Goodman Games

This says that you can't choose to be a dwarf, elf or halfling unless you were one as a 0-level character, however it doesn't say the reverse. So it could be interpreted as saying that 0-level dwarves can decide not to choose the 'dwarf' class and be (for example) wizards instead.

I would say yes: you grew up among humans, you are not familiar with your true heritage, you were raised among humans, like a human. Slowly, humanity assimilates all the humanoids and destroys all inhuman races. You are one of the first ones.

That's how I read it too, I'm not sure how I feel about it. My only reservation, honestly, is something I already brought up in the demi-humans thread... how to explain to someone that their dwarf thief doesn't have infravision, or a beard... (joke.)

You grew up overground, so it didn't develop.

I'd give them the infravision since when has having infravision really been useful is there's even one human with that damned blinding torch of his? His trade off is moving only 20' instead of 30'.

Sure you could do that in house, goes without saying (it's an easy fix) but arbitrary decisions like that don't fly in organized play. Especially with sticklers for Rules As Written. The easiest thing (in spirit of the game and intent) would be to officially restrict demi-humans to their appropriate demi-human classes. Then adding new classes later.

This is probably way off-topic but "Organized Play"?!?? Who is organizing it? Joe is probably hoping to sell 5-10,000 copies of DCCRPG worldwide and I would be surprised if his first print run is over 3000. I would guess half the people who buy will not really run it and half the remaining folk will not keep it as their go-to RPG. Where is this demand for organized play going to come from? One-two dozen people attending Gen Con in 2012?

Oh come on! I can hope, can't I? Buuuuuuuuuuut, I do plan to do some gaming at the local D&D Club and will allow peeps to bring their own characters. A lot of conflict comes down to Rules As Written, just sayin'. I'm going to a "organized" game later next month, mr. Goodman is GMing. I'm going to an "organized" game at the beginning of the month, I plan to start a DCC campaign. I also have my weekly homegame between those days, and rules are the number 1 topic of debate...

Table and house rules should ALWAYS be assumed. But in this case I think clarification is warranted--organized play or not. And really not much to ask. I see this becoming issue #1 from the start. I mean it's the FIRST decision you ever make when it comes to the path your character takes once he levels.

Why so cynical? Don't you want the game to "succeed"? And by success doesn't by any means Pathfinder levels, much less Sword & Wizardy "success". I want the game to be GOOD. And I don't see how using "organized" play as an example to needing clearer rules is a bad thing. I'm pretty sure mr. Goodman wants to set a new standard.

Selling 5-10,000 is succeeding. The RPG market is small.

I would say that "organized play" would include any tournaments or convention games. Anywhere when the players would expect to see "official rules" being used, as compared to house rules.

That's part of the problem I see with the "well, the rules say X but I'll rule Y" statements at this point in the playtest. It would be nice to have folks actually try out the rules as written for a while before changing things. You may find that there is a reason for a rule.