What is DCC?

[Raven_Crowking]

Okies turns out I'm a bit more old school than my players. Most of them are d20 era and they do not mind 2nd ed AD&D but are not interested in 1st ed, BECM, or DCC as it is a little to basic by most accounts. Thanks for all the help and posts, I'll keep and see out and see if I can pick it up cheap on sale on PDF/Ebay. I would like to try it but its not gonna happen:(.
Nice forum you all have and happy gaming.

At my table, the mantra is "he who runs the game picks the rules." I've found over the years that it's a lot easier to find players than GMs, so you might push for what you want and see how it goes.

Also, it's easy for someone unfamiliar with something to just say "no, I don't want to change." You could come back with "okay, you run a game then" and maybe they will appreciate your efforts more. I know that I have some players who do zero prep and just show up, whereas I spend lots of hours getting things ready. Your players might have a different view if they get a chance to be the GM.

Just my two coppers.

I second this message.

[themightyeroc]

Hopefully we'll be playing AD&D on Sunday so I'll bring it up with my players and see if they will chip in $5 or $10 each if they're interested in playing. Makes the $30 a lot cheaper. It will be Saturday USA time so the code Rick supplied will still be good.

Are DCC adventures all dungeon based and recommend one for a new group.

Zardnaar, my entire group is made of hard-core 3rd and 3.5 d20 D&Ders. They were very skeptical when I wanted to run DCC for them. They thought it had nothing to offer them, no CRUNCH! Well here we are a year later and they can't get enough! I think you should run Sailors of the starless sea funnel for zero levels then any 1st level module you want. When done ask them if they want more.

I also agree with the other posters, if they want something else tell them to run it so you can play for awhile.

[Karaptis]

I agree. You're the GM, DM, Keeper, Overlord etc. If the players don't like the system and you do, tell them to run something. This game kicks ass and some of my players are ignorant of Appendix N. They like to be the guy in those DnD novels with 18s in every stat chopping down scores of cookie cutter monsters in a min/maxed feat enhanced circle jerk. Yawn! God I'm getting old.

[Ravenheart87]

Aye, I'm not refereeing by request either. I tell everybody what I'm going to run and when, and if a player is interested, he can join. I have a few players who would come even if I ran My Little Pony RPG, because they know it would be fun.

[Raven_Crowking]

Aye, I'm not refereeing by request either. I tell everybody what I'm going to run and when, and if a player is interested, he can join. I have a few players who would come even if I ran My Little Pony RPG, because they know it would be fun.

Hold on...they know it would be fun because you are running it, or because they are big fans of MLP?

[Skyscraper]

I love little pony RPG! In our last session, we threw up some hay after having eaten too much, and then galopped in the setting sun under a rainbow. It was awesome.

But I digress.

I hear a lot of people saying "I'm GM so I do what I want" on this forum and others. I respectfully question this approach, in as much as I understand it, and throw the following up for discussion.

It's hard to pinpoint a single purpose to playing RPGs, but here is my best attempt this morning: RPGs aim to get a group together to have some fun around a table through cooperative storytelling. I believe that if any member of that group has a "my way or the highway" approach, including the GM, it is not conducive to the desired result. I think that an open mind to other people's opinions is likely to yield a better gaming environment. Since every GM and player is human, this person is likely to learn and improve from listening to others. Also, being flexible about the system to use or any other item up for discussion, is just pleasant and respectful. Being closed-minded or stubborn, is not.

I admit that I dislike GMs that come to me with a game that is ready-to-go, "we play this next", without consultation, "I've put hours preparing this, so you better like it". Or the "this is my game, my rules, run by them or play with another group" approach. I'm like, woa bud, can't we discuss this? Is it not possible that we might find a common ground if you also show some flexibility?

Our group discusses what we want to play, what system, type of game, who's going to GM; some members usually propose specific systems/campaigns/adventures. And we usually pick from those options. I think this is a good way to achieve a result where everyone is happy about the game.

Now this doesn't mean that we cannot give weight to the GM's opinion appropriately. Of course, in a game, there has to be a referee who adjudicates actions. And of course, if a person is going to put hours and hours preparing something, there has to be some respect about that too. However, I do not believe in one person running the show just because.

Comparatively, I own my own business. It's a small business, but I'm quite proud of what we do and we are quite successful. I'm the boss. No one questions that. But I give a lot of weight to the opinion of my employees. And I'm ready to be flexible when they ask for something. I receive very positive feedback from them regarding this approach.

I.e. I think that this approach is true for a lot of environments, family, work, friends, RPGs. I don't think you're the boss when you impose anything. I think you're the boss when others willingly follow you because you show your qualities as a leader.

As a final anecdote, we've had a particular unpleasant game a year and a half ago with one guy as GM - who we really like as a person and a player. It was his first experience GMing with us after several campaigns/adventures playing. He ended up having a view on how to adjudicate situations that didn't jive with the rest of the group's. The problem was not really there: he was also of the opinion that his way was the "right way". No room for discussion. I don't believe I hold any overarching truth, but the game broke down after 4-5 game sessions because we were not having fun. Too bad for him, because he spent lots of hours preparing his game that was supposed to be a long-winded campaign. All players were of a same opinion, but him.

To all those of you who believe you are great GMs and have the "I GM so I do what I want approach": I do not question that you are good GMs, I assume your self-declared quality as a judge is based on positive feedback received by players. But I ask you this: would you not be even better if you showed flexibility and open-mindedness?

Or do I simply not understand your declaration as I should?

/philosophical question

[Raven_Crowking]

Are you able to throw up in MLP? Don't the censors prevent that? Or do you not use those rules?

But I digress.

I am definitely a "my way or the highway" GM. I run the games I want to run. I do not run games I do not want to run. I do not run games that I am not interested in.

That does not mean that I do not take player desires/player input into account. That does mean, though, that I get to decide how and if I take any particular input into account. OTOH, I never say, "We are playing this, so you'd better like it" because I never chain anyone to the table and force them to play. Tried it once; apparently, there are laws against it.

I run DCC. One of my players is running Fantasycraft. Another wants to - and perhaps will - run Shadowrun. Strangely, I feel neither a desire nor particularly entitled to tell them that they should be running something else.

None of my players work for me; I work for none of them. I offer something that I have done a lot of work on, because I enjoy the work, and I enjoy offering it. They are either interested or not, and no hard feelings either way. Of course, I don't say "This is the adventure" unless I am running a playtest or a funnel. They can do what they want within the setting. I do say, "This is the setting". If you would rather play Pathfinder, or in some other setting, go and find or run that game. You can ask me to do something, you cannot tell me to do something. And, if I don't enjoy doing it, the odds that I will do it long as a hobby are pretty minimal.

I view this as being akin to baking cookies. If I want to bake chocolate chip cookies, and then I offer you one, you can accept or decline. You can mention your love of oatmeal cookies, and you can even suggest that I might be able to make a mean peanut butter cookie, but if you demand that I spend my time baking the kinds of cookies you want, for no other reason than that you want them, I simply will not invite you to eat cookies again. Why would I?

On the other hand, I might toss chopped walnuts into part of a batch from time to time, because I know you like them, and I want to please you. I might bake gluten-free cookies for Dave, who doesn't eat gluten, but is my friend. I might even bake those oatmeal or peanut butter cookies as a one-shot. But I do those things because I want to. And I am not kidding myself or anyone else about that.

I like hiking. You do not have to like hiking to be my friend. But, if you are my friend, you shouldn't expect me to spend my hiking time skating at the roller rink with you. I'll hike; you skate. We can always meet for dinner and a beer afterwards.

[Raven_Crowking]

BTW, what happened with your friend is exactly what should have happened, IMHO.

He said, "This is what I want to run; this is how I want to run it." So long as you can find one player who likes what you do, you should go for it.

The Players said, "We do not like this" and opted out.

The GM must then either adjust what he is doing, so as to gain players, or choose not to GM. Rather like, if no one likes my chocolate chip cookies, I need to adjust what I am doing if I want to share them.

[Skyscraper]

Are you able to throw up in MLP? Don't the censors prevent that? Or do you not use those rules?

But I digress.

I am definitely a "my way or the highway" GM. I run the games I want to run. I do not run games I do not want to run. I do not run games that I am not interested in.

That does not mean that I do not take player desires/player input into account. That does mean, though, that I get to decide how and if I take any particular input into account. OTOH, I never say, "We are playing this, so you'd better like it" because I never chain anyone to the table and force them to play. Tried it once; apparently, there are laws against it.

I run DCC. One of my players is running Fantasycraft. Another wants to - and perhaps will - run Shadowrun. Strangely, I feel neither a desire nor particularly entitled to tell them that they should be running something else.

None of my players work for me; I work for none of them. I offer something that I have done a lot of work on, because I enjoy the work, and I enjoy offering it. They are either interested or not, and no hard feelings either way. Of course, I don't say "This is the adventure" unless I am running a playtest or a funnel. They can do what they want within the setting. I do say, "This is the setting". If you would rather play Pathfinder, or in some other setting, go and find or run that game. You can ask me to do something, you cannot tell me to do something. And, if I don't enjoy doing it, the odds that I will do it long as a hobby are pretty minimal.

I view this as being akin to baking cookies. If I want to bake chocolate chip cookies, and then I offer you one, you can accept or decline. You can mention your love of oatmeal cookies, and you can even suggest that I might be able to make a mean peanut butter cookie, but if you demand that I spend my time baking the kinds of cookies you want, for no other reason than that you want them, I simply will not invite you to eat cookies again. Why would I?

On the other hand, I might toss chopped walnuts into part of a batch from time to time, because I know you like them, and I want to please you. I might bake gluten-free cookies for Dave, who doesn't eat gluten, but is my friend. I might even bake those oatmeal or peanut butter cookies as a one-shot. But I do those things because I want to. And I am not kidding myself or anyone else about that.

I like hiking. You do not have to like hiking to be my friend. But, if you are my friend, you shouldn't expect me to spend my hiking time skating at the roller rink with you. I'll hike; you skate. We can always meet for dinner and a beer afterwards.

Did I suggest that the players could impose their will on the GM? If so, that was clearly not my intention. Your examples seem to suggest this. My message is more that I feel that a GM approaching the player group with a set inflexible proposition is less interesting for me than the group discussing what they feel like playing and eventually deciding on something. Of course, propositions from members of the group will abound according to their preferences. presently, my group is playing DCC and I'm judge because this is what I brought forward; one friend of ours is waiting to make us play a game of Call of Cthulhu; we are just out of a game in the Game of Thrones setting; before that we had a long-winded D&D campaign; etc... Each of the GMs are the ones that brought the propositions to the table and we discussed what the game could be like and we jumped in. The players never said "no, we don't want what you wish to do, you'll do what we want", of course...

I guess I'm coming from the old school "DM is god" Gygax teachings, but after years of RPGing, I'm questioning those, because I do not like them I could talk about them in another forum, but I feel that they will get more response here, for some reason

[Ravenheart87]

Aye, I'm not refereeing by request either. I tell everybody what I'm going to run and when, and if a player is interested, he can join. I have a few players who would come even if I ran My Little Pony RPG, because they know it would be fun.

Hold on...they know it would be fun because you are running it, or because they are big fans of MLP?

I think a little bit of both.

[Raven_Crowking]

Did I suggest that the players could impose their will on the GM? If so, that was clearly not my intention.

It's all cool. People use the idea of being "my way or the highway" to indicate different kinds of GMing. What I posted is just my standard pitch for these kinds of discussions. I suppose it relates to having most of them when playing 3e, and having most of them on EN World, which is a very pro-WotC-D&D board.

If you prefer to poll your players, then that is what you should do. Even if you do not prefer to poll your players, talking about what they are interested in can be interesting in and of itself. However you decide to go about running games, the more people who do it the better.

I think that the Gygax "DM is god" is pretty much overstated. If you look at the 1e PHB, Gygax is pretty clear about what that means, and what you should do if you discover that the DM is not to your liking. In any event, the idea that you should only play in games where you are willing to trust the GM's judgement is a pretty good one. IMHO and IME, bad calls from an inexperienced GM are less damaging that harping/nit-picking every rules call as it comes up. I don't mean to imply that you, or anyone on this board, is doing that, but I do believe that was what Gygax was trying to prevent.

[Karaptis]

I'm that mean old DM who is all my way or the highway. We are all New Yorkers so we cannot let eachothers'fat heads win out over the others. If so the players would walk all over me and it would be Gnomes with red capes tights and a big S on their chest with +5 Vorpal swords.

[finarvyn]

To be clear, just because I decide what rules set I run doesn't mean I'm a "my way or the highway" GM. On the other hand, I refuse to be blackmailed into running something because my players would threaten not to play.

My players make suggestions and often I'll try them. One guy really wanted to play 4E so I ran several sessions. When the adventure was done, however, I went back to the game I wanted to run. Gaming should be fun for all and not just for the players, and part of the fun factor comes down to game prep.

Whether it be setting up an adventure, thinking about and reading rulebooks, posting about rules sets on boards like these, tweaking rules, or whatever ... it's very frustrating to spend creative energy on something and not have the players meet me half way. If I run something they want, they should be willing to play something I want as well.

It helps that none of my players want to put the time and effort into game prep and so they tend to be willing to play almost anything.

Again, just my two coppers.

[Skyscraper]

I think that the Gygax "DM is god" is pretty much overstated. If you look at the 1e PHB, Gygax is pretty clear about what that means, and what you should do if you discover that the DM is not to your liking. In any event, the idea that you should only play in games where you are willing to trust the GM's judgement is a pretty good one. IMHO and IME, bad calls from an inexperienced GM are less damaging that harping/nit-picking every rules call as it comes up. I don't mean to imply that you, or anyone on this board, is doing that, but I do believe that was what Gygax was trying to prevent.

This is a good point.

[Skyscraper]

I'm that mean old DM who is all my way or the highway. We are all New Yorkers so we cannot let eachothers'fat heads win out over the others. If so the players would walk all over me and it would be Gnomes with red capes tights and a big S on their chest with +5 Vorpal swords.

[Skyscraper]

If I run something they want, they should be willing to play something I want as well.

That's pretty much where I stand.

[finarvyn]

I think that the Gygax "DM is god" is pretty much overstated.

Except in Gary's case, where the DM acutally was god. Gary really took pleasure in giving unruly players the smackdown and if he thought they did something stupid he wouldn't hesitate to make them regret it.

Joseph might DM this way as well, I don't know. I've never had the pleasure of playing in his game, but some of his modules are pretty unforgiving.

If your name is on the rulebook, you get to be god.

[Raven_Crowking]

I think that the Gygax "DM is god" is pretty much overstated.

Except in Gary's case, where the DM acutally was god. Gary really took pleasure in giving unruly players the smackdown and if he thought they did something stupid he wouldn't hesitate to make them regret it.

Joseph might DM this way as well, I don't know. I've never had the pleasure of playing in his game, but some of his modules are pretty unforgiving.

If your name is on the rulebook, you get to be god.

Oh, hell, man......I've no complaint about unforgiving adventures. I made my older daughter swear at me for the first time running James Raggi's Death Frost Doom using the DCC rules. And it was appropriate, because it meant that they were not only being put through the wringer, but they were experiencing that wringer in a pretty visceral way.

(I've bought all of the Raggi materials I could, and I intend on using most - if not all - of them sooner or later against unsuspecting players. I cheer along with you if you survive, but I have no qualms about letting your character die. I have even been known to joke about it, which is what earned "F you dad. F.....you!" when the PCs were fleeing down the side of a mountain, with thousands of un-dead behind them, and then they decided to camp and light a fire.)

What I am talking about is the sense that "DM is God" somehow extends beyond the scope of the game you are running. I don't agree with all of the advice Gary gave in the DMG, although I think that the vast majority of it is spot-on.

If you don't like the game, quit. If you like the game enough to play it, don't ruin it for everyone else by nitpicking and complaining throughout the game, or you will find that the result would be the same as if you had quit voluntarily. This seems to me to be a wise way to go about playing.

[Skyscraper]

If you don't like the game, quit. If you like the game enough to play it, don't ruin it for everyone else by nitpicking and complaining throughout the game, or you will find that the result would be the same as if you had quit voluntarily. This seems to me to be a wise way to go about playing.

Is there no middle ground? I like to discuss something if i don't like it, to see if there is an agreement to be reached for the benefit of all. Quitting immediately when there's something I dislike appears excessive.

This being said, I rarely complain. I usually accept all GM decisions. I respect the position of the GM, what it means in terms of prep, and also what it means in terms of him having the final say on all things in his game. I fully accept that and I think it makes for better gaming. But to the point of "if you don't like the game, quit" approach? No. If I don't like the game, I'll discuss what I don't like and see if there's something we can do about it. If not, I'll quit.

[Raven_Crowking]

If you don't like the game, quit. If you like the game enough to play it, don't ruin it for everyone else by nitpicking and complaining throughout the game, or you will find that the result would be the same as if you had quit voluntarily. This seems to me to be a wise way to go about playing.

Is there no middle ground?

In the above? No, not really. They are two discrete, but related, thoughts. Both amount to, "Don't be a douche" and there is no middle ground in "Don't be a douche". There are all kinds of ways to not be a douche, of course, and there are all kinds of ways to ameliorate being a douche. There is middle ground between douchiness and not-douchiness, but there is no middle ground to "Don't be a douche".

If you don't like the game, do not play it. That would seem to be common sense to me, and to everyone's benefit. I get that you might like the game better with some adjustment, and you would naturally want to discuss that adjustment. But there is a difference between "I would like X better with Y" and "I would like X only with Y." In the first case, hell yes, you like the game, help to make it better. In the second case, hell no. You do not like the game, and Y might make you able to tolerate it, but, really, don't you have something better to do?

If you like the game enough to play it, don't ruin it for everyone else by nitpicking and complaining throughout the game. That would also seem to be common sense to me, and to everyone's benefit. Discussing things before or after the game, btw, is not nitpicking and complaining through the game. Different critters, those.

You say, "I like to discuss something if i don't like it, to see if there is an agreement to be reached for the benefit of all." I say, if you are not nitpicking and complaining throughout the game, to the detriment of everyone else, then that has nothing to do with what I said. You say, "Quitting immediately when there's something I dislike appears excessive." I say, then it is obvious that you still like the game enough to play, and it therefore follows not to nitpick and complain so as to ruin it for everyone else. Encountering something you dislike is not the same as disliking the game as a whole.

Mind you, that advice goes for both sides of the screen. Don't run games you don't like, and don't complain about the choices made by the players if you do run a game. Talk about them before or after the game, sure. But the players get to make those choices, not the GM. Gaming is social. If you are there to drag everyone else down, or want it to be all about you, you shouldn't be there. Especially if you want to run the game. Or you should be having solo adventures if you are a player, and can find a willing GM.

Anyway, I don't think that my advice here has anything to do with you personally. I do not think, and I am certainly not advising, that you should avoid discussing things. Everything is open for discussion! I do think that, unless there is a very important reason why it must be done now, that it should wait until a break or before/after a session. Just my 2 cp.

[Skyscraper]

In the above? No, not really. They are two discrete, but related, thoughts. Both amount to, "Don't be a douche" and there is no middle ground in "Don't be a douche". There are all kinds of ways to not be a douche, of course, and there are all kinds of ways to ameliorate being a douche. There is middle ground between douchiness and not-douchiness, but there is no middle ground to "Don't be a douche".

So in French, "douche" is a shower. I've always loved the English expression as in "don't be a douche" for that reason, it's kind of absurd-sounding with the French meaning attached to it, thus always amusing to hear

If you don't like the game, do not play it. That would seem to be common sense to me, and to everyone's benefit. I get that you might like the game better with some adjustment, and you would naturally want to discuss that adjustment. But there is a difference between "I would like X better with Y" and "I would like X only with Y." In the first case, hell yes, you like the game, help to make it better. In the second case, hell no. You do not like the game, and Y might make you able to tolerate it, but, really, don't you have something better to do?

But what if I like Z?

Hehe I'm just pulling your leg

Anyway, I don't think that my advice here has anything to do with you personally. I do not think, and I am certainly not advising, that you should avoid discussing things. Everything is open for discussion! I do think that, unless there is a very important reason why it must be done now, that it should wait until a break or before/after a session. Just my 2 cp.

Yeah, nothing personal felt or intended here. I like the way you judge in the only short online experience we've had together and I do not have any problem with it.

I also have the impression that we would probably get along well around a table too, by the impression I get from your differents posts. I think that if we would not have a like mind, which I do not know, we would at least most probably agree on how to behave around a gaming table or, more generally, socially.

The reason I've started this whole thing at the outset, is that I often hear the "my game, my rules" theme (or other "my way or the highway" variation) tossed around across the boards, and now has been the time for my coming out: I'm don't like that concept. It seems to me like some people interpret that justification as grounds to self-declaration towards the title of dictator, and sometimes the result of those "my game, my rules" expressions are used to justify acting in ways that most players probably don't like (at least from some posts I read - no specific reference to this thread here). Listening to others is a rare thing in society, generally, while it should be so important in my humble opinion. Perhaps "my game, my rules" is a shortcut, but it has this "there is no room for discussion" underlying text in it that I dislike.

[Raven_Crowking]

No problems, mate!

I suspect we'd do well with a game table or a pint, too. No matter who was running the game or serving the drinks.

Just remember that, if you are being a "shower", you rain on everyone's parade!

Daniel

[Skyscraper]

*wears shower cap*

[Zardnaar]

Okies turns out I'm a bit more old school than my players. Most of them are d20 era and they do not mind 2nd ed AD&D but are not interested in 1st ed, BECM, or DCC as it is a little to basic by most accounts. Thanks for all the help and posts, I'll keep and see out and see if I can pick it up cheap on sale on PDF/Ebay. I would like to try it but its not gonna happen:(.
Nice forum you all have and happy gaming.

At my table, the mantra is "he who runs the game picks the rules." I've found over the years that it's a lot easier to find players than GMs, so you might push for what you want and see how it goes.

Also, it's easy for someone unfamiliar with something to just say "no, I don't want to change." You could come back with "okay, you run a game then" and maybe they will appreciate your efforts more. I know that I have some players who do zero prep and just show up, whereas I spend lots of hours getting things ready. Your players might have a different view if they get a chance to be the GM.

Just my two coppers.

If it was free I would try this lol. I want to try DCC but I'm a also getting a bit burnt out as an eternal DM and one of my players has offered to try DMing. 20 years of D&D and the longest I got to play is 1 year and we made it to level 4 in BECMI lol. Its my birthday in July so I may ask for an RPG rulebook so I may make it DCC.

[Zardnaar]

Slight update.
50% off sale at RPGnow.com so I picked up DCC. If I like it enough to play it or can find players I'll try to get a copy of DCC, Castles and Crusades and ACKs online sometime to save on postage. About to go to work so have not had a chance to read it.