Goodman Games

So, last weekend I ran a game for my group, we were using the C&C rules set.

But, while doing so, I imported the Fumble and Crit tables from the DCC Beta rules for everyone to roll on, assigning whichever class was closest to that from DCC.

Not only that, but I also imported the MDoA for the single class fighter to use.

It was pretty cool and much fun was had by all.

So would you call it C&CDCCRPG or DCCC&CRPG? The latter is nice because the & is in the middle.

I haven't actually blended C&C with DCC yet, but I have used Fumble and Crit tables in C&C and they add another level of fun to the campaign.

I agree that you can end up with something not too dissimilar from DCC with this tweak.

This is precisely what I'm interested in doing. Care to share your work?

I'm also really interested in converting the magic system over, but not interested in the actual work involved...!!!

Heck, that's most of us. The number of times that I've started cool projects and never followed through to their completion ... well, work like that sometimes isn't much fun!

I don't think I dislike the work as much as realizing that there are so many campaigns I want to run/play in, and not enough time/players/GM's to do them. Then the work is hollow...

But somehow I still want to do it.

Actually, there was very little work done.

All I really did was assign the fighter an Attack die, just like in DCC, then allow them to use the Might Deeds of Arms, if they wanted to do so. They rolled as normal and if successful, followed through with the MDoA tables.

For Crits and Fumbles, I just categorized the various classes into something that fit the tables from DCC. So all fighters, pallies, rangers, barbarians, etc used the fighter Crit table, unless they were playing a demi-human, in which case I stuck them in either the dwarf, elf, or halfling table.

Just something fast and loose, I did not, however, use anything from the Magic tables, at least not yet. Maybe later on I'll try and work something out.

I love creating new campaigns, which is why our group typically plays in one for about nine months before it reaches some form of conclusion and I start over. One time I might run something more like Lankhmar, another time Greyhawk, or a steam-tech game, or whatever. One thing I like about OD&D and C&C is the fact that the rules are general enough to be able to handle almost anything. I see DCC as being similar to those other rules sets in that regard.

So, I'm running full blast with this. So far, I've combined Fighter/Warrior, Rogue/Thief, and about half done with Cleric (conceiving of a slightly weirder system based on DCC).

My idea, as far as classes goes is thus:
- Base Classes are Levels 1-5
- "Advanced Classes" (need another word) are likewise 1-5.
- Advanced Classes include: Ranger, Knight, Monk, Assassin, "Scout" (ranger/thief), possibly Druid, and Alchemist (class I ported to C&C from Darklands video game).
- Barbarian is going to be a human racial option, and much changed, based on the tribal races of my campaign world.
- I'm considering making "Druid" just a type of cleric, based on the god/gods worshipped.

Anyway... I won't be sharing my work, since this is all someone else's IP with with my twists and turns. I'm assuming DCC won't be OGC.

The big "WHY" that spurred me to do this was that I love the DCC approach, but I don't like the racial classes. I prefer the Race/Class combos... And I really like the C&C system, as a whole. Very basic core with lots of "hardpoints" to bolt-on what you want. The other big "why" is that I've been hammering away on this campaign and that campaign for...ever... and I had to make a decision on THIS is my ruleset, and THIS is my campaign world (for fantasy)...so I decided to take everything that I liked from all my previous campaigns and cram it into one world and take all the stuff I liked from various RPG's (paper and plastic) into one ruleset to rule them all.

So there.

Funny, there's a copy of the OGL on page 160 of the beta PDF. So why wouldn't the DCC be OGC?

Of course, it isn't exactly valid since it doesn't mention being derived from the 3.0 or 3.5 SRD. But that's a different issue. Or Joseph does not thing it is derived from those games. But since he specifically has said he included skills for compatibility with 3.x players, I'd find that a strange stance for him to take.

From what I understand from the OGL, everything that already was OGC still is. Joseph chose to PI his creations, which I fully support. It's one of the most unique takes on the game I've ever seen and I've been looking at this stuff for a while.

I wasn't saying that to imply anything other than I'm bashing C&C and DCC together and won't be sharing because it won't be OGC I'm bashing. It's home use.

That does leave most of it wide open. And there will be licensing of the PI for "official" 3rd party material. So I'm sure it's just a matter of asking for permission if you need to use the terms “Mighty Deed of Arms,” “action die,” “spellburn,” or “mercurial magic". The term "spell check" exists in the SRD so it can't really be claimed as PI. The OGL doesn't allow for duplicate terms with different definitions where one definition is OGC and another definition is PI. Once it is OGC it is always OGC.

And as I said above, that copy of the OGL is invalid and legally none of the material is yet proper OGC because it does not include the SRD in section 15:

The 3.5e SRD needs to be referenced in the copyright notice (or the 3.0 SRD where the copyright is just 2000 and name list stops with Bruce R Cordell's name).