Goodman Games

What I really like just by paging through the beta is the art, which really jumps out at me, and page 4. I realize that What is Roleplaying? is a staple of new RPGs but I like page 4 much more!

I'd like to hear what jumps out immediately to other judges. Things you really want Joseph to keep, that help make the game feel like the DCC RPG, etc.

Cthulhu as a god for clerics is great.

Alignment and the struggle of the gods really matter is also great. I like the C-N-L only alignments.

Cthulhu as Neutral is strange, if not wrong. I mean, Cthulhu has cultists by definition! I think it should be made Chaotic.

Kruvil wrote:Cthulhu as a god for clerics is great.

I was extremely pleased to see the Cuddly Squamous One mentioned quite boldly.

Perhaps I am the only one...by I absolutely don't like Peter Mullen's art. I know it's going to stay there, and I am usually not a sucker for such things, but it really rubs me the wrong way...

rabindranath72 wrote:Cthulhu as Neutral is strange, if not wrong. I mean, Cthulhu has cultists by definition! I think it should be made Chaotic.

Doesn't Chaosium (do they still exist) scream bloody murder if any RPG tries to use Cthulhu's name?

rabindranath72 wrote:Perhaps I am the only one...by I absolutely don't like Peter Mullen's art. I know it's going to stay there, and I am usually not a sucker for such things, but it really rubs me the wrong way...

It has a cartoon feel to it, but his work on page 6 is pretty great in my opinion.

jmucchiello wrote:

rabindranath72 wrote:Cthulhu as Neutral is strange, if not wrong. I mean, Cthulhu has cultists by definition! I think it should be made Chaotic.

Doesn't Chaosium (do they still exist) scream bloody murder if any RPG tries to use Cthulhu's name?

Chaosium exists and is making a comeback. Cthulhu is open to anyone to use as far as I can tell (Pathfinder uses the name for example).

Kruvil wrote:

jmucchiello wrote:

rabindranath72 wrote:Cthulhu as Neutral is strange, if not wrong. I mean, Cthulhu has cultists by definition! I think it should be made Chaotic.

Doesn't Chaosium (do they still exist) scream bloody murder if any RPG tries to use Cthulhu's name?

Chaosium exists and is making a comeback. Cthulhu is open to anyone to use as far as I can tell (Pathfinder uses the name for example).

They use to be lawsuit happy thinking they had exclusive rights to the name.

And I agree, mullen does nothing for me.

rabindranath72 wrote:Cthulhu as Neutral is strange, if not wrong. I mean, Cthulhu has cultists by definition! I think it should be made Chaotic.

Cthulhu (the deity) may be neutral while his cultists may be chaotic. I know that the standard convention is that follower alignment is the same as deity alignment, but this might be a clear exception to the rule. Cthulhu and other Lovecraftian "old ones" were notorious for not noticing humans much and not really caring what they were up to, which sounds pretty neutral to me. On the other hand, the cultists may do bizarre and horrible things in an attempt to attract the attention of an otherwise indifferent Cthulhu.

Kruvil wrote:What I really like just by paging through the beta is the art

My experience is a little unusual since I saw the rules early on, so no rules really leaped off the page at me.

When I opened up the Beta PDF in two-page mode and could see how the layout would look in an actual printed book, the artwork and layout really spoke to me.

I thought it was cool without art, much cooler with art!

finarvyn wrote:On the other hand, the cultists may do bizarre and horrible things in an attempt to attract the attention of an otherwise indifferent Cthulhu.

That's how I took it too. Cthulhu is neutral for two reasons. (1) He's indifferent, by that same reasoning "Crom" would be Neutral -- which fits. (2) He existed before Law and Chaos. So he's part of whatever was there before Gods and Demons. Maybe he just dreamt them all into being.

And I think Cthulhu being Neutral gives us a great example of the darker side of Neutral deities.

I'll admit it threw me at first too. But once I thought about it, it made more sense to me.

As for first glance, I liked MDoAs better than I thought I would. I liked Luck a lot more too. I'm itching to read more of the GM section. I was very happy with the scaled back attribute bonuses.

I am absolutely loving the art. Like the notion of Deeds, but question why it is limited to fighters; it pretty much says that other classes can't do cool creative stuff. Any possibility other characters can do their own Deeds, just maybe without getting to do damage while they do so?

One thing that bugs me about the art is the spot art pieces on some of the heavy chart pages. They don't work for me. The joke in the middle of the thief page is great but the little nothing drawings at the bottom of some the spells that only take up half of the whitespace don't work at all.

I think the intent is clearly to encourage all players to do cool things.

The difference is that warriors do it within combat. A warrior might make an attack roll and try to knock a foe down at the same time as a MDoA... potentially dealing a weapon strike + knocking down the monster. A thief would use his action to try to knock down the monster instead of attacking.

I also love that they made a skill system with a set scale, instead of the rather broken scale system in 3e/4e.

islan wrote: it pretty much says that other classes can't do cool creative stuff.

Remember that Thieves and Halflings can burn Luck - and not just in combat.

I really love the tone of the writing. Very conversational and it's written as if the audience is already experienced roleplayers (which, in most cases, they will be). I like that Goodman Games has taken this approach. It seems they know their target audience, aren't trying to please everyone, and are taking that to heart and hitting those aspects hard.

Love it.

Also, the art is fucking incredible.

Just wanted to say that I LOVE the artwork. It looks old school and awesome. I feel like I would want to buy the rules in print form whether I end up playing them or not because of the great artwork included. Now to find time to actually read the rules...

finarvyn wrote:Cthulhu (the deity) may be neutral while his cultists may be chaotic. I know that the standard convention is that follower alignment is the same as deity alignment, but this might be a clear exception to the rule. Cthulhu and other Lovecraftian "old ones" were notorious for not noticing humans much and not really caring what they were up to, which sounds pretty neutral to me. On the other hand, the cultists may do bizarre and horrible things in an attempt to attract the attention of an otherwise indifferent Cthulhu.

In the book there are references to chaotic clerics as "cultists" (it's also a level title.) So referring to Cthulhu's clerics as "cultists" is misleading.

Level titles have always been dumb. Why is a neutral dwarf an Apprentice but lawful dwarf is a Rebel? What makes a level 5 neutral warrior a chieftain? Who are his people?

jmucchiello wrote:Level titles have always been dumb. Why is a neutral dwarf an Apprentice but lawful dwarf is a Rebel? What makes a level 5 neutral warrior a chieftain? Who are his people?

Wrong. Level titles are awesome, cultural and brilliant. A very vague, yet evocative moniker which indicates a characters local renown (and level) is a hard thing to pull off.

I used to think the endless level titles were poorly positioned and misused (if used) in the old days (esp. since "rolling up a 5th level" whatever was commonplace, depending on what module was being played), but, in light of Funnelling and the requirement to start at zero, it is pretty obvious that any rare character with a level monicker has freakin' earned it.

What I REALLY liked at first glance--

The clerics and "patron" rules for mages. I know they've been around the board now for a while, but actually reading them and getting them makes these two really, really cool.

Combat and the Warrior--the MDoA and BONUS TO INITIATIVE!

0 level characters


What I disliked--

The homages and references to other, older games. I'm planning on running DCC RPG for people who have never played D&D before, and I don't want to have to explain that certains things are there because "that's what D&D did." I want DCC to be it's own game.

What I really liked at first glance

1) A goal of fast, evocative combat.
2) Unique rules that encourage storytelling.
3) Charts galore!

I really liked the fact that there wasn't anything I disliked.