Will the ethos of new modules differ from old DCCs?

[geordie racer]

Remember the good old days, when adventures were underground, NPCs were there to be killed, and the finale of every dungeon was the dragon on the 20th level? Those days are back. Dungeon Crawl Classics don't waste your time with long-winded speeches, weird campaign settings, or NPCs who aren't meant to be killed. Each adventure is 100% good, solid dungeon crawl, with the monsters you know, the traps you fear, and the secret doors you know are there somewhere.

From what I've read monsters are going to be less predictable, but I'm thinking more about the ethos rather than the mechanics, because that statement put me off DCC in the past.

[Black Dougal]

From the description of the RPG:

Glory & Gold Won by Sorcery & Sword

You’re no hero.

You’re a reaver, a cutpurse, a heathen-slayer, a tight-lipped warlock guarding long-dead secrets. You seek gold and glory, winning it with sword and spell, caked in the blood and filth of the weak, the dark, the demons, and the vanquished. There are treasures to be won deep underneath, and you shall have them.

Return to the glory days of fantasy with the Dungeon Crawl Classics Role Playing Game. Adventure as 1974 intended you to, with modern rules grounded in the origins of sword & sorcery. Fast play, cryptic secrets, and a mysterious past await you: turn the page…

So, I am guessing that the ethos of the game is going to be much the same as the modules. What about the ethos of the modules put you off of it in the past?

[Harley Stroh]

The are certainly distinctions between the 3.x/4e DCC adventures and the DCC RPG adventures. (I've missed more than a single deadline because an adventure felt too "D&D-ish."

I'm not sure I can state it succinctly, but I know the difference when I see it. If the adventure feels like it could be transcribed from Howard or Leiber, then we're probably on the right track.

//H

[geordie racer]

So, I am guessing that the ethos of the game is going to be much the same as the modules. What about the ethos of the modules put you off of it in the past?

It was that blurb, I read it and my interest waned. I expect a bit of ambition from published products rather than what it seemed to be about, going through the paces, obvious locations, dungeon punk etc. Upon reading a couple, I was glad to be proved wrong and what Harley has written in this thread sounds good to me - Howard/Leiber, not too D&D-ish

[finarvyn]

Remember the good old days, when adventures were underground, NPCs were there to be killed, and the finale of every dungeon was the dragon on the 20th level? Those days are back. Dungeon Crawl Classics don't waste your time with long-winded speeches, weird campaign settings, or NPCs who aren't meant to be killed. Each adventure is 100% good, solid dungeon crawl, with the monsters you know, the traps you fear, and the secret doors you know are there somewhere.

This doesn't put me off at all, except for the fact that it sounds like by module #50 it might be a little recycled. In general I like the notion of the dungeon crawl. My favorite modules have been dungeons (TSR's classic G-series, D-series, and so on).

If the adventure feels like it could be transcribed from Howard or Leiber, then we're probably on the right track.

This doesn't put me off, either.

I'm looking forward to some Howard/Leiber kinds of adventures but don't see that they would be mutually exclusive with the passage at the top of the post. Crawl in a dungeon ... battle some weird creepies ... walk out with bags of loot ... hit the tavern and lose the loot ... repeat!

[Harley Stroh]

It was that blurb, I read it and my interest waned. I expect a bit of ambition from published products rather than what it seemed to be about, going through the paces, obvious locations, dungeon punk etc. Upon reading a couple, I was glad to be proved wrong and what Harley has written in this thread sounds good to me - Howard/Leiber, not too D&D-ish

We're definitely aiming for a pre-D&D swords and sorcery game. One of the things that really stood out in the playtests at Gegnhis was how "un-D&Dish" the players were behaving. We had one group flat out flee a couple encounters that bugged them out (not trusting to "encounter level balance"). And over the course of the entire weekend I saw a total of two corpses looted (and one was the corpse of their companion). Total "treasure" won in any given adventure was maybe three large gems and a cursed grimoire. (And even then, the gems cost Gareth's his hand, and the grimoire, his sanity.)

As judge, I'd like to think that this was because the players were in a pre-D&D mindset, but the players have the final say on that one.

//H

[Keraptis]

Will the guys who wrote the older DCCs also be writing modules for the new game. I mean guys like Chris Doyle, Adrian Pommier, Mike Ferguson, Brendan LaSalle and so on. (The Sunless Garden was freaking awesome, btw!)

I have to say I'm still not sold on the DCC RPG just yet. But if you got a crew like the guys I mentioned above cranking out adventures for it I might give it a try.

[Black Dougal]

It was that blurb, I read it and my interest waned. I expect a bit of ambition from published products rather than what it seemed to be about, going through the paces, obvious locations, dungeon punk etc. Upon reading a couple, I was glad to be proved wrong and what Harley has written in this thread sounds good to me - Howard/Leiber, not too D&D-ish

We're definitely aiming for a pre-D&D swords and sorcery game. One of the things that really stood out in the playtests at Gegnhis was how "un-D&Dish" the players were behaving. We had one group flat out flee a couple encounters that bugged them out (not trusting to "encounter level balance"). And over the course of the entire weekend I saw a total of two corpses looted (and one was the corpse of their companion). Total "treasure" won in any given adventure was maybe three large gems and a cursed grimoire. (And even then, the gems cost Gareth's his hand, and the grimoire, his sanity.)

As judge, I'd like to think that this was because the players were in a pre-D&D mindset, but the players have the final say on that one.

//H

It is very much not the 3.x D&D mindset, but I think it is in keeping with the original game. Sometimes it is better to run away, especially when facing a frog demon. DCC RPG strikes me as having no concept of the "level appropriate encounter" just like the original game. I also have firsthand knowledge of just how deadly the system is, so retreat is always an option when I play.

Honestly, I am not sure if it is a "pre-D&D" mindset, or an "original D&D" mindset, but either way that sense of danger is a big factor for me. It is something that has been missing from the mainstream fantasy RPGs for a while now.

[goodmangames]

DCC RPG strikes me as having no concept of the "level appropriate encounter" just like the original game.

Exactly! I really dislike the complex balancing of encounters. Too much balance creates a boring game.

The ethos of the new modules will indeed differ from the old DCCs. But, as Harley said, it's hard to say exactly what's different without showing it. Harley and I both know what we're looking for, and it's best articulated in actual concrete examples. I guess the best I can say right now is, wait and see. I think you'll be impressed.

[Black Dougal]

DCC RPG strikes me as having no concept of the "level appropriate encounter" just like the original game.

Exactly! I really dislike the complex balancing of encounters. Too much balance creates a boring game.

The ethos of the new modules will indeed differ from the old DCCs. But, as Harley said, it's hard to say exactly what's different without showing it. Harley and I both know what we're looking for, and it's best articulated in actual concrete examples. I guess the best I can say right now is, wait and see. I think you'll be impressed.

Having played a few times, I agree it is a different game with a different feel. It seems to me that the ethos is much the same as the 3.x DCC modules, but removed from the constraint of the "level appropriate adventure" where the heroic PCs face challenges which they will likely overcome without necessarily having to face the possibility of death. The 3.x DCC modules tried to be OSR within some very tight constraints. DCC RPG is OSR. The safeties have been removed.

To use a concrete example. In the first game on Friday at GenghisCon we were playing 3rd level characters. There were five of us. I am fairly sure that the frog demon thing which we faced at one point would probably have decimated the party. I didn't want to wait around to find out. I herded the party into the secret passageway and out of harm's way.

[Hamakto]

DCC RPG strikes me as having no concept of the "level appropriate encounter" just like the original game.

Exactly! I really dislike the complex balancing of encounters. Too much balance creates a boring game.

The ethos of the new modules will indeed differ from the old DCCs. But, as Harley said, it's hard to say exactly what's different without showing it. Harley and I both know what we're looking for, and it's best articulated in actual concrete examples. I guess the best I can say right now is, wait and see. I think you'll be impressed.

I know... just participate in a GG tourney at GenCon... some of those fights are... well... not suitable for small children and those faint of heart!

They are a blast and push you to your limits, but easy and balanced? Not quite sure on that.

[Booberry]

We're definitely aiming for a pre-D&D swords and sorcery game. One of the things that really stood out in the playtests at Gegnhis was how "un-D&Dish" the players were behaving. We had one group flat out flee a couple encounters that bugged them out (not trusting to "encounter level balance"). And over the course of the entire weekend I saw a total of two corpses looted (and one was the corpse of their companion). Total "treasure" won in any given adventure was maybe three large gems and a cursed grimoire. (And even then, the gems cost Gareth's his hand, and the grimoire, his sanity.)

As judge, I'd like to think that this was because the players were in a pre-D&D mindset, but the players have the final say on that one.

//H

I'm not sure that's so much "un-D&Dish" as it is "everything I want in a D&D game".

Just sayin'

[Keraptis]

We're definitely aiming for a pre-3.x D&D swords and sorcery game. One of the things that really stood out in the playtests at Gegnhis was how "un-3.x D&Dish" the players were behaving. We had one group flat out flee a couple encounters that bugged them out (not trusting to "encounter level balance"). And over the course of the entire weekend I saw a total of two corpses looted (and one was the corpse of their companion). Total "treasure" won in any given adventure was maybe three large gems and a cursed grimoire. (And even then, the gems cost Gareth's his hand, and the grimoire, his sanity.)

As judge, I'd like to think that this was because the players were in a pre-3.x D&D mindset, but the players have the final say on that one.

//H

Fixed your post for you.

Most old 1E and 2E AD&D modules don't have anything like encounter balance. Same with Red Box D&D. You used to be expected to run every once in awhile. And have some cakewalk fights too.

It's how my group used to play 1E. If you saw a wyvern you had no idea if it would be easy to kill or if it would kill the whole party.

[Black Dougal]

We're definitely aiming for a pre-3.x D&D swords and sorcery game. One of the things that really stood out in the playtests at Gegnhis was how "un-3.x D&Dish" the players were behaving. We had one group flat out flee a couple encounters that bugged them out (not trusting to "encounter level balance"). And over the course of the entire weekend I saw a total of two corpses looted (and one was the corpse of their companion). Total "treasure" won in any given adventure was maybe three large gems and a cursed grimoire. (And even then, the gems cost Gareth's his hand, and the grimoire, his sanity.)

As judge, I'd like to think that this was because the players were in a pre-3.x D&D mindset, but the players have the final say on that one.

//H

Fixed your post for you.

Most old 1E and 2E AD&D modules don't have anything like encounter balance. Same with Red Box D&D. You used to be expected to run every once in awhile. And have some cakewalk fights too.

It's how my group used to play 1E. If you saw a wyvern you had no idea if it would be easy to kill or if it would kill the whole party.

+1 for this post.

This is the exact feel that I got from the playtests.

I'm not sure that's so much "un-D&Dish" as it is "everything I want in a D&D game".

Just sayin'

I couldn't have said it better.

[GnomeBoy]

Remember the good old days, when adventures were underground, NPCs were there to be killed, and the finale of every dungeon was the dragon on the 20th level? Those days are back. Dungeon Crawl Classics don't waste your time with long-winded speeches, weird campaign settings, or NPCs who aren't meant to be killed. Each adventure is 100% good, solid dungeon crawl, with the monsters you know, the traps you fear, and the secret doors you know are there somewhere.

...that statement put me off DCC in the past.

Back before I jumped in and bought any DCCs, I thought maybe they were a parody of old time modules, based on that blurb. I thought one might be amusing, but how could a series of these hold up?

Not that I need to point it out, but I was wrong.

[rabindranath72]

We're definitely aiming for a pre-3.x D&D swords and sorcery game. One of the things that really stood out in the playtests at Gegnhis was how "un-3.x D&Dish" the players were behaving. We had one group flat out flee a couple encounters that bugged them out (not trusting to "encounter level balance"). And over the course of the entire weekend I saw a total of two corpses looted (and one was the corpse of their companion). Total "treasure" won in any given adventure was maybe three large gems and a cursed grimoire. (And even then, the gems cost Gareth's his hand, and the grimoire, his sanity.)

As judge, I'd like to think that this was because the players were in a pre-3.x D&D mindset, but the players have the final say on that one.

//H

Fixed your post for you.

Most old 1E and 2E AD&D modules don't have anything like encounter balance. Same with Red Box D&D. You used to be expected to run every once in awhile. And have some cakewalk fights too.

It's how my group used to play 1E. If you saw a wyvern you had no idea if it would be easy to kill or if it would kill the whole party.

Well, I run more than a few 3e (3.0) games without worrying about "balance" and the end result was the same: death in spades (besides, the CR system of 3e is quite broken anyway.)

[mntnjeff]

One of the things that DCC seems to do well is to surface threats that are absolutely non-standard. Meaning that you get the sense you're playing D&D again for the first time. Remember when you first faced a troglodyte? What the h3ll is that thing?!? And should I run...should I stand and fight?

Everything we faced in our game at Genghis Con was just like that. I had absolutely no idea, other than size, what the heck we were going up against.

One of the great scenes in our game (and I hope that I'm not spoiling anything here) was when we were just entering the forest and there was this strange totem hanging from the trees. A skull of some sort w/ fetishes strung all over it. As we approached it we get this really kind of oily, nasty feeling from it. OK, so we know it's probably not a "good" thing. Oh, and all the while there are man-sized shapes flitting through the canopy above our heads...

And then the sky starts to darken, and clouds begin to swirl in the sky above us. The winds pick up... Alright, now this thing is getting to be a little scary, right?

Our thief decides to crush the skull in order to stop this madness. All these tiny beads drop to the ground and sprout thick, sickly looking vines that are animated. Reaching out blindly to strike at anything...but somehow are attracted mainly to the thief who's holding an evil artifact. COOL! And a totally WTH?!? moment.

Personally, that's the ethos I'm looking for. And it all comes from not knowing, at all, what we were facing at any given moment.

[Stainless]

OK, I registered on the forum so I could reply to this thread.

I started roleplaying way back when AD&D 1e was published (was that mid-70's?). In fact, it was either not yet available at the time in Australia or we were so young we couldn't afford to buy it (can't remember which). However, what we did have was some dice, a crib sheet on how to roll up characters and Judges Guild Ready Ref Sheets. But with just that, boy did we game! Since the Ready Ref Sheets didn't have any(many?) illustrations, almost everything we encountered we had no idea about. It was the unknown and thus real sense of adventure that I still remember (I'm sure also greatly expanded via the naivety of youth). Plus our dungeons had absolutely no logical reason to exist, but who cared?!

I left D&D behind when 2e started getting the new look, etc. (about the time the Fiend Folio came out). The volume of books, the salami slicing of info, splitting of hairs, etc. all got up my nose. I'm very glad I let 3e, 3.5e and 4e completely by-pass me.

But now I'm very interested to see what the DCC RPG will look like. Can't get enough info.!

[Jeffrey]

Some of the best times in my life, both gaming and non-gaming, were not "level appropriate".

[DCCfan]

Some of the best times in my life, both gaming and non-gaming, were not "level appropriate".

This should be on a T-shirt.