dear dungeon doctor

[catseye yellow]

my group (i am a player) has just finished portal under stars introductory adventure. we fought and we died in droves. it was fun. but after we emerged to the cold night air of the moors our judge suddenly had a fit of 3rdeditionism. he told us that we had to decide on a character that we will keep (ok) and then he raised stats of the chosen one (all stats... not ok) for +2. he also said something about destiny and chosen ones (us) and prophecies and such gibberish that any sane, pitchfork wielding, farmer could see through.

i feel that he is somewhat missing the idea behind the dcc. he is good GM but i am afraid that his mind has been corrupted by prolonged exposure to other dungeon going, dragon killing recent games (that incidentally most often do not feature either dragons or dungeons).

what should i do?

[TheNobleDrake]

Tell it to him straight.

Tell him you don't want stat boosts, tell him you don't want to just give up the rest of your characters - you earned the right to play them if you got more than one out of the dungeon alive - and tell him that destiny can eat it, your characters make their own way.

...but tell him all of those things in a way that, unlike your post, doesn't come across as an insult to some other game that has nothing to do with the issues at hand.

[finarvyn]

On the other hand, as long as he doesn't continue with stat bloats and similar adjustments along the way, he may be okay. The key to any campaign is (1) are you having fun, and (2) does the style of adventure fit the rules. Mostly #1.

He may have some grand "chosen one" theme to his game, but that doesn't mean that the whole campaign will be flawed. And I'll admit that my players prefer slightly above average stats and I've found ways to boost them slightly here and there. I don't see this as a bad thing, so long as the entire game doesn't get pumped up on sterroids.

Bottom line, if he's a good DM you might trust that he knows what he's doing. If he's not a good DM then you might not enjoy his game no matter what he's doing or what rules he's using.

I wouldn't be so fast to critisize his style, but that's just my two coppers without knowing the guy...

[catseye yellow]

On the other hand, as long as he doesn't continue with stat bloats and similar adjustments along the way, he may be okay. The key to any campaign is (1) are you having fun, and (2) does the style of adventure fit the rules. Mostly #1.

He may have some grand "chosen one" theme to his game, but that doesn't mean that the whole campaign will be flawed. And I'll admit that my players prefer slightly above average stats and I've found ways to boost them slightly here and there. I don't see this as a bad thing, so long as the entire game doesn't get pumped up on sterroids.

Bottom line, if he's a good DM you might trust that he knows what he's doing. If he's not a good DM then you might not enjoy his game no matter what he's doing or what rules he's using.

I wouldn't be so fast to criticize his style, but that's just my two coppers without knowing the guy...

he is a good DM. but also recently he tried DMing TOEE. alas, he used 3.5 rules. again i tried to suggest that those rules were not a good fit for that kind of retro set-up but to no avail. other players also enjoyed it (not all) but to me it seemed that temple wasn't living and breathing thing but a series of pre-set encounters waiting in stasis for PCs to stumble upon them. maybe that is part of the DMs curse (i usually DM) but i constantly thought how it could be improved. i am afraid of facing something similar with DCC.

[Colin]

Perhaps the best bet then, would be to offer to run a DCC game yourself first. That way, he sees, as a Player, how DCC can be run without it being essentially 3e-style play using a different ruleset.

Colin

[catseye yellow]

of course. but this got me thinking: is there a dominant style of play inimical (albeit spontaneously) to those effects that we find interesting and praiseworthy in DCC? one of players said to me after the game that (even with the +2 boon) he finds DCC as a game GM-centric and without enough player options.

i have to think about this while i prepare my campaign. what are your experiences?

[beermotor]

TOEE is a set of encounters waiting in stasis, heh. Well there's some interesting things in Homlet I think, but overall it's one of those classic modules that doesn't hold up well compared to some modern modules, e
g. anything by Goodman Games.

[dark cauliflower]

I don't know what GM centric means... does it mean alot of rules to follow or something?

Player options... is it a case where there aren't enough rules specified for the player to know how to play a character? I was just going over Warrior last night, the Mighty Deeds ability is so open ended that I had to wonder how far a player could take it. The Thief is damn cool. I dig how alignment really affects the direction of the player.

Who needs to have high ability scores when we have Luck to burn? You don't need a super bonus from a stat when you can add +6 to your roll from burning sum luck!

The only criticisms I have so far is there aren't enough naked demon women yet. And I haven't come across a wizard picture with horns sticking out of his head.

[TheNobleDrake]

I don't know what GM centric means... does it mean alot of rules to follow or something?

I am going to guess: The person making that comment is referring to the largest portion of rules pertaining only to the GM's decision making for the game.

Player options... is it a case where there aren't enough rules specified for the player to know how to play a character?

I would also guess that the player is saying that there aren't many choices for him to make as to how to customize his character as it improves.

As a warrior, you choose your lucky weapon... and then your "mechanical choices" are over because every warrior gets the same stuff past that point - some people view that as a bad thing (I am not one of them).

As a thief, you choose your alignment and it sets your skill progression... and there aren't any more "choices" to make.

As a cleric, you choose your deity... that's basically it, unless you have a Judge willing to let you choose your spells.

As a wizard, you choose next to nothing unless you and your Judge are house-ruling something other than random spell learning plus whatever you find.

Compared to other games, example Pathfinder, where every level contains some bit of mechanics that improve your character and most of those rely on a player's choice to determine what they get (feats especially) DCC has very few mechanical player choices - some people might view that as a bad thing (I am not one of them).

I actually hold the front-loaded class design to be one of the top 5 things I love about DCC - the player gets all their choices out of the way and can just play, rather than distract themselves during play thinking about what feat they should take next, what spells they should learn (there is a big difference in how distracting "I hope I find a new attack spell soon" and "should I take fireball or lightning bolt first?" are), or some other fiddly bit of their character which is a permanent decision - rather than the temporary decisions that DCC characters have like "what armor should I wear on this adventure?" and "should I bring a sword and a hammer, or just a couple of swords?"

I am weird like that.

[dark cauliflower]

while I say yer right when it comes to adding feats to a character as it goes along. With Deeds you don't need to do that. A Deed is what you can imagine. As you improve as a character your ability to succeed at a Deed goes up. A Deed that was too hard to do at 1rst level becomes doable as you go up the levels. I like Deeds way more than Feats... its freedom to do with your character as you please. That is if your good enough to do it!

[cthulhudarren]

When you are conditioned on 3.x, you believe that without good stats your character is worthless. Hence the GM giving stat bumps.

One of the best things about DCC RPG is that stats don't matter as much. A 9 STR fighter is viable because of the way the mechanics work. Likewise for every class. Casters get limited on the number of spells available, but they can do things like quest for stat bumps. I love the whole patron idea.

[TheNobleDrake]

When you are conditioned on 3.x, you believe that without good stats your character is worthless. Hence the GM giving stat bumps.

This idea bugs me to no end. I am a player that moved from AD&D 2nd edition (where ability scores didn't do anything at all for most characters unless really high or really low) into 3rd edition around the time it came out, and I ran the game all the way through its life span.

...and yeah, somehow people got it into their heads that in 3.x you had to have huge ability scores to be any good at all - even though in most cases 12 in 3.x is like having a 15 or higher in AD&D.

It just blows my mind, especially because the game actually works just fine if you don't have those super-scores.

[dark cauliflower]

part of the problem is that the game seemed designed to give the players maxing in things. First there is point buy. Then there is gaining ability points when you go up levels. Its a real shock to not have that 25 strength score on the character sheet.

I guess we should ask if its best for someone who has only player 3.xed/Pathfinder to read the DCC book before they play it? Will that stop the shock to the system?

[catseye yellow]

TOEE is a set of encounters waiting in stasis, heh. Well there's some interesting things in Homlet I think, but overall it's one of those classic modules that doesn't hold up well compared to some modern modules, e
g. anything by Goodman Games.

i have to politely disagree. i feel that encounters are as static as DM allows them to be static. there are numerous factions in the temple that allow for all sorts of action and mix-ups.

i feel that it could be said that TOEE is static if played out-of-the-box/ like most of the old modules it forces DM to think.

[TheNobleDrake]

part of the problem is that the game seemed designed to give the players maxing in things. First there is point buy. Then there is gaining ability points when you go up levels. Its a real shock to not have that 25 strength score on the character sheet.

That is even more reason to be confused, not an explanation.

You can have exactly the stats you need in order to be good at your class - like a fighter who has bonuses to-hit, damage, AC, and HP per level - without having to sacrifice any of your other scores... and you get the added bonus that your scores can improve without magical assistance as you level up.

And yet many people are convinced that you have to use those systems to sacrifice anything you can call non-essential so you can use the points to crank your main stat as high as possible.

I just don't get it.

i feel that it could be said that TOEE is static if played out-of-the-box/ like most of the old modules it forces DM to think.

TOEE is not only static out-of-the-box, it's barely even functional thanks to awful organizational choices... as many of the old modules are, you basically had to read through, nearly re-write the entire thing with your notes, and then you could finally actually run it.

3 to 5 20' by 20' rooms that are only separated by a door here and there and are full of monsters that immediately inform the monsters in the next room when they hear trouble should not be written into an adventure as 3 to 5 separate room descriptions that all say something like "One of the ghouls here will move to area [insert number] to inform the ghouls there of intruders."

It should be one description because it is a single encounter, but that just isn't how things were done back then... especially not by Gary.

So yeah... TOEE was written in a style that made the DM think - unfortunately it was all thinking about "how do I even run this?" rather than thinking about something fun.

Note: I love old-school modules and use them frequently - I just re-write them first so as to both never find myself flipping pages just to find the other half of what is happening, and because a re-write that just organizes the material more logically also happens to have the side effect of reduced page count.

[Skyscraper]

Still a bit new to DCC (4 sessions as DM and a bit of online play as a player), here's what I think.

DCC allows for a very different playstyle that 3E or 4E. I've had a lot of fun with 3E and 4E. Just different things.

In 3E, for a fight to be challenging, you need to have enough monsters of sufficient strength. Otherwise, the characters heal themselves (virtually unlimited healing in 4E, until your healing surges are gone) and the battle was essentially non consequential.

In DCC, a single creature lasting a single round of combat might be deadly for one PC. I have challenges that turn out completely differently. I had one bear (attracted by a recent druidic circle desecration by an NPC not related to the PCs) happen by the PCs, and when battle seemed unavoidable, perhaps even death since a black bear is quite powerful for level zeros, one of the PCs realized that he owned a pot of honey and threw it near the bear, who stopped to investigate - and eat. I had one fish-like creature attack the PCs by surprise in a swamp, grabbing one PC by the throat with its tongue. The creature essentially had no chance to survive the encounter against 15 level 0 PCs, but the encounter was thrilling because of the risk of suffocation by that one PC. I had a stag charge out of the woods during a village meeting on a beach (same reason as the bear) and one PC critted the stag with an arrow, which sent the stag retreating immediately. The PC even killed the retreating stag with an improbable two other successful hits and the PCs talked about it profusely as an heroic deed! The entire village feasted on the stag that night!

I think that challenges should be thought of differently in DCC than in 3E. Sometimes a big fight might be interesting, but my game is much more story-driven now, and as a DM I'm free to have the opponents/NPCs act in the most appropriate (IMHO) way they can, with the fights/encounters still being challenging. The entire experience becomes much more organic. Among the 10-20 PCs in the game (range because of death toll...), I'd say that about half decide to flee any given battle scene.

A note on player choices: I think that player choices abound in DCC. However, the options to choose from are not on the PC sheet. They are in the players' imaginations.

Now, this is all a question of playstyle of course. DCC however lends to this with rules that allow this kind of approach.

Cheers!

Sky

[ragboy]

It just blows my mind, especially because the game actually works just fine if you don't have those super-scores.

I agree. I killed "18" characters just as easily as "9" characters. As a DM and player... It was remarkably hard to die in 3.5, though.

The overall question though is probably deeper than "are we playing DCC right." It's the problem with every RPG and every game group: Is the style of the game being played (not the rules, not the campaign world, but the actual at-the-table game) right for _you_? If it isn't then you have to have a conversation with the DM and players and then move on to a game that is right for you if you can't resolve it.

There's no "right" way to play any of these games -- if everyone's having a good time, you're doing it right. If you're not, then don't waste your time (or the DM's time).

[Exedor]

4d6 is very ingrained, and it also has some logic to it. "PCs as outliers" is not unreasonable, people who felt themselves more capable than those around them, destined for something more than a life of drudgery, more than the idiocy of village life. In my view, this self-selected group would have somewhat better ability scores than the rest of the population, and at the very least one stand-out quality. Since the average straight-through 3d6 set is not unlikely to have at least one +1, I feel one +2 modifier could mark someone "adventurer" material. High ability scores or not, they are going to die in the funnel, like flies.

I do however agree that ability bloat has reached an absurd level. Adding an ability score at 4/8/12/16/20 is emblematic of the problem with 3.5/Pathfinder: the profusion of +1's.

[cjoepar]

4d6 is very ingrained, and it also has some logic to it. "PCs as outliers" is not unreasonable, people who felt themselves more capable than those around them, destined for something more than a life of drudgery, more than the idiocy of village life. In my view, this self-selected group would have somewhat better ability scores than the rest of the population, and at the very least one stand-out quality. Since the average straight-through 3d6 set is not unlikely to have at least one +1, I feel one +2 modifier could mark someone "adventurer" material. High ability scores or not, they are going to die in the funnel, like flies.

I hear ya. And this is exactly how it was presented in 3E when 4d6 first became officially introduced into the rules.

But with DCC, what I have seen is that the slightly above average guy tends to emerge anyway, since you start with 4 or 5 0 level characters. At least one of them tends to have a little more promise than the average joe, and the players tend to try to protect them and get them through the funnel to 1st level.

Also, I swear to god, the 9's really are just as much fun to play as the 18's once you get past the fact that you are doing something different.

[jozxyqk]

And this is exactly how it was presented in 3E when 4d6 first became officially introduced into the rules.

Actually, I'm pretty sure this has been around since AD&D 1st edition.

[Edited to fix formatting]

[Raven_Crowking]

And this is exactly how it was presented in 3E when 4d6 first became officially introduced into the rules.

Actually, I'm pretty sure this has been around since AD&D 1st edition.

[Edited to fix formatting]

Correct.

[Karaptis]

As much as I love throwing fecal matter at 3 and 4e, Ragboy hit the nail on the head!

[cthulhudarren]

I tend to think that it is courage, ambition, and luck that are the adventurer's make up. Not ability scores.

[Karaptis]

I tend to think that it is courage, ambition, and luck that are the adventurer's make up. Not ability scores.

totally!

[catseye yellow]

holy thread necromancy!