changing the tone of DCC?

[Kruvil]

I’ve been wracking my brain trying to figure out how to present DCC to my players. Weird dice can be overcome (I like them). But I feel one stumbling block is that the rules are written from the judge’s point of view to other judges and one type of judge only—the grizzled grognard. Thus the funnel comes across to some readers as the equivalent of childish out of control judges killing characters for fun, which isn’t the case, and that DCC itself is only a poor parody retro-clone which also is not the case. Some modern gamers find it hard to take DCC seriously and can’t see the power of the engine underneath.

I’d like to see a change in tone towards the reader and more attention paid to different types of players to broaden the appeal of the game. I know Joseph is writing this game for himself, but he is just as obviously working hard to share it with others. While I admire the in-your-face style, some excellent judges and players could be won over with just a bit of the touchy feely and by not directly getting in their face about their playstyle.

The best way I can explain how DCC feels to me is to compare it the BBC Primeval TV show. Main and secondary characters die in that show each season. But while on screen, those characters are just as important as any other character. And you don’t know which ones will die.

For example, the main star makes it a few episodes into the second season, saves his estranged wife, and she shoots him dead for his trouble. No heroic end, just dead. Could be unsatisfying but because other characters are equally interesting, the show continues.

If players can see their characters as part of an ensemble cast, I think they might get DCC more easily. Basically, no one character makes the game it the combination of all the characters and the overall shared story. The players are just better off than actors in that they can switch roles to another member of the cast when their character dies. I think this part of DCC becomes clear in actual play, but it is hard to grok from just reading the beta version.

I can see on the surface that the funnel looks like the worst sort of dictatorial (read that a lot on the internet) judge fiat, but it isn’t. It is actually shared storytelling. Neither the judge nor the players know which characters live and which die and certainly the players can influence things to a certain degree. But it the ongoing shared story that continues (which appeals both to storytellers and world explorers), with the challenge of keeping one particular character a secondary thrill, but not a guaranteed success (in fact this secondary thrill would pull in both min-maxers and power gamers to test their skills against the system). But DCC doesn’t present the funnel that way.

For example, the section on the funnel starts right out implying that modern roleplaying games are wrong because of an overabundance of character options. It also implies that min-maxing and power gaming are wrong. That whole sentence could be stripped out and reduce the assertions that DCC is a parody or that it encourages dictatorial judges without ever changing the description or the value of the funnel.

The section could instead start with the second sentence, “The DCC RPG takes an anachronistic approach to “balance” by pursuing…” This is actually a much stronger start because it states proudly what DCC is rather than trying to defend what it isn’t by resorting to telling other gamers they are having bad wrong fun.

Dropping that first sentence changes nothing about the funnel but makes the game more palatable to those people who like modern RPGs and even invites in min-maxers and powergamers to try something different without directly challenging how they like to play. A little note to players and judges and how they can generate backstory from the funnel could also pull in the storytellers and world explorers.

DCC doesn’t talk much about the thrill players can get from the game. It also doesn’t give judges much leeway in how to run a game from a purely written, rules perspective. It is very authoritative in tone.

I would like to see that tone modified with sidebars explaining why 4d6 doesn’t fit and options for how to start a game at higher levels. Encourage 3d6 down the line while explaining the dangers of 4d6 and encourage 0-level play but acknowledge the judge’s right to choose. Same with 0-level and other features in the game. ‘Cause judges really do get to choose. So why not just talk to the judge as an equal but with less experience with DCC and lay out a cautionary tale and then step back and let the judge choose?

The DCC RPG would benefit from the addition of modern RPGers, min-maxers, power gamers, storytellers, and world explorers. Each new judge and player would be exposed to a new way of playing and could bring in ideas and insights the narrower target audience would miss.

If I’m going to spend $25 on dice and another $35 on an RPG I’d like to have some players, preferably friends, and actually get to play the game. And my friends include not just grizzled grognards but also min-maxers, storytellers, and world explorers. I want them all in, not just guys like me. In fact, if I had to game with clones of myself I might not be able to enjoy gaming at all!

Is it silly to have to be so careful about everyone’s feelings? No, it isn’t silly at all. We’re a small community of gamers, apparently shrinking in size. We already have the lurking horror of the edition wars burned into our psyches like an image of great Cthulhu rising from the waters to ever haunt our nightmares. We need to support each other!

We need to band together and create a community, not break up further into smaller and smaller walled compounds separated by small points of ideology and dogma. Let’s broaden the appeal of DCC now, when it is just starting out, and start a renaissance not a civil war.

Am I being overly dramatic? By my standards maybe. But I really would like DCC to have a friendly tone and draw every gamer in. If someone doesn’t like funky dice or charts they may not make the plunge. But to drive away possible judges and players just because of tone that comes across overly harsh or like a parody is something that is easily fixed, costs nothing, and may actually make the DCC RPG better than it already is in beta form. It would cut out unneeded words, broaden the appeal, and sharpen the message by pointing directly to the strengths of DCC.

DCC doesn’t need defending; it just needs to be explained. It speaks for itself, if the writing stays neutral and just presents the facts. And the facts are that the DCC RPG presents a fast, well researched and well designed swords and sorcery RPG that when played and experienced creates new friendships, shared stories, and a lot of fun.

[Michael Pfaff]

The tone is what makes this game stand apart from other games. It's the first thing that caught my eye (along with the art), drew me in and made me want to play. You can tell the author has a particular vision for his game, and that speaks to game design goodness (the author knows what he wants and he's designing for that instead of trying to appeal to *everyone* [which is impossible]).

[Kruvil]

The tone is what makes this game stand apart from other games. It's the first thing that caught my eye (along with the art), drew me in and made me want to play. You can tell the author has a particular vision for his game, and that speaks to game design goodness (the author knows what he wants and he's designing for that instead of trying to appeal to *everyone* [which is impossible]).

I like that the tone of DCC is that the game is good because it does 60s to 70s sword and sorcery well. This tone can be maintained without referencing other games or other playstyles.

My point is, DCC doesn't have to convince anyone not to play other games and just DCC. It isn't an either or option. So it can simply keep the strong tone of what the game is about and cut many of the words referring to other games and playstyles. Those words could then be used for more acutal game material!

However, I'm still in if the tone stays. I actually approve of in-your-face this-is-the-way-it-is style of communicating. I've just interacted with so many other people with different styles at work that that experience is starting to bleed over into my real life--I mean my gaming life.

[Michael Pfaff]

However, I'm still in if the tone stays. I actually approve of in-your-face this-is-the-way-it-is style of communicating. I've just interacted with so many other people with different styles at work that that experience is starting to bleed over into my real life--I mean my gaming life.

I think if you take it like: "There's lots of D&D-like games out there. There are many ways to play them. But, this game, this one game, you play it THIS way."

Like, the 3d6 down the line for attributes for example. Lots of D&D games muck with that. For this game, Mr. Goodman wants you to do it his particular way. And, it's important to say that because it suits his vision for how the game should be played.

[talmor]

I’ve been wracking my brain trying to figure out how to present DCC to my players...

Well said!

[Rick]

I think Joseph (and Harley) should avoid any changes that diminish his passion for the game and its direction. This may be one of those things that would.

Or it might not.. what, after all, do I know (other than I like it the way it is)?

[jmucchiello]

Like, the 3d6 down the line for attributes for example. Lots of D&D games muck with that. For this game, Mr. Goodman wants you to do it his particular way. And, it's important to say that because it suits his vision for how the game should be played.

Most of the retro-clones are just like this game insisting on 3d6 in order. That's not unique to DCCRPG.

The spot where the OP loses me is here:

It also doesn’t give judges much leeway in how to run a game from a purely written, rules perspective. It is very authoritative in tone.

What you are misunderstanding and the author of DCCRPG understands 1000% is that speaking in an authoritative "dictatorial" tone AND expecting, nay demanding, that the Judge home-rule the crap out of DCCRPG IS NOT contradictory. The rules to the game are the rules to the game. It goes without saying that you can use them as you like because it is your game. The rules treat the Judge like a fellow expert and thus understand the Judge will jump out of the rulebook whenever he needs to in his expert opinion. DCCRPG will not berate the Judge for doing so, it will celebrate the Judge for doing so.

[Sizzaxe]

I couldn't disagree more. Keep the tone just the way it is. If you change it you will cut the heart out of the game.

Those who feel otherwise just don't get it.

There are many who don't like early wierd, swords & sorcery pulp fiction. They don't understand that it implies a certain ambience and tone that shouldn't be genericized away or preetied up so that others feel more warm and fuzzy about it.

Sorry to be so blunt, but it is what it is. Get 'em to jump in and playtest. They are adventurers after all aren't they? See if they like it, and then make decisions about tone and context. And if they don't that's all good. There are still other games out there to play. We are a community not becuase we are all the same. Our differences are as important as our similarities. From the many, one.

[Michael Pfaff]

Like, the 3d6 down the line for attributes for example. Lots of D&D games muck with that. For this game, Mr. Goodman wants you to do it his particular way. And, it's important to say that because it suits his vision for how the game should be played.

Most of the retro-clones are just like this game insisting on 3d6 in order. That's not unique to DCCRPG.

Really? That's not what I'm reading...

Many GMs will allow the players to roll up six ability scores and then decide which scores will go with which ability. This gives the players more fl exibility to create a good party and to decide among themselves who will be playing which class. A player may come to the table wanting to play a particular type of character, and unless the gamers agree that they want to test their skills with a completely random challenge it is usually best to let the players take on the fantasy roles that satisfy them most. As well as eliminating or reducing the randomness of a character’s strengths and weaknesses, the GM may also allow players a bit of a numerical advantage. Many GMs permit ability scores to be rolled using 4d6, dropping the result of the lowest die. This method, obviously, will tend to result in higher scores.

Roll 3d6 for each of the abilities. The Labyrinth Lord may allow you to roll abilities in any order, or in order as listed here.

If none of your rolls are above 9, or if two or more of your rolls are 6 or less, then re-roll all six rolls.

Once the six scores are generated, each score is assigned to one attribute, in any order the player chooses.

If the total of all ability score modifiers is less than zero, then discard the character and begin the process again.

Swords & Wizardry seems to be down-the-line, 3d6 in order. But, most of the retro-clones or OSR-style games I'm reading deviate from that.

The "funnel" appears to be a very important part of the DCC game, and playing this way is how Mr. Goodman wants you to play. Hence, his clear wording:

You always roll 3d6, and you always roll and apply the scores in that same order. You do not roll more dice and drop the lowest die, you do not use a point-based buy system, and you do not assign ability scores in any order other than that defined above.

[jmucchiello]

Guess I haven't read as many retro-clones as you have.

[Michael Pfaff]

Guess I haven't read as many retro-clones as you have.

You're not totally inaccurate. The 3d6 down-the-line isn't DCC unique, but it's certainly a specific way to play for DCC compared to other games in the genre.

[Kruvil]

Sorry to be so blunt, but it is what it is. Get 'em to jump in and playtest. They are adventurers after all aren't they? See if they like it, and then make decisions about tone and context. And if they don't that's all good. There are still other games out there to play. We are a community not becuase we are all the same. Our differences are as important as our similarities. From the many, one.

I don't mind bluntness. And I like the heavy metal, this is how to game approach of DCC myself. I was just playing devil's advocate. If DCC is different and wants to flaunt it, then flaunt it. Just wanted to bring in a view that might not otherwise get heard by most people planning to post here. And if the players of DCC are this strongly in accordance than it just further confirms that Joseph knows what he is doing!

[Harley Stroh]

Great OP, Kruvil. You given us a lot to think about. Let me chew on this for a bit.

//H

[kataskicana]

I like the general feel of the rules, but in a couple sections (Like rolling characteristics) it seemed silly.

If a rule says Roll a D20 to hit. Why would I confuse things by saying, do not roll a d16 nor a d24, roll a d20 and only a d20. One d20 and not 3 d20s taking the best one nor rolling 2d20 and averaging them... just roll one d20.

I honestly flashed back to Monty Python reading the part on rolling up stats. (and yes I exageratted a little)

We're all big boys (and girls), if I want to run a DCC campaign where I roll 400d6 for characteristics and take the highest 3 for each stat... I can do it. If I want to be real hard core GM and have players roll 2d6+3 I can do that too. Just like we can play Monopoly with a d16 if we want to. It is our game to play how we want. The rules should just state AS SIMPLY AS POSSIBLE what the rules are and then let people take those where they will. There are no rules for point buying stats in Monopoly... so I assume thats not supposed to be done, they didn't need to mention it.

[Kruvil]

I like the general feel of the rules, but in a couple sections (Like rolling characteristics) it seemed silly.

If a rule says Roll a D20 to hit. Why would I confuse things by saying, do not roll a d16 nor a d24, roll a d20 and only a d20. One d20 and not 3 d20s taking the best one nor rolling 2d20 and averaging them... just roll one d20.

I honestly flashed back to Monty Python reading the part on rolling up stats. (and yes I exageratted a little)

We're all big boys (and girls), if I want to run a DCC campaign where I roll 400d6 for characteristics and take the highest 3 for each stat... I can do it. If I want to be real hard core GM and have players roll 2d6+3 I can do that too. Just like we can play Monopoly with a d16 if we want to. It is our game to play how we want. The rules should just state AS SIMPLY AS POSSIBLE what the rules are and then let people take those where they will. There are no rules for point buying stats in Monopoly... so I assume thats not supposed to be done, they didn't need to mention it.

You make one of my points better than I could explain it. DCC can just say roll 3d6 in order. It doesn't have to compare that rule to other systems or justify itself. A small sidebar explaining the impact house ruling that rule would have would be enough, a heads up from a judge more experienced in DCC to other judges that changing the rollling method could hurt your game.

[Jeffrey]

Disagree.

Keep the sections highlighting where DCC's "throw-back" style is different from the way RPG's have evolved up to today. It is one of the better selling points of the game and, if I read things right around here, the very reason for the games existence.

Let us all stand tall and take pride in our "de-evolution"!

[jmucchiello]

Outside the book it is marketing. Inside the book it is confusing.

[kataskicana]

Outside the book it is marketing. Inside the book it is confusing.

I'm ok with some of it in the book... as long as its in the forward or design notes at the end. It would be great to add your own Appendix N like thing... there you could say exactly why the game was made and how it should be played.

The actual sections on rules are a lot easier to reference and learn if they are statements of facts not opinions (right or wrong). I think anyone who knows 2 things about DCC that wants to play it is already part of the 'choir' on most or all these points. So I'd make the rules as simple and short and clear as possible so they can get on to adventuring!

[goodmangames]

I think there is value in a clear point of view that defines a game. That said, the point of view can be inclusive. Over the last week I've learned that several portions of the DCC RPG manage to offend people who I didn't even intend to offend! The comments around reference to min-maxing / power gaming are one place. This isn't the first post to note it. I think there is a good point made that if players would actually switch from min-max style of play to something different (such as DCC RPG), that door should be open. I do intend to adjust some parts of the text, including that specific sentence at the start of the "funnel" section.

DCC RPG will still have a strong "point of view" on how to play itself, if that makes any sense. There certainly are some games out there whose tone is, frankly, far too neutral; they don't provide any point of view on how to play D&D, or what sets them apart from D&D. Why play a retro-clone when you could just play D&D? For any RPG to earn its place beyond "vanity game" -- but especially for a retro-clone, where there exists a direct substitute that has more clout (e.g., an earlier edition of D&D) -- there has to be some compelling reason to play THAT GAME versus the other option. For DCC RPG, that compelling reason is currently a strong point of view on a particular style of gaming, which I think does manage to come through. It will definitely be changed by various judges to suit their own style, but, well, I don't think anyone is reading this saying, "Hmm, I'm not sure what this game is about." But I can state that point of view while leaving the door open to others who may not currently share it -- which I think is an important point.

In a couple months, when we're past the beta stage, DCC RPG will have other compelling reasons versus the other options. For example, there will be a lot of support for this game in terms of regularly released adventures, which will be announced in a few months. But for now, I hear you, Kruvil, and I'll be taking a close look at how to make the tone just as clear on the "vision of play" without alienating others who currently don't play that way.