Goodman Games

Inspired by this thread here ( http://www.goodman-games.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=60&t=41514 ), I decided to create a separate thread to discuss the things we don't like about DCC. Don't get me wrong, I absolutely love this game. It's about as near perfect to my dream system as I ever imagined would be published. If I could own just one RPG the rest of my life I would choose DCC. That said there are some things I don't like and will be looking to house rule. No system can be perfect and even if I created one myself, I would probably always tinker with it so this is not a diss of the game. For the most part my complaints revolve around my distaste for the 3rd edition/d20 rules base and my belief that even though this game is fairly simple, it didn't go far enough in places.

Some of my dislikes:

1. The cleric - The patron system would have been a perfect base and I can't figure out why it wasn't utilized here. I find most of the disapproval results somewhat bland and even annoying from a gameplay stance. I can't help but feel this class was rushed for release.

2. Thief skills - There are too many skills. Seriously, do we really need a forge document skill? Mainly I am disappointed that a new thief skill system wasn't created from scratch. Can't really fault the game for that but I think this could be improved.

3. D20 DC system - I hate this system for a variety of reasons that I won't go in to here. The unfortunate part is the DC system is all over the rules so it's not a simple fix.

4. Saves - I like the simplicity of the three save system but I think saves should be more mysterious, not a simple avoidance test. Really why do we need a reflex save when we have agility tests? I would prefer a Spell save, a Physical Effects save (for poison/disease) and maybe a Death save (a last chance roll to save your character).

5. Monster stat blocks too large - They have lots of minor bonuses that only complicate things for minimal rewards. Examples:

(a) Initiative modifiers everywhere - Why even list initiative modifiers of +1, -1 or 0? Heck even +2 modifiers are barely worth the complication. For those rare monsters that a large bonus (4+), list it as a special note.
(b) Action dice - Almost all monsters use a d20. Again why not just list this as a special note for those few that do?
(c) Differing attack bonuses - If a monster is +8 in melee and +6 at range, would it be so bad to grant them a +7 for simplicity? If they are significantly better at something, sure list it, but again it should be a special note.

6. Multiple Actions per round - Love these for monsters, hate them for players. I think it adds a needless complication and basically balances out in the end: as players rise in levels they get more attacks but so do the monsters. It also means higher level characters are actually fumbling more often (every few rounds) which is just silly. I suppose it is a good way to boost non-spell caster damage at higher levels but I am not sure that is an issue in this game (or could be handled other ways).

7. Spell burning - I don't like the book-keeping that the current system creates. Hit points already abstractly measure a "weakening" character and should have been used here, along with a table for side effects to make it more interesting (and a rule that only natural healing can bring those lost points back)

Bonus minor nitpick:
Occupations table - This is an easy fix but I don't know if the results are as grim as I would expect in a Sword and Sorcery novel. I wouldn't normally mention this except this game is supposed to give off a certain vibe. I think it needs more runaway slaves, barbarian tribesmen, dock hands, town drunk, escaped convicts and such. Nothing wrong with cheesemakers and such in the list, I just think the table needs to be re-worked.

Note: I realize my thread title is misleading, I just wanted to be consistent with the other thread

Please remember this thread is not intended to bash the game. As I stated I am a big fan and it's mainly to discuss things I want to house rule. House ruling has a long tradition in the hobby and I am continuing that tradition by trying to come up with a more "old school" ruleset for my DCC campaigns.

If you have things to add please keep it to constructive criticisms, house rules and ideas to improve the game.

My #1 Dice that are difficult/expensive to get.
#2 Waiting for more DCC RPG books!

I have only played a little bit with my group, but before we did play I was thinking of using the "Armor As Damage Reduction" rule.

http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/adven ... uction.htm

+1 on the dice mention by Blood Axe.

Here are my three most major - but still extremely minor - points on which I feel something could have been done more preferably, but am absolutely not mad about in the slightest:

1 - Spell results are written out in most cases so that there is a lot of repeated word count between entries; I'd have preferred entries that were intentionally brief instead. For example, saying "as 12-13 except the damage is 1d4 + caster level" for the 14-17 result on the magic missile table.

2 - Monster chapter editing... I wish there were just a bit more attention given to the sample monster chapter as there are a lot of words that slipped through from prior ways of saying things (invoke power instead of invoke patron, fighter instead of warrior, and so on).

3 - Bounded accuracy - I wish their were an AC ceiling and a corresponding attack bonus ceiling built in, though I won't really have all that much trouble installing one if I really feel I need it.

Interesting. I'm pretty sure this was changed away from this format after beta because of feedback. I know that trying to use spell tables like you describe was less than satisfying for me. It definitely adds to volume, but I like all the words in each listing. I do wish there had been a way to get it back to each new spell starting on a new page.

My only real beefs with the game are...

1. Zocchi Dice. Ugh.

2. Mercurial Magic. I hate that some of the results can be crippling, especially when attached to an otherwise beneficial spell.
I've done away with it in my game.

Other than that, I really love this game!

I love DCC more than any game I have played (at least since I was new to the hobby and everything was fresh and exciting), but if I had to pick nits, I guess I'd like additional class options, especially since most settings I would use DCC for would have no demihumans or gods meddling in human affairs and thus would have no need of clerics, elves, dwarves, or halflings.

1. Race as class.
2. Too few guidelines for clerics.
3. Two spells overlapping on the same page.

Yes, that's all.

I'm pretty sure it was too, and I fully agree that the way the spell entries turned out is very, very useful (especially combined with the Crawler's Companion app for quick look-ups) - I have just always preferred a style of using as few words as possible to list out the "crunch" parts of a game.

I may actually make my own "table reference" set of rules, exclusively for my own use of course, to re-organize and re-word things to minimize pages I flip through... since I love DCC so much that I actually feel motivated to tinker with it.

1. Race as class. I am working on a houserule that will allow any race to choose any class.
2. Alignment. I will eliminate alignment in my game. But all gods/patrons will have allies and enemies...

I realize why these things are as they are, but I was not fond of them in previous editions, and I am not fond of them now...

Otherwise, fantastic game!

One thing that I always liked to do as a magic-user was create a spell/prayer book prop to use. Get a bound, lined journal from Staples or somewhere, and then write each spell on its own page (or several pages, per spell level rules). Then I'd keep notes on what the spell did, when I used it successfully, when and where it failed, stuff like that.

If you can put some of the overhead off on your players, it helps as a DM. I think. YMMV.

I've essentially eliminated alignment -- The only game mechanic it affects is clerical healing (and "protection from" spells). I fixed this by having a detailed pantheon of gods (with aligned, neutral, and opposed descriptions for each), and a random roll at character creation for deity (which includes "None" and "Cult"). The "Law-Neutral-Chaos" continuum is determined through gameplay. If your actions are too far afield of your deity (or societal norms) there are controls in place -- no help from the gods (or their servants/temples), problems with merchants and other "law abiding citizens", jail...all the way up to divine curses...

Alignment has always been shorthand. Working it out "long hand" is more work, but ultimately more rewarding.

In keeping with the theme of the thread:
1. I want more adventure modules and I want them faster!
2. I agree about the Cleric. I think the class has as much potential complication as the Wizard, but... then it would just be more complication. I'm working on complicating it myself.
3. There's not enough time in the day to play...

Actually, the Thief is also affected. I will just let the player choose which table to use.

I think that I will have each god/patron have a set of creature types (e.g., undead, demons, angels, etc.) that it is allied or opposed to. Anything that it is opposed to becomes "unholy". Then clerical healing, turning, and "detect/protection from" spells will be based on those.

Hi!

Race as class is the only thing I don't like about the game. Mind sharing your house rule when its done? I'm looking for ideas on doing the same thing.

Primarch

Ah. Good point. We've had the player's choose their "path" without alignment being a factor. Alignment IMC is more about politics and religion...less about ideals.





That's a good idea. I've been winging it.

Here's what I've been thinking of. It obviously reflects my preferences (I hate infravision!). I also wanted to make each race an equally valid option for any class.

1. Remove the “Elf”, “Dwarf”, and “Halfling” class. The remaining 4 classes (“Warrior”, Cleric”, Thief”, and “Wizard”) can be chosen by any race.
2. No race has infravision or low-light vision!
3. Racial Adjustments
--Human: +2 to a randomly-chosen Ability.
--Dwarf: Underground training (can use a d20 for skills concerning underground areas).
--Elf: Woodland training (can use a d20 for skills concerning woodland areas).
--Halfling: Good Luck Charm (can burn up to 2 points of luck to help another character). These luck points are regained with rest (1 point per day), and are regained simultaneously with any points burned with the Thief ability.

Hi!

Not bad!

Thanks for the tips.

Primarch

I've only read the game rules and am yet to play, looks darn good! Can't wait to try the game out.

What I don't love?

1) Most importantly, at first glance I feel there is a lack of material for the judge to readily use in his campaign. This includes monsters, magic items, spells (for players too). The author sometimes comments, in his book, about giving room or allowing the judge to make his own stuff up: I encourage that also. But with 3 kids and a full life around that, time is of the essence. Now, this being said, the book is a mouthful for the price, quite a bargain. It's not the quality-price ratio I'd like to change; I'd be ready to pay some for additional resources.

2) move silently and sneak in shadows (sp?) have not been concatenated into a single stealth skill for the thief. I've never liked to have the stealthy PCs roll 2 dice to sneak near an opponent (doubles chances of failure). Sure I can use whatever roll appears the most relevant among the two in a given situation, but the single stealth skill is more elegant IMHO.

3) The adventures that come with the game. Although the game is straightforward about the type of adventures it offers, and I wasn't expecting anything else, pure dungeon-crawl is not my cup of tea. I don't really mind that, since per #1 above, I'll homebrew anyway. But... I have the impression that the game offers great depth with its tone, mostly through its gritty feel and cool approach towards magic and religion, and that this approach could have been been used to great extent within adventures more geared towards story and less towards actual dungeon crawling. The patrons, if I only look at them, open the door to great stories! Per #1 above, I understand that I can homebrew, but with little time on my hands I'd like to see adventures with different tones.

Cheers and happy gaming!

Sky

Don't loose track of the context of this situation. Goodman is known primarily for making awesome adventure modules. There aren't all that many out there today, but they are putting out a steady stream. Factor in third-party materials, and somebody newly picking up this game in six month's time is going to have a heck of a time figuring out where to start. A year from now, even moreso... An embarrassment of riches.

We just happen to be here at the start.

I don't have anything I really "dislike" about the game. I do have some concerns:

1- I wonder about the longevity of this game with my players. They are having a blast now, but I wonder when they are going to get bored with rolling up new characters. They don't expect to have indestructible PC's, but last game night, my wife commented on how they are pretty much "throw away characters" and she didn't care if they died. They don't seem to survive long enough to have any "attachment to them".The other players agreed.

2- Componding 1, is this: Given the high body count we have experience todate: My players are not going to put much effort in on making their characters "unique". Unfortunatly with out that effort, the game is going to get stale for me, as the GM pretty fast.


3- Given 1 and 2, I'm already eyeballing a new system for possible long term play. This bothers me. I really like DCC. But given the likely possibilty that my players are going to treat it as a "beer and pretzels" game, I think it may become the "Occassional 1 shot game we play, when friends from out of town show up".

Here's the thing about "longevity" of the game, in my opinion.

Character death happens fast and furious during the funnel, which to me is kind of still the character creation process even though they adventure as they "create" their characters. (Kind of like in the old Traveller RPG where you could die in character creation, except that there you died by the dice and here you die in an adventure.) Character death after the funnel seems to be no more or less than pretty much any other RPG I've played.

Should players get attached to their characters? Not in the funnel, but certainly after that. DCC plays a lot like any other game except that it has more unpredictable (roll for spell results) and spectactular (crits and fumbles and heroic actions) effects. No reason not to be attached to a character like that, since he can become just as amazing as he can be in other games.

Just my two cents.

In this respect, the game is similar to NetHack, which is a game of discovery. You tend to play rather kamikaze at lower levels, because death happens so often (NetHack even has an acronym for it: YASD, yet another stupid death). Ideally, with each death, you learn a little bit more about how to survive. (Which isn't easy. NetHack is HARD.)

I see DCC as being sort of like that... particularly as characters age and survive, they'll get more attached, more cautious. This is exactly like real life: remember how reckless you were in your early 20s? Not so reckless in your 30s and 40s? Right.

But, still, most of it depends on the group and what you like to play. I guess not everybody's going to be into the hardcore side of things. I think it's definitely a niche market.

Here's something to consider: How are the player's going to feel about their "throw away" character once it not only survives an adventure but also does something so epic they are going to be telling people about it out-of-play for years?

This is all my opinion, but I think you may be causing an issue by being concerned about one - let me anecdote you on why I believe that:

My current group of players met me about 6 years ago, I joined their existing group as the new-guy after meeting one or two of them a couple of times at a game shop. Their only DM back then ran every campaign the same way - he'd give a premise, characters would be created, and then the mindless and unending slug-fest-till-the-PCs-are-dead would start. Every campaign ended in a TPK in 6 session or less because that's what he wanted.

Everyone hated the super-hard campaigns, and would do everything they could to avoid them... but they would give in the next time a premise came up that sounded interesting, thinking "maybe this time will be different," but it never was. So all of the players grew to utterly hate their character dying, to the point of playing 1 character and quitting the campaign entirely if that character died.

...and every member of that group, except for the prior DM, now get together at my table to play DCC (among other things) and actually enjoy it when their character bites the dust.

All because their characters die because they got themselves into a rough-patch and didn't make it, or because their plan wasn't actually as fool-proof as it seemed, or because they just made the wrong choice at a crucial moment... and never because I have forced the game in that direction.

Not to mention that, once you have hit 1st level, the rules of DCC (recovering the body, specifically) make it that much harder to actually die in the fist place.

We've already seen this in some of the games I have played in. People becoming attached to their characters as they survive a few encounters. I think up front a lot of the 0-levels are just tossed together with a few lines of background. The ones that survive an encounter or two I think you find yourself becoming attached to.



I had been playing a lot of funnels and then ran the 3rd level Free RPG adventure almost 2 weeks ago. Once a character has levels they aren't quite so squishy. You still have to be careful, but it isn't as outright dangerous as running around with a 0-level character.

We had one character death in that one-shot, but I think if it had been a longer running campaign some of the risks taken might not have happened.