Review of Dungeon Crawl Classics RPG by Goodman Games

Kunimatyu · May 31, 2012

IronWolf said:
Sorry - even as I closed the tab earlier, I thought maybe I should have linked it!

Here is the link:

Goodman Games • View topic - Thoughts on a simplified SRD game.

The Death, Dying, and Healing section and Character Classes section in the post are most relevant. There is some discussion later in the thread as well, but the post I link to seems most applicable as to why decisions were made.

That's pretty unconvincing as far as leaving clerics in. By Joe's logic, you'd see a core Paladin well before you'd add in a core Cleric.

I used to be quite interested in DCC, but it became clear early on that this was Joe's pet OD&D and not actually Appendix-N-based.

Ravenheart87 · May 31, 2012

Kunimatyu said:
That's pretty unconvincing as far as leaving clerics in. By Joe's logic, you'd see a core Paladin well before you'd add in a core Cleric.

Actually, the paladin is there: it's the high level lawful warrior's name. Chaotic clerics can possibly turn paladins.

Kunimatyu · May 31, 2012

Ravenheart87 said:
Actually, the paladin is there: it's the high level lawful warrior's name. Chaotic clerics can possibly turn paladins.

Using the name as a title doesn't really negate the point, which was that based on Joe's logic, you'd expect to see a full Paladin class before you'd see a Cleric class, based on Appendix N.

Lord Rasputin · May 31, 2012

Ravenheart87 said:
Like it or not, those are features and not bugs. Funny dice are in, because they're cool,

You misspelled "stupid." Seriously, they added nothing to the game; the same effects could be done using more common polyhedrons. The Zocchi dice add nothing, are lame and roll funny, kinda like a d4 (why I have 8-sided d4s).

Ravenheart87 said:
plus they make some game mechanics more interesting. The arbitrary rules are usually there to help in capturing the feel of the classic sword fantasy literature mentioned in Appendix N.

They don't. Instead, they capture the arbitrary rules of 1970s D&D and Arduin and such, and remind us why we came up with different rules. Nowhere in Howard, Leiber or Tolkein do I find any reason to change init dice with a two-handed weapon and the mess doing so brings.

This isn't a bad game, but these are bad features. They appeal to grognards and grognards only, doing nothing to lure desperately needed new blood. I know this is going to go over badly with its devoted fan base, but at least D&D 4e (and I am not a fan; in fact, I think DCC is a better game in spite of these defects) and D&D Next have newbies in mind.

mach1.9pants · May 31, 2012

Well it won't go over badly with 'devoted fans' as DCC was never aimed at newbies. Rightly so, to aim it that way (and change things to make it work for newbies) would have been a waste of time and dilution of the game. It is ridiculous to expect every game to be accessible to RPG newbies, in my opinion, especially small publishers who cannot sell anywhere but games stores or online.

I really like the craziness of the game and the dice, they do add to the rules. Like advantage/disadvantage in DnDNext it is more fun and easier, IMO, to roll dice than use a ton of modifiers. Although neither DnDN or DCC go far enough in that respect, I'd love to see all the modifiers gone.

I certainly agree that it is not 100% pure AppN gaming being heavily influenced by ODnD/Basic. However it is a great game in it's own right and does exactly what Joseph set out to do: Make his DnD (and if others like it all the better!)

Kunimatyu · Jun 1, 2012

Lord Rasputin said:
This isn't a bad game, but these are bad features. They appeal to grognards and grognards only, doing nothing to lure desperately needed new blood.

This.

A real attempt at an "Appendix N" RPG would have stripped out far more idiosyncratic D&Disms than Joe actually did. That's not to say it's not a fun take on OD&D style, just that the DCC RPG doesn't really emulate the old pulp sword&sorcery that inspired D&D.

IronWolf · Jun 1, 2012

Kunimatyu said:
That's pretty unconvincing as far as leaving clerics in. By Joe's logic, you'd see a core Paladin well before you'd add in a core Cleric.

I used to be quite interested in DCC, but it became clear early on that this was Joe's pet OD&D and not actually Appendix-N-based.

Seemed convincing enough to me. It seems you have more of an axe to grind with Joe's decisions. That is fair enough, but the post I linked to seems to be enough justification to me to include them.

RevTurkey · Jun 1, 2012

I like the dice.

ColonelHardisson · Jun 1, 2012

Lord Rasputin said:
This isn't a bad game, but these are bad features.

To you they're bad. Not to me.

Lord Rasputin said:
They appeal to grognards and grognards only,

And I think that's the target audience.

Lord Rasputin said:
doing nothing to lure desperately needed new blood.

Why should it? What's wrong with a game directly appealing to a specific demographic? Appealing to a new crowd, younger or not, does not have to be a mission goal for every RPG, especially one that has directly and specifically pointed to old school gaming and heroic fantasy as its inspiration. Besides, weird dice aren't the barrier to entry for RPGs. The massive success of videogames and their pervasiveness in modern pop culture are.

Lord Rasputin said:
I know this is going to go over badly with its devoted fan base, but at least D&D 4e (and I am not a fan; in fact, I think DCC is a better game in spite of these defects) and D&D Next have newbies in mind.

OK, so? Again, not every RPG has to appeal to newbies. What part of DCC has ever given the impression it was even trying to draw in new players?