DCC Boxed Set

If it doesn't fit into a category above, then inscribe it here, O Mighty One...

Moderators: DJ LaBoss, michaelcurtis, finarvyn, Harley Stroh

User avatar
reverenddak
Moderator
Posts: 768
Joined: Wed Mar 23, 2011 11:04 am
Location: Los Angeles
Contact:

Re: DCC Boxed Set

Post by reverenddak » Tue Jan 15, 2013 1:29 pm

beermotor wrote:I think you guys just want this so you'll have something else to collect. NERDS!!!!!!

/ACAEUM'D
Hah! No way, I don't collect. I use my books, and write in them and everything. Plus, I'm broke. I think beginner sets make better tools to teach the game, I like teaching the game.
Reverend Dakota Jesus Ultimak, S.S.M.o.t.S.M.S., D.M.

(Dungeon) Master In Chief of Crawl! fanzine. - http://www.crawlfanzine.com/

"[...] there is no doubt that Dungeons and Dragons and its imitators are right out of the pit of hell." - William Schnoebelen, Straight talk on Dungeons & Dragons

Dark Lord
Wild-Eyed Zealot
Posts: 55
Joined: Tue Jun 19, 2012 7:43 am

Re: DCC Boxed Set

Post by Dark Lord » Tue Jan 15, 2013 2:33 pm

reverenddak wrote:Sorry, my original reply [http://www.goodman-games.com/forums/vie ... 948#p95948] wasn't directed at you personally, just the thread. All I did was state my support for a Boxed Set (hypothetical), and backed it up with my personal (anecdotal) belief. You're the one that poked holes at my post, with inline replies and all, so I couldn't help but take it personally. My bad but I still think a Basic Set is a good idea.
I believe you quoted and replied to me first, sir. Sorry.
reverenddak wrote:Btw, Basic D&D was absolutely designed as an entry level game before "Advanced" D&D play. It might not have worked for you, and I know it didn't work well for me. But the evidence is pretty clear that it was designed with that in mind: Basic D&D "Holmes Edition" (1977) p. 6. states "...experience levels that high are not discussed in this book and the reader is referred to the more complete rules in ADVANCED DUNGEONS & DRAGONS". The original Red Box, the Moldvay (1981) and/or Mentzner (1983) editions, that's a different story. But I was already into AD&D by the time those books came out.
Uh...except for one problem. The edition that became "Basic" D&D was already designed by that point. The 1977 edition was little more than a rules clean up and re-editing. It was never DESIGNED to be a gateway game when it was created. Just because they later created an Advanced version, doesn't mean the game was designed to be gateway game. And in fact, that strategy was abandoned almost right away because in 1981 they revised the game and made it wholly incompatible with AD&D. The Advanced game WAS designed to have more rules but that doesn't mean the basic set was designed to be an introductory game.

It was designed as D&D. AD&D was designed to be an advanced version...but that's not the same thing.

And as I said, it didn't work for me because when AD&D came out my friends and I realized we already were doing what those books were trying. We didn't need an "advanced" game that was full of broken and clunky rules. The "basic" game was a much better game, and as it was intended stood on its own just fine.

User avatar
GnomeBoy
Tyrant Master (Administrator)
Posts: 3617
Joined: Fri Mar 10, 2006 1:46 pm
FLGS: Bizarro World
Location: Left Coast, USA
Contact:

Re: DCC Boxed Set

Post by GnomeBoy » Tue Jan 15, 2013 2:41 pm

I can't comment on all the ins and outs of "Basic" and "Advanced" D&D, but I do think I remember it being something to do with Gygax's and Arneson's differing visions of the game -- I think I recall the 80's "Basic" being Dave's version and AD&D being Gary's... "Holmes Basic" seems to have been a stop-gap to have a 'complete' version on the market while AD&D was being written. Holmes wasn't designed as an intro to AD&D, per se, but a product that could get/keep people playing while AD&D was finished.

/2¢

Feel feel to correct me if you have gathered better intel.
Gnome Boy • DCC playtester @ DDC 35 Feb '11. • Beta DL 2111, 7AM PT, 8 June 11.
Playing RPGs since '77 • Quasi-occasional member of the Legion of 8th-Level Fighters.

Link: Here Be 100+ DCC Monsters

bygrinstow.com

Kuruz, Mendicant, N • AC 8, 4 hp • R-1, F0, W0 • S9 A8 S9 P11 I16 L8
Zend, Grave Digger, L • AC 9, 3 hp • R-1, F0, W1 • S14 A6 S9 P13 I13 L6
Mercer, Outlaw, N • AC 12, 2 hp • R0, F-1, W1 • S7 A9 S6 P13 I8 L13
Dejah, Ropemaker, C • AC 10, 2 hp • R0, F1, W-1 • S8 A12 S15 P7 I11 L7

User avatar
reverenddak
Moderator
Posts: 768
Joined: Wed Mar 23, 2011 11:04 am
Location: Los Angeles
Contact:

Re: DCC Boxed Set

Post by reverenddak » Tue Jan 15, 2013 2:58 pm

Dark Lord wrote:Uh...except for one problem. The edition that became "Basic" D&D was already designed by that point. The 1977 edition was little more than a rules clean up and re-editing. It was never DESIGNED to be a gateway game when it was created. Just because they later created an Advanced version, doesn't mean the game was designed to be gateway game. And in fact, that strategy was abandoned almost right away because in 1981 they revised the game and made it wholly incompatible with AD&D. The Advanced game WAS designed to have more rules but that doesn't mean the basic set was designed to be an introductory game.

It was designed as D&D. AD&D was designed to be an advanced version...but that's not the same thing.

And as I said, it didn't work for me because when AD&D came out my friends and I realized we already were doing what those books were trying. We didn't need an "advanced" game that was full of broken and clunky rules. The "basic" game was a much better game, and as it was intended stood on its own just fine.
Again, I agree with you with "Basic" D&D, aka BECMI, being it's own beast. But as you've even said, that didn't happen until 1981.

But I'm talking about the Holmes edition of D&D, 1977, my first introduction to the game. It came out the same time the Monster Manual was released. And that quote, was a quote from the rule book. The Holmes edition has numerous references to AD&D, it's all over the book. It was absolutely and definitely designed as a gateway game to AD&D. And here's proof, from the Preface:

"This work is far more detailed and more easily understood than were the original booklets nonetheless, for with it, and the other basic components of the game, any intelligent and imaginative person can speedily understand and play DUNGEONS & DRAGONS as it was meant to be played. Players who desire to go beyond the basic game are directed to the ADVANCED DUNGEON & DRAGON books."

Emphasis is mine.

I remember very well trying to explain to my friends that "Basic" D&D was not compatible with AD&D.
Reverend Dakota Jesus Ultimak, S.S.M.o.t.S.M.S., D.M.

(Dungeon) Master In Chief of Crawl! fanzine. - http://www.crawlfanzine.com/

"[...] there is no doubt that Dungeons and Dragons and its imitators are right out of the pit of hell." - William Schnoebelen, Straight talk on Dungeons & Dragons

Dark Lord
Wild-Eyed Zealot
Posts: 55
Joined: Tue Jun 19, 2012 7:43 am

Re: DCC Boxed Set

Post by Dark Lord » Tue Jan 15, 2013 3:00 pm

The Holmes D&D was basically a cleaned up version of D&D+Greyhawk. It was sold in 1977 as an intro set and focused on mainstream outlets. I don't argue that for about 4 years they tried this strategy. What I dispute is that the game was designed for this purpose. It wasn't. D&D+Greyhawk's rules existed before the concept of AD&D, therefore it was not designed for that purpose. It was rewritten, and cleaned up for that purpoise, and AD&D was created to focus on more complexity...but that's not the same thing as saying BAsic D&D was designed to be a quick start box set for newbs.

It wasn't designed to be, and it didn't stay that way. Painting it as such is just incorrect.
Just because it was your first intro to the game, doesn't mean that's where it was designed.

It would be like if Advanced DCC was released 3 years from now, and I said, "DCC was designed as an introductory game for Advanced DCC."
No it wasn't. It existed as its own game before an advanced version, and therefore was not designed for newbs. The existence of an advanced version doesn't mean the game was designed for beginners.

User avatar
reverenddak
Moderator
Posts: 768
Joined: Wed Mar 23, 2011 11:04 am
Location: Los Angeles
Contact:

Re: DCC Boxed Set

Post by reverenddak » Tue Jan 15, 2013 3:43 pm

Dark Lord wrote: It wasn't designed to be, and it didn't stay that way. Painting it as such is just incorrect.
Just because it was your first intro to the game, doesn't mean that's where it was designed.
Nope, sorry, I showed you a direct quote from the 1977 D&D rulebook, which explicitly states that it is a "basic game" designed for "basic" play, and for those that "desire to go beyond basic play" are directed to AD&D. I quoted it directly from the book, so you're ignoring my evidence.

And ignoring that I already acknowledged that the strategy changed around 1981 (i.e. it didn't stay that way) with the release of the first Red Box, Moldvey edition.
Reverend Dakota Jesus Ultimak, S.S.M.o.t.S.M.S., D.M.

(Dungeon) Master In Chief of Crawl! fanzine. - http://www.crawlfanzine.com/

"[...] there is no doubt that Dungeons and Dragons and its imitators are right out of the pit of hell." - William Schnoebelen, Straight talk on Dungeons & Dragons

Dark Lord
Wild-Eyed Zealot
Posts: 55
Joined: Tue Jun 19, 2012 7:43 am

Re: DCC Boxed Set

Post by Dark Lord » Tue Jan 15, 2013 5:24 pm

reverenddak wrote:
Dark Lord wrote: It wasn't designed to be, and it didn't stay that way. Painting it as such is just incorrect.
Just because it was your first intro to the game, doesn't mean that's where it was designed.
Nope, sorry, I showed you a direct quote from the 1977 D&D rulebook, which explicitly states that it is a "basic game" designed for "basic" play, and for those that "desire to go beyond basic play" are directed to AD&D. I quoted it directly from the book, so you're ignoring my evidence.

And ignoring that I already acknowledged that the strategy changed around 1981 (i.e. it didn't stay that way) with the release of the first Red Box, Moldvey edition.
Yes, and as I said, the 1977 version was the white box version plus the Greyhawk supplement. They simply combined the two into one book and did some clean up of the language.
That was not a game designed in 1977, I'm sorry you don't accept that fact, but it doesn't make it less true. The game, including the 1977 print, was designed in 1974, 1975 if you want to go from when Greyhawk was released and included the stuff for variable weapon damage and whatnot.

I'll say it again...the 1977 version WAS an introductory version of the game. But that doesn't mean D&D was designed as an introduction to AD&D. That version, and that version alone served that purpose, and that version was simply a reprinting of rules that were already designed.

The game was not designed as an introductory to AD&D. AD&D was designed as an advanced version of an existing game. Those two facts are not the same thing. I'm sorry we disagree about that, but it doesn't change history.

Here, Wikipedia can help you maybe.
TSR hired outside writer J. Eric Holmes to produce the Basic Set as an introductory version of the Dungeons & Dragons game. The Basic Set collected, organized, and cleaned up the presentation of the essential rules from the original 1974 Dungeons & Dragons boxed set and the Greyhawk supplement into a single booklet. The booklet explained the game's concepts and method of play in terms that made it accessible to new players ages twelve and above who might not be familiar with tabletop miniatures wargaming.
Emphasis is mine. Those rules were just the same rules already designed in 1974 & 1975. They were simply presented in an easier to digest format. The game rules were not designed as a simpler version of AD&D. They were designed as their own game and the advanced version came later. The presence of an advanced version, does not mean the basic version was designed as a introductory game. That edition was mean to, yes, but that edition used rules already designed.
So...being that the rules used in the 1977 "basic" book were already designed in 1974 for OD&D and Greyhawk, they could not be rules designed to be an introductory game for a version of D&D that didn't exist yet. Do you understand what I am saying? The key idea I am disputing is that they were designed to be introductory...not that an introductory ruleset existed at all.

If you don't understand, I can't help you any further with this. So good day, sir. Peace be with you.

User avatar
GnomeBoy
Tyrant Master (Administrator)
Posts: 3617
Joined: Fri Mar 10, 2006 1:46 pm
FLGS: Bizarro World
Location: Left Coast, USA
Contact:

Re: DCC Boxed Set

Post by GnomeBoy » Tue Jan 15, 2013 6:55 pm

I think you're arguing past each other somewhat -- hairs are being split -- the Holmes rules were obviously developed with full knowledge that AD&D was coming, and were marketed to be a product that would lead into AD&D. The concept of cleaning things up was a marketing tool to promote AD&D. TSR still also published the older three booklet-version of the game, as well, alongside both Holmes and AD&D (according to Acaeum.com).

The Holmes rules weren't written as an introduction. The product was designed as an introduction, using already existing rules.
Gnome Boy • DCC playtester @ DDC 35 Feb '11. • Beta DL 2111, 7AM PT, 8 June 11.
Playing RPGs since '77 • Quasi-occasional member of the Legion of 8th-Level Fighters.

Link: Here Be 100+ DCC Monsters

bygrinstow.com

Kuruz, Mendicant, N • AC 8, 4 hp • R-1, F0, W0 • S9 A8 S9 P11 I16 L8
Zend, Grave Digger, L • AC 9, 3 hp • R-1, F0, W1 • S14 A6 S9 P13 I13 L6
Mercer, Outlaw, N • AC 12, 2 hp • R0, F-1, W1 • S7 A9 S6 P13 I8 L13
Dejah, Ropemaker, C • AC 10, 2 hp • R0, F1, W-1 • S8 A12 S15 P7 I11 L7

User avatar
Skars
Mighty-Thewed Reaver
Posts: 311
Joined: Sun Jun 24, 2012 7:05 pm
Location: Fremont, CA

Re: DCC Boxed Set

Post by Skars » Wed Jan 16, 2013 4:56 pm

Fortunately we shirked that thAC0 business long ago ;)

Dark Lord
Wild-Eyed Zealot
Posts: 55
Joined: Tue Jun 19, 2012 7:43 am

Re: DCC Boxed Set

Post by Dark Lord » Wed Jan 16, 2013 5:38 pm

Skars wrote:Fortunately we shirked that thAC0 business long ago ;)
TROLL! :lol:

I actually like Thac0, not necessarily the descending number for AC, but I liked the way it "topped out." For me d20 gets crazy when the BAB gets to point where it's over 20. The roll loses something and the math breaks.

User avatar
Skars
Mighty-Thewed Reaver
Posts: 311
Joined: Sun Jun 24, 2012 7:05 pm
Location: Fremont, CA

Re: DCC Boxed Set

Post by Skars » Wed Jan 16, 2013 6:53 pm

Hah I thought we had veered enough from the original topic to warrant a shot against thAC0 :mrgreen: it was fine for its Time but probably the cludgiest mechanism for new players.

Dark Lord
Wild-Eyed Zealot
Posts: 55
Joined: Tue Jun 19, 2012 7:43 am

Re: DCC Boxed Set

Post by Dark Lord » Wed Jan 16, 2013 7:17 pm

Skars wrote:Hah I thought we had veered enough from the original topic to warrant a shot against thAC0 :mrgreen: it was fine for its Time but probably the cludgiest mechanism for new players.
Yeah, it's not thac0 that I like, as much as I dislike the open ended and incremental progression of d20. I like that in the old system there's a point where you just top out. There's a ceiling and it serves a purpose (tho I didn't realize it until I started getting into high level 3rd edition. lol)

User avatar
Skars
Mighty-Thewed Reaver
Posts: 311
Joined: Sun Jun 24, 2012 7:05 pm
Location: Fremont, CA

Re: DCC Boxed Set

Post by Skars » Wed Jan 16, 2013 10:30 pm

Dark Lord wrote:
Skars wrote:Hah I thought we had veered enough from the original topic to warrant a shot against thAC0 :mrgreen: it was fine for its Time but probably the cludgiest mechanism for new players.
Yeah, it's not thac0 that I like, as much as I dislike the open ended and incremental progression of d20. I like that in the old system there's a point where you just top out. There's a ceiling and it serves a purpose (tho I didn't realize it until I started getting into high level 3rd edition. lol)
Yeah it got to be a lot of bookkeeping at high levels for sure and I can understand the preference toward a ceiling.

headspice
Far-Sighted Wanderer
Posts: 39
Joined: Fri Jul 06, 2012 2:21 pm
Location: Ventnor, NJ, USA

Re: DCC Boxed Set

Post by headspice » Thu Jan 17, 2013 9:06 am

The rule book is a lot to digest, esp. for someone just getting started. A beginners version, in the 3 softcover volumes mentioned w/ funky dice and a campaign booklet that includes a couple of awesome adventures to start you and your group off...mmm mmm mmm, that smells like awesome.
Submit to NECROPANTSED, A Geek Grimoire of Frostbitten, Grim Musics and Forsaken Games Worshipped by Middle Aged Teens.
http://necropantspublishing.blogspot.com/

User avatar
finarvyn
Cold-Hearted Immortal
Posts: 2480
Joined: Fri Jun 26, 2009 3:42 am
FLGS: Fair Game
Location: Chicago suburbs
Contact:

Re: DCC Boxed Set

Post by finarvyn » Thu Jan 17, 2013 10:48 am

headspice wrote:The rule book is a lot to digest, esp. for someone just getting started. A beginners version, in the 3 softcover volumes mentioned w/ funky dice and a campaign booklet that includes a couple of awesome adventures to start you and your group off...mmm mmm mmm, that smells like awesome.
There had been some discussion of a "basic set" on the playtest boards back before DCC was first published. The irony is that Joseph had originally pushed for a game that was designed to go from levels 1-5, then consumer pressures from board posters convinced him to revamp it into 1-10. The original game as concieved probably would have made an excellent "starter game" since it wouldn't have had quite the heft of the final product.
Marv / Finarvyn
DCC Minister of Propaganda; Deputized 6/8/11
DCC RPG playtester 2011, DCC Lankhmar trivia contest winner 2015; OD&D player since 1975

"The worthy GM never purposely kills players' PCs, He presents opportunities for the rash and unthinking players to do that all on their own."
-- Gary Gygax
"Don't ask me what you need to hit. Just roll the die and I will let you know!"
-- Dave Arneson

User avatar
skathros
Ill-Fated Peasant
Posts: 6
Joined: Sun Oct 07, 2012 3:03 am

Re: DCC Boxed Set

Post by skathros » Wed Jan 23, 2013 3:13 pm

Skullking wrote:
dark cauliflower wrote: do you think that's feasible? It's hard for me to look at the book and say this section can exist in isolation from another section.
Wouldn't it fall neatly into:

1 - Players Section
2 - Spells
3 - Judges Section
+1

I mentioned over at dragonsfoot that although I thought the game was great, the rulebook is a little unnecessarily massive. I would have preferred the game be broken into three manageable books. This way, someone who's just a player would only need the players guide. A magic using player would come to the game armed with his player's guide and spellbook, and the DM would go full monty.

Starter set/box set? Not so much. Splitting the game into smaller, more manageable books? Definitely!

Incidentally, this is the same criticism I had with the big Talislanta Blue Book.

Post Reply

Return to “DCC RPG General”