Goodman Games

I get the fact that this is a throwback to the 1E days. Fine. I get that. I played that. I know it.


One thing 3.x/D20 has done right is unify the Experience table so that all classes advance the same. One less table to memorize and less questions the players have to keep referencing "Do I get to Level 3 or 4 with 3,100 being an Elf? Is 900 enough to get to first level as a wizard?" Dump that idea. All the classes are meant to be on par with each other roughly so why not simplify things and have one advancement table for all classes regardless of what they are and go with it? I don't see the point in making it more difficult as a priest/wizard to level up vs a fighter considering their power level is roughly the same except to say "This is how we did it in 1E!".

Some things I'm willing to go with, this complex chart just for the sake of complexity and nostalgia doesn't make a bit of set.

I do not agree. One thing 3E did was make all the exp tables the same and try unsuccessfully to balance all the class's. DCC threw class balance out the window and so.....you have uneven tables.

I like that. not because its some throwback to yester year but because I like that design.

Some career paths are harder to get promoted in than others. Sorry if that analogy doesn't fly.

I like variable XP progression for those reasons. 3x/4e homogenized a lot of things, primarily for balance. Balance isn't as important here. We're back to weak wizards and tough warriors early in the game and invincible wizards and formidable warriors later on. Balance is not part of the goals of DCC RPG, interesting characters makes for a different style of play, and one of the design principles. And I love it.

If anything, the DCC RPG states what we all knew to be true but everyone else was unable to admit: the Cleric is more powerful than the Warrior and the Rogue. Now the XP tables ring true: Wizard, Cleric, Warrior, and Thief, from greatest power and XP requirement to the least.

I think it comes down to what TPTB want "level" to mean. I'd personally prefer it to mean that a fourth level thief works well with a fourth level wizard that works well with a warrior that works well with a fourth level cleric; and that when I pick up a module that is for fourth level characters, that means it works well with characters which are fourth level. Classes and XP charts are both artificial constructs, anyway, so I don't find anything particularly amazing about a class that needs 30% more experience to go up because it's more powerful. In the end it's just a class that has 13 levels packed into 10.

The only positive reason I can think of to have varying XP charts is if for some reason you don't want the party to level up at the same time. In AD&D it could be a long time adventuring before any individual advanced a level, but with all the varying XP totals needed between all the different classes plus all the multi-classed characters there always seemed to be at least one character advancing at the end of an adventure, so that even if everyone didn't improve it was like the party improved just a little. But other than that, I prefer the the same XP for all classes.

I also think one XP table is a good idea. Get rid of the thief %s and different XPs by level; both harken back to Ad&D and not appendix N.

I disagree entirely.

The only thing I wish, is that the XP table was part of the class table.

No offense, but hell no. Keep the different xp tables.

Leopold wrote:I get the fact that this is a throwback to the 1E days. Fine. I get that. I played that. I know it.


One thing 3.x/D20 has done right is unify the Experience table so that all classes advance the same. One less table to memorize and less questions the players have to keep referencing "Do I get to Level 3 or 4 with 3,100 being an Elf? Is 900 enough to get to first level as a wizard?" Dump that idea. All the classes are meant to be on par with each other roughly so why not simplify things and have one advancement table for all classes regardless of what they are and go with it? I don't see the point in making it more difficult as a priest/wizard to level up vs a fighter considering their power level is roughly the same except to say "This is how we did it in 1E!".

Some things I'm willing to go with, this complex chart just for the sake of complexity and nostalgia doesn't make a bit of set.

Actually I disagree with you here. The DCC classes are not 100% balanced against each other. DCC does not strive towards 100% balance between character classes. Yes, an attempt is made but the rules were written to be playable and NOT watered down to be balanced.

I don't mind different XP tables--I just wonder if it matters. The difference between each class seems so minor as to have little, if any effect. I mean, it's not like D&D where the thief is level 4 and the Elven fighter/mage is still 1/1.

They just feel...odd.

I, too, fall in the "Keep it as it is" camp.

Hamakto wrote:
Actually I disagree with you here. The DCC classes are not 100% balanced against each other. DCC does not strive towards 100% balance between character classes. Yes, an attempt is made but the rules were written to be playable and NOT watered down to be balanced.

This game is all about quick, simple, easy to use, portable. Tossing more tables in there just to be 'different' or 'more like 1E' is just silly. What about encounter balancing? What about when we start getting into the 10 level cap or 20 level cap? The XP range is going to differe ridiculously and so will the power levels of the PCs. 1E/2E is notoriously bad for this. D20, take it or leave it, had a good thing going with simplified tables and universal abilities anyone can use. I do not want homogenization on the CLASS level but on how each PC advances, yes. Simple to follow, simple to use, no extraneous charts, leave those for the rolemasteresque Crit charts.

I'm not a fan of different xp tables as I want to reward my players, who will all have gone through the same trials and adventures, at the same time. One player should not get the benefit of advancing sooner than others just because he plays a different class.

Hamakto wrote:Actually I disagree with you here. The DCC classes are not 100% balanced against each other. DCC does not strive towards 100% balance between character classes. Yes, an attempt is made but the rules were written to be playable and NOT watered down to be balanced.

This statement sways me to the "use a single table" argument. If you are not pretending to use the XP charts for balance than they don't need to be different just for difference sake.

Do _not_ scrap the class based xp tables. The point here is not to make the game more like 3.5, which it seems lots of people are trying to achieve in their feedback.

3.5 & Pathfinder blurred the class based/archetypal system. Even Gary Gygax said as much. And before you start throwing virtual tomatoes at me, the goal is not to recreate 1e either. One of the core concepts of the game is a class based system. The more generic the classes become the less class based it is. That seems to be a large reason as to why Joseph added on the % based thieves abilities at the last minute. To keep the thief class distinct, unique and "special". On that issue we could probably use a fix that was more consistent with DCC mechanics (even tho' I prefer %). But let's not start 3.5-izing this one, okay?

If we do we'll lose something that sets the game apart, and offers a certain kind of game play other games don't have.

You can have "uniform mechanics" (without going to the extreme of 4e) and still support a proper "class" based system.

You also don't need to have niche protection and still have a "class" system.

In other words, thieves can use the EXACT same mechanic to open a lock as other classes use to do something else. You can also have other characters attempt to pick a lock. The difference is the thief should be able to pick complicated locks quickly while the other character would need a lot of time to pick a simple lock. The "niche" protection is in the speed, not in the ability.

Anybody can stand behind a column IN SHADOWS. The thief picks the darkest, least suspicious shadows quickly and instinctively. That's why he's better at it.

Sizzaxe wrote:Do _not_ scrap the class based xp tables. The point here is not to make the game more like 3.5, which it seems lots of people are trying to achieve in their feedback.

e.

No. I don't want to make it more like 3.5. I want to make it LESS, but I want the ability to quickly rattle off a number of XP to a new player and they don't have to look at some variable chart to see if that's enough XP to be a 4th level fighter or a 3rd level Wizard.

Keep It Simple Stupid(tm)

I do not want to pollute this thread with Class1 vs. Class2 and which one is better. That's not the point. Standardization is a Good Thing(tm). I have no problems with the abilities, spells, what have you in the rest of the feedback section. Here is all about XP chart.

It kind of seems like the classes that have the lowest XP needed to level are also the ones that would tend to have the highest fatality rates.

jmucchiello wrote:You can have "uniform mechanics" (without going to the extreme of 4e) and still support a proper "class" based system.

Anybody can stand behind a column IN SHADOWS. The thief picks the darkest, least suspicious shadows quickly and instinctively. That's why he's better at it.

I think its a matter of degree. The further you get away from uniquely determined class-linked abilties by appealing to a single mechanic the closer you are to something like GURPS. Which in itself is not bad if that's what you are looking for. But we play a class based game for a reason.

Single mechanic games have to make an effort to distinguish classes and keep them separate. I believe unique XP tables are one of the better ways to enforce this. It really doesn't affect in-game play after all, just after-game levelling up. And to complain about looking something up kind of defies reason in light of the number of class based tables DCC has built into it's system.

In terms of a cost benefits analysis a universal xp table loses alot more than it gains.

And the first quote about "anyone hiding in shadows" is exactly what a single mechanic game encourages. The roll is the same it's just that the thief has a better chance at it. It blurs the distinction. As opposed to the thief having a separate roll and or table to refer to what is obviously distinct from what the fighter does. Sure the fighter can make a wisdom or dex check to try something, but he doesn't have access to the same kinds of rolls/tables as the thief.

Keeping things distinct reinforces a class based system. Universalizing it blurs those distinctions. There's a reason GURPS was called "universal".

Looking at it in this way helps you see what Goodman may have been tryin to do. Joseph explained in the designer's notes that he was trying to make a game that "might have been" if modern game design principles had been around back in the day. So what he does is use a single mechanic (which is built upon d20, not a simple d20 system--its' truly revolutionary) and class based tables that set up and define uniqueness for each class. The mechanic is the same for actual play, but each class is clearly separated the way the game is written. Unique XP tables I see as a part of this.

Sizzaxe wrote:
Why should we remove it? How does removing it help keep classes well defined and aid game play?

By the classes abilities, the way they handle combat and skills, and with all the fun little charts that accompany their outalndish abilities. A warrior is vastly different than a halfling is vastly different than a Wizard. Way it's supposed to be and I'm glad they are like that. Let the classes have all the flavor charts, tables, abilities, skills, what have you make them as imbalanced, wonky, outrageous as you want. I'll deal with that in it's own thread.

I want the XP of any PC to be standardized across the board for the sheer sake of simplicity, accounting, and play balancing. 3rd level=3rd level=3rd level. If the PCs are supposed to be unbalanced and the only way to rectify that is to have their XP be off by X% that makes 0 sense at all.

Sizzaxe wrote:Keeping things distinct reinforces a class based system.

I have a problem with the concept that a wizard can't be good at hiding behind things. It isn't logical. I have no problem with thieves being better at it. Just being better at stuff is distinctive.

There's a reason GURPS was called "universal".

Yes, because it was a system for all genre of stories. I fail to see how that applies.

Why should we remove it? How does removing it help keep classes well defined and aid game play?

Classes don't need varying xp tables to be distinct. Turning it around: adding varying xp tables would not remove any of the samey-ness people complain about 4e characters having. I don't know how else to respond to that. xp tables have no bearing on niche protection because they are only important outside of game: when a character levels up.

Leopold wrote:Standardization is a Good Thing(tm).

Apparently, many people here (including Joseph Goodman) disagree with you.

Keep variable XP tables since you have such unbalanced classes (a good thing I might add).

Standardization is definitely not a good thing when it's applied to everything.

The last time I checked the DCC RPG beta rules does have a single table to consult. It's Table 1-4 on page 19.

Next we'll have non-competitive sports days at schools...err, hang on....

Stainless wrote:The last time I checked the DCC RPG beta rules does have a single table to consult. It's Table 1-4 on page 19.

LOL +d3 I actually had to go back and look to see that the xp chart was not repeated in the class descriptions. Well done.