Thoughts on a simplified SRD game.

[finarvyn]

The only reason I am citing a little balance is the fact that if characters are too unbalanced it does ruin game play for some players (i.e. someone totally steals the show).

A friend of mine used to compare game balance to literary fiction balance, where both Frodo and Gandalf are player characters and my friend asks "Would you really want to be Frodo?"

My answer at the time was "heck, no!" because in high school I was all about blowing things up and clearly Gandalf would be a lot more fun to play than Frodo. With age and experience I have encountered quite a few players who tell me that Frodo was an interesting character and they'd love to play Frodo given the choice. It really made me think about game balance and what it really means.

Game balance is tricky. A point-build system such as GURPS or Amber Diceless is balanced because everyone gets the same 100 points to build with, but only if the powers to pick from are correctly assigned points comparitive to their actual in-game value. A "roll 3d6 in order" system is theoretically balanced since everyone rolls the same dice with equal probabilities of rolling high or low, but when the dice hit the table usually someone gets a better character than someone else so perhaps its balance is more of an illusion than a reality.

My current thought is that game systems don't need to be totally balanced, but they shouldn't be totally unbalanced either. Each character option comes with advantages and disadvantages and as long as the two aren't too far apart the game works well. The thief shouldn't expect to use magic as well as the wizard or fight as well as the soldier, but the tradeoff is that he's better at sneaky stuff. If you equate inflicting damage with "balance" then the thief and fighter aren't a good match, but if you look at the total package hopefully both are worthy of fun play.

I'm not sure where I'm going with this, other than to stress that the concept of "balance" shouldn't be totally forgotten but it shouldn't restrict designers and force them to put dumb rules in just to make everyone "equal."

As always, just my two coppers.

[Black Dougal]

Yes...if one does that. In my mind, the single most important defining difference between game design in 1974 and game design now is the concept of "balance." In 1974, there was really no effort at making the game balanced. Characters died regularly, careless PCs ended up fighting dragons way out of their league, demi-humans got screwed when it came to level limits, higher-level wizards were clearly the best class (if you were willing to put up with being the WORST class at low levels, with your measly one-shot sleep spell), and so on. Nowadays, the value placed on game balance is completely different.

It is hard to express these thoughts in a way that doesn't leave the reader incredulous -- dismissing "game balance" in game design clearly sounds like a mistake -- so I'll just leave it at that for now. In the final product I think you'll see that game balance can be achieved as much through randomization as standardization.

The way I see it, today's games are artificially balanced. The "balance" is codified into the rules so that everyone gets to be a unique and special little flower, just like everyone else. The game is neutered in this way so that the players don't have to think on their feet as much. They are equal and balanced out-of-the-box.

The old D&D games didn't do it this way, but they are balanced. The balance comes from good roleplay. The rules are just tools to facilitate this. The rules aren't "balanced" the way modern games are because IMHO Gygax and Arneson expected you to bring your imagination to the table much more than modern versions of the game do.

So, don't dismiss game balance, just dismiss the modern fallacy of "balanced" games.

[JediOre]

So, don't dismiss game balance, just dismiss the modern fallacy of "balanced" games.

Hear, hear!

[goodmangames]

The old D&D games didn't do it this way, but they are balanced. The balance comes from good roleplay. The rules are just tools to facilitate this. The rules aren't "balanced" the way modern games are because IMHO Gygax and Arneson expected you to bring your imagination to the table much more than modern versions of the game do.

Seconded! The DM has a large role in providing balance. Over the years, the DM's role has been replaced by rules. But the early D&D games were just as balanced, with a lot fewer rules, thanks to the emphasis on the DM.

[JediOre]

Joseph,

I could not have said it better.

It was when I really began to experience just how hemmed in I was as a DM in 3rd edition that I realized the game was no fun, of course many found 3rd edition to be a panacea, but I was not one of them. (I'm hearing the same from folks who disliked 4th edition which I've not played). When it dawned on me I had turned in my Dungeon Mastering title to become a glorified rules referee, I concluded a "perfect, balanced" RPG was also a sterile one. That's when I went in search for a game that would return the spirit of the "good ol' days" yet keep a more systematic rules set for my players who loved the d20 concept.

[finarvyn]

My DM style is a direct offshoot of starting with the little brown book OD&D rules when I was in middle school. When my friends moved onto AD&D I played in their campaigns but usually DM'ed OD&D. Very rules light and wide open, without all of the rules bloat of some more modern games.

That's when I went in search for a game that would return the spirit of the "good ol' days" yet keep a more systematic rules set for my players who loved the d20 concept.

I assume you're talking about C&C. My second choice when I don't run OD&D!

[mr baron]

A thought on character classes. I totally understand the direction to keep the character classes limited in number, which is in keeping with the original rules. However, with the introduction of the numerous player books other classes (ranger, paladin, etc..) have become the norm. I would like to see some additional classes beyond the fighter, thief, magic user & cleric, but I agree we do not need 20+ classes. Players like choices, which I think adds some appeal to the overall game.

Any chance to see some additional classes in the main book or in an expansion?

[goodmangames]

A thought on character classes. I totally understand the direction to keep the character classes limited in number, which is in keeping with the original rules. However, with the introduction of the numerous player books other classes (ranger, paladin, etc..) have become the norm. I would like to see some additional classes beyond the fighter, thief, magic user & cleric, but I agree we do not need 20+ classes. Players like choices, which I think adds some appeal to the overall game.

Any chance to see some additional classes in the main book or in an expansion?

In Appendix N, demi-humans are The Other. They are extraordinarily rare, unique, unusual creatures. They are not human, they are not Men (as Tolkien would say), they are special. How many demi-humans even appear in Appendix N? Hardly any. Tolkien probably has the highest "population incidence" for demi-humans, and even he maintains a theme of "demi-human scarcity": elves are stealthy and never met, hobbits are so insignificant as to be outside the realm of knowledge of the world's greatest evil power, and dwarves live out of sight from other cultures. Appendix N simply does not feature a high concentration of demi-humans. OD&D reflected this, yet as the game evolved the penetration of demi-humans continued to expand. 4E is the absolute extreme, where humans are downright rare in comparison to other races. How is an elf magical when you encounter dozens of them in everyday life?

In DCC RPG, demi-humans return to the realm of The Other. They are special and unique. Now, the next thing I'm about to say requires a bit of a preface. I accept that anyone reading the published version of DCC RPG is probably an experienced role player. I am sure that a significant portion of those who play this game will incorporate one house rule or another. I am purposely leaving certain portions of the rules "modular." Think of it like a map where some regions are well-defined and others are "sketched." The game is certainly playable as-is, but because I know there are certain elements that many DMs will house-rule anyway, I'm deliberately keeping them "modular" in nature so they can be altered. Let's be realistic - any experienced gamer is house-ruling a lot anyway! So, with that preface out of the way, I will note that one of the systems incorporated into DCC RPG which is easily altered but which adds a great deal of fun if approached with an open mind is the 0-level occupation system, which also determines a character's race. Statistically, 70% of PCs will be humans, and only 30% will be demi-human. If the rules-as-written are used, it is therefore the case that there won't be that many demi-humans in play, and they will be Special.

And THAT is why races are classes in this game. If you're an elf, you will be one of a very few in the known world, and one of the very few that your party will ever encounter. You're already special and unique. You don't also need a class.

Of course, 20 years of race-separate-from-class means a lot of players will prefer to use a different system. But if your goal is to emulate the sense of adventure that is embodied by Appendix N, the DCC RPG captures that in regards to the role of demi-humans.

And to answer your question even more explicitly, I'm sure someone will come up with rules for rangers and paladins in DCC RPG. It just won't be me. That's why I'm publishing it as an OGL system and opening the door to licensed support.

[Geoffrey]

In Appendix N, demi-humans are The Other. They are extraordinarily rare, unique, unusual creatures. They are not human, they are not Men (as Tolkien would say), they are special. How many demi-humans even appear in Appendix N? Hardly any. Tolkien probably has the highest "population incidence" for demi-humans, and even he maintains a theme of "demi-human scarcity": elves are stealthy and never met, hobbits are so insignificant as to be outside the realm of knowledge of the world's greatest evil power, and dwarves live out of sight from other cultures. Appendix N simply does not feature a high concentration of demi-humans. OD&D reflected this, yet as the game evolved the penetration of demi-humans continued to expand. 4E is the absolute extreme, where humans are downright rare in comparison to other races. How is an elf magical when you encounter dozens of them in everyday life?

Very well put.

I will note that one of the systems incorporated into DCC RPG which is easily altered but which adds a great deal of fun if approached with an open mind is the 0-level occupation system, which also determines a character's race. Statistically, 70% of PCs will be humans, and only 30% will be demi-human.

How does the 0-level occupation system determine a character's race? Do you roll on a chart to see what your occupation is, and 30% of the time your occupation is demi-human?

[goodmangames]

How does the 0-level occupation system determine a character's race? Do you roll on a chart to see what your occupation is, and 30% of the time your occupation is demi-human?

Yup, pretty much. There are dozens and dozens of entries on the table, with 70% of the randomized results being a human and the other 30% being a mix of elf, dwarf, and halfling occupations (for example, elven forester or dwarven blacksmith).

Many people prefer to start their games at level 1, so there are instructions for doing just that. But 0-level play is lots of fun and is the basis for the skill system. 0-level play also creates a much stronger bond between the players and their characters, I find, and encourages role playing. In my playtest sessions I start every player with 2-4 0-level characters (depending on how many players there are) to end up with a party of 12-18 PCs. All 0-level PCs have randomly determined ability scores (3d6, straight down the line - no re-rolling the weak die, no 4d6-and-take-the-best, no roll-and-assign-your-scores). By the end of the adventure, each player usually has 1 or maybe 2 0-level PCs that are still alive. (Except when I wipe out the entire party but I've been trying to do less of that. ). That resulting group advances to level 1 and is your adventuring party. Some will be demi-human, but most are human. As I phrased it in the manuscript:

What man calls free will is but the options remaining after destiny and the gods have made their plays. If your character survives to level 1, you can choose a class. Your free will is constrained by the fatalism of the dice; pick a class that suits your randomly determined strengths and weaknesses. The demi-human classes of dwarf, elf, and halfling may only be selected by those whose 0-level occupation was of that race.

Many a player has become quite attached to the measly 0-level butcher with a 5 Int and 9 Str who somehow survived a dungeon to advance to level 1! This system creates imperfect characters - as I noted elsewhere, it is impossible to power-game. I consistently find that players end up quite attached to the characters produced in this manner.

Of course, experienced gamers will probably just do their own thing and edit this system somehow. But I would encourage people to give it a shot, at least once. I've had several playtesters whose first reaction was "I hate low-level play." They always end up having a blast and really liking their characters.

[mythfish]

I've had several playtesters whose first reaction was "I hate low-level play." They always end up having a blast and really liking their characters.

I had one of those in my first playtest group too. Afterward he grudgingly admitted he had a good time and was really curious what 1st level would be like.

I guess I'm a bit weird in that I've always hated high-level play. In D&D 3.5 I always started to get bored around 6-7th level (and that's barely into mid-level play)...my characters had too many hit points, and I rarely felt threatened. Even if by some chance my character did die, I knew there was a raise dead just around the corner.

Haven't done much higher level play in DCC RPG yet, but I suspect I will enjoy it much more than most versions of D&D.

[finarvyn]

I accept that anyone reading the published version of DCC RPG is probably an experienced role player. I am sure that a significant portion of those who play this game will incorporate one house rule or another. I am purposely leaving certain portions of the rules "modular." Think of it like a map where some regions are well-defined and others are "sketched." The game is certainly playable as-is, but because I know there are certain elements that many DMs will house-rule anyway, I'm deliberately keeping them "modular" in nature so they can be altered.

I like this, because it's a design feature that allows for the "best of all worlds" to the consumer. If I like something I can keep it, don't like something I can change it, but at the same time there is an "official" rules set for tournaments and so on. I'm not sure we tweaked OD&D right out of the box, but once we saw Strategic Review and later the Dragon magazine we got the idea of house-rules in a hurry, and we tinker with everything. Nice to have a rules system designed with this in mind!

And to answer your question even more explicitly, I'm sure someone will come up with rules for rangers and paladins in DCC RPG. It just won't be me. That's why I'm publishing it as an OGL system and opening the door to licensed support.

I imagine that it will come down to the success of the system. I can see, if there is enough demand, some sort of add-on sourcebook that compiles extra classes, spells, magical items, and the like. That seems to be the nature of gaming nowadays. At the same time, it's nice to imagine a game which is intended to be complete on publication that isn't trying to rely on later supplement sales.

[Fabio.MilitoPagliara]

on race and classes

while I like the idea of demihumans as "the other" this can also be attained in other ways

1) human subraces (or horoscope/fate to give that little difference from birth)
2) by making the demihuman "classes" as classes (and killing the multiclass rule) so there is no need to being an elf to play an elf
3) by making demihuman truly alien (say different value/ethos/reasons)

just my 2 cents

[Hamakto]

Yup, pretty much. There are dozens and dozens of entries on the table, with 70% of the randomized results being a human and the other 30% being a mix of elf, dwarf, and halfling occupations (for example, elven forester or dwarven blacksmith).

Many people prefer to start their games at level 1, so there are instructions for doing just that. But 0-level play is lots of fun and is the basis for the skill system. 0-level play also creates a much stronger bond between the players and their characters, I find, and encourages role playing. In my playtest sessions I start every player with 2-4 0-level characters (depending on how many players there are) to end up with a party of 12-18 PCs. All 0-level PCs have randomly determined ability scores (3d6, straight down the line - no re-rolling the weak die, no 4d6-and-take-the-best, no roll-and-assign-your-scores). By the end of the adventure, each player usually has 1 or maybe 2 0-level PCs that are still alive. (Except when I wipe out the entire party but I've been trying to do less of that. ). That resulting group advances to level 1 and is your adventuring party. Some will be demi-human, but most are human. As I phrased it in the manuscript:

To be honest, one of the best DCC's we ever did at GenCon was the 0-Level Round 1 of the Fiend. It was so brutally tough because the group had to work together (4 zero level characters against one goblin shooting down a tunnel is not 100% easy). So zero level characters CAN be an intense experience.

About 3 months ago, I broke out the remnants of my old Red Boxed Set. The reason that I say that is that they are very much in tatters from overuse 30+ years ago... But re-reading them, it brought back memories of what made that interesting.

1. Simple rules --- extra rules did not exist, just wing it
2. Ability scores bonuses did not unbalance the game. (+1 at 13, +2 at 16, +3 at 18) - They were important, just not to the level that AD&D 3e and 4e power levels.

It was not perfect, but it was very interesting for a level 1-3 range.

Many a player has become quite attached to the measly 0-level butcher with a 5 Int and 9 Str who somehow survived a dungeon to advance to level 1! This system creates imperfect characters - as I noted elsewhere, it is impossible to power-game. I consistently find that players end up quite attached to the characters produced in this manner.

My first character was a thief... 14 Dex and 3 Charisma. My uncle who got me into the game... had a Cleric with 15 WIS and 5 STR.

I am still out on the whole Race is a class type thing... I will have to mull that over to see if that is the best.

[mythfish]

I am still out on the whole Race is a class type thing... I will have to mull that over to see if that is the best.

If I recall, D&D 3.5 allowed race as class in a way. There were race exemplar prestige classes or some such in one of the books. If an elf decided to go that route, he wasn't just an elf, he was an ELF...excelling in all those things elves are stereotypically good at.

It's similar in DCC RPG. If at level 0 you are an elven sage, you don't have to choose elf as your class at 1st level. You can still be just an elf wizard if you want. You won't get to do all the cool stuff elves (the class) can do, but you're still an elf. The elves in the elf class probably look down on you for having a tainted bloodline or something, but screw them they're snooty bastards anyway.

I don't feel as if I've explained it very well. I should sleep.

[Hamakto]

I am still out on the whole Race is a class type thing... I will have to mull that over to see if that is the best.

If I recall, D&D 3.5 allowed race as class in a way. There were race exemplar prestige classes or some such in one of the books. If an elf decided to go that route, he wasn't just an elf, he was an ELF...excelling in all those things elves are stereotypically good at.

It's similar in DCC RPG. If at level 0 you are an elven sage, you don't have to choose elf as your class at 1st level. You can still be just an elf wizard if you want. You won't get to do all the cool stuff elves (the class) can do, but you're still an elf. The elves in the elf class probably look down on you for having a tainted bloodline or something, but screw them they're snooty bastards anyway.

I don't feel as if I've explained it very well. I should sleep.

If I understand you right then...

An ELF can be a Wizard...

But they can also be an ELF class (my assumption is Fighter/Wizard cross).

Or am I totally confused now... Easy to do! I have only finished half of my morning can of Diet Coke.

[Ravenheart87]

I am still out on the whole Race is a class type thing... I will have to mull that over to see if that is the best.

If I recall, D&D 3.5 allowed race as class in a way. There were race exemplar prestige classes or some such in one of the books. If an elf decided to go that route, he wasn't just an elf, he was an ELF...excelling in all those things elves are stereotypically good at.

It's similar in DCC RPG. If at level 0 you are an elven sage, you don't have to choose elf as your class at 1st level. You can still be just an elf wizard if you want. You won't get to do all the cool stuff elves (the class) can do, but you're still an elf. The elves in the elf class probably look down on you for having a tainted bloodline or something, but screw them they're snooty bastards anyway.

I don't feel as if I've explained it very well. I should sleep.

If I understand you right then...

An ELF can be a Wizard...

But they can also be an ELF class (my assumption is Fighter/Wizard cross).

Or am I totally confused now... Easy to do! I have only finished half of my morning can of Diet Coke.

I'm confused too, I hope it will be clarified soon. I have no problem with races as classes, but I hope halflings will have some thief abilities, and won't be based purely on fighter like in BD&D.

[finarvyn]

I believe the answer is something like this:
* Elf can be a "race only"
* Elf can be a class

If you choose elf as a class, you get certain class abilities that go along with the selection. If you select another class you can still have the race of elf but not all of the special abilities.

So, an elf (race) wizard would act pretty much like a human wizard. An elf (class) wizard would have abilities from both the elf and wizard classes.

Mythfish can confirm/deny if my interpretation is correct.

[mythfish]

I believe the answer is something like this:
* Elf can be a "race only"
* Elf can be a class

If you choose elf as a class, you get certain class abilities that go along with the selection. If you select another class you can still have the race of elf but not all of the special abilities.

So, an elf (race) wizard would act pretty much like a human wizard. An elf (class) wizard would have abilities from both the elf and wizard classes.

Mythfish can confirm/deny if my interpretation is correct.

More or less. You can be an elf without having the elf class, but you're elfy purely in roleplaying/non-rules ways. If you have the elf class, you get actual rules to define your elfinity.

[GnomeBoy]

So, an elf with a non-elf class would be, maybe, a half-elf kind of thing?

Also, what the heck is BD&D? Seriously, I can't keep up with all the retro-acronyms (and the B key is nowhere near the O key).

[Geoffrey]

BD&D = Basic D&D.

[GnomeBoy]

BD&D = Basic D&D.

So that's OD&D, too, eh?

I mean, as far as I can recall at this late date, there were basically two versions of D&D before AD&D. And I've just generally thought they were lumped together in most discussions. Am I wrong? Are BD&D and OD&D different beasts? Which one had 8.5 by 11" box with the art of the red dragon on the pile of treasure flanked by an armored bowman and a wizard seen from behind (the version I cut my teeth on*)?


* I didn't really cut anything on that box -- when I said that, I was just teething.

[JediOre]

From the way I've read the boards and such, OD&D is the White Box that can include the rules supplements, i.e. Blackmoor.

[mntnjeff]

BD&D = Basic D&D.

So that's OD&D, too, eh?

I mean, as far as I can recall at this late date, there were basically two versions of D&D before AD&D. And I've just generally thought they were lumped together in most discussions. Am I wrong? Are BD&D and OD&D different beasts? Which one had 8.5 by 11" box with the art of the red dragon on the pile of treasure flanked by an armored bowman and a wizard seen from behind (the version I cut my teeth on*)?


* I didn't really cut anything on that box -- when I said that, I was just teething.

Newbie here. I've been lurking for awhile now and I'm not sure that I'm "qualified" to answer this, but BD&D is the red box and OD&D is the set of digest books. (Of which the main rule book was w/ the guy on the rearing horse that was ripped directly from a Dr. Strange comic book.)

And on to a couple thoughts of my own. "Creds" first I suppose...Like many of you I've been playing this game since the mid 70's. I've played every single version put out by TSR and nearly all of the retro-clones. And like many of you, I've also read many of the books listed on Appendix 'N'. Although, I will admit that my favorites by and far are Leiber's Fahfrd and the Grey Mouser stories. So now you see where my hear lies.

OK, on to the heart of my post. I'm not here to start any kind of a flame war with my comments. They are strictly personal observations that are directly related to MY experience only. I'm playing a couple of games, but the one that I think this particular rule-set might apply to is w/ a group of guys that I've been gaming with since Jr. High School. (Some university chums are in there as well.)

This group of guys has been gaming together for a VERY long time, and right now we've come to this juncture in our experience. We all have wives and families on one hand, but on the other hand we all vividly remember those nights in high school and university where we'd stay up, rapt w/ attention, all night long and well into the next day, playing and rolling dice. That person, the one who absolutely LOVED the game, still lives in each of us.

And THAT person in each of us is not happy with the game we're playing now.

We don't get together all that much anymore. Which is a real shame. Every one of us at that table loves the game. And we thoroughly enjoy one another's company. But RL comes first.

Now, we're playing a rules set that I shall not name, for fear of denigrating the game, (but it rhymes with "North Perdition") and it is just not a good fit for our style and uh, age? It's much too fiddly. If updating a character takes the better part of an hour (or two if you're slow like me), and you're sorting through stack's of "Powers", "Feat", "Skills" and "Abilities" just to figure out how you might influence an AoO or tactically change the face of the battle, then it's a game that's probably not for us. Just too much paper work and statistics and too little "playing". It has sort of killed that basic "joy" in us.

So, what does that have to do w/ me posting here? Well, I'm not sure. Yet.

I do think though that this game that you guys (Joseph, Harley and all) are putting together might be a nice fit for our style of play. Saying that, I'd like to become a more permanent poster on the boards here. I hope you don't mind. Heck, if you think what I'm saying is complete drivel, and comes from extreme left field then politely ignore my ramblings.

Either way, I'll watch closely and maybe some day, those little boys who played a game together so very long ago, will come back out to play a new game that brings out those same memories and joys. I'd like to think that's what you're doing here.

[joela]

And THAT is why races are classes in this game. If you're an elf, you will be one of a very few in the known world, and one of the very few that your party will ever encounter. You're already special and unique. You don't also need a class.

*weeps* That...is one of the best explanations I've ever read about race as class.

And to answer your question even more explicitly, I'm sure someone will come up with rules for rangers and paladins in DCC RPG. It just won't be me. That's why I'm publishing it as an OGL system and opening the door to licensed support.

To 3PPs supporting the DCC RPG: Develop a supp that has different abilities for each non-human race, e.g., mountain dwarves will have different abilities than arcane dwarves, etc.