Thank you for Dungeon Crawl Classics

[Argamae]

Hi folks at Goodman Games,

it has been a long time since I posted here. Partly because other things tied down my free time and attention. Partly because I was preoccupied with other local forums (I am from Germany).
And now it seems as if I will continue to be a rare guest at GG's forum. Since I am not switching to 4E. I have tried to get "friendly" with the newest WotC spawn but -alas!- it was not to be. Instead I found that 3.5 was, if not necessarily perfect, my favourite game. I even started D&D Classic on Mystara again. The reasons why I strongly dislike 4E are many and nothing I will go into here. And anyway, the 3.5 vs. 4E discussion is continuing elsewhere.

I had the privilege of translating DCC modules into German. And it was fun, too. They didn't run high print numbers here, but the modules were well received and gathered pretty good reviews. So, I am a little proud of having had a part in it.

The reason for me to write this is because I felt I had to. DCCs have amazed, entertained and enraptured me. And they will continue to do so for I still have so many that wait to be played. Nevertheless, I am very sad that GG quits on 3.5. There still is juice in that system, just consider Paizo and their ambitious Pathfinder RPG. Maybe I can hope--however tentatively-- that GG will do stuff for Pathfinder once it is out next year.

So, just before this year ends let me tell to all of you at Goodman Games, Thank you! You did a GREAT job and I will continue to use your modules, books and games for many, many years to come.

Keep up the good work. And a very MERRY X-MAS to all of you!

Yours sincerely,
Argamae (Olaf)

[JediOre]

Argamae,

You should try your hand at Castles & Crusades. Then all editions of the game become valid!

Merry Christmas!

[Treebore]

Argamae,

You should try your hand at Castles & Crusades. Then all editions of the game become valid!

Merry Christmas!

Ain't that the truth! I am even getting some 4E DCC's for Christmas!

What can I say? Despite owning pretty much 80%+ of all adventures published by anyone I still want more! When they have been as fun and enjoyable as the Goodman DCC's I am definitely glad to be doing something that makes all of D&D an open resource for me.

So thank you to Joe Goodman and the whole list of contributors! Thank you to Troll Lord Games for creating Castles and Crusades so that I can play a version of D&D that not only brought me back to the fun of my early years, allows me to still use and enjoy Goodman 3E DCC's, but also allows me to move forward into 4E DCC's and the great material to be found in them!

Merry Christmas to the Goodman crew and fans! Look forward to seeing what awesome ideas you put together in 2009!

[JediOre]

Treebore, I thought you were not going to get any 4th edition works. I was nervous, thinking that it would be hard to convert 4th edition but Harley assured me it would not be. I found my first experience with a 4th edition module to be very rewarding, but that may have more to do with the author!

[Argamae]

@Treebore, JediOre:

Thank you guys for your kind words. I know that you have a valid point because I have Castles & Crusades and played it. I like the game and find it's simple mechanisms very elegant. But I doubt that 4E adventures with their rather strict encounter design will convert easily to C&C. After all, 4E is supposed to give players vastly greater numbers of enemies (with the minion rules and what not) so translating that into classic D&D-esque games like C&C will mean that either those numbers are heavily reduced or average party level raised. At least that is what I think!?

[Treebore]

@Treebore, JediOre:

Thank you guys for your kind words. I know that you have a valid point because I have Castles & Crusades and played it. I like the game and find it's simple mechanisms very elegant. But I doubt that 4E adventures with their rather strict encounter design will convert easily to C&C. After all, 4E is supposed to give players vastly greater numbers of enemies (with the minion rules and what not) so translating that into classic D&D-esque games like C&C will mean that either those numbers are heavily reduced or average party level raised. At least that is what I think!?

I don't think so. When I tried out 4E by playing one of the modules that took us to 3rd level, it was with a bunch of us who play/prefer C&C. The whole time we were looking at how it would be converting things to C&C, and it looked to be pretty easy. Yes, we may have to alter things, like numbers encountered, etc... but it wasn't anything we might be doing even if we were using 4E rules.

JediOre,

I am trying out the modules. If Goodman keeps doing the ideas and quality that kept me a fan in the 3E days, I'll stay a 4E DCC fan. IF for whatever reason I don't like them, well, I won't be. Fortunately my being a C&C fan gives me the option to at least look them over, as you well know.

[JediOre]

@Treebore, JediOre:

But I doubt that 4E adventures with their rather strict encounter design will convert easily to C&C. After all, 4E is supposed to give players vastly greater numbers of enemies (with the minion rules and what not) so translating that into classic D&D-esque games like C&C will mean that either those numbers are heavily reduced or average party level raised. At least that is what I think!?

Argamae, I made the first 4th edition DCC, Sellswords of Punjar, a one-night side quest for my C&C game. I'm slowing posting how the adventure went. For roughly the first five or six encounters I was juggling how best to present the 4th edition opponents to the players, but after that I think I hit a stride and was able to, hopefully, seamlessly convert the villians to C&C on the fly. My biggest concern had nothing to do with numbers of foes, to me that is old-school. My biggest concern was how to reduce the massive hit points that 4th edition brings to the table to a number that will convey the danger, but not over whelm the PCs.

[Treebore]

I just got 53, 54, and 55 in the mail today, and Points of Light, thanks to Davemage and our Christmas exchange over at the Necromancer boards. So I'll be taking a hard look at them in temrs of use with C&C.

[welland_warrior]

I've never played C&C. I have little time for actual playing so when I do play I have been sticking to 3.5 (I was a late-comer to that edition).

I have the 4E books and the Goodman modules, but haven't played yet. With great respect to the wonderful creativity of the writers, I haven't been blown away by the 4E modules so far. The whole Punjar thing doesn't do much for me.

[goodmangames]

Argamae,

You're welcome!

And as Yoda once said, "The future is always in motion." You never know what's around the corner.

-- Joseph

[Treebore]

I've never played C&C. I have little time for actual playing so when I do play I have been sticking to 3.5 (I was a late-comer to that edition).

I have the 4E books and the Goodman modules, but haven't played yet. With great respect to the wonderful creativity of the writers, I haven't been blown away by the 4E modules so far. The whole Punjar thing doesn't do much for me.

Well, in all honesty I don't strongly like most of the DCC's, most are just "good". Besides, I have also learned you don't necessarily know how good a module is until you run it. There a bunch of modules I have run that I had a great time with, but I have seen others say they thought sucked.

For example, I thought Mysterious Tower was going to be an OK adventure, my group loved it! When all was said and done so did I. IN fact I have kept the tower as a fixture of my campaign. Like my current group of players have never been to or seen the tower, but they have heard of it, etc...

So I don't write off any module until I actually run it. One, because I always change things up at least a little. Two, because I never know how the players are going to react until they are exposed to it. Three, how the players react, and how into it they get, are the biggest factors in how good the module truly is.

So I now know I cannot judge a module until its been run, because things I thought were bad ended up being good or great, and things I thought would be great ended up being not so great.


Plus tastes are simply different. There are groups of people that think Tomb of Horrors is a badly written meat grinder dungeon and hate it. The groups I went through it with loved it.

So the one thing I "know" about Goodman DCC's, and Paizo's adventures for that matter, is that they aren't bad. So when I run them I know the experience is going to be "good" at the very least, and regularly end up being a heck of a lot of fun.

Another reason I consistently look to Goodman DCC's is that are consistent in being fresh and usually have a bit of ingenuity in them somewhere.

So even if DCC 53, 54, and 55 don't make me feel "blown away" I still feel confident about running them because I know they will be at least good, and its how the players play it that turns it into a great experience.

[Jengenritz]

its how the players play it that turns it into a great experience.

Always true.

[welland_warrior]

Ultimately, that's correct most of the time. Sometimes you think you have a great adventure and the players don't buy it, other times you think you the adventure is just so-so and it turns out they love it. Happens all the time. It's merely a question of taste.

[JediOre]

Even a module that, as written, would not appeal to the group going through it can become a gem if the DM is willing to "wing-it" for the sake of fun. The module is simply a road map for the group to use. How they arrive at fun is upon them more than the map itself.