Goodman Games

goodmangames wrote:At some point in the future, I suspect there will be more options for demi-human characters. BUT that's outside the scope of what I'm intending to do.

Consider this a window for a 3rd party publisher ...

//H

I've already volunteered but I worry when Joe wonders why we aren't reading mind about what is missing from this beta. The problem is the beta is still not complete enough to really write new material with any sense of system authority.

I'm planning to start with the gnome (knee high to a human) and add a whole illusionist magic subsystem. I can't imagine calling on distant powers to create illusions. So it has to be different.

reverenddak wrote:

rabindranath72 wrote: On page 19 there are separate XP tables for demihuman classes. Unless you are suggesting to multiclass, I don't see how you can combine a Dwarf and Thief, for example.

I'm still not sure what you're getting at. But I'm guessing you're saying that I'm saying that a player can pick any class, even if their character's occupation is, for example, a dwarven herder--he can choose to be a thief. I'm not saying that, but I am saying is that the rules don't specifically say otherwise. That's all. I think it would be logical (and easy enough for a group to make a ruling) that any character of a dwarven occupation can ONLY pick Dwarf as a class when they make level 1.

The XP tables refer to level progression by class, that's all. They make no indication of class/occupation restrictions.

And, as I was saying, the only restrictions (RAW) are that humans can't pick demi-human classes.

thus, if that is the case (that officially a character of dwarven occupation can be a thief, cleric or wizard) it would be less confusing if the Dwarf class be called Dwarf Fighter, etc.

If it's not the case (which I'm totally cool with) then it's a non-issue.

Uh yes I think we are saying different things
It seems to me that if you don't pick a demihuman occupation at 0 level, you cannot be a demihuman at all. It makes sense (otherwise why specify the race in the occupation at all?)
So, you have a 30% chance to play a demihuman (10% for each race.)

FWIW, I think it would be a good idea to spell out the original intent, as it's obviously confusing people. Providing a clear baseline is vital for a good rulebook. GMs can always change rules once they understand them as-written.

Ergo, my vote would be to clearly state that:

1. If you roll an Elf, Dwarf or Halfling occupation, the PC has the associated basic racial traits (but not the cool class abilities).
2. If you roll an Elf, Dwarf or Halfling occupation, the PC enters the associated racial class at 1st level.

Granted, this strains verisimilitude a bit (e.g., the elf who suddenly can make use of their hundreds of years of magical training), but it at least provides clear guidance.

buzz wrote:FWIW, I think it would be a good idea to spell out the original intent, as it's obviously confusing people. Providing a clear baseline is vital for a good rulebook. GMs can always change rules once they understand them as-written.

Ergo, my vote would be to clearly state that:

1. If you roll an Elf, Dwarf or Halfling occupation, the PC has the associated basic racial traits (but not the cool class abilities).
2. If you roll an Elf, Dwarf or Halfling occupation, the PC enters the associated racial class at 1st level.

Granted, this strains verisimilitude a bit (e.g., the elf who suddenly can make use of their hundreds of years of magical training), but it at least provides clear guidance.

+1. I think that's a good idea. It would clear up some misconceptions.

goodmangames wrote:Just as a reminder, these rules are a BETA. I've been playing this game regularly with a wide variety of people across the country for around 18 months...and all the rules are very clear in my head. Why can't you read my mind??

If I may, can I ask if there was ever a point when you considered not including demihuman classes at all? I'm curious because Appendix N has obviously been a major influence on the feel of DCC RPG, and yet, how many Appendix N authors include friendly non-human (but humanlike) characters in their writings? Without naming names, I'm thinking one or two, tops. I could say the same thing about the Law/Balance/Chaos alignments and the cleric class... sure, there are examples here and there, but how often do these really crop up in classic sword & sorcery?

I don't really have a problem with their inclusion, mind you - after all, D&D has used clerics, demihumans, alignments, etc. for years, and most players are happy with them. I can understand the reluctance to throw out classic D&D elements. Elsewhere I've posited that Moldvay/Cook D&D is at least as big an influence on DCC RPG as Appendix N. Do you think that's a fair assessment?

buzz wrote:FWIW, I think it would be a good idea to spell out the original intent, as it's obviously confusing people. Providing a clear baseline is vital for a good rulebook. GMs can always change rules once they understand them as-written.

Ergo, my vote would be to clearly state that:

1. If you roll an Elf, Dwarf or Halfling occupation, the PC has the associated basic racial traits (but not the cool class abilities).
2. If you roll an Elf, Dwarf or Halfling occupation, the PC enters the associated racial class at 1st level.

Granted, this strains verisimilitude a bit (e.g., the elf who suddenly can make use of their hundreds of years of magical training), but it at least provides clear guidance.

I concur with this. If the intent is to limit zero-level races to their racial classes, then it needs to be spelled out because the way it worded now it is clearly stating that the taking the racial class is an option for that race. It is easily overlooked to those familiar with race as class but I bet newer gamers would read the rule making the race class an option.

Joseph mentioned he'd add a note at the start to make it more clear and it didn't happen before the rules went out. In the end I'm guessing people are happy to have gotten the rules a few days early. There is time to clean this stuff up.

Guys! There's a simple solution to this conundrum. Make the racial component of the occupation table optional. If a player rolls up a halfling gypsy but wants to play a wizard or whatever, let em drop the "halfling" affix for a human gypsy character.

If you want a campaign with your typical melting pot demihuman civilization (like you generally see in later iterations of 'that one game'), allow players the reverse: elven farmers, dwarfish gravediggers and what-have-you. Require that players declare their demihuman aspirations at character creation and give them infravision etc as appropriate to avoid violating verisimilitude.

I should stress that my campaign will use the occupations table as-is and so should DCCRPG Final. I prefer demihuman characters to be rare in my campaigns and Table 1-3 enforces this effectively, but I also don't want to have to strongarm any of my players into playing a hobbit.

I've played this with my group a few times and... the whole race\class thing is a nonstarter for us.
After the first two games we threw out the demihumans and just stuck with the "core four". As someone mentioned above, this fits classic sword & sorcery better (for us, at least).

I learned a new term today, Fantasy Heartbreaker. Basically means a D&D rip-off, but not necessarily in a bad way. Which, in my opinion, is what DCC is trying NOT to be, but if it keeps tropes like Elves, Dwarves and Halflings it will fall into that trap--whether it wants to or not. Ditching those races, and coming up with rules (or tips) for coming up with new or original PC races would help. It could follow some rules for making original monsters.

just a thought.

reverenddak wrote:I learned a new term today, Fantasy Heartbreaker. Basically means a D&D rip-off, but not necessarily in a bad way. Which, in my opinion, is what DCC is trying NOT to be, but if it keeps tropes like Elves, Dwarves and Halflings it will fall into that trap--whether it wants to or not. Ditching those races, and coming up with rules (or tips) for coming up with new or original PC races would help. It could follow some rules for making original monsters.

just a thought.

Interesting thought actually. Elves, Dwarves, Gnomes and Halflings are tropes -- especially halflings. S&S / Wierd Fiction, made "the other" strange and rare. It is only with Tolkien that we get your standard fare Elves and Dwarves. The archetype of the other is much more sinister than our genericized version of "fantasy races".

jmucchiello wrote:I've already volunteered but I worry when Joe wonders why we aren't reading mind about what is missing from this beta. The problem is the beta is still not complete enough to really write new material with any sense of system authority.

I'm planning to start with the gnome (knee high to a human) and add a whole illusionist magic subsystem. I can't imagine calling on distant powers to create illusions. So it has to be different.

I could help with an halforc variant of the cleric - shaman orc!!

PHGraves wrote:I've played this with my group a few times and... the whole race\class thing is a nonstarter for us.
After the first two games we threw out the demihumans and just stuck with the "core four". As someone mentioned above, this fits classic sword & sorcery better (for us, at least).

This is a tricky one to be sure, a real love it or hate it. But recently and idea was floated my way that I thought I'd toss out here for general comment. Its more 1st Ed cloning that App N I feel but might have some milage in it...

Half elf House-Rule
If you roll any "Elf" result on your 0 level background, but really do not want to play one as a class you may declare your character is actually a Half elf.
This means you can pick from the core four classes as can any human.
Additonally you may either pick ONE (and only one) Elf racial trait that your otherwise Human character has Or
The Gm can assign or dice for two or three elven racial traits to your character. In this latter case the Iron vulnerability should ALWAYS be one of them so you get too "good" traits plus one bad one...

Any comments on that good people? I personally like it and am House ruling it in til there is an "Official" rule on the subject at least. You get just a dash of elf but have the human flexibility. You CANNOT choose this option for a character normally its only available to those lucky enough to get some kind of elf result in the background table. Its simple and should at first glance at least keep Half elves from being the over powered disasters that 1st Ed AD&D had as well I think.

Ducaster wrote:

PHGraves wrote:I've played this with my group a few times and... the whole race\class thing is a nonstarter for us.
After the first two games we threw out the demihumans and just stuck with the "core four". As someone mentioned above, this fits classic sword & sorcery better (for us, at least).

This is a tricky one to be sure, a real love it or hate it. But recently and idea was floated my way that I thought I'd toss out here for general comment. Its more 1st Ed cloning that App N I feel but might have some milage in it...

Half elf House-Rule
If you roll any "Elf" result on your 0 level background, but really do not want to play one as a class you may declare your character is actually a Half elf.
This means you can pick from the core four classes as can any human.
Additonally you may either pick ONE (and only one) Elf racial trait that your otherwise Human character has Or
The Gm can assign or dice for two or three elven racial traits to your character. In this latter case the Iron vulnerability should ALWAYS be one of them so you get too "good" traits plus one bad one...

Any comments on that good people? I personally like it and am House ruling it in til there is an "Official" rule on the subject at least. You get just a dash of elf but have the human flexibility. You CANNOT choose this option for a character normally its only available to those lucky enough to get some kind of elf result in the background table. Its simple and should at first glance at least keep Half elves from being the over powered disasters that 1st Ed AD&D had as well I think.

I'd love to see half-elves in DCC, i have to admit. But i wouldn't allow that to be a choice. Besides "there's no choice apart from alignment" in character creation; using the rule you suggested, you'd get very few pure elves, as only someone with good INT would be Elf: if a character gets just 8 INT and 16 STR, he's better off as a half elf warrior, or if 15 AGI he would go for half elf thief. The balance for the Elf racial class abilities and higher HD than the wiz is the fact that everything is random so you could become a partially efficient, low INT elf, while if you were human you could've chosen a class more suitable for your stats.

You should have anyone rolling an Elf Occupation to roll a d6 * : if you get 5 or 6 you character is a half elf instead. He gets to pick a class and has one of these racial abilities rolled randomly: Infravision, Immunity ( to magical sleep and paralysis), Heightened Senses.

*this can be any die, and any range, to suit your campaign: maybe in my world halfelves are so rare to be seen as a bad omen, therefore you roll a d20 and only on a 20 you get to be an halfelf. In yours maybe elves and humans live together, you roll a d6 and be an half elf with a 4,5 or 6.