DCC Level 0 Character Funnel is a Bad Concept

[overgeeked]

DCC, like most old-school-like systems, somewhat relies on - and expects - the DM to do some kitbashing and revision. This probably needs to be made more clear in the books, though.

It's made perfectly clear in DCC RPG.

 

[Arilyn]

@Arilyn so it's more in the mentality of running the games and the adventures themselves that are modern than the systems?
I've found that I really liked the way Forbidden Lands merged OSR feel and more modern system design.

I think it depends. A lot of times, yes. There are fierce arguments in the OSR community, with some believing games can only be OSR if hey are clones of classic D&D, others that they must be clones of old games, not necessarily D&D and others looking at these games more as a mindset.

Mothership, Cairn, Into the Odd, Knave, Shadowdark, etc.are not considered true OSR games by some. Others embrace a wider range including games like Heart and Spire. Some of these latter games overlap with indie. Personally, I prefer the mindset, as there is more room for growth.

I have Forbidden Lands but haven't used it yet. Soon. On my list!

 

[overgeeked]

Are people really saying 5E is balanced? With a straight face? Wow.

 

[Jd Smith1]

Or will they?

Does it take making all potential foes that much more powerful than ordinary villagers to make a system 'decent'?

It does. A mob of people who have never been in anything tougher than Market Day fisticuffs, armed with wood axes and brush hooks, going against people who have experienced violence before, are not going to win. They'll break and run, or be slaughtered. Most likely a mix of both.

Aside from ample historical precedent, simple logic dictates that for bandits to exist, they have to be more effective at violence than their victims.

There is no substitute for training, equipment, and organization, especially in a pre-gunpowder era.

There's a good reason why the practice of keeping the bulk of society as serfs living on porridge and coarse bread and working themselves into an early grave persisted for centuries (into the early 1900s, in Russia): because they can't do anything about it.

 

[Retreater]

Are people really saying 5E is balanced? With a straight face? Wow.

I'm not. I mean it might be moreso than old school games.
My standards of balance are closer to 4e and PF2 (if that's the goal).

 

[CapnZapp]

Runehammer published "5e Hard Mode." I haven't read it myself, but maybe that would appeal to you? It's suppose to have stripped down the rules and make 5e dangerous.

I'll give it a peek, thx.

Before looking, just a note to self: I'm looking for a way to wrench 5E into a more OSR-friendly ruleset. The primary goal isn't to play on "hard mode" but on "OSR mode"...

 

[CapnZapp]

It does. A mob of people who have never been in anything tougher than Market Day fisticuffs, armed with wood axes and brush hooks, going against people who have experienced violence before, are not going to win. They'll break and run, or be slaughtered. Most likely a mix of both.

Not sure what you think you will get out of discussing from this angle.

The whole point of the funnel is to throw that mob of people you're talking about into a dangerous situation, and those that come out on the other side are now presumptive heroes that get to pick a class and start learning magic and stuff.

Yes, they will likely do all of the above: run, die, fall on their face. But some of them will persevere. This is Dungeons & Dragons after all, not Russian Peasant Simulator.

You appear to want to convince yourself it's best and most "realistic" if they all die or run away... but what do you think you stand to gain from having that sort of discussion in the context of D&D fantasy gaming???????????

 

[CapnZapp]

Right. That’s a big part of it. Self-centered focus on me the player and my character instead of the group, the campaign, the world, or the game. “I am the star” not even “we are the stars”.

Yes this is what I'm talking about. Modern games put a lot of focus on the self.

DCC attempts to shake players out of that mindset - the purpose is to collaboratively write one story common to all characters.

That story becomes richer, not poorer, by the group having setbacks and losses.

You losing your character should not be seen as a personal disaster. Instead you are to be thanked for your contribution to the greater story, and look here, a new character for you!

Of course this mindset should by necessity mostly apply on low levels. As you level up you automatically become that much more robust as a D&D hero (no matter which edition or ruleset), and the fact that eventually the mindset will morph into a much bigger focus on exactly these five surviving heroes, and how they finish the campaign with no or few additional deaths.

 

[CapnZapp]

Agreed. I had a bad experience and had some holdover gripes from that game when I made the OP. While I don't want to tell anyone they're having "badwrongfun" I can say that the experience I had with the the funnel at the con game was badly run and poorly implemented.

We kind of guessed. Thank you.

Perhaps it would even be worthwhile to link to this post directly from the OP...?

 

[CapnZapp]

I also think DCC's general ethos and tone fits this perfectly. You can play heroic adventure stories with DCC, but what it's embracing by default is something meaner and greedier, which I fully respect. It's not the sort of thing I gravitate toward as a GM, but I'd kill to play in at some point.

Yep.

Contrast Warhammer FRP.

It too was a reaction against D&D. It too changes the angle to "underdogs performing heroics almost against their will"