# Dungeon Crawl Classics RPG from Goodman Games



## jaerdaph (Jan 5, 2011)

Goodman Games has put up info about their upcoming Dungeon Crawl Classics (DCC) RPG:

Dungeon Crawl Classics

Highlights include: 

a streamlined version of 3E
open playtest in mid-2011
Select publishers will be offered licenses to publish supplemental material for the DCC RPG

I really enjoyed the DCC line from the d20 era, so I'll be following along to see where they go with this.


----------



## jaerdaph (Jan 5, 2011)

More info here on Goodman Games message boards:

Goodman Games • View topic - Designer's Blog #1: What It Is, And What It Isn't


----------



## Jeff Wilder (Jan 5, 2011)

In 2007, weren't Paizo and Goodman Games the two biggest third-party supporters of D&D?

And in 2011, both will be actively competing with D&D.

Pretty remarkable, IMO.


----------



## Diamond Cross (Jan 5, 2011)

I'm just going to stick with the regular 3e books already released.


----------



## jaerdaph (Jan 5, 2011)

I like that this isn't going to be another 3e replacement like _Pathfinder_, but rather (hopefully) a melding of some of the best features of 3e/d20/OGL and old school play. The streamlining appeals to me - no feats, PrCs, AoO, or grid-based movement. I'm not sold yet on going back to races as classes, but I want to see how it's done first before I decide. 

I do like that they seem to be following the Paizo development model that _Pathfinder_ had which was very successful for them. Hopefully that trend will continue and we'll see low priced PDF entry points for the core rulebooks as well.

Edit: Streamlining includes no skill points. Not sure if that's something I'm sure I like yet (if it means no skills or skill-like system at all) but again I'll have to see it in action first.


----------



## renau1g (Jan 5, 2011)

Does that mean no more 4e modules from them? I thought they did a pretty good job with them, especially compared to WotC's own efforts. (I'm looking at you Against the Giants)


----------



## Plaguedguy (Jan 5, 2011)

Sounds potentially good on paper, but I have to ask: Was it absolutely necessary to add three more sizes of dice to the game?


----------



## Filcher (Jan 5, 2011)

renau1g said:


> Does that mean no more 4e modules from them? I thought they did a pretty good job with them, especially compared to WotC's own efforts. (I'm looking at you Against the Giants)




I think I read that they will continue the 4e modules under another title.


----------



## jaerdaph (Jan 5, 2011)

Plaguedguy said:


> Sounds potentially good on paper, but I have to ask: Was it absolutely necessary to add three more sizes of dice to the game?




It will be interesting to see how those dice will be used in the game, hopefully in a way that doesn't feel "gimmicky".


----------



## Theo R Cwithin (Jan 5, 2011)

Interesting.  I find this phrasing:
_It uses a Vancian magic system…if you use the term “Vancian” to mean “based on a reading of Vance’s original works,” not “what D&D does.”_​  especially intriguing.  I'm a bit more ambivalent about all the extra dice, though.

Definitely will be keeping an eye on this!


----------



## jaerdaph (Jan 5, 2011)

_It also utilizes Zocchi dice. All of them. Including the d5, d7 and d24._ - Goodman Games

The only thing that troubles me about the extra dice is that _only one company_* makes those specialty dice, and it might be a limiting factor for some who want to play the game if they can't get those dice easily. If this was a boxed set RPG I could see including the specialty dice inside and this being less of a problem, but it's listed as a hardcover. 

*albeit Zocchi, probably the best dice maker there is out there.


----------



## Jeff Wilder (Jan 5, 2011)

Uh ...

d5?  d10/2.  d7?  d8, reroll 8s.  d24?  d6 (high/low) plus d12.

Not gonna be an issue, really.


----------



## jaerdaph (Jan 5, 2011)

True, but...



Jeff Wilder said:


> Uh ...
> 
> d7?  d8, reroll 8s.




That could be annoying.


----------



## Remathilis (Jan 5, 2011)

Meh.

I used to love Goodman, and its "back to the dungeon" feel. This, however, leaves me cold. 

I had hoped from its initial reading that it would a C&C styled "D&D but simplified/Old School" game. That said, it would kinda compatible; at minimum with 3e. (A 3e without skills, feats, or elven paladins, but a 3e nonetheless). When I read it had no intention of keeping the classic six ability scores (Luck is a score) nor traditional fire-and-forget casting, it fell from "Possible Pathfinder replacement" to "Yet Another Fantasy Heartbreaker". 

Seriously Goodman; swallow your pride and release OGL-compatible modules again. The 4e thing isn't working out for you, and making your own D&D clone is just going to put you behind the curve in a world with Hackmaster, D&D 4e, and Pathfinder (as well as dozens of free retros) have got a good lock on the former 3e marketplace.


----------



## Jeff Wilder (Jan 5, 2011)

jaerdaph said:


> That could be annoying.



All of them could be mildly annoying, I agree.  (I, personally, would want the d5, d7, and d24.  And, BTW, what?  No d30?!)  Interestingly, the "reroll 8s" is the one I would probably find least annoying.


----------



## renau1g (Jan 5, 2011)

Remathilis said:


> The 4e thing isn't working out for you,




Just curious. Did they ever say that 4e wasn't working out well? I don't typically keep up too much with 3PP


----------



## Remathilis (Jan 5, 2011)

renau1g said:


> Just curious. Did they ever say that 4e wasn't working out well? I don't typically keep up too much with 3PP




I recall a year back Goodman soliciting input about whether they should remain 4e, go back to 3e, do OSRIC, or try something new. The conjecture I draw from this is that 4e sales weren't strong enough, and they were unsure where to go next. If 4e sales had been strong, I don't think they would've asked questions like this...


----------



## renau1g (Jan 5, 2011)

THanks, missed that.


----------



## DaveMage (Jan 5, 2011)

I'll certainly check it out during the free beta, but if I were to remove skills and feats from 3E/Pathfinder, well, I'd rather simply go back to a retro clone.

The skills and feats are what keeps me *playing* 3.5/Pathfinder.  I love 'em!


----------



## Harley Stroh (Jan 5, 2011)

(I’m not privy to sales, so take this with a grain of salt, but …)

  The DCC RPG is first and foremost the fantasy game that Joseph wants to run and play, rather than the game that is going to make him money. 

  //H


----------



## jdrakeh (Jan 5, 2011)

Jeff Wilder said:


> And, BTW, what?  No d30?!




It's not exclusively a Zocchi die. In fact, they weren't even the first ones to produce a 30-sided die.


----------



## frankthedm (Jan 5, 2011)

Streamlining is good. Edit: If the loss of flavorful skills is the cost to avoid cherry picked feats and PRCs, I'll take it

I might have preordered, but some unknown variables made me old off.


Approximate Page count is important. I'm not expecting 400 pages for $35, but 96 pages would be too small.
Not sure if they would charge my paypal account right away for a preorder.
Want to make sure this won't be a bare bones Base Book then separate Player & GM books like WW does.


----------



## Remathilis (Jan 5, 2011)

Harley Stroh said:


> (I’m not privy to sales, so take this with a grain of salt, but …)
> 
> The DCC RPG is first and foremost the fantasy game that Joseph wants to run and play, rather than the game that is going to make him money.
> 
> //H




I wasn't doubting that. In fact, I think its gusty to make another fantasy rpg in a world so littered with them. Kenzer brought their IP home in Hackmaster Basic, and Paizo supports their material with Pathfinder, so I guess its no surprise Goodman Games wants to do the same. 

I'm just leery on yet-another fantasy RPG that is completely incompatible with the others. The beauty of the OGL/3e era was that I could drop in material from Kenzer, Paizo, Goodman, and WotC into the same game and worry little about conversion, since they all ran on the same d20 kernel. Now, each of them have games as different as can be while still using d20s to hit. (I think. Does HM:B use d20s?)

I secretly had hoped DCC RPG was going to be more d20 compatible so I could again use DCCs in my Pathfinder game (or switch to DCC if it was simpler than Paizo's offering). What has been said though makes it sound like the apple's fallen a bit too far from the tree, and making a DCC module work in PF would require the same amount of work as making a 1e module or a Palladium one work. (aka extensive re-write). 

As a former Goodman Games/DCC fan, that saddens me.


----------



## jaerdaph (Jan 5, 2011)

frankthedm said:


> Streamlining is good.




Exactly. As I get older, less* is more. 

*less rules, less prep, less setup, less learning curve, etc...


----------



## Harley Stroh (Jan 5, 2011)

Remathilis said:


> I'm just leery on yet-another fantasy RPG that is completely incompatible with the others. The beauty of the OGL/3e era was that I could drop in material from Kenzer, Paizo, Goodman, and WotC into the same game and worry little about conversion, since they all ran on the same d20 kernel. Now, each of them have games as different as can be while still using d20s to hit. (I think. Does HM:B use d20s?)
> 
> I secretly had hoped DCC RPG was going to be more d20 compatible so I could again use DCCs in my Pathfinder game (or switch to DCC if it was simpler than Paizo's offering). What has been said though makes it sound like the apple's fallen a bit too far from the tree, and making a DCC module work in PF would require the same amount of work as making a 1e module or a Palladium one work. (aka extensive re-write).
> 
> As a former Goodman Games/DCC fan, that saddens me.




I hear you. I hope you'll take a peek at the playtest rules and weigh in. 

//H


----------



## delericho (Jan 5, 2011)

Remathilis said:


> Meh.
> 
> I used to love Goodman, and its "back to the dungeon" feel. This, however, leaves me cold.




Yeah. Sadly, me too.

There's an awful lot I like about what they say this game is going to be. I like the idea of streamlining the rules, and I like going back the Appendix N for inspiration (without slavishly sticking with the D&D interpretations of that material).

But, as with 4e, it seems that for everything I like and/or agree with, there's something I _really_ don't like. Here the big two are "races as classes" and using odd-shaped dice.

Still, more games out there means there's more chance that everyone will find _some_ game that suits them, so that's got to be good. I wish Goodman the best of luck with this.


----------



## NN (Jan 5, 2011)

My concern - will the game support "open-sandboxy-old-style-campaign-play".

Races as classes?: depends on the multiclassing rules.


----------



## frankthedm (Jan 5, 2011)

And I'm really hoping for less Priest = Band Aid. Nothing wrong with Crusaders killing monsters in the dungeon, but leave the stitching up to time, potions and primitive chirurgery.


----------



## vagabundo (Jan 6, 2011)

The 4e DCC seemed to have stopped coming this year 2010. Thats a shame. Although I always though they should have published adventures for both 3e (PF compatoible) and 4e.

In fact DCCs and the new essential classes go hand in hand I think.


----------



## aboyd (Jan 6, 2011)

For those complaining about the dice, I would point out that this interest of Goodman's is not new.  In Sinister Secret of Whiterock (DCC 51.5), the encounter tables used d5s and had a sidebar about Gamescience Dice which read like a small advertisement.  I was turned off enough by that to convert the wandering monster table to a d% roll.

Having said that, I would note that otherwise the module was lovely, and I ran it 3 times.  So if Goodman's new RPG rules are otherwise fine, and if the modules are otherwise fine, I'm inclined to buy it.

I _very_ much appreciate moving away from the battle mat.  I very much do _not_ want to go back to races as classes.  Not only is that uninteresting to me, but multiple old-school products already do that.

Having said that, I suspect it doesn't matter.  If Goodman is making the RPG he wants to play regardless of sales potential, he'll be fine with a product that only appeals to a tiny sliver of a tiny market.

He'll be running a playtest at DunDraCon.  I will be there, so I will try to get in on that.


----------



## Tav_Behemoth (Jan 6, 2011)

At Anonycon, I used the DCC RPG playtest rules to run a combination of modules written for AD&D and Castles and Crusades; it was easy to convert stats on the fly when they were given in the text, and I called up the 3.5 SRD when I needed stats for wandering monsters. I was very pleased by this test of cross-compatibility, and also of how well the system supports "open-sandboxy-old-style-campaign-play". I wrote about the experience in this post at The Mule Abides.


----------



## Rel (Jan 6, 2011)

What's funny is that I've run lots of DCC's by them, just never using a d20 system.  They turn out great modules and I say that as somebody who generally doesn't use a lot of modules (In particular I LOVE "Into the Wilds", Harley!).  I'm glad to hear about this, not because I feel like I need a new system, but because it means they'll presumably keep pumping out great modules.


----------



## Harley Stroh (Jan 6, 2011)

Rel said:


> What's funny is that I've run lots of DCC's by them, just never using a d20 system.  They turn out great modules and I say that as somebody who generally doesn't use a lot of modules (In particular I LOVE "Into the Wilds", Harley!).  I'm glad to hear about this, not because I feel like I need a new system, but because it means they'll presumably keep pumping out great modules.




Thanks for the kind words, Rel! (Especially on Wilds. It's a favorite of mine, but also has a few author "face-palm" moments ...)

Joseph is planning on strong adventure support. And, interestingly for you Rel, the stat blocks are so short that your "dollar to word count" ratio will see a marked improvement.

//H


----------



## Rel (Jan 6, 2011)

Harley Stroh said:


> Thanks for the kind words, Rel! (Especially on Wilds. It's a favorite of mine, but also has a few author "face-palm" moments ...)
> 
> Joseph is planning on strong adventure support. And, interestingly for you Rel, the stat blocks are so short that your "dollar to word count" ratio will see a marked improvement.
> 
> //H




That module is practically a mini-campaign!  I recommend it frequently and it holds a special place in my heart as being the start of the first full fledged campaign I've run for my daughter (my wife plays with us too).

I've been running it with Savage Worlds and converting on the fly is a breeze.  Please let us know if you have more DCC stuff coming out.  I'm a fan.


----------



## Grimstaff (Jan 6, 2011)

I got to playtest this at a con a few weeks ago, it was a fun session. Full write up here.


----------



## darjr (Jan 6, 2011)

I love your idea of removing 'clerics' and having a wavy dagger wielding 'priest' of the spider god.

Same with wizards and other weapons.


----------



## FATDRAGONGAMES (Jan 6, 2011)

Grimstaff said:


> I got to playtest this at a con a few weeks ago, it was a fun session. Full write up here.




Thanks for posting that Grimstaff. I'm really looking forward to the open playtest.


----------



## Korgoth (Jan 6, 2011)

the_orc_within said:


> Interesting.  I find this phrasing:_It uses a Vancian magic system…if you use the term “Vancian” to mean “based on a reading of Vance’s original works,” not “what D&D does.”_​especially intriguing.  I'm a bit more ambivalent about all the extra dice, though.
> 
> Definitely will be keeping an eye on this!




Check this out:

Goodman Games • View topic - The DCC RPG and Spellslinging

wherein Goodman describes the magic system.

If _that_ is the magic system, this game is going to rock on toast. Toast served by a bikini-clad Liv Tyler while flying on a rocket car through an Aerosmith video.


----------



## jaerdaph (Jan 6, 2011)

Korgoth said:


> If _that_ is the magic system, this game is going to rock on toast. Toast served by a bikini-clad Liv Tyler while flying on a rocket car through an Aerosmith video.




Yeah, I'm really loving what I'm reading about the magic system. 

Also, James Maliszewski over at GROGNARDIA managed to sell me for good on the extra dice in this post today.


----------



## FATDRAGONGAMES (Jan 6, 2011)

Yeah, the magic system is what has me sold on this. Does anyone know a more specific date when the open playtest begins besides "mid 2011"?


----------



## frankthedm (Jan 6, 2011)

Yeah magic sounds awesome.


----------



## carmachu (Jan 7, 2011)

renau1g said:


> Does that mean no more 4e modules from them? I thought they did a pretty good job with them, especially compared to WotC's own efforts.




Thats an interesting line of thought....


----------



## JeffB (Jan 7, 2011)

Wow. When I first heard of this game, I was like...ehh..may check it out, but not too excited.

After reading the thread over at the DCC forums I've gone completely bonkers- the combat/criticals & magic system sound freaking fantastic. I'll be picking this up for sure now, despite a few things on Joe G's "list" that are not to my tastes. At the least this will provide some ideas and systems for S&W/OD&D conversion.


----------



## Flatus Maximus (Jan 7, 2011)

Bring it.


----------



## Mr Baron (Jan 7, 2011)

*Very interesting idea*

This sounds like a very interesting product.  It feels similar to C&C in that looks to place itself between Pathfinder/3rd ed and AD&D.  I really like the rules light C&C system, and if Joe can deliver a similar feel, I will be buying the main book.  Looking forward to seeing the play test rules.


----------



## BryonD (Jan 7, 2011)

Looks fun


----------



## Harley Stroh (Jan 7, 2011)

Rel said:


> That module is practically a mini-campaign!  I recommend it frequently and it holds a special place in my heart as being the start of the first full fledged campaign I've run for my daughter (my wife plays with us too).




You, sir, have the coolest family ever. 



Rel said:


> Please let us know if you have more DCC stuff coming out.  I'm a fan.




Yes, sir! Two done and turned in to Joseph and one more I'm working on this week. 

If you can make it to GenghisCon (Denver), GaryCon or NTRPG, I'd love to throw some dice with the man that killed Gary's gelatinous cube!

//H


----------



## Wraith Form (Jan 7, 2011)

Rel said:


> I recommend it frequently and it holds a special place in my heart as being the start of the first full fledged campaign I've run for my daughter (my wife plays with us too).




I also love _Into the Wilds_, and for similar reasons--the first full-fledged campaign I started for a group of friends.  Yes, there are facepalm moments, but they're _moments_, and nothing we can't steamroll right past.  

(Harley, it's Ogrepuppy from the GG boards.)

The DCC RPG seems like it's going to handily replace all previous versions of D&D for me, as it does everything I want an RPG to do (from what little info I have thus far).


----------



## Goonalan (Jan 7, 2011)

I don't think anything is going to prise me away from 4e, I wuvs it- for my sins etc.

But Goodman Games- oh... the heady days, I DM'ed a party of mad fools (in fact many parties of mad fools) through a slew of Goodman Games adventures and each and every one of them was happy-happy-joy-joy.

See sig for the Goodman Games mob.

Harley, you rock (TM).

I look forward to the new stuff (4e and GGDCCRPG- snappy acronym, you can use that if you like), anything that fits the bill and conjures up the GG unique world of adventure...

Cheers Goonalan


----------



## DaveMage (Jan 7, 2011)

frankthedm said:


> Yeah magic sounds awesome.




As long as it doesn't get bogged down ala "Rollmaster."


----------



## Rel (Jan 7, 2011)

Wraith Form said:


> I also love _Into the Wilds_, and for similar reasons--the first full-fledged campaign I started for a group of friends.  Yes, there are facepalm moments, but they're _moments_, and nothing we can't steamroll right past.




I don't really want to derail this thread too much but now I'm genuinely curious as to what the "facepalm moments" are.  Not that I've gone through the module carefully and found no blemishes.  Just nothing has jumped off the page as being terribly botched.

Oh and Harley:  Yeah my wife and daughter pretty much rock on toast.  My daughter has been gaming for most of her life (she's currently 9) and has actually designed her own game system, which she has run (without my help) at a few of the east coast Game Days.

Alas I've got no plans to attend the events you listed but if you're near Denver then my wife has family out there whom we visit once in a while.  Maybe we could look you up next time we're in town.


----------



## Harley Stroh (Jan 7, 2011)

Rel said:


> I don't really want to derail this thread too much but now I'm genuinely curious as to what the "facepalm moments" are.  Not that I've gone through the module carefully and found no blemishes.  Just nothing has jumped off the page as being terribly botched.




So egregious, they earned their own thread:

Goodman Games • View topic - DCC 28: Into the Wilds (fixing... everything)

Fortunately, a little humility never did me harm. 



Rel said:


> Oh and Harley:  Yeah my wife and daughter pretty much rock on toast.  My daughter has been gaming for most of her life (she's currently 9) and has actually designed her own game system, which she has run (without my help) at a few of the east coast Game Days.




That is *awesome*. I so want to play in one of your daughter's games. 



Rel said:


> Alas I've got no plans to attend the events you listed but if you're near Denver then my wife has family out there whom we visit once in a while.  Maybe we could look you up next time we're in town.




That'd be fun! Denver is a two mountain passes away, but as a family we try to come down every couple months for iron rations. Drop me a line and we'll get some gaming in. (Also, GGames should be at GenCon 2012 ...)

//H


----------



## Lord Zack (Jan 7, 2011)

The more I hear about this, the more I like it. It might not ever be my fantasy roleplaying game of choice, but if I can find some players, I would definitely play it.


----------



## aboyd (Jan 7, 2011)

Harley Stroh said:


> So egregious, they earned their own thread:
> 
> Goodman Games • View topic - DCC 28: Into the Wilds (fixing... everything)
> 
> Fortunately, a little humility never did me harm.



Harley, as the author of the thread you linked to, I just wanted to say that I wrote that because I use the module _a lot._  As in, I love it.

So please don't take that thread to mean that the module sucked -- on the contrary, it was so engrossing that I was willing to put in lots of time to fix little nitpicky details that probably only matter to me and the autistic, OCD gamers I play with.

I intend to run that module again.


----------



## Harley Stroh (Jan 7, 2011)

aboyd said:


> Harley, as the author of the thread you linked to, I just wanted to say that I wrote that because I use the module _a lot._  As in, I love it.
> 
> So please don't take that thread to mean that the module sucked -- on the contrary, it was so engrossing that I was willing to put in lots of time to fix little nitpicky details that probably only matter to me and the autistic, OCD gamers I play with.
> 
> I intend to run that module again.




No offense taken. (Nor could be – you are right on every count! ) And your analysis of Sodersund is about the coolest thing I've ever read about the Wilds.      

Seriously, I need to use you and your crew to playtest my stuff so that my face-palm moments can take place _before_ going to print. And it is precisely that attention to detail and critical analysis that is going to make the DCC RPG a better game. 

//H


----------



## GreyLord (Jan 8, 2011)

From the Designer's blog #1 



> What if Gygax and Arneson had access to the Open Game License when they created D&D? What if they spent their time adapting thirty years of game design principles to their stated inspirations -- rather than creating the building blocks from scratch? What if someone were to attempt just that: to immerse himself in the game’s inspirations and re-envision the output using modern game design principles?




Errr...

uhhhmm...

This disturbs me.  Arneson and Gygax DID have this already...and CREATED their own ideas (with the help/input of others albeit) already...and I don't recall seeing Luck, d7's, or anything of the sort with it.

Arneson came out with Blackmoor for 3.X which in itself is interesting enough and sitting on my shelf right now about 4 feet from me.

Review of Dave Arneson's Blackmoor - RPGnet d20

(note, this is NOT my review above, I only post to show the book that was written...the Player's Guide which is another book for the same campaign adds even more classes for one to play).

Also Gygax had some stuff

Gary Gygax's Necropolis (2002) :: Pen & Paper RPG Database
The Inside Scoop on Gaming - RPGnet

(once again, note the above is NOT my review...I merely post for people to see information on it)

Gygax came out with some items from Necromancer Games, but then got more into game creation and control with Lejendary Adventures...or on the D&D side, and ripping directly from the OGL...was some of his direct inspiration with Castles and Crusades.  Some of his ideas were further reinforced in the Castle Zygag work that he personally worked on.

(As for C&C, you probably don't need a link to that, just look up Troll lord games)

So...I would think that they actually DID work on some stuff directly built upon the foundations...and they were RPG's that they were pleased with (Arneson with the overall 3.X mechanics, and Gygax with his own LA and then with a 3.X type game with old school ideas [C&C] and the way it ran built into it).

I wonder if they purposefully ignored these...or what exactly is going through their heads?

I have no clue whether their game will be good or bad...but to try to state something like the above when this item actually has backing that these two creators DID do something like this already...and perhaps is NOT what Goodman Games is putting out (in all probability, but you never know) makes me wonder...

Not that I'm a pessimist or anything.


----------



## darjr (Jan 8, 2011)

I think the point he is trying to make is what would they have done 'back then' in the past at the dawn of the hobby. Not now. Probably just my reading, however.

Ultimately it's probably what Goodman likes and wants and what he thinks they might have done.


----------



## Filcher (Jan 8, 2011)

GreyLord said:


> Arneson came out with Blackmoor for 3.X which in itself is interesting enough and sitting on my shelf right now about 4 feet from me.
> 
> Review of Dave Arneson's Blackmoor - RPGnet d20




Originally published by Goodman Games. 

Blackmoor d20 to be Published by Goodman Games - RPGnet Forums

And Mr. Stroh contributed to the 3.x version of Arneson's Temple of the Frog and wrote all of Arneson's City of the Gods. So yeah I suspect they are aware of these books. 

My take on Mr. Goodman's quote is that the DCC RPG isn't trying to imitate D&D (see: the retro clones). Instead they are going to the same source material originally used by Gygax and Arneson way back when and emulating those pulp stories with a d20 mechanic. 

My 2 cents.


----------



## GreyLord (Jan 8, 2011)

Filcher said:


> Originally published by Goodman Games.
> 
> Blackmoor d20 to be Published by Goodman Games - RPGnet Forums
> 
> ...




But that's exactly my point.  How COULD they miss it unless they purposefully chose too.  They KNOW that these guys already did EXACTLY what they are stating in some ways.  Perhaps Arneson's take that 3.X was okay and used it's system may be non-applicable, I suppose (as he didn't actually design a new system, he simply used the existing one), but Gygax DID create multiple (in at least 2) new systems, one (with the Chenaults) specifically for the old school feel already.  Basically doing what Goodman Games is claiming, already.


----------



## darjr (Jan 8, 2011)

assume, for a moment, that they wrote that in full knowledge of those other products and didn't quite mean they were doing the same exact things but indulging in a bit of alternate history. with time travel


----------



## Filcher (Jan 8, 2011)

darjr said:


> assume, for a moment, that they wrote that in full knowledge of those other products and didn't quite mean they were doing the same exact things but indulging in a bit of alternate history. with time travel




This. A divergent evolution.


----------



## Eridanis (Jan 10, 2011)

This sounds great. Looking forward to the final release! One reason my enthusiasm for current gaming systems (and current genre fiction - a whole 'nother topic) has waned is that we're seeing designs that are several generations removed from their inspirations, and thus have transmuted into a simulation of something quite different that what I'm interested in. (4E is influenced by MMORPGS, which were influenced by AD&D, which developed from OD&D, which was inspired by Appendix N sources... etc.)

I'm very interested to see what you guys come up with tapping into the primary sources. (Which are of course influenced by other works; but the adage "the golden age of science fiction is 13" is true for gamers, as well.)


----------



## jaerdaph (Feb 8, 2011)

The second Designer Blog went up yesterday:

Goodman Games • View topic - Designer's Blog #2: Pre-D&D Swords & Sorcery

It includes more on the influence of Appendix N, why the cover will look the way it does (based on fantasy novels of the 1960s and 1970s), and more on what this game is trying to accomplish:



> _This, then, is the ultimate goal of the Dungeon Crawl Classics role playing game. It is not a retro-clone (in the OSR sense); even though the aesthetic is very much old-school, it makes no effort to re-create the 1974 rules. Nor is it a d20 clone (in the OGL sense); even though the rules are grounded in the d20 era, it makes no effort to re-create the 3E rules. Rather, DCC RPG is, as Harley has called it, “pre-D&D swords & sorcery.” It is an explicit attempt to create an RPG of old-school style and aesthetic, that captures the spirit of adventure not as presented in 1974, but instead as presented in the decades prior, when Gygax and Arneson were reading the literature that would later inspire D&D. The Dungeon Crawl Classics role playing game is sword & sorcery role playing as it could have been, based on the primary sources that inspired the original game. It is grounded in a modern, streamlined rules set, but allows your players to easily simulate the heroes and adventures of Appendix N: all of them, not a specific author or character, but the unified sense of adventure that later defined the earliest editions of D&D. DCC RPG is, perhaps, what D&D could have been, if the direct inspiration of Appendix N had taken a different course._


----------



## mach1.9pants (Feb 8, 2011)

Looking forward to the next one, how magic works


----------



## JeffB (Feb 8, 2011)

This game is sounding better all the time. Cannot wait to get my hands on it.


----------



## Dice4Hire (Feb 8, 2011)

It does look interesting. I wish Paizo would put their creative energies towards a totally new game like Goodman is doing. 

I am curious to see what these two companies will / could do.


----------



## Tav_Behemoth (Feb 8, 2011)

The DCC RPG Facebook page is a good way to keep up with the news, including an upcoming playtest I'm doing in NYC.


----------



## BryonD (Feb 8, 2011)

I wish WotC would put their creative energies towards a totally cool game like Goodman is doing.


----------



## Jhaelen (Feb 9, 2011)

BryonD said:


> I wish WotC would put their creative energies towards a totally cool game like Goodman is doing.



I'm glad they don't.

One man's 'totally cool' is another's 'utter crap'. Hence, I'm all for different games for different tastes


----------



## Alaxk Knight of Galt (Feb 9, 2011)

Wow, that magic system is totally bonkers and awesome.  As a fan of 2nd Edition's wild magic, I approve.  I'm looking forward to the preview of this game and my try to talk my group into running it


----------



## BryonD (Feb 9, 2011)

Jhaelen said:


> I'm glad they don't.
> 
> One man's 'totally cool' is another's 'utter crap'. Hence, I'm all for different games for different tastes



If you read a couple posts back you will gain some context to my post.

But, just to elaborate, Dice4Hire obviously rejects your acceptance of different tastes since he wants a lot of other people's "totally cool" to go away.  So, why shouldn't his view cut both ways?


----------



## jaerdaph (Feb 9, 2011)

Since DCC Classics is neither Pathfinder or D&D 4e, do you think you can keep your passive aggressive edition war out of this thread? You sound like a bunch of junior high school girls.


----------



## jaerdaph (Feb 16, 2011)

mach1.9pants said:


> Looking forward to the next one, how magic works




Joe Goodman gave an example of how magic works using fireball in the 6th post in this thread. I'm definitely intrigued and can't wait to hear more.


----------



## Alaxk Knight of Galt (Feb 16, 2011)

jaerdaph said:


> Joe Goodman gave an example of how magic works using fireball in the 6th post in this thread. I'm definitely intrigued and can't wait to hear more.




And by Fireball, he means Magic Missile


----------



## jaerdaph (Feb 16, 2011)

Alaxk Knight of Galt said:


> And by Fireball, he means Magic Missile




D'oh!


----------



## mach1.9pants (Feb 16, 2011)

LOL yeah I saw that thanks, maybe I should have said I want to see MORE of how the magic works. It seems so... magical!


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (Feb 16, 2011)

Remathilis said:


> Seriously Goodman; swallow your pride and release OGL-compatible modules again. The 4e thing isn't working out for you, and making your own D&D clone is just going to put you behind the curve in a world with Hackmaster, D&D 4e, and Pathfinder (as well as dozens of free retros) have got a good lock on the former 3e marketplace.



I have no doubt they'll make a good OSR game, but over on RPG.net, someone has been compiling a list of all such games, and there are more than 20 of them now. I certainly feel no need to pick theirs up.

I'd love to see OSRIC-compatible or OGL modules from them again, or even a dual-statted version.


----------



## mach1.9pants (Feb 17, 2011)

I think this games USP is its aim, it is not just a retro-clone nor an OSR game. It is an attempt to make a game that embraces the randomness of OS (to an extent that a stated aim is, due to this randomness, it cannot be min/maxed) and is trying to make an RPG to play appendix N. SS&S is aimed at a similar area but is traditional in its mechanics. The mechanics seem quite unique even though the core is roll a d20 high. It intrigues me, this enforced randomness, esp after playing 4E which is the exact opposite!


----------



## jaerdaph (Feb 17, 2011)

Joe Goodman is like the Bruce Wayne of game company owners. He's in the unique position of being able to make the game _he_ wants because his game company is almost* a hobby for him because he's got a sweet job and making mad phat cash outside of the RPG industry. But his "hobby" game company is also a top third party game company - like Green Ronin, or Mongoose. Joe and his people (and I have no doubt he puts them before himself*) are going to be alright taking a chance like this.

And Joe Goodman is not only from my generation but we share the same school of thought - we may love some of the old school style of play from the early days of the game, but that doesn't mean we don't appreciate more modern concepts and sensibilities. 

*Almost. No doubt Joe puts his people before himself.


----------



## frankthedm (Feb 17, 2011)

I'm wondering if Goodman will have a print copy of the play-test rules available. Has anything been definitively said?


----------



## mach1.9pants (Feb 17, 2011)

Not about a print BETA ala Pathfinder, no.


----------



## mhensley (Feb 17, 2011)

frankthedm said:


> I'm wondering if Goodman will have a print copy of the play-test rules available. Has anything been definitively said?





Just that the playtest rules would be made available sometime in mid 2011.  I assume that means pdf.


----------



## MichaelSomething (Feb 21, 2011)

I'm very tempted to go to the Goodman Games forums and say that the DCC RPG is a lot like 4th E D&D...

in that both games use their rules to strongly encourage a certain game style.


----------



## joela (Feb 21, 2011)

MichaelSomething said:


> I'm very tempted to go to the Goodman Games forums and say that the DCC RPG is a lot like 4th E D&D...
> 
> in that both games use their rules to strongly encourage a certain game style.




Uh, and how is this different from virtually every rpg system out there?


----------



## joela (Feb 21, 2011)

Dice4Hire said:


> It does look interesting. I wish Paizo would put their creative energies towards a totally new game like Goodman is doing.




Paizo (and its fans) likes the SRD, finding it fulfilled their gaming needs.


----------



## Mark CMG (Feb 21, 2011)

Joseph ran a game for myself and some others at GaryCon last year and we had fun.


----------



## Piratecat (Feb 21, 2011)

MichaelSomething said:


> I'm very tempted to go to the Goodman Games forums and say that the DCC RPG is a lot like 4th E D&D...
> 
> in that both games use their rules to strongly encourage a certain game style.



*I'm tempted to preemptively head off any edition squabbling. Everyone, please don't.*


----------



## mach1.9pants (Feb 22, 2011)

Haha like the new avatar!


----------



## mhensley (Feb 23, 2011)

I just noticed this on the Free RPG Day site-

Free RPG Day 2011



> Goodman Games
> Silver (5 per box), DCC RPG Quickstart




I can't wait to get my hands on this puppy.


----------



## darjr (Feb 23, 2011)

mhensley said:


> I just noticed this on the Free RPG Day site-
> 
> Free RPG Day 2011
> 
> ...




awesome!

Freerpg day will be very cool.


----------



## fireinthedust (Feb 23, 2011)

Initially, I don't like splitting the market further.  GG should publish some additional Pathfinder modules, if the 4e stuff isn't working out for them.  Not that the DCCrpg isn't a good idea (it looks neat) but as a business model I think they shouldn't abandon the idea of a common language rules set.  


Reading the design notes, however, I think GG is going to make a good game.  It looks neat, and I think the design notes so far are doing a good job of catching the original flavour of the pulp novels (which I just made a significant dent into myself recently).


I'm going to buy it, sure, as a piece of great design work.  If I can find some players interested, I'll use it for sure.  My group has bought into several systems for me, so I need to use PF for a while (which I like, imho), but I'll be buying the core DCCrpg book for myself.  I may also get modules based on it, which would be fun; if the game is good, of course.


The additional dice should be done so other dice makers can produce them, or come in some kind of GG special kit.  Or the rules should be made so I don't *need* to have them if I don't have access to a FLGS that sells them.


That said: most of it I like, but the idea of demons as a mechanic for player spellcasters gives the wrong impression for the game.  I see its place in the genre, but how can I tell friends of mine (who I'm proud of having, as they're good people) who happen to be on the conservative religious side, that the game isn't what the wackos say it is, when this is part of it?  
    Options for non-demon entities will be an important part of this process, minimum.  

Priests:  The dagger-waving priests mentioned above are just sorcerers, eh?  Not clerics.  Read the books: all wizards call on outsiders for help, some of them are "priests".  Mitra aided Conan in that story (the pheonix on the sword, I think it  was), and he had his followers; contrasted to Set and the Stygians, or Elric and Arioch.  Cleric-style characters are in there, but they aren't representative of all "priests".

I'd argue that, while Cthulhu is popular, the CoC game does make use of the Elder gods as opposed to the Old Ones, right?  ie: strange entities of law vs. the chaotic Old Ones, entities helpful to PCs.


The game likely won't have 3e sorcerers, then.  They're not really part of Appendix N.  Maybe I can call my Wizard a "sorcerer supreme", finally!


----------



## fireinthedust (Feb 24, 2011)

I tried posting on their forum, but it didn't go up 24 hrs after I did so (approximately; well, it's not up yet from last night).  Maybe it was a crappy post, I dunno.


Anyhoo:   How the heck are they going to do the following things:

1)  Alignment:  Chaos vs. Law, or Good vs. Evil, or neither?  That would be something.  Why align, right?

2)  Religion:  between demonic patrons and actual gods, how will this work out?

3)  Battle Maps:  So what, we're not doing any kind of grids?  what about movement?  How is not having squares on a map going to do anything but cause arguments and hurt feelings without a clear set of guidelines?  

4)  Feats and Skills:  without these, somehow DCCrpg is going to get caught up in the class powers issue: how only thieves and rangers could use stealth, only thieves and bards could climb walls, etc.  And no one could tie a rope to save their lives.

     Feats allow customization.

5)  Customization and heroes:  Randomness is great, but I don't see how it's ANR (appendix N revival) as much as OSR (old school revival).  The novels in Appendix N don't have random characters.  They have specific characters: Conan, Elric, Fafhred and Mouse.  They're heroes, not randomly generated misfits.

6)  Compatibility:  will I be able to use the mountain of books I have with this, in any way?  It says d20 system, at least nominally.  

I like a lot of the ideas thrown about, and would LOVE to playtest this.  If it works out to be a good system, that's great.  

It'll bug me until I see it, for sure.


Hey Goodman:  you coming to Toronto?


----------



## Harley Stroh (Feb 24, 2011)

fireinthedust said:


> I tried posting on their forum, but it didn't go up 24 hrs after I did so (approximately; well, it's not up yet from last night).  Maybe it was a crappy post, I dunno.




Fire, re: your post. We've had a ton of spam over on the GG forums, so new posters need to have their first couple posts approved. It should be fixed now. 

If it helps any, there was a post from Erol Otus awaiting approval, too.  

//H


----------



## Harley Stroh (Feb 24, 2011)

fireinthedust said:


> That said: most of it I like, but the idea of demons as a mechanic for player spellcasters gives the wrong impression for the game.  I see its place in the genre, but how can I tell friends of mine (who I'm proud of having, as they're good people) who happen to be on the conservative religious side, that the game isn't what the wackos say it is, when this is part of it?
> 
> Options for non-demon entities will be an important part of this process, minimum.




Absolutely. All casters can choose a patron, but that patron doesn't need to be sinister by any means. 

//H


----------



## darjr (Feb 24, 2011)

Oh, just noticed the DunDraCon play reports and the FreeRPG day quickstart!

Thanks for supporting FreeRPGDay!


----------



## Harley Stroh (Feb 24, 2011)

darjr said:


> Oh, just noticed the DunDraCon play reports and the FreeRPG day quickstart!
> 
> Thanks for supporting FreeRPGDay!




Happy to! After all, Joseph was the inspiration behind FreeRPGDay. 

The plan is to time the beta with the release of a free 0-level adventure. Hopefully folks will take it for a spin, kick the tires and tell us what we got right and where we went wrong. 

There are a couple good reports on the GenghisCon playtests as well. I'll dig up some links.

//H


----------



## darjr (Feb 24, 2011)

I did not know that about freeRPG day. Very cool.


----------



## fireinthedust (Feb 24, 2011)

Oh good!  Okay, I was wondering.  I saw it just before reading this.

Anyway, it looks like a good game in the making.  I'm very interested in seeing it, and the systems as they come out.  GG modules I've seen are just pure win, so seeing what Goodman and company do with actual RPG design is going to be a treat.

I think, though, a new term needs to be used for this game:  ANR, or Appendix N Revival, getting back to the original works on the N list; as opposed to OSR (Old School Revival), which is more a revival of the game made by Gygax and Arneson, as played by grognards back in 1974, ie: appealing to that nostalgia of gameplay and rules use, rather than using the developments upon Gygax and Arneson's ideas to get to the essence of their original source material; which is, I believe, your intent.


I don't mind the patrons bit per se.  In fact, I don't know that there should be non-iffy ones on there.  Even if they're not demons, having alien entities with different ideals than humans or angels would be a good touch.  Cost should be inconvenient and brutal, which is the heart of the best of what I've read off that list.  

Elementals were different than chaos lords in Elric, right?  If I were to do the patrons, I'd have them as the only non-fiend option, come to think of it.  They're neutral, and alien.  *Maybe* some lords of law analog, like one of those uber intelligent beings from Star Trek OS?  But Elementals should do it.
  Clerics can have all the good guy patrons (angels, etc.).  And they really should have it easy, to some extent.

Magic Items:  thinking about it, wouldn't it be fun if the entire list was non-generic items?  Like, there's only one of each of the items at the back of the book, and they're somewhere in the game world.  Each of them has a name, a story, and maybe a personality.  Stormbringer comes to mind (and you should have a Stormbringer in the book, for sure).  I mean, there can be a "class" of similar items, like Runeswords, but each would have its own suite of abilities and issues, and an individual name.
     Anyway, that would be a fun goldmine to go over for any system.  Usable items could be generic (potions, scrolls, etc.), but not items that have permanent effects: rings, wands, staves, cloaks, swords, daggers, platemail, etc.  They could fit in with Artifacts, really, and if they're unique items they'd fit the same purpose as artifacts.  Every warrior would always look for a magic sword, because there's only so many of them.

You could do the generic bonus items with Mithril and Adamantine, and other special materials that are just Masterwork.  That's not enough to break the specialness of the unique magic items.  Even things like cloaks of invisibility could be made with "spider silk of sapho"; while generic, and technically filling the same niche as a magic item, they're not anything other than a special material.  Everyone in the Fellowship got cloaks of elven kind, basically, right?  But Sting was the magic sword, and Orcrist, and Anduril: unique items.
     Even a special form of craftsmanship, like Dwarven-made weapons, rather than "masterwork" (though I guess the elves and dwarves and mastersmiths all do the same thing.  Meh, could be some kind of difference).


----------



## MichaelSomething (Feb 24, 2011)

Piratecat said:


> *I'm tempted to preemptively head off any edition squabbling. Everyone, please don't.*




I hope no one interprets my bad, bad desires as any form of contempt for the game.  I generally am intrigued by it and expect very good things.


----------



## goodmangames (Mar 7, 2011)

I'm glad to see the interest in DCC RPG. I'm sure you all know that this game has been in "stealth playtest mode" for quite a while, with the pool of playtesters being revealed on a need-to-know basis  . Several of us have been running games at cons, game stores, and game days (and, of course, home!) for over a year -- most recently, Harley was at GenghisCon in Colorado, I was at DunDraCon in San Francisco, Tavis ran a game in New York, Dieter is running games in Ohio, and some other "not yet named parties" are running games as well. There will be a large-scale public playtest slated to coincide with Free RPG Day this year. In the meantime, there are a couple venues for those of you who want to check out the game in person:

If you're in Chicago, I'll be running a playtest at Games Plus on the evening of Thursday, March 24. Shoot me an email/PM if you're interested.

And if you're going to GaryCon, Harley and I will both be running games there. We have several official slots listed - you can sign up at the GaryCon site. And of course we'll both be hanging around with nothing to do in between games  ...there will probably be some pickup games as well.

After GaryCon, there are additional playtests planned, which we'll update you on at a future time. 

Looking forward to some fun games!


----------



## Falstaff (Mar 7, 2011)

Does this game have a skill system?


----------



## goodmangames (Mar 9, 2011)

Falstaff said:


> Does this game have a skill system?




Yes, a simple straightforward system. All characters have a 0-level occupation that precedes their adventuring career. For example, "farmer" or "squire" or "astrologer." This occupation is not necessarily related to the character's class. The character can attempt a check in any skill in which he can role-play a connection to his occupation. For example, if the PCs came across a castle flying unusual heraldry, the PC with the squire background (who could be a warrior, wizard, thief, etc.) could make a check to identify the heraldry. The system is d20 based. There are of course more standard rules for listening, spotting, and other broad-based skills.


----------



## mach1.9pants (Mar 9, 2011)

Since Joseph didn't linky it

Goodman Games • View topic - Designer's Blog #3: What Do You Mean, "Vancian"?

Very cool! Below if you don't want to read it here:

EDIT What happened to the [ spoiler ] Tag???

Designer’s Diary Entry #2: What Do You Mean, “Vancian”?

Or, Spellcasting in DCC RPG

Listen to any experienced D&D gamers talk and you’ll hear the term “Vancian” bandied about. In the 1950s and 1960s, Jack Vance wrote a series of stories, now published as Tales of The Dying Earth. These tales are populated by a coterie of delightful wizards whose power is measured, in part, by how many spells they can memorize; the most powerful can remember more spells, and more complexity, and thus maintain a higher spellcasting ability than their peers. D&D adopted something close to this system, and magic-users ever since have gained class ability to memorize more spells as they progress in level. D&D gamers call this system “Vancian.”

But something is missing. The magic in Vance’s world didn’t always work as predicted. In fact, when Cugel the Clever (one of the models for what would eventually become the thief class) attempts to inflict upon his enemy Iucounu the Laughing Magician the same baleful spells that were inflicted upon himself, he fails – twice – in two ways – and winds up causing himself the problems he attempted to cause others.

Granted, Cugel in this case is a thief, not a wizard, equivalent to a D&D thief casting spells from a scroll (guess where that ability came from?). But unpredictable spell-casting, which is present in Vance, is not unique thereto. L. Sprague de Camp and Fletcher Pratt wrote a series of stories that were also very influential on the D&D magic system – perhaps so much so that we could have called the system “Camp-and-Pratt-ism” if “Vancian” weren’t so catchy. In their series on Harold Shea the enchanter, they present a logical magic system derived from recipe-like combinations of materials, motions, and chants (including “somatic” components). Unlike certain other literary magic systems that D&D did not favor (such as Moorcock’s demon-sponsored magic of Elric and Arioch), Harold Shea’s magic is organized, memorizable, and logical – but also unpredictable. Shea refers to this as “getting the decimal point right,” and in his attempts to summon a dragon he winds up summoning a pseudo-dragon (or 0.1 of a dragon) and, later, 100 dragons instead of a single one.

So what commonality is shared by the magic of Jack Vance, L. Sprague de Camp, and Fletcher Pratt – as well as Moorcock and many other Appendix N authors – but not by D&D?

Lack of predictability in spellcasting.

Any effort to re-imagine D&D as it appeared in Appendix N – which his the goal of DCC RPG – must acknowledge this fact. Much of the literary source material includes a “margin of error” on spellcasting – and not just the authors listed above. But we ended up with a very predictable spell system with no margin for error. It’s fun, as we’ve all experienced over the preceding three decades – but what if it had been done differently?

The Dungeon Crawl Classics Role Playing Game uses a Vancian magic system, which really is Vancian. The core mechanic of the game is the d20 roll (as in D&D 3E), and the core mechanic of spellcasting is the spell check. The caster, whether wizard or cleric, must roll 1d20 and add his caster level. He also adds the appropriate ability score modifier. He must beat a result of 10 + (2x spell level). A roll of less than this causes failure, and, in the case of wizards, the caster forgets his spell. (More on clerics later.) A roll of 1 is a fumble and can cause horrible things to happen – most likely to the caster. A successful roll causes something to happen – but not always the same thing. A high-level wizard casting magic missile can achieve a much more impressive result than his level 1 brethren – not just “more missiles,” but a fundamentally more powerful spell result.

Because magic missile is a D&D staple, it provides a good example of what I mean by “lack of predictability in spellcasting.” In traditional D&D editions, magic missile includes a modicum of unpredictability: for example, in 3.5, each missile did 1d4+1 damage, and a higher-level caster receives a predictable number of additional missiles. In DCC RPG, magic missile is fundamentally more variable. Here is the table of spell results. Remember that the caster rolls 1d20, and adds his caster level and Intelligence modifier, so a level 1 wizard is usually adding +2 or +3:

Quote:
1-11: Lost. Failure.
12-13: You can throw 1 missile that does 1 point of damage. You must have line of sight to the target. The missile flows unerringly and never misses, though it may be blocked by certain magic (e.g., magic shield).
14-17: As above, but 1 missile does damage 1d4 + caster level.
18-19: As above, but 1d4 missiles that each do damage 1d4 + caster level. All missiles must be aimed at a single target.
20-23: As above, but 1d4 missiles that each do damage 1d6 + caster level. You may aim each missile at an individual target.
24-27: As above, but one extremely powerful missile that does damage 4d12 + caster level. Range is increased to 1,000’, provided line of sight is maintained.
28-29: As above, but 1d8 missiles that each do damage 1d8 + caster level. Range is increased to line of sight, as long as missiles travel in a direct path.
30-31: As above but 1d10 missiles that each do damage 1d8 + caster level. Each missile may be aimed individually. Range is line of sight, regardless of whether a direct path exists; e.g., the caster may launch a magic missile through a crystal ball or other scrying device. These missiles have limited ability to defy magic shield and other protections; compare this spell check against the spell check used to create the magic shield. If the magic missile check is higher, the magic shield has only a 50% chance of absorbing the missiles (roll individually for each missile). Any missiles that make it through do damage 1d8 + caster level, as noted above.
32+: As above but 1d10 missiles that each do damage 1d10 + caster level. The caster may direct these missiles individually as a single action, or may direct them all at a single target who is not present or visible, provided he has specific knowledge of that target. In this case, the caster must have a physical memento of the target (hair, fingernail, vial of blood, etc.) and spend 1 turn concentrating to cast the spell, then continue concentrating as the missiles seek their target. The missiles will aim for this target even if it is concealed or invisible, though they have a maximum range of 100 miles. The missiles will turn, curve, re-trace their route, and make every effort to reach the target, although they cannot cross planes. The missiles can travel up to 10 miles per second provided no obstacles are present, but speed is much lower if, for example, they must navigate underground caverns. Provided a direct route exists, the missiles will strike the target unerringly.


This spell effect table is the first and most important element of spell variability in DCC RPG. In actual play, it makes wizard spellcasting extremely exciting. No player is ever quite sure if the wizard will succeed on his next spell attempt. A successful roll means the wizard not only casts the spell, but retains it for casting again in the future. A failure means the wizard loses the spell – and a roll of 1 can result in a spell failure or the corruption of the caster. Conversely, a natural 20 is a critical success, and grants the most powerful result on the table. I have been in games where the wizard character has single-handedly pulled the party from disaster with a series of great rolls – and other games where the wizard just had a really, really bad day.

While Vancian spellcasting is one school of Appendix N, and “Camp-and-Pratt-ism” is another, there is a third approach which has probably received more reader attention but rarely been manifest in D&D. The sorcerers of Robert E. Howard invariably draw their power from alliances with supernatural creatures, as does, to a lesser extent, Michael Moorcock’s Elric, and select other archetypes within Appendix N. This element of spellcasting is reflected in DCC RPG as spellburn and patron magic.

Spellburn and Patron Magic: “Blood aids great sorcery,” quoth the mummy, and it was right. The spellburn mechanic allows a magic-user to harness more magical energies if he is willing to make mortal sacrifice: offer part of his soul to a demon, foster a demi-god’s greedy growth by leeching his strength, or even burn the very life energy in his own cells. Before rolling any spell check, a wizard or cleric may declare he will attempt spellburn. In attempting spellburn, the wizard temporarily expends points of his Strength, Agility, or Stamina score to enhance his spell check. For every ability point he expends, he adds +1 to his spell check. The ability score loss is temporary, but the act committed must be role-played: the wizard must exchange something with a demon, celestial, ghost, or other supernatural power capable of granting arcane favors, and that act is not always without subsequent consequence. I have been in games where the players are perfectly willing to take a hit to their ability scores but balk when the role-played exchange comes into play.

Supernatural patrons are further reflected in the game with a strain of magic known as patron magic. In short, a wizard can utilize a spell slot to form an alliance with an otherworldly power, who serves as his patron. The patron aids the wizard when called…but he will ask for favors, exchanges, and gifts in return. “Blood for my lord!” as certain Appendix N heroes were wont to shout – and the same can happen in your DCC RPG games. A wizard can invoke help from a demon or celestial ally, but the aid that is sent may not be exactly what was requested. Patron invocation as a type of magic will be dealt with in more detail later, but in short, it is even less predictable than other spells, but potentially far more powerful. At a cost.

We now have Vancian and Camp-and-Pratt spell variability, and Howard and Moorcock style consultation with supernatural beings. What next? Well, Appendix N is nothing if not full of many models of fantasy. A third vein of Appendix N magic use concerns hereditary magic use. Whether it’s in Zelazny’s Amber series, or lesser-known titles such as Margaret St. Clair’s Sign of the Labrys, the literature contains a thread of “magical self-discovery” where characters learn of their powers. D&D has adopted this to varying degrees over the years, usually as a racial or class trait (e.g., the sorcerer or tiefling concept of “demon blood in your past”). I prefer to integrate it into the spellcasting mechanic. It is here that mercurial magic comes into play.

Mercurial magic: The firstborn son of a witch hanged at trial wields black magic adroitly. An orphan raised by satyrs is a precocious student of druidry. Cosmic caprice determines skill in magic: birth order, family lineage, horoscope, and matters even more abstruse have as much influence on a wizard’s spellcasting as his hard work and native intelligence.

As a result, the effect of a magical spell varies according to he who casts it. A magical rite invoked by one mage may be more powerful – or even different – than the same ritual exercised by a peer. These variegations are not predictable, as the subtleties that produce them can never be fully catalogued.

In DCC RPG, this is known as mercurial magic. When a wizard learns a new spell, he rolls on a specialized table to determine how that spell manifests in his hands. The mercurial element might mean that a cloud of ash appears whenever he casts the spell, or he swoons in weakness, or there is thunder, or toadstools grow around him, or he is wreathed in flame, or he is “strong with this spell” and makes spell checks with 1d30 instead of 1d20. There are many possible side effects, and it ensures each wizard’s magic missile is unique – independent of the spell check roll.

Taken Together: Spellcasting in DCC RPG is a different experience than traditional D&D, but it feels very much like sword-and-sorcery, and, in my opinion, accurately reflects the amalgam of source material that many of us associate with the origins of D&D. When you play DCC RPG, you’re definitely not playing D&D – but it “feels” like D&D in many ways. The source is true even if the manifestation is different.

In actual play, wizards are tremendous fun. Their dice rolls on spell checks can make or break an encounter – and occasionally an entire session. At a recent con game I ran, one wizard continually rolled high on his invoke patron spell results. In three combats, he managed to summon demonic aid three times, and swayed the combat every time. He utilized spellburn to pull this off, and wound up having to share his true name with a demon to get the aid he requested. But it worked…for a while. Near the end of the session, he rolled a natural 1 on a spell check. Spell fumble! Then he rolled a natural 20 on the spell fumble table: worst possible result! This was a wizard that lived fast…and then died young when his demonic patron claimed his soul prematurely.

In another game, I had a character roll up comprehend languages with the mercurial side effect that the air around the wizard became freezing cold every time he cast it, causing 1d4 damage to everyone nearby. The wizard wound up casting comprehend languages in combat for the side effect!

So, how is a wizard in the DCC RPG different from a wizard in traditional D&D? They both cast spells, they both forget spells, they both know more spells as they advance in levels. But the DCC RPG magic-user has a little more variability in his arsenal. His spells can go extremely well – or very poorly. Or just average. They’re not predictable, they’re not completely controllable, they’re not science experiments.

Hmm. I suppose this means magic feels more like – magic?


----------



## ProfessorCirno (Mar 9, 2011)

That...

That is the very definition of the opposite of streamlined.


----------



## Jan van Leyden (Mar 9, 2011)

This will be an interesting read, for sure. I can also imagine using the system for a one-shot, but a whole campaign with such a byzantine amount of tables and special rules?

At the moment it feels like a flashback to the late eighties, early nineties, when I loved complicated systems.

But hey, this is mere conjecture; perhaps the actual product teaches me better.


----------



## TarionzCousin (Mar 9, 2011)

mach1.9pants said:


> EDIT What happened to the [ spoiler ] Tag???



Try the sblock, like this:
[sblock]Pay no attention to Cirno; it was a good explanation of unpredictable magic.[/sblock]


----------



## Falstaff (Mar 9, 2011)

goodmangames said:


> Yes, a simple straightforward system. All characters have a 0-level occupation that precedes their adventuring career. For example, "farmer" or "squire" or "astrologer." This occupation is not necessarily related to the character's class. The character can attempt a check in any skill in which he can role-play a connection to his occupation. For example, if the PCs came across a castle flying unusual heraldry, the PC with the squire background (who could be a warrior, wizard, thief, etc.) could make a check to identify the heraldry. The system is d20 based. There are of course more standard rules for listening, spotting, and other broad-based skills.




This sounds awesome, thanks!


----------



## Alaxk Knight of Galt (Mar 9, 2011)

Every wizard is a 2nd Edition Wild Mage.  I love it 

Edit:  Any word on when we'll see the beta of this thing?


----------



## darjr (Mar 9, 2011)

I think they've said FreeRPG day in June is the first we'll see. Unless you've been lucky enough to be in a play test.


----------



## mach1.9pants (Mar 9, 2011)

TarionzCousin said:


> Try the sblock, like this:
> [sblock]Pay no attention to Cirno; it was a good explanation of unpredictable magic.[/sblock]



HAHAHAA thanks, must have got my forum codes from different forums mixed up.


----------



## Filcher (Mar 11, 2011)

Played it in an early playtest. Runs faster, in my experience, than 3.x, and we were all new players.


----------



## jaerdaph (Mar 11, 2011)

mach1.9pants said:


> Since Joseph didn't linky it
> 
> Goodman Games • View topic - Designer's Blog #3: What Do You Mean, "Vancian"?




Thanks for the heads up. 

So, yeah - I'm still liking what I see here. The magic system really does capture a lot of the same feel of classic Fantasy and Sword & Sorcery fiction. 

I'm wondering though how "optional" some of these components are - say you didn't want to do the Spellburn or Patron magic or Mercurial magic - are they "hardwired" into the magic system or can you pick and chose or simply ignore these? I do like having the option, especially the Patron magic. 

What I'd really like to see now though is a spell effect table for something that isn't combat-oriented, like _comprehend languages_ or some such.


----------



## Alaxk Knight of Galt (Mar 11, 2011)

jaerdaph said:


> I'm wondering though how "optional" some of these components are - say you didn't want to do the Spellburn or Patron magic or Mercurial magic - are they "hardwired" into the magic system or can you pick and chose or simply ignore these? I do like having the option, especially the Patron magic.




I'm digging a lot of things about this game (no grid-based combat, no Attacks of Opportunity, Death of characters, Magic with random effects, etc).  But, like you Jaerdaph, I have lingering concerns.

Do Elf characters have to be Class Elf?  Or does playing Elf simply allow you to pick the Elf Class or the Warrior?

I have lots of system questions too:


Can you multiclass?
What are the saves like (Fort/Refl/Will or some other system)?
What are character creation rules for stat generation (3d6 in order, etc)?
Why use six different ability scores instead of the traditional six?
No skill-points is fine by me, but is the game going to have skills?
What classes are going to be offered?
I'm looking forward to the preview of this sytem.


----------



## Falstaff (Mar 11, 2011)

Alaxk Knight of Galt said:


> I'm digging a lot of things about this game (no grid-based combat, no Attacks of Opportunity, Death of characters, Magic with random effects, etc).  But, like you Jaerdaph, I have lingering concerns.
> 
> Do Elf characters have to be Class Elf?  Or does playing Elf simply allow you to pick the Elf Class or the Warrior?
> 
> ...




In regards to your question about a skill system, I asked the same question in this thread and Mr. Goodman said:



> Yes, a simple straightforward system. All characters have a 0-level occupation that precedes their adventuring career. For example, "farmer" or "squire" or "astrologer." This occupation is not necessarily related to the character's class. The character can attempt a check in any skill in which he can role-play a connection to his occupation. For example, if the PCs came across a castle flying unusual heraldry, the PC with the squire background (who could be a warrior, wizard, thief, etc.) could make a check to identify the heraldry. The system is d20 based. There are of course more standard rules for listening, spotting, and other broad-based skills.


----------



## jaerdaph (Mar 11, 2011)

Alaxk Knight of Galt said:


> Can you multiclass?




That's one I'd like to know about as well. For me, Fritz Leiber is my Appendix N litmus test.  Fafhrd is a barbarian and a fighter, but he's also a thief. The Gray Mouser is a fighter and a thief, but also a magic user.


----------



## mach1.9pants (Mar 11, 2011)

Well you don't have to multi-class ala DnD to be able to have a little bit of this and that. So multiclassing is NOT a necessity for S&S, but being able to dabble about may well be. Leiber is not the only source and MCing may be left for a supplement... There is a big thread over on the DDC boards on this, basically, we don't know!

These are all IIRC:
What are the saves like (Fort/Refl/Will or some other system)? *like 3E*
What are character creation rules for stat generation (3d6 in order, etc)? *Yes but (if you start at 0 level/commoner you roll for 3 PCs) and with what is left you play and chose a class.*
Why use six different ability scores instead of the traditional six? *Dunno ask Joseph, but he does*
No skill-points is fine by me, but is the game going to have skills? *As the quote above, you can do anything that your pre-adventurer career would allow you, but there is also rules for spotting and sneaking and stuff.*

Best to pop over to DCC to get the info, Harley and Joseph are active there.
What classes are going to be offered?


----------



## Matrix Sorcica (Mar 12, 2011)

I see this spell system as putting a grinding halt to combat as the spellcaster's player frantically flips through the core book to find the correct table for the spell in question - followed by the GM doing the same as it becomes the npc sorceror and his pet demon's turns to act.....

I'll wait and see. It does look like something I'd enjoy, but I'm worried...


----------



## 3catcircus (Mar 12, 2011)

Matrix Sorcica said:


> I see this spell system as putting a grinding halt to combat as the spellcaster's player frantically flips through the core book to find the correct table for the spell in question - followed by the GM doing the same as it becomes the npc sorceror and his pet demon's turns to act.....
> 
> I'll wait and see. It does look like something I'd enjoy, but I'm worried...




Not really - we are probably talking about a few small tables that can be printed on the back of a character sheet.


----------



## Matrix Sorcica (Mar 13, 2011)

3catcircus said:


> Not really - we are probably talking about a few small tables that can be printed on the back of a character sheet.



Assuming the caster only has a few spells to select from. Right.
And that doesn't help the GM at all.


----------



## airwalkrr (Mar 13, 2011)

Meh. While I like the DCC modules a lot, building your own game system to go along with them is just mimicry of Paizo's success with Pathfinder and an attempt to grab up the already divided RPG fanbase loyalty.

RPGs are currently suffering from a problem similar to that which created the video game crash that lasted from 1982-1984. A popular trend is seized upon by people just trying to cash in on a fad with low-quality products that increasingly reduce demand and split the loyalty of customers. I know its not a perfect analogy, so don't focus on that. *The point is there are WAY too many RPGs on the market right now.* It is difficult for the consumer to tell which ones are good and which ones are utter garbage. But most of them are garbage. There are several excellent RPGs and a number of other good ones. But for a newcomer to the hobby, it is getting to be difficult to tell which is which.

Aside from that, this is just someone releasing a set of house rules for D&D and charging money for them. People do that online all the time for free. Again, meh.


----------



## TarionzCousin (Mar 13, 2011)

airwalkrr said:


> Meh. While I like the DCC modules a lot, building your own game system to go along with them is just mimicry of Paizo's success with Pathfinder and an attempt to grab up the already divided RPG fanbase loyalty.



So... because it worked exceptionally well for Paizo nobody else should try it? 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			







> *The point is there are WAY too many RPGs on the market right now.*



I'm sure Goodman Games is trying to produce an awesome game that will be well-liked and profitable enough to let them keep doing what they love. 

If this game is good enough, it won't matter that there are numerous other RPG's out there.


----------



## Filcher (Mar 13, 2011)

airwalkrr said:


> *The point is there are WAY too many RPGs on the market right now.*




I'm not in favor of "one game to rule them all." Let there be as many as possible, and let capitalism sort them out.


----------



## nedjer (Mar 13, 2011)

Filcher said:


> I'm not in favor of "one game to rule them all." Let there be as many as possible, and let capitalism sort them out.




Been wasting my time playing those damned RPG things, so an up-to-speed would help.

If I've got this right there's no hexes, which presumably means zonal; and it's slotting into streamlined Pathfinder mode/ Open 3.0 IP alongside the streamlined Pathfinder that's on the go, 2nd book Dragon Age and streamlined 4e aka Essentials. Sounds like an epic inter-brand bunfight at $37 altitude.


----------



## frankthedm (Mar 13, 2011)

3catcircus said:


> Not really - we are probably talking about a few small tables that can be printed on the back of a character sheet.



i doubt that. 







Matrix Sorcica said:


> I see this spell system as putting a grinding halt to combat as the spellcaster's player frantically flips through the core book to find the correct table for the spell in question - followed by the GM doing the same as it becomes the npc sorceror and his pet demon's turns to act.....



IME one needs to do this anyways with magic systems more complex than _"Hit target number, deal XdY+N damage & (status effect)"_. At least nowadays personal scanners and printers lets someone get their photocopying done at home. I can't be the only DM who used to do a boatload of photocopying down at the gas station.







airwalkrr said:


> I know its not a perfect analogy, so don't focus on that.



I think the analogy is not bad at all,  for the 3.0 splat crash.

And I'll leave it up to the Edition Warhawks whether or not the RPG market has already had its "ET".







airwalkrr said:


> *The point is there are WAY too many RPGs on the market right now.*



You've got RIFTS, some of us are still looking their one ultimate game.


----------



## Matrix Sorcica (Mar 13, 2011)

frankthedm said:


> i doubt that. IME one needs to do this anyways with magic systems more complex than _"Hit target number, deal XdY+N damage & (status effect)"_.



At least you have a chance to memorize the most ofen used spells. Here you have to remember a random table for each as well?



frankthedm said:


> You've got RIFTS, some of us are still looking their one ultimate game.



Heh, good one.


----------



## nedjer (Mar 13, 2011)

frankthedm said:


> some of us are still looking their one ultimate game.




One person's Holy Grail is another's recycle bin - but perhaps the fondness for tokens suggested in your sig may point in the direction of a visual RPG? In my sig and all that . . . good excuse to post this:


----------



## frankthedm (Mar 13, 2011)

airwalkrr said:


> Aside from that, this is just someone releasing a set of house rules for D&D and charging money for them. People do that online all the time for free. Again, meh.





			
				The Joker said:
			
		

> If you're good at something, never do it for free.





Matrix Sorcica said:


> At least you have a chance to memorize the most often used spells.



IME the _quality_ of that memorization is exactly why I posted what I did *&* why I often include full SRD text walls in my rules forum posts.







> Heh, good one.



I could have sworn i saw [MENTION=12460]airwalkrr[/MENTION] post he'd be willing to burn his 3.5 books if he found a group willing to play RIFTS from here on out.







nedjer said:


> One person's Holy Grail is another's recycle bin - but perhaps the fondness for tokens suggested in your sig may point in the direction of a visual RPG? In my sig and all that . . . good excuse to post this:



The card based RPG looks kinda touchy-feely in the _no physical contact_ sort of way. I like combats & body counts* in tabletop games and my posting in the token thread is for the benefit of those who want tactical battle placeholders with a bit of video gamey flavor.

*Not necessarily miniatures rulesets with full tactical placement ala d20 / 4e


----------



## mach1.9pants (Mar 13, 2011)

LOL this is not a 'set of house rules' it is a rule set build up to emulate a very specific idea... Appendix N. And published by one the of the best names in the industry. I would by a DCC product ahead of WotC any day, and rate then along side Paizo. Comparing something put together by a name like DCC that has been in playtesting for years with many groups and cons is not the same. Nice for you to hate what you've only seen glimpses one.

Me I am intrigued, it looks very interesting and is not a bland file of the numbers d20 game like so many others. It appears to be different, whether it is good time and playing will tell, but at least I have an open mind.

And I entirely disagree that there are too many RPGs out there already.


----------



## frankthedm (Mar 13, 2011)

mach1.9pants said:


> LOL this is not a 'set of house rules'



You can laugh, but until the games full release, people can only speculate on what they have seen. And as much as I am interested in this game, [ preorder prerequisites 90% complete ] I don't dismiss the detractor's arguments since some of them seem like logical conclusions.. 

If someone who plays a caster has to rely on the book, rather than their memory, that's for the best since IME people often remember things in their favor and forget things that aren't. But that certainly is not streamlined. And since that posted spell was just Magic Missile, I stronly suspect other spells will be singularly designed. And in my book, that's a good thing! 







mach1.9pants said:


> it is a rule set build up to emulate a very specific idea... Appendix N. And published by one the of the best names in the industry.



OK, so how does that prevent the groundwork from being from Goodman's house rules? And why is that a bad thing to say?


----------



## jasonzavoda (Mar 13, 2011)

I don't care if they publish new rules. I just want adventures I can plunder for ideas. Good maps, interesting characters, some nice adventure related artwork and a decent plot, and I'm more than happy.

New rules, well if there is a good idea in there I will gladly steal it and make it into a houserule. But I have a dislike of spending money on adventures where half the text is stat blocks, and I'm not shelling out $30+ on a rulebook when most of the interesting rules are posted and picked apart on the various RPG website forums for free.

What I wish is that Goodman had stuck with their DCC line of adventures with the feel and look of 1st edition AD&D. They got boned by 4e, dumped all their old stock of excellent DCC modules, did a run of 4e modules which ended up being dumped online for a song and now it is a new rule system. 

Hell, they write good modules. If they can whistle, write good modules, chew gum and come up with a new rule system all at the same time, then great, but please, please, just make sure to write the good modules first.


----------



## JeffB (Mar 14, 2011)

People spend 2-4 hours building a detailed 3.X, 4E, or PF character combing through book after book , or a DM spends as many hours building an encounter- often with the necessity of some kind of computer  software.


And yet people are complaining that Combat will grind to a halt due to the complexity of fllipping to a page in a book and rolling  dice a couple of times to get a spell result? 

Really? 

:smacksforehead:


----------



## TarionzCousin (Mar 14, 2011)

nedjer said:


> Sounds like an epic inter-brand *bunfight* at $37 altitude.



That typo is awesome.


----------



## mach1.9pants (Mar 14, 2011)

frankthedm said:


> OK, so how does that prevent the groundwork from being from Goodman's house rules? And why is that a bad thing to say?



Because House Rules are used at The House, i.e. one place. This is a game from a publisher, used in many Houses in play-testing and also cons therefore not a house rule. House Rule implies one person/groups personal opinion with little to no outside input. There fore DCC RPG is not House Rules. Unless every RPG is House Rules on the first ever DnD.

However what annoyed me was the posters 'Meh this is just crap like all the rest when' a) neither he (nor me) have ever seen it and b) it is a published rule set b a reasonably large sized company (take out WotC and Paizo and they are right up there). I much prefer to judge things when I see them.
"_A popular trend is seized upon by people just trying to cash in on a fad with low-quality products that increasingly reduce demand and split the loyalty of customers_." That is a pretty hard statement about a respected RPG company. If that poster is talking the truth we need a max limit on RPG games (or maybe d20 games) and the ruthless cull of all others! Rubbish, the more the merrier. I want innovation, adaption and new games.

Yes it will be driven by one person's or a small groups vision, as are all RPGs. But, although I don't know, I am pretty sure it won't be a "low-quality product", a cackhanded pile of poo.


----------



## kaomera (Mar 14, 2011)

JeffB said:


> And yet people are complaining that Combat will grind to a halt due to the complexity of fllipping to a page in a book and rolling  dice a couple of times to get a spell result?
> 
> Really?



Ayup.

Prep is one thing, because you can do it solo, in pieces over the course of the week or whatever. Slowing things down once everyone's gathered around the table is much more significant. I'm not worried yet, I don't sweat previews when I can avoid it, but it's a valid concern. Now founded or unfounded is another issue, but only the actual release will tell.


----------



## Filcher (Mar 14, 2011)

mach1.9pants said:


> Yes it will be driven by one person's or a small groups vision, as are all RPGs.




Agreed. Better a game driven by a vision, than focus groups attempting to determine "what people want."


----------



## ProfessorCirno (Mar 14, 2011)

JeffB said:


> People spend 2-4 hours building a detailed 3.X, 4E, or PF character combing through book after book , or a DM spends as many hours building an encounter- often with the necessity of some kind of computer  software.
> 
> 
> And yet people are complaining that Combat will grind to a halt due to the complexity of fllipping to a page in a book and rolling  dice a couple of times to get a spell result?
> ...




Which is worse: 

Spending your time in the week between games making a character at your leisure?

Spending everyone _else's_ time flipping through your book to find the table for your spell every time your turn comes up?

Or watching as the wizard spends yet another half an hour casting his spell so you can spend half a minute saying "I attack" then rolling two dice?"


----------



## mach1.9pants (Mar 14, 2011)

^ Going slightly of topic there but to clarify from the DCC forum.

You are looking at 4-6 spells per Mage, therefore easily have the tables of results in card form, like 4E.. although they will be slightly larger!
Warriors


			
				Joseph Goodman said:
			
		

> I'm starting up a new thread to answer this question to keep it distinct.
> 
> To stress a point that needs to be constantly reinforced: this game is in playtest mode, meaning the rules played today are different from the rules played yesterday. We're trying different ideas at different sessions, trading notes, and tweaking constantly. What you're about to read is the result of that tweaking and not yet final...but definitely moving in the right direction.
> 
> ...



From here: Goodman Games • View topic - Warrior mechanics

Seems to me that the pointy stick guys will still be getting a fair bit of love with their crit tables and the Mighty Deeds.

Another point is the randomness of this game, it is a feature not a bug. This is going to put a LOT of people off, I think. Joseph has stated that the randomness will stop any form of real min/maxing, 'cos you just cannot control it! To that point, if you start at the bottom, you star with 3 PCs... hopefully between the party there will be enough left for one each at the end of your first adventure


----------



## Neonchameleon (Mar 14, 2011)

mach1.9pants said:


> Because magic missile is a D&D staple, it provides a good example of what I mean by “lack of predictability in spellcasting.” In traditional D&D editions, magic missile includes a modicum of unpredictability: for example, in 3.5, each missile did 1d4+1 damage, and a higher-level caster receives a predictable number of additional missiles. In DCC RPG, magic missile is fundamentally more variable. Here is the table of spell results. Remember that the caster rolls 1d20, and adds his caster level and Intelligence modifier, so a level 1 wizard is usually adding +2 or +3:
> 
> Quote:
> 1-11: Lost. Failure.
> ...




Right.  Good to know that level 10 casters rule the world.  Seriously, that jump in power once they hit the possibility of an ability check of 30 is _huge_.  It turns a combat spell into a utility assassination spell the wizard doesn't have to leave his tower to cast.  And because he doesn't have to leave his tower, he can keep casting and scrying until he gets it right.  Therefore just one caster of level 10 means that no one dares let themself be scryed on or give up a lock of hair or toenail clippings or they could easily end up dead, whatever precautions they took; the things are even shield piercing.

That and Joseph Goodman's claim that greater variability _inhibits_ min-maxing are two things putting me right off.


----------



## Wystan (Mar 14, 2011)

Neonchameleon said:


> It turns a combat spell into a utility assassination spell the wizard doesn't have to leave his tower to cast.  And because he doesn't have to leave his tower, he can keep casting and scrying until he gets it right.  Therefore just one caster of level 10 means that no one dares let themself be scryed on or give up a lock of hair or toenail clippings or they could easily end up dead, whatever precautions they took; the things are even shield piercing.




Note that they are not door or window piercing.... Obstacles Stop them dead...

And I am sure that there are protections against scrying....


----------



## Filcher (Mar 14, 2011)

Wystan said:


> Note that they are not door or window piercing.... Obstacles Stop them dead...
> 
> And I am sure that there are protections against scrying....




And the mis-casting any spell has the chance of swallowing your soul.


----------



## Neonchameleon (Mar 14, 2011)

Wystan said:


> Note that they are not door or window piercing.... Obstacles Stop them dead...




But they go right through crystal balls.



> And I am sure that there are protections against scrying....




Yes.  You need protection up 24/7.



Filcher said:


> And the mis-casting any spell has the chance of swallowing your soul.




The example given was for someone who'd made a pact with a demon.  And summoned the demon.  If all magic can swallow souls, that's a different issue.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Mar 14, 2011)

Neonchameleon said:


> But they go right through crystal balls.




Possibly; the description is not clear.  It may be that you can only target using a crystal ball, but the missile must still have a clear path between you and the target.  This is akin to using a satellite to launch a warhead; the warhead targets using the satellite, but does not launch from it.  Orbital weapons platforms notwithstanding.  I will certainly grant that this doesn't seem to be the RAW right now.
.
.
.
.
.......However.......
.
.
.
.
.
Even then, Neonchameleon's point still stands.  Unless there is some danger to scrying that we do not know, the wizard need only keep trying (scrying) until the target is outdoors.  Once the target is outside, it's _*magic missiles away*_!

Until we see more, it will be impossible to tell what the rammifications of this system might be.


RC


----------



## Filcher (Mar 14, 2011)

Neonchameleon said:


> The example given was for someone who'd made a pact with a demon.  And summoned the demon.  If all magic can swallow souls, that's a different issue.




I don't have any more information than what was presented to us in the playtest, but on certain failed (crit failed, maybe?) spell checks, bad bad things happened to the arcane spell caster.

We had our only cleric working diligently to ensure that the wizard wasn't consumed by darkness (or whatever). It left me with the sense that magic wasn't 100% reliable, or to be cast without concern of repercussion.

Short version: In our playtest, magic was clearly dangerous to our caster. Don't know how this will manifest in the public beta.


----------



## frankthedm (Mar 14, 2011)

Raven Crowking said:


> Unless there is some danger to scrying that we do not know



Or what range limitations on scrying are. _Might_ not be planetwide.


----------



## Raven Crowking (Mar 14, 2011)

frankthedm said:


> Or what range limitations on scrying are. _Might_ not be planetwide.




True.

But the point was

(1) Neonchameleon has a point, and
(2) We don't have enough info to know how valid a point.

BUT if the Good Crew at Goodman Games checks in on this thread, and reads Neonchameleon's post, they have a better chance to correct this (if it needs correcting) before release than if Neonchameleon had not posted.

Posting potential problems with a system prior to release is a _*good thing*_.


RC


----------



## airwalkrr (Mar 14, 2011)

Wow, I haven't been so quoted in a long time, let alone "mentioned" in a thread. Let me add some background so that maybe some of you understand where I am coming from.

Right now, in my FLGS there are more RPGs on the shelves than there are sourcebooks for the entire 4e library. That means take all the sourcebooks for 4e, including adventures, that have been published by WotC so far and add them up. Then walk around the store and look for individual titles for RPGs, unique systems. What you will find (in my FLGS at least) is that the sheer quantity of RPGs _in print_ outnumbers the number of sourcebooks for the single most popular system in play currently.

Another interesting phenomenon you will find is that there is a nice big bulletin board at my FLGS for people looking for games. You can tack up a post-it with your contact information and the kind of game you are looking to play. There are roughly 20 post-its up right now that have been there for the last six months and I have contacted ALL of them. I have not, thus far, met a single person who wants to play anything other than the game system they specifically posted for. The vast majority of them have told me they still don't have groups. Of those, most would rather play the system they prefer or nothing at all.

Now I am not going to disparage people for wanting to have a choice in the game they play. Capitalism, for the most part is a good thing in that profit motive creates variety. And there may be a fair number of decent RPGs out there. I've played a number of them simply in an attempt to meet new players. But the market is flooded with RPG systems right now. And the desire for someone to want to get their money's worth on a product they invested in is very real. From what I have seen, too many cooks are spoiling the broth that is roleplaying.

Maybe I am completely wrong. But trying to get a group of more than 2-3 people together to play one game in the city where I live (which has a population of over 1 million) is like pulling teeth. It takes a lot of blood, sweat, and tears, and when you're done it leaves you feeling sore. Ultimately the only options there are in my city if you want to play with more than 2-3 people seems to be organized play through the RPGA or Pathfinder Society. Everyone who can't compromise on one of those two games is left with a product they paid for, but nobody else wants to play because everyone else paid for another product that appealed to them personally. Roleplaying is a niche hobby. It is being divided by too many games.

Anyway, I won't be picking up DCC the RPG. It's an unnecessary product in a market flooded with similar products. They can try to capitalize on their success with the DCC modules and the good name they've built for themselves, but I have a dire prediction in store for them. Maybe we'll have another Paizo, but I rather doubt it.


----------



## mach1.9pants (Mar 14, 2011)

^Thanks for a well thought out answer, that makes more sense than your original post IMO. You want less RPGs, fair enough. I want more  I managed to drag 4 people in for a game in a town of less the 1000 people, and we played 4E, CoC, and Dragon Age before RL split us up. So I am not sure why you have so much problems!
Anyway saying you think the market is over saturated is a fair opinion. GL with getting together a group that is open minded enough to try any game, they're mostly all good!

EDIT: I also doubt that DCC wants to be a new Paizo, just to make that little bit more money!

But that high level of power on MM does seem a little OP... even with the risk of being eaten by your Frog Demon patron (yes happened at a Con) I am still interested in this game, because it seems so different from the ultra-balanced 4E or ultra assimilationist and details 3E/PfRPG or the ultra tokeny WHFRP3E or the ultra new age FATE/Anglerre or the the ultra old school OSR products I have 

 too many ultras I know


----------



## Rel (Mar 14, 2011)

I totally disagree with the notion that there are too many rulesets out there.

I mean yeah, a lot of them are not aligned with my particular set of tastes (which is not to say that they are crap, though some of them may be).  But that's fine because not everybody has my set of tastes.  I have had the chance to play a ton of different systems over the last 4 or 5 years and I'm seeing some really innovative design.  Many systems I've only played once and don't care to play again.  It's all good.

If there are people out there who are saying, "I only want to play this one system and if I can't play that then I'm not going to play anything." then that's their right to take that position.  It may keep them from gaming and I think it's a bit silly, but hey, different strokes.

Personally I like having the right tool for the job.  And that requires having a broad selection of tools.  I've got games I prefer for regular campaign play (4e D&D, Savage Worlds), games I prefer at Game Days for one-shots (Old School Hack, Dread) and games that we can turn to when other plans fall through or we don't have something already prepared (Fiasco).  And there are lots of others out there too that I like to play once in a while if I know a really awesome GM is running one.

Bottom line is that I welcome the variety of options, and I especially welcome options from a company like Goodman Games who has turned out a lot of really fun stuff over the years.


----------



## nedjer (Mar 14, 2011)

airwalkrr said:


> too many cooks are spoiling the broth that is roleplaying.




Better a murky broth than a stagnant pond


----------



## Alaxk Knight of Galt (Mar 15, 2011)

This is concerning fighters in DCC
By Joseph Goodman from Goodman Games • View topic - Warrior mechanics


> In practical terms, that means not just interesting magic, but also amazing stunts by warriors.
> 
> In game terms, D&D has done this for generations and consistently created complex sub-systems as a result. 3E did it with feats, 4E with powers, prior systems with other mechanisms, and they tend to create complexity and limit the warrior far more than what the literature suggests. Conan, Elric, and John Carter didn't specialize in a single weapon style or a special type of fighting to become they heroes they were. They were good at it all.
> 
> ...




Interesting, instead of static effects like feats and powers provide, this mechanic allows dynamic effects based on the opponent and the environment.  I'm interested in seeing the DM guidelines to these Might Deeds of Arms.  Cleaving, tripping, disarming, and sundering weapons are all great, but doing it for free as a rider on every third attack at first level seems, well, really strong.  An these odds only go up (50% of the time at 2nd level, 60% of the time at 3rd).  

I'm still very interested in this product.


----------



## TerraDave (Mar 15, 2011)

regarding the spell system: it looks cubersome and rolemasteresque. In that sense, it is retro: as both TSR and others sought to fill in the gaps of OD&D, the tendency was to build (over)complicated subsystems. There have been many of them over the years.


----------



## cthulhudarren (Mar 15, 2011)

I just hope that the combat classes get nice things too and are balanced with casters.


----------



## mach1.9pants (Mar 15, 2011)

^Um look a few post above yours!

It seems that the Mighty Arms does get powerful, but it maybe (from what has been said on the DCC board) that the game tops at 10th level.


----------



## goodmangames (Mar 16, 2011)

Hi everyone,

A couple quick answers to some of the questions raised in this thread:

*Spellcasting and page flipping*: Legitimate point based on reading the description of the game, but not an issue in play. I guess I should point out again that this game has been in "stealth playtest mode" for well over a year; all the issues being brought up here have been hashed through in actual play, not just some "design document." Wizards typically have 4-6 spells, maybe a couple more if they have high ability scores, and slightly more as they advance in level. Each "spell table" fits on one 8.5x11 page (and that's only because they're in MS Word format; they'll probably be smaller in final published form). I hand out those pages before the game (in the final book they will "permission granted to photocopy for personal use," etc.). There's no "page flipping"...the wizard just rolls a d20 on the page in front of him. After a couple combat rounds the wizard is usually on top of it. (That's not to say the tables are perfect; I still need to improve a couple things, but it's not a game-slower.)

Actually, to give a point of comparison...DCC RPG runs about 2x-3x as fast as any 3.5 game I ever played in, and is an order of magnitude faster than 4E. In a four-hour session we'll usually complete multiple combats involving many opponents, as well as solve a puzzle or two, complete some simple NPC interaction, etc. Modules that would take 3-4 sessions under 3.5 rules typically take 2 sessions under DCC RPG rules. This is one of the things I am striving for; my best memories of D&D are fast-moving sessions where everybody is constantly engaged, not the modern games of "I'll go get a beer while you figure out the exact combination of tactical moves that maximizes your next action." I'm also a big fan of board games, and I particularly like designs that keep every player constantly engaged (Puerto Rico is brilliant!) - in my opinion, D&D needs to get back to that.

It's definitely not for everyone, and there will be some of you who walk away unsatisfied. But I think there will also be many of you who find you really enjoy it.

*High powered casters / tactical strikes with magic missile*: I'm still debating maximum level in this game but I'll probably end up at 10th being the highest. I am striving for a style of play comparable to what I recall from the early 1980's. In your OD&D and AD&D games from the 1980's, how many of you had a PC that legitimately made it past 6th level? Anybody? It was incredibly rare. 10th level characters were unheard of. Even getting to 6th level was a big deal. Keep this power scale in mind as we discuss spells...a caster with a modifier of +10 is extraordinary. Even getting an unmodified +6 on the table (e.g., without spellburn) is extraordinary. 

And, with that noted, recall that (a) every spell is cast with a d20 roll, so even if a wizard spellburns 10 points of ability scores to end up with, say, a +16 on the table (+6 base and +10 from the spellburn), he can still roll a 4...or even a natural 1... and (b) arcane spellcasting is dangerous! Wizards tend to become corrupted over time, and may have to, ahem, negotiate their way to power with supernatural creatures that have their own agendas. A 10th level wizard in DCC RPG is like the wizards in any REH Conan novel or the heroes of Moorcock, Merritt, Lovecraft, and Vance: the wizards have power, but at a cost...

So, to cast the "tactical strike" _magical missile_ with a 30+ result is not something any wizard can do consistently -- or even predictably on a one-time basis.

*Lots of RPGs on the market*: Can you find me one written by someone who has read almost everything in Appendix N?  DCC RPG is attempting something I have yet to see in any published work: it is NOT a retro-clone, but an attempt to re-imagine what D&D could have been, if the original inspirations were expressed in a modern rules set. Even the OSR retro-clones do not reach as far back into the origins of the game as I am attempting to do. DCC RPG may or may not succeed in its task -- time will tell -- but the attempt at "pre-D&D swords & sorcery" is not something I have seen any other published product attempt. _Dragons At Dawn_ is probably as close as they come, and that's an attempt to look at only one half of the origin point. DCC RPG explicitly attempts to build a game that captures the ability to play adventures corresponding to the original inspirations of Gygax and Arneson, portrayed with a modern rules set. There's more on the subject in my design diaries on my forums: Designer's Blog #2: Pre-D&D Swords & Sorcery

Hope that helps.


----------



## mach1.9pants (Mar 16, 2011)

Just to let you readers know that spellburn is burning off STR/DEX/CON (or the DCC equivalent, cannot remember the names) to get extra. A risky thing in any game, sure you can lose a bit of STR but DEX as a Wizard? CON, hell no!

I am not sure of the recovery rates etc but I can imagine it taking a fair while. According to the man above, it happens often in Cons/one shots... not so much in campaigns!

Man I really cannot wait to run this game.


----------



## fireinthedust (Mar 16, 2011)

Lisa Stevens (I think) mentioned that Paizo did their own game because they were annoyed that they'd spent at least $1000000 on art for Dungeon and Dragon that, thanks to WOTC, they couldn't use.  In part, other reasons notwithstanding.

Goodman Games, I believe, has every right to create their own game because they'll be writing the modules for that game.  Even if they never did another module for a different company, they pride themselves on their adventures.  Enough so, I might add, that they are one of the most recognizable names in the rpg market.  

Would you, if you'd invested so much time and money, and personal energy, in a company want to base it on the (basically) whims of an unaffiliated company?

If they do their own game, they don't have to worry about Hasbro being sold *tomorrow*, no notice, and D&D going into 5th edition.  

They're big enough they can pull this off.  And they won't make another "Paizo", because Paizo is unique, lovely, and frankly Paizo is Paizo.  

Goodman Games is someone else: they'll get to be Goodman Games, and make DCC the way they would if they'd designed their own rules system.

If DCCrpg is fantastic (and I haven't seen it; and while I expect it will be, I'll reserve judgement until I see it), THEN we'll see.  But the kind of people who liked their adventures will likely enjoy the RPG anyway, as it'll likely appeal to their tastes.  If not, it'll be a good example of game design.

If not, we'll see what they turn to.  Frankly, they could do Pathfinder, or 3.5, or any rule set fairly well.


----------



## Whizbang Dustyboots (Mar 16, 2011)

I don't begrudge Goodman making their own game -- for someone who got into this industry originally as a fan, this is arguably the truest expression of that fandom.

I'm selfish, though: I only have so much time for so many games. I may well pick up and read the DCCRPG, but I do not foresee booting any of the current games I play in my limited time to play it. It is only my selfish desire that they continue to make adventures in a format compatible with the games I do play.

But I absolutely do wish them the best of luck on this and hope for them to be crazy successful with it. They've given me a lot of fun over the years and, if nothing else, the light from their torches helps light the (divergent) path I'm on.


----------



## darjr (Mar 16, 2011)

How would I get a play test at one of my local cons?

From a little con PretzCon

To a big one Omaha Metro Area's Gaming Convention, Nuke-Con. Escape Reality and Play a Game! Join us for a Weekend of Games!

To a new one Omaha, Nebraska's Premier Pop-Culture Expo & Convention!

After reading the designer notes and other posts I really want to try this out sooner rather than later... freerpgday couldn't come sooner.


----------



## goodmangames (Apr 9, 2011)

For those of you missed the "post-GaryCon playtest reports," we've posted the Gary Con flyer on our web site. It has a little more material about DCC RPG that will interest fans of classic fantasy. And a lot of folks are loving the module art. You can download it from Dungeon Crawl Classics

Regarding playtests, there's another playtest scheduled in Kentucky today, one in San Diego two weekends from now, another one in Tennessee planned around Free RPG Day. As for Omaha, one vote has been noted.  If there's a significant interest in any particular region, we can try to arrange something, so speak up if you're interested...


----------



## Falstaff (Apr 9, 2011)

goodmangames said:


> For those of you missed the "post-GaryCon playtest reports," we've posted the Gary Con flyer on our web site. It has a little more material about DCC RPG that will interest fans of classic fantasy. And a lot of folks are loving the module art. You can download it from Dungeon Crawl Classics
> 
> Regarding playtests, there's another playtest scheduled in Kentucky today, one in San Diego two weekends from now, another one in Tennessee planned around Free RPG Day. As for Omaha, one vote has been noted.  If there's a significant interest in any particular region, we can try to arrange something, so speak up if you're interested...




Savannah Georgia!


----------



## FATDRAGONGAMES (Apr 9, 2011)

Any chance  of a play test being run at Origins Joe?


----------



## ashockney (Apr 9, 2011)

Joe, if there's any chance you'll be at Origins, you should let us know.  Amophous Blob Games has more than a dozen or more great GM's, and we run over 100 events every year for Origins.  We may be interested in playing or running something.  

Just sayin...


----------



## Mark CMG (Apr 10, 2011)

goodmangames said:


> For those of you missed the "post-GaryCon playtest reports," we've posted the Gary Con flyer on our web site. It has a little more material about DCC RPG that will interest fans of classic fantasy. And a lot of folks are loving the module art. You can download it from Dungeon Crawl Classics
> 
> Regarding playtests, there's another playtest scheduled in Kentucky today, one in San Diego two weekends from now, another one in Tennessee planned around Free RPG Day. As for Omaha, one vote has been noted.  If there's a significant interest in any particular region, we can try to arrange something, so speak up if you're interested...





I should have known I was tempting fate by playing a cleric on Sunday morning at GaryCon III.  Tips: When lawful, never cast a heal spell near a Chaos Pylon, the long neck of a chicken-footed dragon creature can reach past the first three ranks of a group to use its breath weapon on you, and never underestimate the sadistic nature of a Good-man. 


Good times, Joseph.  Good times!


----------



## estar (Apr 11, 2011)

goodmangames said:


> Actually, to give a point of comparison...DCC RPG runs about 2x-3x as fast as any 3.5 game I ever played in, and is an order of magnitude faster than 4E. In a four-hour session we'll usually complete multiple combats involving many opponents, as well as solve a puzzle or two, complete some simple NPC interaction, etc. Modules that would take 3-4 sessions under 3.5 rules typically take 2 sessions under DCC RPG rules.




I ran a playtest of the DCC Rules at Erie Days of Gaming in Feb and it played as fast as Joseph describes. Before the game I realized that I need to have all the spell charts on single pages and fiddled with word so I had the handout ready. 

Of the announced modules I really recommend the Emerald Sorcerer, I used it in the playtest and it was by far one of the best published modules I ever read and ran. It has interesting mental and game challenges and was very evocative swords & sorcery style fantasy.


----------



## Reynard (Apr 11, 2011)

But when do we get the open playtest rules?!?


----------



## Harley Stroh (Apr 11, 2011)

Reynard said:


> But when do we get the open playtest rules?!?




June 18th, coinciding with the Free Rpg Day release. 

//H


----------



## Reynard (Apr 12, 2011)

Harley Stroh said:


> June 18th, coinciding with the Free Rpg Day release.
> 
> //H




Awesome. Now I just have to figure out how to get the FRPGD materials so I can run it at my FLGS. I am currently running a Pathfinder Dungeon-a-Day campaign at the store, but it has fallen a little flat (the Dungeon itself has a few issues, and PF can be time consuming). I want to try a couple different things, and DCC RPG is one of them.


----------



## goodmangames (Jun 6, 2011)

*DCC RPG Beta Rules Releasing Wednesday, June 8*

Hi everyone,

Just wanted to let you know that the DCC RPG beta rules will release Wednesday, June 8.

Visit Goodman Games that day to download them.

And thus the open playtest begins!

Take a look, read the rules, roll up some characters, then post on our forums with your feedback. (Or post here and draw our attention to it! Just make sure we see it.)

And THEN, visit your favorite game store on June 18 to get the Free RPG Day module!

Looking forward to hearing what you think!

Thanks,
Joseph


----------

