Just reading through the rules and I am loving the DCC RPG

If it doesn't fit into a category above, then inscribe it here, O Mighty One...

Moderators: DJ LaBoss, finarvyn, michaelcurtis, Harley Stroh

tithian
Far-Sighted Wanderer
Posts: 33
Joined: Sun Jan 10, 2010 5:19 pm

Just reading through the rules and I am loving the DCC RPG

Post by tithian » Tue Jul 05, 2011 3:20 am

I really love what Goodman is doing with the DCC RPG. I've been searching for a high-quality published system that strikes the perfect balance between old-skool D&D and the core D20 mechanic. Other systems have tried this before but none have quite gotten it right. DCC seems very promising indeed!

I haven't played the game yet and will need to do a lot of convincing to get my group on-board, but I think we'll end up trying it out eventually and I predict a lot of fun at the table.

My first reservation is the authors' choice to merge race and class. I don't personally have a problem with this, but I know my players will throw a huge hissy-fit about it and accuse the game of railroading them into narrowly defined archetypes. I am praying to the Gods of Goodman to offer optional rules to separate race from class. I strongly believe the race-as-class mechanic is going to be the deciding factor in a lot of groups' decisions to skip DCC.

User avatar
abk108
Mighty-Thewed Reaver
Posts: 358
Joined: Sun Jun 19, 2011 3:28 am

Re: Just reading through the rules and I am loving the DCC R

Post by abk108 » Tue Jul 05, 2011 4:06 am

Welcome on board :wink:

Regarding your concerns about the race-class system, this has already been debated in some threads (search the forums for the official asnwers by those who know what they're doing better than poor me :mrgreen: ).

I was a little skeptical about that too, I admit. And so were my players. But we all enjoyed the flavour that this gives to the game: after having played 3E for 10 years, getting used to seeing any weird combination - Dwarven Wizards, Elven Barbarians and Halfling Paladins - i started thinking that i was missing the fantasy atmosphere that i loved, that atmosphere I found reading the Hobbit and the LoTR for example. Where dwarves were dwarves. And elves elves.
I like Races as class, and you'll see that with the random generation of PCs at level 0, you don't feel like your choices have been restricted by getting demihuman classes. I think you get the excitement where you can be something different from a Warrior.. A dwarf!! Or something different from a wizard, an elf!

I don't know, I just love it :)
Author of Arcanix RPG - fantasy medieval d6 system
learn more :
http://arcanixrpg.webs.com

Black Dougal
Deft-Handed Cutpurse
Posts: 258
Joined: Sun Feb 17, 2008 7:36 pm
FLGS: Total Escape Games, Broomfield CO
Location: Denver, Colorado
Contact:

Re: Just reading through the rules and I am loving the DCC R

Post by Black Dougal » Tue Jul 05, 2011 12:03 pm

tithian wrote: My first reservation is the authors' choice to merge race and class. I don't personally have a problem with this, but I know my players will throw a huge hissy-fit about it and accuse the game of railroading them into narrowly defined archetypes. I am praying to the Gods of Goodman to offer optional rules to separate race from class. I strongly believe the race-as-class mechanic is going to be the deciding factor in a lot of groups' decisions to skip DCC.
First off, welcome. I am glad you like the game so far and I hope your group really enjoys the system even if it does use racial classes.

One thing to keep in mind. There is already a way to have an Elven Warrior, or a Halfling Wizard in the game. Just because one of your PCs has one of the demi-human starting occupations does not mean they have to be the demi-human class. So, your "Elven Sage" can choose to be a Cleric when he reaches first level. He will play just like a human Cleric, but he still looks like an Elf. It just means that this particular Elf was raised in human society, or something like that.

Some players might think this is a cop-out. It isn't. Remember DCCRPG is not a clone of D&D. It has some fantasy aspects in common with D&D, but it is its own game. When it comes to a choice between being true to the Appendix N literature or being true to the D20 SRD from which it evolved, DCCRPG will stay true to Appendix N. In those stories very rarely does the main character run into an Elven Bard or a Dwarven Barbarian. Rather, the main character runs into Elves and Dwarves. The racial classes make total sense when you look at it from this perspective.

This game isn't going to be for every player or every group. The game was meant to have a specific flavor. I think that flavor will get lost as more of the non-3.x/4e elements (like racial classes) are houseruled away. Don't get me wrong, I am all in favor of houserules. Make the game your own. Just realize that Joseph has a very specific vision for this game. So, while I am sure that there will eventually be houserules which do exactly what you want, I am also sure we will not see official rules from Goodman for this.

I guess it comes down to something I said as the title to a post a few months back. "Just houserule it!" This is something that was encouraged back in the oD&D and 1e AD&D days. If you don't like something or it doesn't work for you and your group, create a houserule to change it. D&D 3.x and 4e have created a bad habit in gamers. Now most gamers expect that every last detail will be codified into the official rules. This leads to 550+ page core rulebooks (Pathfinder RPG I am looking at you) with tons of official supplements. Expecting everything to be official leads to rules bloat. No gamer can wrap their mind around all that and keep it straight. This is why every person at a 3.x/PFRPG or 4e table often has their own copy of the rules. That way they can flip and look things up between turns in combat. (for example, I am always looking up spell ranges and effects.) This is yet another reason why DCCRPG is so old-skool cool. It aims to be rules light and adheres to the Gygaxian principal of "if you don't like a rule, or it doesn't fit your game world, change it."
"The Black Dougal" (formerly known as dkeester) -- DCCRPG Fan Boy since 2010
DCCRPG PC Death Toll: 25

DCCRPG Playtests: Tacticon 2010, GenghisCon 2011, Tacticon 2011, GenghisCon 2012
Member: The DCC Expendables (Denver, CO)

Doug may very well hold the dubious title of “most DCC RPG PCs lost during the course of convention play.”
--Harley Stroh

jmucchiello
Chaos-Summoning Sorcerer
Posts: 779
Joined: Mon Mar 14, 2011 3:28 am

Re: Just reading through the rules and I am loving the DCC R

Post by jmucchiello » Tue Jul 05, 2011 12:31 pm

dkeester wrote:Just because one of your PCs has one of the demi-human starting occupations does not mean they have to be the demi-human class.
That is already a houserule as the final book will say you "can't" do that. GG is leaving this problem to 3rd party support.
Some players might think this is a cop-out. It isn't. Remember DCCRPG is not a clone of D&D. It has some fantasy aspects in common with D&D, but it is its own game. When it comes to a choice between being true to the Appendix N literature or being true to the D20 SRD from which it evolved, DCCRPG will stay true to Appendix N. In those stories very rarely does the main character run into an Elven Bard or a Dwarven Barbarian. Rather, the main character runs into Elves and Dwarves. The racial classes make total sense when you look at it from this perspective.
Legolas is not a wizard and he is not portrayed as having insufficient Int to cast a spell. Galadriel and other elves are wizards. So not all elves are class Elf. Sure, no one calls Legolas an Elvin Archer. But that is what he is. Arguably the dwarves in LotR/The Hobbit are all cookie cutter "Dwarf" class. But even the Hobbits are not all "Halflings". The real problem is Appendix N doesn't really have a lot of fantasy race material in it.

It is also hard to accept the bolded text in the quote above when there are clerics in the game. Find an Appendix N source for that. And where are the white wizards as discussed in other threads? Saving throws are a dead giveaway to the game's D&D roots. What other games have such a concept?

No, I would only accept your bold statement as fact if you wanted to quibble over the definition of "clone". In which case I would grant that DCCRPG does not clone any existing D&D variant. Rather, it is the bastard offspring of some unnamed parents who have heavy OD&D, AD&D and Moldvay Basic D&D genes as well as some 3E D&D genes and a smattering of ICE's various "Law" books filled with millions of charts genes.
I guess it comes down to something I said as the title to a post a few months back. "Just houserule it!"
This is a cop out and self-defeating in the long run. (For GG is just plain a bad idea.) It is 100x easier for me to take the cool ideas on this forum and the Beta and "Just houserule" the Rules Encyclopedia. I'll attract players to that ten times easier than attracting them to a new, untried game that I'm houseruling out of the gate. And if you've read my posts on this forum, my houserule documents could be longer than the DCCRPG book in the end.
This is something that was encouraged back in the oD&D and 1e AD&D days. If you don't like something or it doesn't work for you and your group, create a houserule to change it. D&D 3.x and 4e have created a bad habit in gamers. Now most gamers expect that every last detail will be codified into the official rules.
Can you say irony? First, you say DCCRPG is not a D&D clone. Then you say just like in oD&D and AD&D, DCCRPG should be played like those games with copious house rules. And it is not true. I've seen highly houseruled versions of 3e and 4e. They are usually found at tables where the DM can say "If you don't like it, play with someone else." DCCRPG will have the "same" issue. If the five guys at your table are the only five guys willing to play DCCRPG don't like your houserules, they leave and you have no game. D&D has the benefit of being the big fish in the small pond. When there is conflict over what gameplay is correct gameplay, you can easily find more D&D players to fill your table than you can find DCCRPG players.

User avatar
finarvyn
Cold-Hearted Immortal
Posts: 2499
Joined: Fri Jun 26, 2009 3:42 am
FLGS: Fair Game
Location: Chicago suburbs
Contact:

Re: Just reading through the rules and I am loving the DCC R

Post by finarvyn » Tue Jul 05, 2011 12:33 pm

Agreed. If for some reason something like race=class is your personal "deal breaker" then just house rule it away. The rest of the system is pretty solid with or without it.
Marv / Finarvyn
DCC Minister of Propaganda; Deputized 6/8/11
DCC RPG playtester 2011, DCC Lankhmar trivia contest winner 2015; OD&D player since 1975

"The worthy GM never purposely kills players' PCs, He presents opportunities for the rash and unthinking players to do that all on their own."
-- Gary Gygax
"Don't ask me what you need to hit. Just roll the die and I will let you know!"
-- Dave Arneson

User avatar
abk108
Mighty-Thewed Reaver
Posts: 358
Joined: Sun Jun 19, 2011 3:28 am

Re: Just reading through the rules and I am loving the DCC R

Post by abk108 » Tue Jul 05, 2011 12:42 pm

dkeester wrote:One thing to keep in mind. There is already a way to have an Elven Warrior, or a Halfling Wizard in the game. Just because one of your PCs has one of the demi-human starting occupations does not mean they have to be the demi-human class. So, your "Elven Sage" can choose to be a Cleric when he reaches first level. He will play just like a human Cleric, but he still looks like an Elf. It just means that this particular Elf was raised in human society, or something like that.
Hmmm... i might be totally wrong or suffering memory lapses, but I *swear* i remember reading somewhere in the forums (more than once) that
" if you got a demihuman occupation, you have to stick with that."

That's also because it would clash with the racial features (like infravision, secret door sense...), that characters have at level 0. They can't just "lose" them upon reaching 1st level, and neither can you allow an elf to have such advantages over its human counterpart.

However, in the Beta is specified that rolling randomly for occupations is encouraged but not compulsory. So, if you don't want to play an Elf, just roll again should you get an Elven occupation. And anyway, nothing stops you from houseruling as you like, but know that there might be consequences to the coherence of your game.
Author of Arcanix RPG - fantasy medieval d6 system
learn more :
http://arcanixrpg.webs.com

jmucchiello
Chaos-Summoning Sorcerer
Posts: 779
Joined: Mon Mar 14, 2011 3:28 am

Re: Just reading through the rules and I am loving the DCC R

Post by jmucchiello » Tue Jul 05, 2011 12:46 pm

finarvyn wrote:Agreed. If for some reason something like race=class is your personal "deal breaker" then just house rule it away. The rest of the system is pretty solid with or without it.
The problem is not a single deal breaker. The problem is Bob hates race=class; Dave dislikes separate xp charts; Ed hates the fact there's no monk class; and Frank hates house rules. If you've been gaming with Bob, Dave, Ed, Frank and Tom (easy going, no complaints) for 20 years you're less likely to get DCCRPG to the table.

Now, there is no real solution to this problem. I know that. But the suggestion "house rule it" is also not a solution. And that is all I'm really complaining about here.
abk108 wrote:Hmmm... i might be totally wrong or suffering memory lapses, but I *swear* i remember reading somewhere in the forums (more than once) that
" if you got a demihuman occupation, you have to stick with that."
It's in the FAQ.

tithian
Far-Sighted Wanderer
Posts: 33
Joined: Sun Jan 10, 2010 5:19 pm

Re: Just reading through the rules and I am loving the DCC R

Post by tithian » Tue Jul 05, 2011 1:05 pm

I suppose its a moot point to debate the racial-classes when the PCs just going down the funnel anyway.

The more I read and assimilate the DCC RPG, the more it all makes sense onto itself.

Black Dougal
Deft-Handed Cutpurse
Posts: 258
Joined: Sun Feb 17, 2008 7:36 pm
FLGS: Total Escape Games, Broomfield CO
Location: Denver, Colorado
Contact:

Re: Just reading through the rules and I am loving the DCC R

Post by Black Dougal » Tue Jul 05, 2011 1:21 pm

jmucchiello wrote:
dkeester wrote:Just because one of your PCs has one of the demi-human starting occupations does not mean they have to be the demi-human class.
That is already a houserule as the final book will say you "can't" do that. GG is leaving this problem to 3rd party support.
This is not something of which I was aware. I found the thread in your FAQ. I was wrong. I stand corrected.
jmucchiello wrote:
Some players might think this is a cop-out. It isn't. Remember DCCRPG is not a clone of D&D. It has some fantasy aspects in common with D&D, but it is its own game. When it comes to a choice between being true to the Appendix N literature or being true to the D20 SRD from which it evolved, DCCRPG will stay true to Appendix N. In those stories very rarely does the main character run into an Elven Bard or a Dwarven Barbarian. Rather, the main character runs into Elves and Dwarves. The racial classes make total sense when you look at it from this perspective.
Legolas is not a wizard and he is not portrayed as having insufficient Int to cast a spell. Galadriel and other elves are wizards. So not all elves are class Elf. Sure, no one calls Legolas an Elvin Archer. But that is what he is. Arguably the dwarves in LotR/The Hobbit are all cookie cutter "Dwarf" class. But even the Hobbits are not all "Halflings". The real problem is Appendix N doesn't really have a lot of fantasy race material in it.
I would agree with your last statement. The fantasy races in much of Appendix N are not well defined. But since this game intends to be as close as possible to Appendix N, the racial classes are fitting.
jmucchiello wrote: It is also hard to accept the bolded text in the quote above when there are clerics in the game. Find an Appendix N source for that. And where are the white wizards as discussed in other threads? Saving throws are a dead giveaway to the game's D&D roots. What other games have such a concept?
Yes, yes, yes. Your "Kill the Cleric" thread... I get it. There are no clerics in Appendix N that are named as such. But as Finarvyn has said, if you look at a cleric as being a warrior that can use faith, there are clerics in Appendix N.
finarvyn wrote:My personal preference would be to push the Cleric back into the Christian role, since it fits the Appendix N books more. One can argue that Holger Carlson (the paladin in Three Hearts and Three Lions) is a cleric because of the way he uses his faith, and under that definition it becomes easier to actually find good examples of clerics in Appendix N.
So, there is at least one Appendix N source for the cleric.

As far as saving throws go, I didn't say the game doesn't have D&D elements or D&D roots. I said it is not a clone. Which means don't expect it to do everything the way D&D and its clones do things.
jmucchiello wrote: No, I would only accept your bold statement as fact if you wanted to quibble over the definition of "clone". In which case I would grant that DCCRPG does not clone any existing D&D variant. Rather, it is the bastard offspring of some unnamed parents who have heavy OD&D, AD&D and Moldvay Basic D&D genes as well as some 3E D&D genes and a smattering of ICE's various "Law" books filled with millions of charts genes.
Then we agree on my definition of clone. This game is not OSRIC or Dark Dungeons or Labyrinth Lord. It does its own thing. Also pointing out all of the game's roots is a bit of a non-starter. One of the things Joseph has said in the past was he was trying to imagine what Gygax and Arneson would have designed if they had Appendix N and modern RPG technology. Since, it is extremely difficult to have a modern game which is not influenced by previous games, being a "bastard child" is something that I accept as given.

Thank you for clarifying my point.
jmucchiello wrote:
I guess it comes down to something I said as the title to a post a few months back. "Just houserule it!"
This is a cop out and self-defeating in the long run. (For GG is just plain a bad idea.) It is 100x easier for me to take the cool ideas on this forum and the Beta and "Just houserule" the Rules Encyclopedia. I'll attract players to that ten times easier than attracting them to a new, untried game that I'm houseruling out of the gate. And if you've read my posts on this forum, my houserule documents could be longer than the DCCRPG book in the end.
I don't see how this is a cop-out. I see it as Grognard mentality. But we can disagree on that point.

When I started running Castles & Crusades. I had to houserule it "out of the gate" to satisfy my players. It worked so well that we played it for a year straight when we normally would have rotated GMs and games from week to week. My experience is different than yours. I have so far found that with my groups little to no tweaking of the system is necessary.

If your experience is different, then maybe your best bet is to do what you suggest and houserule the Rules Cyclopedia.

And, as you know I do read your posts. I have commented on some of them in other threads. I don't read all of them. I don't read all of the threads here. I don't have time.
jmucchiello wrote:
This is something that was encouraged back in the oD&D and 1e AD&D days. If you don't like something or it doesn't work for you and your group, create a houserule to change it. D&D 3.x and 4e have created a bad habit in gamers. Now most gamers expect that every last detail will be codified into the official rules.
Can you say irony? First, you say DCCRPG is not a D&D clone. Then you say just like in oD&D and AD&D, DCCRPG should be played like those games with copious house rules. And it is not true. I've seen highly houseruled versions of 3e and 4e. They are usually found at tables where the DM can say "If you don't like it, play with someone else." DCCRPG will have the "same" issue. If the five guys at your table are the only five guys willing to play DCCRPG don't like your houserules, they leave and you have no game. D&D has the benefit of being the big fish in the small pond. When there is conflict over what gameplay is correct gameplay, you can easily find more D&D players to fill your table than you can find DCCRPG players.
Sorry, I don't see the irony. I didn't say they don't have anything in common. In fact my post does allow for them to have common features. No irony here.

Maybe this is a YMMV situation. I have seen more rules lawyering with 3.x and its progeny than I have seen with any other game system that I have played, and I have been playing since the 1980's. I have seen 3.x players take DMs to task, rulebooks in hand, for trying to houserule anything. I have seen rules arguments derail entire gaming sessions and break up groups.

And as for the players "leaving and leaving you with no game" I suggest in my post to make the houserules fit your group. I don't suggest DM fiat and "my way or the highway" thinking on the part of the DM. That is no fun for anyone.
Last edited by Black Dougal on Tue Jul 05, 2011 1:42 pm, edited 2 times in total.
"The Black Dougal" (formerly known as dkeester) -- DCCRPG Fan Boy since 2010
DCCRPG PC Death Toll: 25

DCCRPG Playtests: Tacticon 2010, GenghisCon 2011, Tacticon 2011, GenghisCon 2012
Member: The DCC Expendables (Denver, CO)

Doug may very well hold the dubious title of “most DCC RPG PCs lost during the course of convention play.”
--Harley Stroh

Black Dougal
Deft-Handed Cutpurse
Posts: 258
Joined: Sun Feb 17, 2008 7:36 pm
FLGS: Total Escape Games, Broomfield CO
Location: Denver, Colorado
Contact:

Re: Just reading through the rules and I am loving the DCC R

Post by Black Dougal » Tue Jul 05, 2011 1:28 pm

jmucchiello wrote:
finarvyn wrote:Agreed. If for some reason something like race=class is your personal "deal breaker" then just house rule it away. The rest of the system is pretty solid with or without it.
The problem is not a single deal breaker. The problem is Bob hates race=class; Dave dislikes separate xp charts; Ed hates the fact there's no monk class; and Frank hates house rules. If you've been gaming with Bob, Dave, Ed, Frank and Tom (easy going, no complaints) for 20 years you're less likely to get DCCRPG to the table.

Now, there is no real solution to this problem. I know that. But the suggestion "house rule it" is also not a solution. And that is all I'm really complaining about here.
If I come off as suggesting that houseruling is the one true way to RPG (or DCCRPG) enlightenment, I certainly don't mean to. I actually like the rules the way they are.

But if you want to play DCC and your players can't stand certain features but are still inclined to play then what option do you have but to either houserule or tell them to lump it? And I do agree that if you houserule everything, then you are no longer playing DCCRPG but something else entirely.

Houserules are one solution, but I am open to suggestions. I happen to think it is a good solution for this game, but obviously your opinion differs.

I guess if the situation outlined above is your situation, then maybe as far as DCCRPG goes you are SOL and have to play a different game. There are plenty to choose from in the industry. All of them can be fun to play. But since this is a forum devoted to DCCRPG, I thought I would give a solution that works with the game we are discussing.

I certainly am not going to tell the OP to get lost and find another game.
"The Black Dougal" (formerly known as dkeester) -- DCCRPG Fan Boy since 2010
DCCRPG PC Death Toll: 25

DCCRPG Playtests: Tacticon 2010, GenghisCon 2011, Tacticon 2011, GenghisCon 2012
Member: The DCC Expendables (Denver, CO)

Doug may very well hold the dubious title of “most DCC RPG PCs lost during the course of convention play.”
--Harley Stroh

User avatar
finarvyn
Cold-Hearted Immortal
Posts: 2499
Joined: Fri Jun 26, 2009 3:42 am
FLGS: Fair Game
Location: Chicago suburbs
Contact:

Re: Just reading through the rules and I am loving the DCC R

Post by finarvyn » Wed Jul 06, 2011 5:35 am

dkeester wrote:I guess it comes down to something I said as the title to a post a few months back. "Just houserule it!" This is something that was encouraged back in the oD&D and 1e AD&D days. If you don't like something or it doesn't work for you and your group, create a houserule to change it.

This is yet another reason why DCCRPG is so old-skool cool. It aims to be rules light and adheres to the Gygaxian principal of "if you don't like a rule, or it doesn't fit your game world, change it."
Actually, I'm not sure if this is true. Certainly not for AD&D, which Gary wrote specifically to be standardized rules for tournament play. (He thought that everyone should have the same rules in AD&D the same way that everyone playing chess or Monopoly has the same rules.) As far as I can recall, no one publishing OD&D or AD&D ever really had a "if you don't like it, change it" mantra.

What happened is that when folks didn't like rules or found that something wasn't covered in the rules they made up their own, either by suggesting alternates in Dragon Magazine or by creating new RPGs altogether. (Remember that the original 3 D&D booklets were only 112 half-pages in length, or only 56 sheets of paper. Once you add in the most important rules from the supplements you get maybe 80 sheets of paper as OD&D.) Ken St Andre didn't like the way D&D played out so he wrote Tunnels & Trolls. A group at CalTech wrote Warlock. Likewise we got the Arduin Grimoire, RuneQuest, and others.

For example:

"If you don't like it, just house rule it" is more of a fan-created philosophy and as far as I know isn't limited to any particular edition or era of gaming. I have friends who buy a new RPG and tweak things before they ever run the first session of it, which I think is a little extreme, in order to get their favorite "pet" rules into the campaign. Ultimately you need to run a game you enjoy, and if creation of or changing rules is what's needed then so be it.

Race=class is often quoted as being one of those rules that players hate. I know a lot of people who claim to hate it, but seem to have a good time playing it. Or, when they create a character under other rules, end up playing a character quite similar to what race=class would have generated anyway. While I know that the "Basic D&D" product line used the race=class thing as a legal distinction between it and AD&D, I can say that I never personally played D&D that way (although I own copies of all of those editions of rules) and never actually got into race=class until I playtested DCC RPG.
  • Can I say that my players enjoyed race=class? Yes.
  • Can I say that they will enjoy the 100th elf as much as the first? Who knows. Probably not, but they probably won't enjoy the 100th anything as much as the first.
  • Is it a deal-breaker? No.
  • Will I someday decide to create a house rule where a player who wants to play an elven cleric (or whatever) can do so? Probably, if he wants it bad enough.
  • Do I need such rules in my core rulebook in order to enjoy the game? Not really. I'd rather do it as needed rather than try to anticipate every possible option. jmucchiello and I have had friendly banter about gnomish illusionists. I don't want 'em and he does. Neither one of us is "right" on the issue. I think he'd rather see rules for more options and I'd rather see rules for fewer options. I think either way both of us can enjoy the game, however.
dkeester wrote:But if you want to play DCC and your players can't stand certain features but are still inclined to play then what option do you have but to either houserule or tell them to lump it? And I do agree that if you houserule everything, then you are no longer playing DCCRPG but something else entirely.
Well said! 8) To me, it's pretty simple: if there is a deal-breaker rule in an RPG you have two options. You can house rule that rule away or you can pick another game you like better. Given those choices, house rules aren't such a bad thing.

Just my two cents.
Marv / Finarvyn
DCC Minister of Propaganda; Deputized 6/8/11
DCC RPG playtester 2011, DCC Lankhmar trivia contest winner 2015; OD&D player since 1975

"The worthy GM never purposely kills players' PCs, He presents opportunities for the rash and unthinking players to do that all on their own."
-- Gary Gygax
"Don't ask me what you need to hit. Just roll the die and I will let you know!"
-- Dave Arneson

smathis
Cold-Hearted Immortal
Posts: 1091
Joined: Fri Jan 28, 2011 12:52 pm

Re: Just reading through the rules and I am loving the DCC R

Post by smathis » Wed Jul 06, 2011 6:11 am

To throw my hat into the race-as-class debate...

I love race-as-class. I much prefer it to the race/class divide introduced in AD&D.

However...

For DCC, I'll say race-as-class is actually a bigger problem than it's worth. And it goes to those 0-level characters.

What abilities does a 0-level character get from being an "Elven Forester" or a "Halfling Gypsy"? And how does it affect the funnel?

IMO, keeping race-as-class and writing up 0-level addenda for the demihumans is more complicated and trickier than killing off the race-as-class, offer races with an XP penalty and a few demihuman abilities and then reskinning the current Elf, Halfling and Dwarf to be a Warlock, Ranger and Knight.

Just my two cents.

I love me some race-as-class. But the 0-level thing overcomplicates keeping it, IMO.

jmucchiello
Chaos-Summoning Sorcerer
Posts: 779
Joined: Mon Mar 14, 2011 3:28 am

Re: Just reading through the rules and I am loving the DCC R

Post by jmucchiello » Wed Jul 06, 2011 8:37 am

finarvyn wrote:Actually, I'm not sure if this is true. Certainly not for AD&D, which Gary wrote specifically to be standardized rules for tournament play. (He thought that everyone should have the same rules in AD&D the same way that everyone playing chess or Monopoly has the same rules.) As far as I can recall, no one publishing OD&D or AD&D ever really had a "if you don't like it, change it" mantra.
And in reference to Monopoly, he succeeded perfectly since no one plays Monopoly by the Rules As Written.

I'm sure someone with more time on their hands than me can dig up quotes from Gary himself (on ENWorld or perhaps dragonsfoot) where he stated that he NEVER played AD&D by the rules in the rulebook. Not even at tournaments. Yes, there are words to the effect of what you are saying in the actual books. But even the Author did not play by the rules as written.
finarvyn wrote:jmucchiello and I have had friendly banter about gnomish illusionists. I don't want 'em and he does. Neither one of us is "right" on the issue. I think he'd rather see rules for more options and I'd rather see rules for fewer options. I think either way both of us can enjoy the game, however.
I doubt the gnome will ever come to pass as I don't see the base game supporting it as I envision it. And if I can't get DCCRPG to my table, I'm not going to write 3pp books for it. But I wait patiently to see what comes of various fan requests for modifications to game as "we" see it as opposed to the game as Joseph sees it. (We meaning everyone who has given a great idea that "breaks" the Beta rules as written and all the folks who have +dN'd it.)



ADMIN EDIT: Fixed the quote

User avatar
finarvyn
Cold-Hearted Immortal
Posts: 2499
Joined: Fri Jun 26, 2009 3:42 am
FLGS: Fair Game
Location: Chicago suburbs
Contact:

Re: Just reading through the rules and I am loving the DCC R

Post by finarvyn » Wed Jul 06, 2011 8:59 am

smathis wrote:For DCC, I'll say race-as-class is actually a bigger problem than it's worth. And it goes to those 0-level characters.

What abilities does a 0-level character get from being an "Elven Forester" or a "Halfling Gypsy"? And how does it affect the funnel?
See, I don't think that occupation really gives any advantages to any level-0 characters, demihuman or not. I don't think that it is supposed to. What it does is give a little hint of background so that you don't get totally cookie-cutter cardboard characters. You don't want too much background since 2/3 of them die off in the first adventure, but just enough flavor so you feel like it's a real person and not just a robot.

So I don't see that race=class has any impact on the character funnel at all.
Marv / Finarvyn
DCC Minister of Propaganda; Deputized 6/8/11
DCC RPG playtester 2011, DCC Lankhmar trivia contest winner 2015; OD&D player since 1975

"The worthy GM never purposely kills players' PCs, He presents opportunities for the rash and unthinking players to do that all on their own."
-- Gary Gygax
"Don't ask me what you need to hit. Just roll the die and I will let you know!"
-- Dave Arneson

Eldric IV
Far-Sighted Wanderer
Posts: 34
Joined: Tue Jun 21, 2011 3:01 pm

Re: Just reading through the rules and I am loving the DCC R

Post by Eldric IV » Wed Jul 06, 2011 9:14 am

finarvyn wrote:
smathis wrote:For DCC, I'll say race-as-class is actually a bigger problem than it's worth. And it goes to those 0-level characters.

What abilities does a 0-level character get from being an "Elven Forester" or a "Halfling Gypsy"? And how does it affect the funnel?
See, I don't think that occupation really gives any advantages to any level-0 characters, demihuman or not. I don't think that it is supposed to.
I believe smathis is referring to the fact that, as of right now, the Beta rules grant no racial abilities to 0-level characters of the appropriate race.

Devil Swine
Wild-Eyed Zealot
Posts: 108
Joined: Tue Jun 07, 2011 7:12 pm

Re: Just reading through the rules and I am loving the DCC R

Post by Devil Swine » Wed Jul 06, 2011 12:04 pm

And in reference to Monopoly, he succeeded perfectly since no one plays Monopoly by the Rules As Written.
Err there are other rules to use? We always use the rules out of the box! I never thought of it but with games im just not a rules making kinda guy. I tend to use the games as written.

In respect to rpg's I might not use some rules of a game but im not into creating new ones at all. If the game says Halflings get spider climb and burning hands as race abilities I just scratch my head and think"weird Hobbits!" and start creating in game story to make it all work to me. Maybe the Hobbits are Black Hobbits and minions of some Mad wizard!

jmucchiello
Chaos-Summoning Sorcerer
Posts: 779
Joined: Mon Mar 14, 2011 3:28 am

Re: Just reading through the rules and I am loving the DCC R

Post by jmucchiello » Wed Jul 06, 2011 2:14 pm

Devil Swine wrote:
And in reference to Monopoly, he succeeded perfectly since no one plays Monopoly by the Rules As Written.
Err there are other rules to use? We always use the rules out of the box! I never thought of it but with games im just not a rules making kinda guy. I tend to use the games as written.
No bonus money for landing exactly on free parking? Automatic auctions if space is landed on and not purchased? There are some very common variants to Monopoly that people just assume are the rules as written.

User avatar
GnomeBoy
Tyrant Master (Administrator)
Posts: 3813
Joined: Fri Mar 10, 2006 1:46 pm
FLGS: Bizarro World
Location: Left Coast, USA
Contact:

Re: Just reading through the rules and I am loving the DCC R

Post by GnomeBoy » Wed Jul 06, 2011 3:21 pm

jmucchiello wrote:
Devil Swine wrote:
And in reference to Monopoly, he succeeded perfectly since no one plays Monopoly by the Rules As Written.
Err there are other rules to use? We always use the rules out of the box! I never thought of it but with games im just not a rules making kinda guy. I tend to use the games as written.
No bonus money for landing exactly on free parking? Automatic auctions if space is landed on and not purchased? There are some very common variants to Monopoly that people just assume are the rules as written.
I'm going to have to try that automatic auction thing next time I play Monopoly...
...
Gnome Boy • DCC playtester @ DDC 35 Feb '11. • Beta DL 2111, 7AM PT, 8 June 11.
Playing RPGs since '77 • Quasi-occasional member of the Legion of 8th-Level Fighters.

Link: Here Be 100+ DCC Monsters

bygrinstow.com - The Home of Inner Ham

jmucchiello
Chaos-Summoning Sorcerer
Posts: 779
Joined: Mon Mar 14, 2011 3:28 am

Re: Just reading through the rules and I am loving the DCC R

Post by jmucchiello » Wed Jul 06, 2011 5:12 pm

GnomeBoy wrote:
jmucchiello wrote:No bonus money for landing exactly on free parking? Automatic auctions if space is landed on and not purchased? There are some very common variants to Monopoly that people just assume are the rules as written.
I'm going to have to try that automatic auction thing next time I play Monopoly...
It's in the rules. Monopoly is notorious for taking forever but the two most common house rules cause it to take forever. Eliminate those house rules and the game is far less torturous.

Black Dougal
Deft-Handed Cutpurse
Posts: 258
Joined: Sun Feb 17, 2008 7:36 pm
FLGS: Total Escape Games, Broomfield CO
Location: Denver, Colorado
Contact:

Re: Just reading through the rules and I am loving the DCC R

Post by Black Dougal » Wed Jul 06, 2011 5:20 pm

finarvyn wrote:
dkeester wrote:I guess it comes down to something I said as the title to a post a few months back. "Just houserule it!" This is something that was encouraged back in the oD&D and 1e AD&D days. If you don't like something or it doesn't work for you and your group, create a houserule to change it.

This is yet another reason why DCCRPG is so old-skool cool. It aims to be rules light and adheres to the Gygaxian principal of "if you don't like a rule, or it doesn't fit your game world, change it."
Actually, I'm not sure if this is true. Certainly not for AD&D, which Gary wrote specifically to be standardized rules for tournament play. (He thought that everyone should have the same rules in AD&D the same way that everyone playing chess or Monopoly has the same rules.) As far as I can recall, no one publishing OD&D or AD&D ever really had a "if you don't like it, change it" mantra.

What happened is that when folks didn't like rules or found that something wasn't covered in the rules they made up their own, either by suggesting alternates in Dragon Magazine or by creating new RPGs altogether. (Remember that the original 3 D&D booklets were only 112 half-pages in length, or only 56 sheets of paper. Once you add in the most important rules from the supplements you get maybe 80 sheets of paper as OD&D.) Ken St Andre didn't like the way D&D played out so he wrote Tunnels & Trolls. A group at CalTech wrote Warlock. Likewise we got the Arduin Grimoire, RuneQuest, and others.

For example:

"If you don't like it, just house rule it" is more of a fan-created philosophy and as far as I know isn't limited to any particular edition or era of gaming. I have friends who buy a new RPG and tweak things before they ever run the first session of it, which I think is a little extreme, in order to get their favorite "pet" rules into the campaign. Ultimately you need to run a game you enjoy, and if creation of or changing rules is what's needed then so be it.

Race=class is often quoted as being one of those rules that players hate. I know a lot of people who claim to hate it, but seem to have a good time playing it. Or, when they create a character under other rules, end up playing a character quite similar to what race=class would have generated anyway. While I know that the "Basic D&D" product line used the race=class thing as a legal distinction between it and AD&D, I can say that I never personally played D&D that way (although I own copies of all of those editions of rules) and never actually got into race=class until I playtested DCC RPG.
  • Can I say that my players enjoyed race=class? Yes.
  • Can I say that they will enjoy the 100th elf as much as the first? Who knows. Probably not, but they probably won't enjoy the 100th anything as much as the first.
  • Is it a deal-breaker? No.
  • Will I someday decide to create a house rule where a player who wants to play an elven cleric (or whatever) can do so? Probably, if he wants it bad enough.
  • Do I need such rules in my core rulebook in order to enjoy the game? Not really. I'd rather do it as needed rather than try to anticipate every possible option. jmucchiello and I have had friendly banter about gnomish illusionists. I don't want 'em and he does. Neither one of us is "right" on the issue. I think he'd rather see rules for more options and I'd rather see rules for fewer options. I think either way both of us can enjoy the game, however.
Gygax did encourage houseruling in AD&D. He even wrote about it on page 9 in the Introduction to the 1979 Dungeon Master's Guide:
Gary Gygax wrote: The final word, then, is the game. Read how and why the system is as it is, follow the parameters, and then cut portions as needed to maintain excitement.
Gary Gygax wrote: Know the game systems, and you will know how and when to take upon yourself the ultimate power. To become the final arbiter, rather than the interpreter of the rules, can be a difficult and demanding task, and it cannot be undertaken lightly, for your players expect to play this game, not one made up on the spot. By the same token, they are playing the game the way you, their DM, imagines and creates it.
He also wrote about it on page 8 in the "The Game" section of the 1978 Player's Handbook:
Gary Gygax wrote: This game is unlike chess in that the rules are not cut and dried. In many places they are guidelines and suggested methods only. This is part of the attraction of Advanced Dungeons and Dragons, and it is integral to the game. Rules not understood should have appropriate questions directed to the publisher; disputes with the Dungeon Master are another matter entirely. THE REFEREE IS THE FINAL ARBITER OF ALL AFFAIRS OF HIS OR HER CAMPAIGN.
(The bold, italic, and capitals in the above quotes are Gygax's not mine.)

This sounds like he is saying "if you don't like a rule, or it doesn't fit your game world, change it" to me. I guess I was paraphrasing.

I agree that it has become a fan philosophy, as it should be. I have also seen it written as the "Golden Rule of Gaming" in some RPGs. But this mentality has always been part of the RPG industry, or at least since 1978.
finarvyn wrote:
dkeester wrote:But if you want to play DCC and your players can't stand certain features but are still inclined to play then what option do you have but to either houserule or tell them to lump it? And I do agree that if you houserule everything, then you are no longer playing DCCRPG but something else entirely.
Well said! 8) To me, it's pretty simple: if there is a deal-breaker rule in an RPG you have two options. You can house rule that rule away or you can pick another game you like better. Given those choices, house rules aren't such a bad thing.

Just my two cents.
Thanks. I didn't know of a better way to say it. 8)

EDIT: The quotes come from the Orange Spine editions of the PHB and DMG, BTW.
Last edited by Black Dougal on Wed Jul 06, 2011 5:39 pm, edited 3 times in total.
"The Black Dougal" (formerly known as dkeester) -- DCCRPG Fan Boy since 2010
DCCRPG PC Death Toll: 25

DCCRPG Playtests: Tacticon 2010, GenghisCon 2011, Tacticon 2011, GenghisCon 2012
Member: The DCC Expendables (Denver, CO)

Doug may very well hold the dubious title of “most DCC RPG PCs lost during the course of convention play.”
--Harley Stroh

Black Dougal
Deft-Handed Cutpurse
Posts: 258
Joined: Sun Feb 17, 2008 7:36 pm
FLGS: Total Escape Games, Broomfield CO
Location: Denver, Colorado
Contact:

Re: Just reading through the rules and I am loving the DCC R

Post by Black Dougal » Wed Jul 06, 2011 5:32 pm

jmucchiello wrote:
GnomeBoy wrote:
jmucchiello wrote:No bonus money for landing exactly on free parking? Automatic auctions if space is landed on and not purchased? There are some very common variants to Monopoly that people just assume are the rules as written.
I'm going to have to try that automatic auction thing next time I play Monopoly...
It's in the rules. Monopoly is notorious for taking forever but the two most common house rules cause it to take forever. Eliminate those house rules and the game is far less torturous.
Perhaps, but it is still torture. :lol:
"The Black Dougal" (formerly known as dkeester) -- DCCRPG Fan Boy since 2010
DCCRPG PC Death Toll: 25

DCCRPG Playtests: Tacticon 2010, GenghisCon 2011, Tacticon 2011, GenghisCon 2012
Member: The DCC Expendables (Denver, CO)

Doug may very well hold the dubious title of “most DCC RPG PCs lost during the course of convention play.”
--Harley Stroh

Black Dougal
Deft-Handed Cutpurse
Posts: 258
Joined: Sun Feb 17, 2008 7:36 pm
FLGS: Total Escape Games, Broomfield CO
Location: Denver, Colorado
Contact:

Re: Just reading through the rules and I am loving the DCC R

Post by Black Dougal » Wed Jul 06, 2011 5:48 pm

finarvyn wrote: So I don't see that race=class has any impact on the character funnel at all.
This has been my experience as well. The demi-humans are just as squishy when hit by a falling block trap as the humans are. :D I have found the racial traits to be neither overly complicating to the game at 0-level, nor overly advantageous at 0-level to the players lucky enough to roll those occupations.
"The Black Dougal" (formerly known as dkeester) -- DCCRPG Fan Boy since 2010
DCCRPG PC Death Toll: 25

DCCRPG Playtests: Tacticon 2010, GenghisCon 2011, Tacticon 2011, GenghisCon 2012
Member: The DCC Expendables (Denver, CO)

Doug may very well hold the dubious title of “most DCC RPG PCs lost during the course of convention play.”
--Harley Stroh

User avatar
JediOre
Cold-Hearted Immortal
Posts: 1127
Joined: Mon Apr 05, 2004 4:30 pm
Location: In a galaxy far, far, away (Missouri)

Re: Just reading through the rules and I am loving the DCC R

Post by JediOre » Wed Jul 06, 2011 6:19 pm

dkeester wrote:
finarvyn wrote: So I don't see that race=class has any impact on the character funnel at all.
This has been my experience as well. The demi-humans are just as squishy when hit by a falling block trap as the humans are. :D I have found the racial traits to be neither overly complicating to the game at 0-level, nor overly advantageous at 0-level to the players lucky enough to roll those occupations.

So, are you using the racial abilities for 0-level characters? Is this a "house-rule" or have we missed it in the beta?

Black Dougal
Deft-Handed Cutpurse
Posts: 258
Joined: Sun Feb 17, 2008 7:36 pm
FLGS: Total Escape Games, Broomfield CO
Location: Denver, Colorado
Contact:

Re: Just reading through the rules and I am loving the DCC R

Post by Black Dougal » Wed Jul 06, 2011 6:54 pm

JediOre wrote:
dkeester wrote:
finarvyn wrote: So I don't see that race=class has any impact on the character funnel at all.
This has been my experience as well. The demi-humans are just as squishy when hit by a falling block trap as the humans are. :D I have found the racial traits to be neither overly complicating to the game at 0-level, nor overly advantageous at 0-level to the players lucky enough to roll those occupations.

So, are you using the racial abilities for 0-level characters? Is this a "house-rule" or have we missed it in the beta?
In one of the playtests in which i participated I was allowed to use the "Underground Abilities" of the Dwarf to get a bonus to detect a hidden door. That door turned out to be a trap, hence my squishy comment above. I was better able to find the door, but that door caused me to lose a character to the funnel.

I am not sure if it counts as a houserule or not.
"The Black Dougal" (formerly known as dkeester) -- DCCRPG Fan Boy since 2010
DCCRPG PC Death Toll: 25

DCCRPG Playtests: Tacticon 2010, GenghisCon 2011, Tacticon 2011, GenghisCon 2012
Member: The DCC Expendables (Denver, CO)

Doug may very well hold the dubious title of “most DCC RPG PCs lost during the course of convention play.”
--Harley Stroh

jmucchiello
Chaos-Summoning Sorcerer
Posts: 779
Joined: Mon Mar 14, 2011 3:28 am

Re: Just reading through the rules and I am loving the DCC R

Post by jmucchiello » Wed Jul 06, 2011 9:00 pm

dkeester wrote:I am not sure if it counts as a houserule or not.
Technically, it is a house rule. Elves, Halflings, and Dwarves have no infravision until after they have enough XP to reach level 1. Likewise, Dwarves and Halflings probably slow down to 20 feet per round when they attain level 1. Although this is hard to be sure about since it is unknown exactly how fast level 0 characters move. Same applies to the Dwarves and Halflings height. Do they shrink or do the other "classes" grow? It is not spelled out in the book. 0-level Elves can sleep on iron beds without pain. But gain one XP and it becomes poisonous to them.

Post Reply

Return to “DCC RPG General”