The adventures seem cool, but how's the campaign?

[fletch137]

I totally dig Goodman Games' publishing plan of minimal rule updates and swarms of awesome modules.

How are you, other players, developing a campaign around the awesome modules, though? Are your PCs just wandering from isolated town to isolated town encountering bizarre monsters? Is there a theme or premise that holds your campaign together?

After reading the first couple DCC RPG modules I could get, I sort of made up the idea of having the survivors of the 1st, 0-level adventure returning to town and being banished for riling up the best-to-be-forgotten horrors and having to roam the lands until they die messily or raise an army to conquer the land that cast them out.

Also, tell me about your setting. The game seems to assume a number of small, isolated towns beset by ancient horrors. Does your setting match this?

[MrHemlocks]

So far I have run The Portal Under the Stars and Doom of the Savage Kings. In Kings there is a village called Hirot and the adventure is centered around it. After finishing the adventure the players have decided to use this town as their home base. It is here that they can rest up, build their cottages and plan their next quest into the unknown wilderness.

I also bought pdfs of Whitecastle and Gazetteer of the Known Realms. So I have the maps of Aereth and the background story for the campaign and maps. Just hoping GG will make hardcopies of these two items in the future. Using the pdfs are a pain in the ass and not fun to read off the computer.

[fletch137]

I've *heard* that Aereth is still the setting for GG's DCC RPG adventures, but it doesn't seem gonzo enough.

I'm eyeballing the Tales from the Fallen Empire because it sounds a bit like the Conan/Thundar the Barbarian setting DCC makes me think of.

[themightyeroc]

I totally dig Goodman Games' publishing plan of minimal rule updates and swarms of awesome modules.

How are you, other players, developing a campaign around the awesome modules, though? Are your PCs just wandering from isolated town to isolated town encountering bizarre monsters? Is there a theme or premise that holds your campaign together?

Also, tell me about your setting. The game seems to assume a number of small, isolated towns beset by ancient horrors. Does your setting match this?

I always wanted to use Judges Guild Wilderlands so that became my default world. I started the game a couple of Hexes south of Tegel (the location of the infamous Tegel Manor). So far I have had no problem dropping in the DCC adventures and blending in the local flavor and other things.

Starting with "Sailors of the starless sea". I changed the introduction so that the entire village had been wiped out. The players were the only able bodied survivors, and a few of their friends and family had been taken by the Beastmen back to the old keep. No one was coming to help, it was on them rescue the captives. They took to this with gusto and set out to save friends and family. At the completion of the adventure, they traveled to Tegel, the market town 2 days away. On the way they played through "Portal under the Stars". Once the party brought the refugees they saved to the relative safety of the market town, they were enlisted to stop the depredations of the "People of the Pit". After completing that module we played a couple of forays in to "Tegel Manor" itself and have just finished the "Emerald Enchanter" who I have linked back to the manor by sprinkling in easter eggs for them. Depending on what the party decides to do next they will be run through either "Sea Queen Escapes" or "Jewels of the Carnifex".

Check out my blog to get a feel how I have strung this all together. It has been a blast so far.

[Tortog]

So far my experience has been that campaign play is possible, it just requires a shift of focus for the GM/Judge/Storyteller away from the search for inventive ways to slaughter; and to opt-out of the 'Ire of the Gods' rule. The hardest part is to never forget that the core rules support a fast and brutal play-style; so if you want a campaign then you either have to 'nerf' the monsters down a touch, and/or be willing to give the characters some magical assistance (equipment: magic shield/armor usually).

The second really important aspect for DCC campaign play is figuring out which Appendix N stories and milieu do you want as a setting... there's a lot to pick from, and this is the backbone for the ideas that you will be using to 'stitch' together the settings behind the modules. Is your setting highly detailed with a sense of epic events (Lord of the Rings), are you going to send your players through the savage world of RE Howard's Conan, or any of the other fantastic settings available in Appendix N? Important questions that need to have answers.

I have access to the DCC#35 material, but my version of Aereth is set up more like J. Vance's "Tsachai, Planet of Adventure" because I like to play with the fuzzy line that separates magic and technology in a lot of the Appendix N work. (http://myaereth.blogspot.com/2011/09/ho ... began.html) The truth is; the only right answer for "where should I set my DCCRPG campaign" is: where ever you and your players enjoy most.

If you're keen on putting in the work to build something from scratch, then I highly recommend "The Writer's Digest Guide to Science Fiction & Fantasy." by Orson Scott Card

[Skyscraper]

I'm running a mini-campaign that should get the PCs to about level 2. The funnel is now over after 5-6 sessions of it (intentionally long, we had fun ).

I'm not looking for traditional D&D playstyle. I didn't have a single mob fight yet, with numerous monsters. The most they had was one opponent, and there was 20 of them (reducing number as the funnel went on) to handle the opponent, or trap, or other given situation. I don't plan on doing large fights in the future either. Maybe one or two will happen, I'm letting the story decide. This helps in preventing high death toll.

So I'm not doing a dungeon crawl. I'm in a homebrew, story-driven game, in a world that was inspired by my reading of the DCC rulebook. I liked the idea of the nobodies coming across powerful and unpredictable magic, and being in the midst of clerics that have the "rever my god or die" approach. The adventures have important investigation portions. Now, additionally, the PCs will need to hide who they are from others, which will add to the complexity of social interaction, which will be mandatory to advance said investigations.

All this with a bunch of people that love playing their zeros (now advanced to level 1) in this small village, with no resources.

DCC is a blast! I'm looking forward to seeing how well the levelled up characters will survive over the long(er) run.

[Disemvowel]

So far my experience has been that campaign play is possible, it just requires a shift of focus for the GM/Judge/Storyteller away from the search for inventive ways to slaughter; and to opt-out of the 'Ire of the Gods' rule. The hardest part is to never forget that the core rules support a fast and brutal play-style; so if you want a campaign then you either have to 'nerf' the monsters down a touch, and/or be willing to give the characters some magical assistance (equipment: magic shield/armor usually).

The second really important aspect for DCC campaign play is figuring out which Appendix N stories and milieu do you want as a setting... there's a lot to pick from, and this is the backbone for the ideas that you will be using to 'stitch' together the settings behind the modules. Is your setting highly detailed with a sense of epic events (Lord of the Rings), are you going to send your players through the savage world of RE Howard's Conan, or any of the other fantastic settings available in Appendix N? Important questions that need to have answers.

I have access to the DCC#35 material, but my version of Aereth is set up more like J. Vance's "Tsachai, Planet of Adventure" because I like to play with the fuzzy line that separates magic and technology in a lot of the Appendix N work. (http://myaereth.blogspot.com/2011/09/ho ... began.html) The truth is; the only right answer for "where should I set my DCCRPG campaign" is: where ever you and your players enjoy most.

If you're keen on putting in the work to build something from scratch, then I highly recommend "The Writer's Digest Guide to Science Fiction & Fantasy." by Orson Scott Card

I am not trying to put you in a spot light, but after reading your blog post from December, you were down on the Luck mechanic and a few other things. Has your view been discussed here at all? I am curious as to what others think in your observations; too many 1-2 level 'campaigns', not enough actual ones.

[ctaylor]

Also, tell me about your setting. The game seems to assume a number of small, isolated towns beset by ancient horrors. Does your setting match this?

My setting is a series of small, isolated towns beset by ancient, and man-made, horrors. The party is a group of adventurers who have all lost loved ones to the horrors. They travel the world, seeking revenge, while behind the scenes there are Powers, Patrons and Gods playing a Great Game.

Sort of like Supernatural meets Conan.

[Tortog]

I am not trying to put you in a spot light, but after reading your blog post from December, you were down on the Luck mechanic and a few other things. Has your view been discussed here at all? I am curious as to what others think in your observations; too many 1-2 level 'campaigns', not enough actual ones.

*putting on my fireproof suit; grabbing a sparkly top-hat and cane* Did someone say spot light?!

First off, I should remind folks that when I was running my beta test I was deliberately trying to break the game; so while it shows my innate creativity well enough, the things I was allowing in that game are not indicative of my normal approach to running a game ... and when I wrote that I was still rather frustrated by events. After all, I'd been trying to winnow the party down to 1 character each for some time; and was continually thwarted by the use of luck burn. In fact, the creator of the character Thingerlun; was much more interested in playing his Dwarven Miner, so when I tried to kill off the wizard the first time (hurled giant boulder) the player burned 10/11 luck points to keep the bugger alive... and was then too frightened of the luck score of 1 to risk using the character for anything. Then the player got pissed off and left when all of the weird and unlucky events kept happening disproportionately to his character. To be fair, I haven't yet tested these house rules in actual play, but I'm confident, and I'll be starting up a few alpha-games soon enough to test some of the magic form my latest project. So I'll get a chance to see what happens.

But, you're right, I've not been a fan of the luck stat all the way back to the start of the public beta. To quote one of the players in my beta-game "we're rolling dice to simulate the decisions of Fate; doesn't that make a Luck stat redundant?" My response at the time was; "No, its not redundant. Given that you can use it to cheat your fate, even if only for a little while, it should be thought of as rude; especially from mere mortals. Maybe that's the cause for the ire of the gods?" I know that I'm in the minority with this opinion so I didn't include it here.

Yes, I feel that the luck stat is weird; as is the idea of spending stats like coinage. However, regenerating luck causes me a great deal of headaches; mostly do to the need to make up a steady stream of increasingly implausible excuses as to how the thief managed to live... again. The process reminds me too much of dealing with the 'evasion' & 'uncanny dodge' thief abilities from 3.x; and since all DCC characters can do this... it just magnifies the problem. But these machinations are too intertwined in how the game functions to simply ignore them so I chose "to fear no rule" and house rule a solution to temper the effects of these rules. Yes, I know that stats (even the regenerative version for thieves and Halflings) means that eventually they will run out; but the steady stream of miraculous escapes is too Hollywood for me.

When you add in the recover the body rule... things can get comic-book really fast. I think that having one or the other will work better so I chose to jettison the body recovery rule.
***

I didn't include any of this in my original response because I figured it was too specific and probably only applied to my (admittedly odd ) style of play; but having to respond to your question, I think I should have added this to the first post: "that maintaining a campaign relies upon judicious use of house rules to create the ambiance that you and your players want." Despite all of this I still feel that DCCRPG fantastic! It is the only game system I'm interested in running or playing because I love the randomness of the spell tables and the 0-lvl character funnel. I also love the fact that GG jettisoned the Feat system as well as the idea of a steady and predictable path to god-hood for the characters.

As to the rest of the post you are referring to... *taps cane on the ground and it turns into an ornate, but impractical lace parasol; standing under its scant protection* ... my sense of nostalgia for D&D is firmly rooted in second edition. So its not surprising that my tweeks and house rules are designed to bolster a 2nd ed feel.

*tosses the smoke/flash pellet I palmed while everyone was looking at the parasol, and disappear into the dark. The parasol floats gently to the ground amid the swirling purple and green smoke*

[Disemvowel]

Sorry to see the group dynamics play out how they did. Gamers.

Holy crap, thanks for answering! Again, it was not a 'calling you out', but an honest desire to know how/why a mechanic, an integral one at that, fails, by perception or fact. I am getting ready to kick off a campaign, so I am posting all over the forums; every little bit of knowledge helps. Thank you.

FWIW, I like your thoughts on Luck...it is a cheat on Fate...and rude to the cosmos. I am curious to see how others have handled this too.

[Raven_Crowking]

Hi there.

I have no problems with the Recover the Body rule....it seems to mirror what happens in Appendix N fiction very well. How many times has Tarzan been shot, only to discover that the bullet has merely creased his skull? Likewise, to risk the ire of those who dislike the Good Professor, this mirrors well Frodo's "death" in Moria, as well as other seeming-certain character demises in other Appendix N literature. The key, I think, is that there has to be some reason given why the character survives.

I really like the way campaigns play out in DCC. This was an area I was initially very hesitant about, but in practice I have found few problems, and no problems that a quick house-ruling could not deal with. My campaign "world" right now is a mixture of several planes, and has included an adventure during dreams (Through the Cotillion of Hours), time travel, and all sorts of other Appendix N goodness. I've run Death Frost Doom now three times for the same group, as they travelled back through time to undo their initial disaster, and it just got more run.

I've used the Sunken City modules (Old New Orleans is the Sunken City in that plane), Barrowmaze, old AD&D modules, 3e modules, Goodman Games DCC modules, adventures of my own creation, materials from In the Prison of the Squid Sorcerer, all the Purple Duck material, anything I can grab for Lamentations of the Flame Princess.....and have even converted old Gamma World modules. Up on the agenda is converting Conan modules as well, more Gamma World, more DCC, more personal invention, etc.

I've run Ruins of Ramat and Attack of the Frawgs as part of the same set of interlinking worlds as well, with the ultimate goal of linking all to Golden Shanthopal.

I am having a lot of fun with extended campaign play. There are a lot of weird alien horrors in the worlds I am running games in.....and there are definite intersections with the real world. Some of the LotFP modules I intend to run in their proper setting - our world. In my game, the Sunken City is in our future, Gamma World 1e is also in our future, or in an alternate, and Golden Shanthopal sits at the crossroads of many times and planes.

[Skyscraper]

This is an interesting thread!

*putting on my fireproof suit; grabbing a sparkly top-hat and cane* Did someone say spot light?!

Great post Tortog. Interesting insight and evocative descriptions to boot

First off, I should remind folks that when I was running my beta test I was deliberately trying to break the game; so while it shows my innate creativity well enough, the things I was allowing in that game are not indicative of my normal approach to running a game ... and when I wrote that I was still rather frustrated by events. After all, I'd been trying to winnow the party down to 1 character each for some time; and was continually thwarted by the use of luck burn. In fact, the creator of the character Thingerlun; was much more interested in playing his Dwarven Miner, so when I tried to kill off the wizard the first time (hurled giant boulder) the player burned 10/11 luck points to keep the bugger alive... and was then too frightened of the luck score of 1 to risk using the character for anything. Then the player got pissed off and left when all of the weird and unlucky events kept happening disproportionately to his character.

Maybe I'm not undertsanding something, but don't you think the player might have been simply pissed off since he felt that you were out to kill his character any way you could? Especially if you've done so for all players, that seems like a fair assumption. I don't think that it's the judge's prerogative to specifically target PCs.

As a player, having that feeling alone, even unsupported by concrete evidence, would be enough to drive me off. Subsequent targetting of the unlucky PC by the judge would only be the cherry to top it off.

[GnomeBoy]

I don't think that it's the judge's prerogative to specifically target PCs.

I thought the idea, especially of the funnel, was that when something random hits the group, let's say a pit trap, if characters are simply moving around in that area with no specifics as to who is exactly where, a GM uses Luck to determine who gets zapped (thus, a PC with a Luck of 1 would probably fall)... Someone correct me, if I am wrong, please.

...My response at the time was; "No, its not redundant. Given that you can use it to cheat your fate, even if only for a little while, it should be thought of as rude; especially from mere mortals. Maybe that's the cause for the ire of the gods?"...

I am increasingly of the opinion that I may be alone in thinking that things like spending Luck and rolling Saves are not something that characters actively do, they are things players do (with full-on "Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain" in effect). I mean, my spin on spending Luck would be, possibly, that the gods are not upset at the spending of Luck -- the spending of Luck reflects their favor... Or maybe you just got lucky, simple as that. The mechanics determine the outcome, not necessarily the event itself.

I am going to have to hammer into my brain that many people (most? all?) see Saves and such as the actions of their characters, so as to be clearer and avoid misunderstandings at the table...

[Tortog]

Sorry to see the group dynamics play out how they did. Gamers.

Holy crap, thanks for answering! Again, it was not a 'calling you out', but an honest desire to know how/why a mechanic, an integral one at that, fails, by perception or fact. I am getting ready to kick off a campaign, so I am posting all over the forums; every little bit of knowledge helps. Thank you.

FWIW, I like your thoughts on Luck...it is a cheat on Fate...and rude to the cosmos. I am curious to see how others have handled this too.

*disembodied voice echoing from somewhere in the shifting gloom*
Good to know... but precautions keep you breathing... old habits and all that. Glad I could help.

This is an interesting thread!

Great post Tortog. Interesting insight and evocative descriptions to boot

*disembodied voice echoing from different location in the shifting gloom* Thanx.

Maybe I'm not undertsanding something, but don't you think the player might have been simply pissed off since he felt that you were out to kill his character any way you could? Especially if you've done so for all players, that seems like a fair assumption. I don't think that it's the judge's prerogative to specifically target PCs.

As a player, having that feeling alone, even unsupported by concrete evidence, would be enough to drive me off. Subsequent targetting of the unlucky PC by the judge would only be the cherry to top it off.

*Small, silver object rolls into the spotlight and stops as several tiny legs pop out and lift it off the ground a couple of inches. The faint sound of whirring and clicking fills the air as the center of the top opens to let out a slender antennae with a flashing blue light at the tip. After a few moments of silence the antennae shoots a silver beam into the air and the image of an old Gnome flickers into existence over the little projector. There is some frame drag, so the image is slightly out of sync with the sound.*

No, you've come to a perfectly rational conclusion based upon the information given. I should have been clearer. First some set-up: at the end of the funnel they all had at least 2 characters left. Not because I was soft on them, they earned the right to keep the characters thanks to clever play on their part and (ironically) a little bit of luck with their dice rolls. Two players still had three characters, so I thought to myself; "self... the order of the day is break the game, so let all of them level up, and they can keep playing them until I can kill them off!" At the time the giant chucked the boulder at Thingerlun they were all 1st level characters and the player I mentioned had 3 characters; the wizard was the one he was least interested in playing. The fact that he used luck burn to keep the wizard alive was (I think) purely reflexive on his part; but the fact that he continued to clutter up and slow down the combat rounds with the need to review the entire spell casting rule set with every casting check for a character he told me he wasn't interested in playing just drove me bonkers.

Was it mean to make his character the target of all ill fortune... under normal circumstances with 1 PC each... yes. Absolutely! And I wouldn't normally pick on one character/player like that because you're right... no one should really have to put up with that kind of thing. However, it's like Gnome Boy said in his post, there was a general feeling that the character with the lowest luck should theoretically be like a lightning rod for ill-fortune. At that particular time there was a rather lively discussion on the beta-boards on just how far we should go with this type of behavior... and I was sitting there with a character that had a luck score that was literally off the bottom of the chart. Someone had to go there...

*The frame drag has become quite pronounced and the image hasn't appeared to be talking for several moments; the image of the Gnome is tapping his foot impatiently waiting for the audio to catch up. The light on the antennae is now flashing with an ominous yellow light... and the Gnome continues*

I'm not saying that the recovering the body rule or the luck burn rules are intrinsically bad or anything, just that I found the combination of the two rather irksome. So I chose to slow down the luck regeneration factor a bit and decided that dead=dead... If the player is so attached to that character that they are unwilling to roll up a new one, then I let them continue on as a zombie, ghoul, or ghost until they can figure out a way to get themselves reanimated.

*The little silver ball is starting to shudder and jerk as it emits the tiny but unmistakable squeals of tortured gear-work. The light has gone red now and is flashing quickly... then it goes out. The device disappears as it erupts into a cloud of silver butterflies that flutter off in search of some clockwork flowers.*

[Skyscraper]

Gotcha, Tortog.

I don't think that it's the judge's prerogative to specifically target PCs.

I thought the idea, especially of the funnel, was that when something random hits the group, let's say a pit trap, if characters are simply moving around in that area with no specifics as to who is exactly where, a GM uses Luck to determine who gets zapped (thus, a PC with a Luck of 1 would probably fall)... Someone correct me, if I am wrong, please.

On the topic of targetting the PC with the lowest luck (and notwithstanding Tortog's experience), if it's systematic it becomes absurd at some point. What I now do, is use a bigger die than the number of PCs, say a d8 when there are 6 PCs, and if numbers 7-8 come up, it's the unlucky PC that gets it (or one of the unlucky PCs if there are 2 with a comparatively low luck score) when a random PC is to be affected by an event; in addition to that PC's usual positon in the random detemrination. Rarely, but sometimes, I'll still simply point to the unlucky PC when something happens. But if low luck means imminent death, it puts too much weight on that stat IMO. I want the unlucky PC to be able to survive, although it'll be harder for him.

[GnomeBoy]

I'd think Luck targeting is meant to mitigate any "I'll spend a bunch of Luck, because it otherwise doesn't affect my character's effectiveness" style of play. I wouldn't expect anyone to use it systematically, but there should be a chance, so a player would think twice about burning Luck and about how much Luck to burn. So, for certain things, yes, use it.

If a particular foe (or type of foe) targets Wizards, why not? Or if something specifically targets a type of non-human, why not? So then, targeting lowest Luck... why not? So, the evil sorcerer targets the party's Wizard, the orcs charge at the Elf, and the gelatinous trapezoid slurks up the dude with the lowest Luck.

Don't make everything target lowest Luck. That wasn't what I was saying. But do make some things target lowest Luck.

For reference, the concept is covered on page 361.

[Skyscraper]

Don't make everything target lowest Luck. That wasn't what I was saying. But do make some things target lowest Luck.

Sounds good.

[Galadrin]

I would just use common sense when targeting PC's (who is standing in the doorway? Who is fumbling with the trapped chest?). When there is no clear answer to who should get the short end of the stick, you can always demand for each player to roll 1d20 under their Luck score and the player who fails the roll by the greatest degree takes the hit. Tied results would compare Luck score, and if that was also even, I just stick it to the uglier player. Them's the breaks!

The other option is to resolve ambiguous victimization by making the effect target the character with the lowest Luck score. If he or she makes the save (assuming there is a save), then the effect targets the next Luckiest player and so on, cascading until it hits some one or is saved by the highest Luck character. A pretty deadly option, as it means your traps will usually hit their mark (and the damage will fall preponderantly on the unlucky characters).

[fletch137]

I changed the introduction so that the entire village had been wiped out. The players were the only able bodied survivors, and a few of their friends and family had been taken by the Beastmen back to the old keep.

Ooo, I like this. The 0-level funnel is pretty unique, but I need a certain kind of logic to have it make sense. Fer instance, I'd been hooked on wondering why the town guards aren't going to rescue the villagers, and this solves that nicely. Until now, I'd been leaning toward "the guards all died in the first monster attack and you lot were chosen by drawn lots."

[papaholdy]

After reading the first couple DCC RPG modules I could get, I sort of made up the idea of having the survivors of the 1st, 0-level adventure returning to town and being banished for riling up the best-to-be-forgotten horrors and having to roam the lands until they die messily or raise an army to conquer the land that cast them out.

Wow, what a simple and excellent idea. Going to borrow that one I think.