DCC and AD&D

[toadlike]

Hello everybody,

There are two distinct takes on the DCC game running through my head right now. On the one hand, there's the Appendix N take. You know what I mean by that: shaping my games after pre-d&d swords and sorcery and new wave fantasy. On the other hand, I see DCC as a great way to re-imagine the old 1E modules like the Tomb of Horrors, the Village of Hommlet, and Temple of Elemental Evil.

Are you guys letting 1E influence your DCC games?

[reverenddak]

Are you guys letting 1E influence your DCC games?

Yes, absolutely. Some of the freakier modules are exactly the types of adventures (IMO) DCC RPG is trying to highlight.

[TheRusty]

If not for the fact that some of my group has had to endure a 1+ year slog through Temple of Elemental Evil converted to 4th edition, I would do that. I was thinking of using my old Basic D&D adventures, but I am also interested in using the collection of DCC 3rd Edition adventures as well.

[TheNobleDrake]

I, as mentioned in another thread, intend to run a grand-campaign of AD&D modules using DCC... but I think the mix/spread of elements that will actually go down at the table makes it more accurate for me to say I am letting DCC beat up my AD&D and steal its lunch money.

In all instances were AD&D & DCC diverge in style (magic, epic warriors, knave with a sword vs. hero, monsters you've never even heard tales about trying to eat your face, etc.) I am going full-bore DCC... all AD&D gets to pitch in is the adventure seed and a few cameo appearances (beholders, Lolth, and some locations)

Example: AD&D has Temple of Elemental Evil start out with adventurers looking for wealth coming to check out what's going on in the hills around this "village" ...in my DCC adaptation, the village will be sending its own out into the hills because nobody else cares about their village or it's wellbeing, not even the Viscount of Verbobonc, and he is having a friggin castle built there!

[toadlike]

In all instances were AD&D & DCC diverge in style (magic, epic warriors, knave with a sword vs. hero, monsters you've never even heard tales about trying to eat your face, etc.) I am going full-bore DCC... all AD&D gets to pitch in is the adventure seed and a few cameo appearances (beholders, Lolth, and some locations)

Example: AD&D has Temple of Elemental Evil start out with adventurers looking for wealth coming to check out what's going on in the hills around this "village" ...in my DCC adaptation, the village will be sending its own out into the hills because nobody else cares about their village or it's wellbeing, not even the Viscount of Verbobonc, and he is having a friggin castle built there!

That's an awesome way to make the two games work together.

Funny you mention the Temple of Elemental Evil. I've considered giving it the DCC treatment too. I would use The Village of Hommlet module to kick off the campaign. Then I would create my own version of the Temple.

[bill4935]

Are you guys letting 1E influence your DCC games?

Magic is so trustworthy in 1E. That is what stands out for me. In AD&D, you can cast a spell to unlock a door or cure warts without worrying if one of your friends is going to die in some hideous Monkey's Paw-type accident. Plus you've got standard D&D favourites like Bags of Holding, +1 Shields, Potions of Healing and Gaseous Form... I'd miss those in a standard DCC "magic-is-always-rare-and-more-dangerous-than-a-bag-of-wolverines" game.

I like to try having my cake and eating it too. So if I run a campaign, I'll let human wizards access "Hedge Magic" (cantrips and some Level 1 spells) without mercurial effects or needing a patron, but anything more powerful risks the touch of Chaos.

...Plus that gives me time to devise a story-appropriate introduction to higher power and infernal/dimensional pacts, when the magic-user reaches Level 3 and wants a 2nd level spell.

[Bisikoff]

Are you guys letting 1E influence your DCC games?

Magic is so trustworthy in 1E. That is what stands out for me. In AD&D, you can cast a spell to unlock a door or cure warts without worrying if one of your friends is going to die in some hideous Monkey's Paw-type accident. Plus you've got standard D&D favourites like Bags of Holding, +1 Shields, Potions of Healing and Gaseous Form... I'd miss those in a standard DCC "magic-is-always-rare-and-more-dangerous-than-a-bag-of-wolverines" game.

I like to try having my cake and eating it too. So if I run a campaign, I'll let human wizards access "Hedge Magic" (cantrips and some Level 1 spells) without mercurial effects or needing a patron, but anything more powerful risks the touch of Chaos.

True. I think there's also a positive nod in that magic can be more powerful, and spells can be recast.

I'm leaning to allow Wizards to rememorize known spells. They have to do this when a spell is lost; that's their opportunity to choose a different spell from their book (which they know). The limit per day because memorized rather than "known". A wizard could choose to forget more spells - via nights rest, purging the mind, what have you - and thereby change their load out. Which would leave them vulnerable ...

[finarvyn]

Sounds like a lot of us have the same concept -- a blend of DCC and AD&D sounds wonderful. DCC brings in a certain attitude, AD&D brings in a lot of rules structure. I can see where a campaign could mix the two pretty well. Go with some of the AD&D races and classes, for example, then mix in Heroic Actions and the DCC spellcasting system. Could be a lot of fun!

[sheriffharry]

A good adventure is basically a great plot and an the right "mood" linking rooms/monsters and characters. The rule system comes in second. So by all mean, there are tons of AD&D stuff suitable for DCC RPG.

That said, after trying first hand to "convert" AD&D monsters and/or magic items and/or spells to DCC RPG I wouldn't say this is as easy as it first seems. You want to reach a certain balance in all encounters, and right now it's bit foggy to estimate what is challenging enough for a DCC party of such or such level. That should become easier as gaming hours increase!

[Jim Skach]

Plus you've got standard D&D favourites like Bags of Holding, +1 Shields, Potions of Healing and Gaseous Form... I'd miss those in a standard DCC "magic-is-always-rare-and-more-dangerous-than-a-bag-of-wolverines" game.

These two things have given me and idea....thanks!

As for AD&D, I would think that for the most part I would keep them separate. The DCC-ness would keep overpowering the 1e...for me...

[Black Dougal]

A good adventure is basically a great plot and an the right "mood" linking rooms/monsters and characters. The rule system comes in second. So by all mean, there are tons of AD&D stuff suitable for DCC RPG.

I agree with this. That is why I am going to take the structure of the old modules and convert them to DCC. I imagine they will come out not just grittier and much, much more deadly, but also more wondrous and surprising. That being said I am sure not all modules are going to fit with DCC RPG.

That said, after trying first hand to "convert" AD&D monsters and/or magic items and/or spells to DCC RPG I wouldn't say this is as easy as it first seems. You want to reach a certain balance in all encounters, and right now it's bit foggy to estimate what is challenging enough for a DCC party of such or such level. That should become easier as gaming hours increase!

I plan to simply convert the monsters as closely as possible. Trying to keep things "balanced" where encounters are "challenging enough" seems to me as not the correct way to look at it. If the PCs aren't smart enough to recognize when they are outclassed by a monster, then they get what they deserve. Remember, in DCC RPG knowing when to run away is an important skill. The adventures are going to be a mix of things that are simple to kill, things that are challenging to kill, and things that are impossible to kill. PCs don't get experience for killing monsters. They get experience for surviving. So, I am going to throw the 3e idea of "level appropriateness" out the window. Hopefully, this will make it easier to convert AD&D modules to DCC.

This may sound harsh, or like I have it in for my players. That is not the case. I am not planning to TPK my PCs. I actually want them to survive. However, I also want them to know that (to use a ST:TNG reference) the safeties on the Holodeck have been deactivated. Death should not be a rare thing in DCC.

We will see what happens when I convert Keep on the Borderlands.

[sheriffharry]

I agree mostly with your post, but still think there is a difference between the party crushing ONE troll in one round, having to work together to defeat FOUR trolls, and being annihilated in 2 rounds by TEN trolls. As a DM(Judge), I do want the party to struggle and succeed against the odds. Most of the time. But I don't want the adventure to be a leisurely walk or an automatic carnage from the start...(hence I still think AD&D conversion should be a well thought out affair).

Just my 2 cents..

[larsdangly]

I just ran Village of Homlet but from an alternate perspective; most characters were 0-level members of the village, not visitors, and the exceptions were members of a circus that had just come into town, not adventurers. They were caught up in a sort of zombie appocalypse situation as a result of an insane witch who fed the whole village (including several PC's...) some bad buns. It was super fun.

[Black Dougal]

I agree mostly with your post, but still think there is a difference between the party crushing ONE troll in one round, having to work together to defeat FOUR trolls, and being annihilated in 2 rounds by TEN trolls. As a DM(Judge), I do want the party to struggle and succeed against the odds. Most of the time. But I don't want the adventure to be a leisurely walk or an automatic carnage from the start...(hence I still think AD&D conversion should be a well thought out affair).

Just my 2 cents..

You make a good point. I am sure that the conversion won't be completely clean. I will also probably scale things a bit if the initial conversion screams "instant TPK" to me. Thought will definitely be required, but as long as there appears to be a way for the party (or at least a percentage of it) to survive I don't think I am going to sweat it too much.

That being said, you do have more experience with this than I do, so I will keep your points in mind. And perhaps I will even start to see it more your way as I do more conversion. It remains to be seen.

I just have grown to dislike the balancing act that GMing 3.x/Pathfinder requires for creating encounters.

[sheriffharry]

I just have grown to dislike the balancing act that GMing 3.x/Pathfinder requires for creating encounters.

Absolutely.
RPGs that can't seem to tolerate characters dying (see recent D&D editions, especially the coming one!) are "lame".

As for my "experience" it mainly comes from DMing Call of Cthulhu (for about 25 years now). So character death is nothing new in my book. I just wish there were more insanity rules for DCC though!...

[Black Dougal]

I just have grown to dislike the balancing act that GMing 3.x/Pathfinder requires for creating encounters.

Absolutely.
RPGs that can't seem to tolerate characters dying (see recent D&D editions, especially the coming one!) are "lame".

As for my "experience" it mainly comes from DMing Call of Cthulhu (for about 25 years now). So character death is nothing new in my book. I just wish there were more insanity rules for DCC though!...

I am also a big fan of CoC. (I noticed that you have a still from the 1970 release of The Dunwich Horror as your user picture. Good choice! Yog-Sothoth! )

Insanity rules for DCC sounds like a good idea for a 3PP release.

[TheNobleDrake]

I just have grown to dislike the balancing act that GMing 3.x/Pathfinder requires for creating encounters.

Absolutely.
RPGs that can't seem to tolerate characters dying (see recent D&D editions, especially the coming one!) are "lame".

Your comment of "especially" the coming edition of D&D is out of place - the playtest rules might seem to promote unkillable characters if you read them... but I had a double TPK session actually running the playtest materials - two full parties wiped out by the wimpiest sorts of critters in the game in the span of just an hour and a half of play, more characters than I have had die in single encounters even running funnel adventures in DCC.

On the other part of the topic however, I agree very heartily - CR exists only to limit what players will enjoy having a DM place in front of their characters.

[reverenddak]

One of the problems to the whole CR thing is the whole expectations thing, expecting that an encounter will be either a bit too easy, a bit too hard, or just right. Then getting awarded appropriately. DCC RPG eliminates that problem by changing the expectations to encounters that may be way too easy, to way too hard, there is no just right, just a wider range of challenges. Then get happy if there is any treasure at all.

AD&D was a lot like that when we played, e.g. 5th level characters going to Barrier Peaks. It was OK to run away from monsters, we did so a lot. I remember losing my favorite character to a random god from Deities and Demigods.

[finarvyn]

It was OK to run away from monsters, we did so a lot. I remember losing my favorite character to a random god from Deities and Demigods.

One thing I've told my players is that I don't set up encounters designed for them to win all of the time. They need to develop the skill of watching their resources and evaluating what is the proper action as the encounter progresses.

One of my dungeons nearly got derailed by a troll. We were playing OD&D, where they got multiple attacks against 1 HD creatures but only 1 attack against anything larger than 1 HD. They had been wading through monsters and were stunned when they found out how tough the troll was. (They didn't know it was a troll, and didn't realize it was regenerating.) A near TPK but a few escaped and exited the dungeon. They went to town, healed and recruited more characters, then went back in. Similar result. It took them four trips to the dungeon to get past that one encounter.

This never happens in dungeons where players are supposed to win, which is a shame. Hitting a tough obsticle really got them thinking and not just randomly rolling dice. Folks ask me if OD&D is a combat game or a role playing game, and clearly this shows how it can be both. DCC is a lot like this, philosophically. When you play you have to know you could win quickly or get squashed and have to be able to look for clues as to which will happen when.

I might also point out that my players never quite know how strong a monster might be. I might pull it from my OD&D Monsters & Treasure book, AD&D Monster Manual, C&C Monsters & Treasures, the Rules Cyclopedia, or wherever I happen to have handy at the moment. The number of hit points, armor class, and many details vary from book to book and so do my monsters.

At least, that's how I play.

[sheriffharry]

As an Aristotelian, I must comeback to the "golden mean" on this issue:
The adventure/campaign/world has to be as diverse and unpredictable as the "real" world.
But on the cover of EVERY adventure module one still sees: "for X characters of level Y".
There is a good reason for that: it's more fun to play that way!

That said, I'm not against throwing a dragon at 1st level characters. But not all the time.

[rabindranath72]

If I manage to put together a group, I will choose the B10 module, Night's Dark Terror, as a setting AND campaign book for DCC. The "feel" is very close to DCC, and the setting is quite small and contained with lots of stuff going on behind the scenes.

[sheriffharry]

The D&D module X2-Castle Amber by Tom Moldway, based on Clark Ashton-Smith's Averoigne world, is clearly Appendix-N material. even if Ashton-Smith is not namely listed there. The problem is I ran that adventure so often (I have 3 copies in different shape of conservation, played it twice, DMed it at least 4 times + made a Neverwinter Night PC game module out of it + played the Return to Amber sequel !), I'm not sure how I could make it feel "fresh" materiel. But it's certainly doable. Best module ever in my book, with the best NPCs ever: the d'Amberville..

[lindevi]

I am in the process of converting HHQ1: Fighter's Challenge from 2nd ed AD&D to DCC (stats part 1 here). The biggest challenge was "nerfing" the various hirelings to make them more evenly-keeled with the PC. At the same time, I didn't particularly want them to be "average man 123" and "averageman ABC." In a city of two thousand, it makes sense that a half dozen or so of them are exceptional and can do more than bumble their way through a dungeon. I opted for fun while still keeping the proliferation (or lack thereof) of magic and heroes in perspective.

We'll see if the monster's give me a harder time, or whether I can simply convert THAC0 to BAB and AC to the ascending system.

[finarvyn]

The D&D module X2-Castle Amber by Tom Moldway, based on Clark Ashton-Smith's Averoigne world, is clearly Appendix-N material. even if Ashton-Smith is not namely listed there.

Agreed. Very much CAS and very mush Appendix N in flavor. Ripe for DCC plucking.

...played the Return to Amber sequel...

Drawing a blank on this one. Was there a sequel? Why don't I remember it?

[Galadrin]

When I get to University in September (anyone in the Boston area, let me know!), I am looking to run the T-A-GDQ path of supermodules. The only difference is that I will be using the HackMaster 4th Edition versions, and will be running it in the world of the Knights of the Dinner Table. I will probably start out using B1 "Quest for the Unknown" as a funnel, and then allow the characters to either proceed to the Little Keep or to the Temple of Existential Evil (a rare module, but somehow I have two copies!). Then they will go through Smackdon the Slavers (sic) and into Annihilate the Giants. After that, I will probably start blending Descent into the Netherdeep with the 3e module "City of the Spider Queen," and Melanee will start to figure prominently in the denouement.

One thing I am having trouble with predicting, however, is pacing. There are at least 50 monster encounters in Little Keep on the Borderland, which means 100 EP's if the Knights hit all of them (which they won't, but given wandering monster encounters and traps, 100 EP's would be a conservative estimate). When they are done with Little Keep, the players should be around Level 3. Slavers has about 80 fixed encounters, meaning another 160 EP's (again, a conservative estimate). Allowing for random bonus EP's, the Knights should be around level 5 when they go into Giants. Most Giants can one-shot a level 5 character, though...