must be to Strength, Agility, or Stamina. This recovers at the rate of 1 ability point each day. You may also burn Luck to increase your check, or to avoid corruption (1 point), but this is not restored. You may find out what the corruption result is before deciding to burn Luck to avoid it.

Finally, you can spellburn points equal to the level of a spell to cast a spell you've already lost for the day.

But, be careful -- if your spell check is a natural "1", and you used spellburn to cast a spell, you lose 1 ability point permanently. Spellburn is therefore a sort of gamble, and not a gamble that you can always win.

[Aplus]

I'll try to limit this to my experience running the game. A lot of it has to do with pacing and keeping the action moving. Whether or not DCC is the right game is for each individual group to decide.

1. There are a TON of tables. Easy and fast access to these is extremely important in order to avoid killing the pace of the game. This is why I made the reference sheets, and I highly recommend their use. All spells should also be printed out for quick reference. Someone mentioned earlier having the referee be the only one with all the spell tables, but I disagree. I already have enough things to juggle, so I like having the players look up their own spell results, and I move on to see what the next player is doing while they are doing that, so as not to hold up the game.

2. Rules lookups are a big no-no for me. This is something I learned from experience. I always had a strong desire to "get it right", but after killing the pace of several games (in other systems) by stopping to look up rules, I learned that it is much better to just make a quick call that makes sense for the situation, and move on. If I'm really hung up on what it says in the book, I can always check it after the game so I know what to do next time.

3. Have players do some of the work. When a player takes damage, have them roll the dice for how much damage they take and quickly move to the next player. Treat them like grown-ups, and largely they will step up and shoulder some of the weight of the game.

4. Everyone has to be in the same boat as far as knowing that eventually, horrible things are likely to happen to the PCs, and it's funny as hell if you let it be!

Additionally, Harley posted these tips a while back, which are very helpful: http://www.goodman-games.com/forums/vie ... 60&t=14570

DCC RPG is definitely a different animal when compared to a lot of other games. I had the unique advantage of having played in a game run by Harley before ever running it myself, so mainly I just emulated a lot of the stuff I saw him doing.

[PretentiousMoniker]

What a wild and insightful thread!

While it's unfortunate that it doesn't look like the compatibility is there for this particular group, I loved some of the observations that came from it.

While the kid doesn't know that he "gets it" when he observes the risk involved with spellcasting, he really does! The risk is tremendous and inherent - I think he just doesn't realize the possible scale of the rewards, either.

Any thread that propagates the usage of 'grok', in my opinion, is a success.

Finally - GET THESE KIDS READING! I don't care if they start with comics or with WOTC 4e-based novels. They're game designers, and they MUST be reading, and preferably writing as well. We don't need more Nth iterations of CoD and identical FPSes. We don't need regurgitated mechanics and themes of the last 30 years of video games - probably limited to 1/2 that in their situations. They need fodder for ideas and inspirations; for new mashups and revisions; for brand new concepts formed in the fusion of ideas they've consumed, current events in the world, and burgeoning scientific discoveries.

I am thoroughly enjoying watching my friend's 11yo and 6yo children grow up. Luckily, they had some great role models (yeah, now that I type it, pun intended). They play Gameboy, Xbox, and they go to local gaming conventions to play. And they read.

[Galadrin]

Where the problem to be addressed is that "DCCRPG feels unnecessarily clunky and complex and I am having trouble explaining it to new players," it is simply not helpful to respond with "DCC RPG (and by extension, me) is hardcore--a system for people who can handle flawed characters and character death. Coddled noobs who want to play demigods at 1st level and 'win D&D' need not apply." It is similarly not helpful to respond with "well they probably don't appreciate storytelling elements."

To me, complexity and unwieldy rule systems are not Old School. In my mind one of the best facets of old school gaming was its simplicity. (Kudos to the people suggesting alternative rule systems that are simpler)

Hello jozxyqk, welcome to the boards. I wasn't sure anyone was quite saying this, although I mentioned "winning at D&D" in my last post so I am supposing part of this may be in response to something I said? I do certainly put myself in the camp of "different strokes for different folks," but I hope you found something useful in our posts. Forum discussions are, after all, living and evolving things, and what you may find on the fifteenth post may not directly relate to the first. In any case, I can highly recommend playing DCC as-is for at least one level if you want to get what the designer is after. If you bear with something that seems complicated at first, you may find that it is not trying to break your patience but rather it is trying to break your very preconceptions and that there is a wisdom to this. DCC is not a generic game, indeed it is rather idiosyncratic. It is a game that seems to want to bring back the interpretive moment of reading and understanding dice rolls, and move gaming away from dice results that give clear, normative and static effects. The design of the game matters, and the theory behind that design is very different from Castles & Crusades, Swords & Wizardry and so on (I could also say 4e, but everyone seems to assume that you are criticizing that game if you compare it to anything...).

[onearmspence]

Where the problem to be addressed is that "DCCRPG feels unnecessarily clunky and complex and I am having trouble explaining it to new players," it is simply not helpful to respond with "DCC RPG (and by extension, me) is hardcore--a system for people who can handle flawed characters and character death. Coddled noobs who want to play demigods at 1st level and 'win D&D' need not apply." It is similarly not helpful to respond with "well they probably don't appreciate storytelling elements."

To me, complexity and unwieldy rule systems are not Old School. In my mind one of the best facets of old school gaming was its simplicity. (Kudos to the people suggesting alternative rule systems that are simpler)

Hello jozxyqk, welcome to the boards. I wasn't sure anyone was quite saying this, although I mentioned "winning at D&D" in my last post so I am supposing part of this may be in response to something I said? I do certainly put myself in the camp of "different strokes for different folks," but I hope you found something useful in our posts. Forum discussions are, after all, living and evolving things, and what you may find on the fifteenth post may not directly relate to the first. In any case, I can highly recommend playing DCC as-is for at least one level if you want to get what the designer is after. If you bear with something that seems complicated at first, you may find that it is not trying to break your patience but rather it is trying to break your very preconceptions and that there is a wisdom to this. DCC is not a generic game, indeed it is rather idiosyncratic. It is a game that seems to want to bring back the interpretive moment of reading and understanding dice rolls, and move gaming away from dice results that give clear, normative and static effects. The design of the game matters, and the theory behind that design is very different from Castles & Crusades, Swords & Wizardry and so on (I could also say 4e, but everyone seems to assume that you are criticizing that game if you compare it to anything...).

That’s interesting...

While it may diverge form the topic being discussed, I’ll like to ask you why do you think DCC RPG's design theory is different from Castles & Crusades, Sword & Wizardry, etc.?

I ask this because your comment reminded me of one post I read at Grognardia (http://grognardia.blogspot.com/2012/05/appendix-o.html) in which the appendix O was criticized for "placing "retro-clones, adventures centered on goblin raiders, excursions into the underdeep, and genre-based campaign settings" on the same level as using the fonts and color schemes TSR did."

While I'm not sure to understand the point of this criticism it seems to lead to the conclusion by some part of the OSR community that DCC is just (like any other retro-clone) a "re-published a plethora of variants on the core D&D concepts".

[Galadrin]

While it may diverge form the topic being discussed, I’ll like to ask you why do you think DCC RPG's design theory is different from Castles & Crusades, Sword & Wizardry, etc.?

I ask this because your comment reminded me of one post I read at Grognardia (http://grognardia.blogspot.com/2012/05/appendix-o.html) in which the appendix O was criticized for "placing "retro-clones, adventures centered on goblin raiders, excursions into the underdeep, and genre-based campaign settings" on the same level as using the fonts and color schemes TSR did."

While I'm not sure to understand the point of this criticism it seems to lead to the conclusion by some part of the OSR community that DCC is just (like any other retro-clone) a "re-published a plethora of variants on the core D&D concepts".

I think James may have missed the point with that post a little. I talked about my understanding of part of the design theory behind DCC over on my blog a while back, if you are interested.

[onearmspence]

While it may diverge form the topic being discussed, I’ll like to ask you why do you think DCC RPG's design theory is different from Castles & Crusades, Sword & Wizardry, etc.?

I ask this because your comment reminded me of one post I read at Grognardia (http://grognardia.blogspot.com/2012/05/appendix-o.html) in which the appendix O was criticized for "placing "retro-clones, adventures centered on goblin raiders, excursions into the underdeep, and genre-based campaign settings" on the same level as using the fonts and color schemes TSR did."

While I'm not sure to understand the point of this criticism it seems to lead to the conclusion by some part of the OSR community that DCC is just (like any other retro-clone) a "re-published a plethora of variants on the core D&D concepts".

I think James may have missed the point with that post a little. I talked about my understanding of part of the design theory behind DCC over on my blog a while back, if you are interested.

ty Galadrin

I'll check

[yell0w_lantern]

I would like to present two related thoughts.

First, the difference in game design is that risk/benefit has been changed from a relatively fixed proportion to random and highly variable in certain areas. This changes the way you play. Slot machines that pay more also cost more so you might be more hesitant to play the machine that costs five times as much. Conversely, you could go to a vending machine, put in a fixed amount and receive exactly what you want right then. But no one is addicted to vending machines in the same way as slot machines; the dopamine surge in the brain is much greater in intermittent random rewarding. Think about it.

The second point is a philosophical tangent relating to magic. If magic was predictable and repeatable it would be science. Indeed, when you think about it, if the world is filled with a plethora of magic users who can all cast the same spells and make magic items in the same way for little cost there is nothing to prevent them from installing continual lights (with mechanical shades) in houses or casting cold spells on the insides of large sturdy boxes. I remember a humorous side note in the Palladium RPG where some water warlocks were developing "something called 'canned goods'".

In traditional D&D what is the downside of being a magic user? D4 hit dice were used for all commoners and unlike magic users, commoners did not rise in level so they only ever had 1d4. Lousy weapon selection and armor are not much of a concern if you're the town's electrician, heating/cooling expert, exterminator and plumber because they NEED you. The spell limit is irrelevant if you are not in danger because you don't get sick, fatigued, bleed out or anything like that. You just go about the rest of your day making dinner and cleaning the lab. So in game theory terms, the benefits of magic so far outweighing the risks would make it popular and it would become commonplace being used for mundane purposes.

[jozxyqk]

Where the problem to be addressed is that "DCCRPG feels unnecessarily clunky and complex and I am having trouble explaining it to new players," it is simply not helpful to respond with "DCC RPG (and by extension, me) is hardcore--a system for people who can handle flawed characters and character death. Coddled noobs who want to play demigods at 1st level and 'win D&D' need not apply." It is similarly not helpful to respond with "well they probably don't appreciate storytelling elements."

To me, complexity and unwieldy rule systems are not Old School. In my mind one of the best facets of old school gaming was its simplicity. (Kudos to the people suggesting alternative rule systems that are simpler)

Hello jozxyqk, welcome to the boards. I wasn't sure anyone was quite saying this, although I mentioned "winning at D&D" in my last post so I am supposing part of this may be in response to something I said? I do certainly put myself in the camp of "different strokes for different folks," but I hope you found something useful in our posts. Forum discussions are, after all, living and evolving things, and what you may find on the fifteenth post may not directly relate to the first. In any case, I can highly recommend playing DCC as-is for at least one level if you want to get what the designer is after. If you bear with something that seems complicated at first, you may find that it is not trying to break your patience but rather it is trying to break your very preconceptions and that there is a wisdom to this. DCC is not a generic game, indeed it is rather idiosyncratic. It is a game that seems to want to bring back the interpretive moment of reading and understanding dice rolls, and move gaming away from dice results that give clear, normative and static effects. The design of the game matters, and the theory behind that design is very different from Castles & Crusades, Swords & Wizardry and so on (I could also say 4e, but everyone seems to assume that you are criticizing that game if you compare it to anything...).

Thanks for the civil reply to a somewhat irascible first post. I absolutely recognize that forum discussions evolve. I was sad to see what I saw as interesting and valuable questions in the first post start to evolve into (what looked like to me) an excuse to bash "kids these days" on grounds that were completely unrelated to those questions and even seemed to contradict what the OP said about his players.

As I said, I'm very excited to get my copy of DCCRPG and play it. Until I do, I reserve any judgment on whether its table-ful nature has negative impact on its blessed simplicity.

Still, it is odd to me to read, on the one hand, statements like those made by Mr. Goodman in this interview (http://gaming.suvudu.com/2012/05/interv ... s-rpg.html), e.g. ("I started thinking of ways to produce a more streamlined, simpler game play experience. ... n a couple years my young son will ask to play D&D, and when I teach him, I want to teach a version that we can both play. It has to be simple and fast."), and on the other hand get the impression that the game has so many tables that new players get intimidated, and game play can get bogged down while a bunch of things are looked up every time a spell is cast, and in numerous other situations, e.g., these comments...

[T]here is a pause when it comes to casting them because the have to be looked up, [...] just like crits, fumbles, disapproval and corruption. That "looking up" process is a moment of tension and anxiety. Everyone shuts up and holds their breath, and when the effect happens, it's usually either amazing or really funny. When a magic user says they're going to cast a spell, they have to get used to being prepared to cast it. So they should have their chart ready, know their mods, and roll.

[Arguing that new players are ] accustomed to the "point-and-click-iness" of D&D4E, which relies less heavily on story and is designed to be easy to play practically as soon as you crack the spine of one of the Player's Handbooks. My point? Sometimes you simply can't fit a square peg in a round hole. It's just that easy.

You only have 2 hours to play a week? Look for a more streamlined game, and play the hell out of that.

DCC is an old school style game. But I wouldn't qualify it as simple. It isn't complex from a rules-set standpoint. But I think the charts and randomness add perceived complexity during play. That can translate to what I would call "table friction" -- which would be a factor of play that makes getting from point A to point B slower. Maybe the most frictionless play experience is the OD&D Fighting Man. But even the DCC Warrior requires more "work" just to swing a sword.

I'm left wondering whether DCC is fast and simple and suitable for young'uns (as Goodman seems to be saying), or if one to must look elsewhere if one wants a "streamlined game" that "is designed to be easy to play" (as smathis, reverenddak and Ogrepuppy seem to be saying).

There just seems to be a lot of tension there. But as I say, excited to get it, and excited to try it out. I'm sick to death of the metagaming-required rule-systems and anime art of Pathfinder.

[reverenddak]

I'm left wondering whether DCC is fast and simple and suitable for young'uns (as Goodman seems to be saying), or if one to must look elsewhere if one wants a "streamlined game" that "is designed to be easy to play" (as smathis, reverenddak and Ogrepuppy seem to be saying).

There just seems to be a lot of tension there. But as I say, excited to get it, and excited to try it out. I'm sick to death of the metagaming-required rule-systems and anime art of Pathfinder.

Let's put this into perspective. DCC RPG is not much more complicated than OD&D and "Basic" D&D. But OD&D/Basic is about as rules-lite of a system you can get. DCC RPG is about as complicated as AD&D, but as with AD&D, most people ignored a good chunk of the rules and used what they liked. This is totally possible with DCC RPG too. I'd also say that Pathfinder significantly more complicated than DCC RPG, again, in general terms. But especially when it comes to making characters. Just compare the character sheets.

And, lets look at specific things:

Warriors, about as simple of a class you can play. Even if you don't declare a specific Mighty Deed of Arms, in combat, Warriors get an extra DIE for damage and to hit. If they do declare a MDoA, a 3+ does something really cool. It could be as simple as a +2 advantage of some sort all that way to some severe permanent injury... depends on the experience (i.e. level of the Warrior.) It's a bit more complicated than "Basic", but way simpler and flexible than Feats. No charts needed, at least once you get a hang of it.

Thieves, not worth mentioning, because they're very similar to all versions of D&D. They're a skill based class (ironic or oxymoron?), and again, no charts/tables needed, well only at character generation.

Wizards, just a bit different from other versions of D&D. A bit more "complicated" than "Basic or even AD&D", but that's the result of making magic unpredictable and dynamic. It's still only one chart per spell. Usually spells are referenced in some manner anyway. In DCC RPG it's a table with multiple results. Roll a d20, add CL & mods (which should readily known) and compare to a chart. Add your level again if you roll a 20. It takes a few seconds, and it's fun.

Clerics, same as the wizard. Just failures are handled a bit differently. Turning & Healing tables? No more complicated than it was in other editions.

Fumbles, if it's a spell, roll on a chart to see a random corruption or disapproval. If it's an attack, roll on a chart based on with die based on armor. But this happens 1 in 20, unless you're a cleric, then it's rises.

Crits, again 1 in 20, and only happens with weapon attacks. Roll on a class specific chart with a specific die.

That's it. There's really not much more if you don't want to include them. Everything else can be learned over time.

It helps to have Crit and Fumble tables, front & center. Casters should have their spells ready when they cast them. Fighters should have their MDoA reference sheets ready if they declare them. Everything else can be judged on the fly. You'll find that many times the random result doesn't quite logically fit the situation at hand. Fudge it! I always work with the players to make strange Crits or Fumbles makes sense.

[smathis]

There just seems to be a lot of tension there. But as I say, excited to get it, and excited to try it out. I'm sick to death of the metagaming-required rule-systems and anime art of Pathfinder.

I think my comments might have come across in the wrong light. DCC is not "complicated". It's not "intimidating to new players". I've run it for people who have never played a roleplaying game in their life. And they get it. It's not "hard" to play at all.

There are probably more table lookups than you're used to. Easy answer for that is not to have 4 spellcasters in a party of 5. Have 1. Or 2.

Other easy answer is to know the rules for spellcasting pretty well and guide the players through it. Do the chart stuff yourself, so they don't have to look it up. All they need to do is tell you what they rolled. When they're ready to do their own spellcharts, they will.

It's not OD&D/Basic. But it's far less complicated than 3e or 4e. By a wide margin.

[Karaptis]

Please take my comments as tounge in cheek from a gaming geezer. Print out the tables and keep them handy and put a bookmark in the spell section. If the group still hates the game either alter it or go for another. I happen to think this game rules and so do many others if you read the blogs and reviews. The kids may just like this game as much as I like the current MMORPG wannabe 4e or the minmax nightmare of 3.5/pathfinder. Different strokes!