DCC Level 0 Character Funnel is a Bad Concept

[MNblockhead]

Yes.

For me, unfortunate. That each and every spell was almost its own mini-game, and that you could almost never count on getting a spell result you could actually use was one of the biggest causes of us abandoning the DCC system.

I absolutely understand the criticism against regular D&D: spells have no uncertainty. Tools that always do what you intend them to do are not called "magic". They are called "tools".

But DCC severely overcompensates by randomizing ALL the parameters. If they focused on randomizing one or three variables that could have been something.

But DCC turns spellcasting into a chaotic fiddly mess - an utter trainwreck, to be honest. My players found that they hesitated using magic since there was always great risks involved. And in the end they often ended up not using magic at all.

I fully understand that part of this is because they're stuck in the rational solution-focused competitive mindset so common with D&Ders, and that they were unable to "let loose" and "don't worry be happy".

But part of it is also bad design. Not every parameter needs to be randomized at the same time to achieve the goal of making magic more mysterious and less "scientific", less reliable, less of a dependable tool.

It ended up as one of our biggest hurdles to DCC adoption.

I kinda like it. Especially if run with Purple Sorcerer or a VTT that does to roles to minimize page flipping and time referencing charts.

But I think Warhammer Fantasy RPG 4e does it better for my group. Using minor and major miscasts based on your roles and refering associated tables rather than a separate table for every spell. I'm not as familiar with DCC, but WFRP seems to give more options to invest into making spell casting safer. Spending XP on skills and talents, using ingriedients, channeling rules, using familiars, etc. You can invest xp and coin into being a much more reliable spell caster at the expense of building a more well-rounded character.

That said, I am looking forward to eventually running the DCC Dying Earth setting and adventures. But I'll need to make sure the players are going into eyes wide open and that they buy into it. In addition to DCCs randomness and risk when it comes to magic users, you have the petty politic's of Jack Vance's Dying Earth setting, new grudge token mechanics, and some character restrictions that even many DCC fans are not into (at least those posting on Reddit).

 

[MNblockhead]

I think I'm with @CapnZapp on this one: DCC's biggest failing IMO is that it's way too harsh on its casters.

And this comes from someone who loves wild magic surges. Anything can be overdone, and DCCRPG overdoes this aspect significantly. This is the biggest reason why I haven't changed my games over to the DCC system (well, that and all the funny dice, which they also overdo).

It could be toned down some, sure, but that would either a) take a fair bit of DM-side tweaking work or b) mean tossing a fair bit of the DCC pagecount and replacing it wholesale.

And C) would upset their most loyal and profitable fans. I'm glad a weird OSR-inspired game like DCC exists. It will never be my default choice for campaigns. But when I run it, I'm choosing it for its weirdness and randomness. Dungeon Crawl Classics and Mutant Crawl Classics are favorites for once-a-year one-shots that a friend of mine runs when he is back in town for the holidays. I do plan to run a campaign using the Dying Earth set, but that will be a "shorter" year or less campaign. Also, Dying Earth changes up some of the casting rules and classes. Many DCC fans are not fans of the Dying Earth set for that reason, but I think Goodman Games did a great job creating a setting and rules that captures the flavor of Vance's Dying Earth books.

But, for the most part, DCC works best for me for one-shots and mini-campaigns.

 

[MNblockhead]

Recent ttrpg technology has discovered you can have both with a random table that starts with the phrase "Either pick a result that appeals to you or just roll."

Or "use the follownig table to inspire you."

One think I like about good random encounter/event/wandering monster etc. tables is that I'll inevitably come up with additional ideas.

 

[MNblockhead]

Thanks.

Regarding the funny dice - they must have been struck with a moment of megalomania. If DCC ever grew to even 10% of WotC's size, I could see it justified.

But asking your customers to purchase funny dice for just this one sideshoot of the D&D family. That's a hard sell.

I mean, I have two sets of DCC dice. But I'm thinking they must have lost way more customers than they attracted with this move.

You can't even argue it's "easy" to replace the funny dice with regular dice, like some other games.

For instance, if a game uses six sided dice with the distribution of
HIT
HIT
NEUTRAL
NEUTRAL
MISS
MISS

You could at least in theory argue you can use this system using regular dice:

1 and 2 means hit
3 and 4 means neutral
5 and 6 means miss


It sure isn't popular and these games too suffer for it. But DCC?

The only way to use basic dice for DCC is to use a bigger die and reroll surplus results:

In order to simulate a d7, you'd roll a d8 and:
1 means 1
2 means 2
3 means 3
...
and so on
7 means 7
8 means you need to roll again

This is a major pain in the butt. Had DCC stuck with regular D&D dice I am certain they would have had a bigger fan base.

It's not that d7s or d16s are needed. They're a gimmick.

Unfortunately, it's an excluding and expensive gimmick.

Same argument can be made for D&D's polyhedrals. Similar arguments were made against using them when OD&D was being designed. Even today, d4s, d8s, d12s, and d20s are not nearly as readily available and familiar as d6s. Based on your logic, all TTRPGs would be better served by building their rules around d6s. I find that idea rather sad. It is not more difficult going online and buying weird DCC dice than it is going online and buying weird D&D dice. Sure its a gimmick. Gimmicks are fine in games and add to the flavor and enjoyment of those games for many players. And for the increasing numbers of players using VTTs and dice-rolling apps, none of this matters.

I'm sure Goodman Games lost some customers because of additional funny dice. But the game seems to be doing well for them and many of the games fan enjoy the weird dice and the dice chain mechanic. If it was seriously hampering their ability to sell the game, I'm sure they would have changed things. The fact they haven't indicates that they don't find the weird dice to be a significant deterrent to attracting customers. Perhaps it also helps them make money on selling dice as well.

 

[MNblockhead]

IIRC there's a table in the book showing you how to simulate the dice with normal polyhedrals.

Yeah, and on their website as well. But as @CapnZapp pointed out up thread, its kinda annoying. Basically you roll a larger numbered dice and reroll any numbers that come up above the number of the die you want to roll.

If playing with physical dice, it it much more satisfying for me to have the proper dice. With a VTT or dice-rolling app, none of this is an issue.

 

[MNblockhead]

I didn't actually contrast any commoners to level 1 heroes.

I don't know if there are any official level 0 characters in 5th edition, but if they're stronger than Commoners, my rule of thumb probably applies to them as well

There are rules for level-0 characters in the Adventurer's League module DDAL-ELW00 What's Past is Prologue (https://www.dmsguild.com/product/248589/DDALELW00-Whats-Past-is-Prologue). Basically you chose name, race, and background, but not a class and you start with 1d6+Con modifier for hit points.

 

[CapnZapp]

I think I'm with @CapnZapp on this one: DCC's biggest failing IMO is that it's way too harsh on its casters.

And this comes from someone who loves wild magic surges. Anything can be overdone, and DCCRPG overdoes this aspect significantly. This is the biggest reason why I haven't changed my games over to the DCC system (well, that and all the funny dice, which they also overdo).

It could be toned down some, sure, but that would either a) take a fair bit of DM-side tweaking work or b) mean tossing a fair bit of the DCC pagecount and replacing it wholesale.

It also means you can never get any speed going.

Each. And. Every. Time. someone wants to cast a spell, the specific table for that specific spell needs to be brought out, and nothing happens for several minutes while we try to figure out how this specific result is going to work in this particular situation.

It is obviously way too much, at least if the goal was to add uncertainty to D&D magic.

It reads as if the writers were let completely loose, with nobody even doing a second editing phase to rein it it. Sure you can call it pure unadulterated creative joy, but...

man, is [DCC magic] unplayable.

 

[CapnZapp]

Yeah, and on their website as well. But as @CapnZapp pointed out up thread, its kinda annoying. Basically you roll a larger numbered dice and reroll any numbers that come up above the number of the die you want to roll.

If playing with physical dice, it it much more satisfying for me to have the proper dice. With a VTT or dice-rolling app, none of this is an issue.

As for myself, the choice here was basically to purchase the damn dice, or not play the game at all.

Using regular dice... just eugh, that would not fly. And rolling actual physical dice is the essence of our rpg sessions, so resorting to computer dice was never an option for us.

I'm convinced the funny dice drove away more prospective customers than they attracted.
I'm convinced DCC would have been a strictly better game with just the regular D&D dice.

I know, I know - would DCC have even made it at all without those dice? I don't know. But still... after the initial allure wears off, all you're saddled with is a couple of pretty convoluted rules that try to make it seem like those d7s and d16s are actually needed, or even useful.

Thing is though, they're not. The basic game still runs pretty much as normal, for any D&D clone. It's just so annoying when you realize then they tried their hardest to bolt on the funny dice anywhere they could think of....

... but it still boils down to a very few cases where it wouldn't have been much easier and simpler to say "you get +1".

---

Man, DCC does so many things right. Like adding Luck as a seventh core ability score, and using the "roll a d20 as high as possible but no higher than your ability score" mechanism (that puts some sorely needed relevance back into the actual scores as opposed to their modifiers)...

So frustrating to see the game fading into obscurity, laden down with all these other - much less sound - design decisions.

The "OSR ethos" really deserves better recognition, as opposed to living in the shady alleyways of the internet completely eclipsed by the Disneyfied game that is the official D&D.
Not talking edgelord misogyny or racism here, in case you thought I was using coded language - because OSR definitely does contain that too. Talking about what we've been discussing here - basically saying "no thanks" to how D&D fosters the übermensch mentality where everybody tells you you're a hero well before you've even deserved it, something many games (including Warhammer FRP) have long reacted against.

 

[CapnZapp]

There are rules for level-0 characters in the Adventurer's League module DDAL-ELW00 What's Past is Prologue (DDAL-ELW00 What's Past is Prologue - Dungeon Masters Guild | Dungeon Masters Guild). Basically you chose name, race, and background, but not a class and you start with 1d6+Con modifier for hit points.

The other poster tried to further the inexplicable (and frankly, trolling) argument that playing with DCC level zero characters should always end up with all of them dying.

This is absurd. As if regular D&D level 1 characters are that much more resilient?! (If you start at level 5 or higher, and NPCs remain the same where few common humanoids you'll meet in the street have more than three hit dice) I could absolutely see this. But at level 1? No way.)

Sure they are definitely stronger, but going from traditional zero-to-hero campaign to "everybody just dies, and rightly so" is just an amazing instance of having bad luck when thinking!

So thanks, but I don't need actual characters. My point is that the difference is must assuredly not even close to being so big that you can argue that if you play with L0 characters - in any iteration of D&D - you all should "realistically" die, while (presumably) that's not the case for regular D&D L1 ones.

 

[CapnZapp]

Same argument can be made for D&D's polyhedrals. Similar arguments were made against using them when OD&D was being designed. Even today, d4s, d8s, d12s, and d20s are not nearly as readily available and familiar as d6s. Based on your logic, all TTRPGs would be better served by building their rules around d6s.

No, that's not my logic, that's your logic.

My logic is that everybody interested in DCC has d4s and d12s already. And by everybody I mean EVERYBODY

No but seriously. Your logic might have flown if we had this conversation when Gary Gygax were young. Alternatively, had DCC taken off, and now every game from Pathfinder 2 to EnWorld's Level Up 5E sported those d5's and d14s, yes, it would have been seen as a genius move.

But we're not in either of those two universes.