DCC is DDNext

[DimitriX]

I'm going to make a declaration. DCC RPG is Dungeons and Dragons Next, but WotC hasn't figured that out yet. Every time I read one of Mike Mearls articles on design goals for DDN, I realize that the good folks at Goodman Games have come to the same conclusion, already addressed the issue, and are releasing the game in May 2012 instead of starting playtesting in May 2012.

DCC has already captured the look and feel of Old School Dungeons and Dragons by going back to the original source material created by Gygax and Arneson and even hiring the original artists to create the artwork.

DCC was already written to attract adults by creating an atmosphere based on Appendix N stories in which the heroes are a bit shady and the bad guys are really bad. I know this will also work for kids because I was 10 years old when I started with AD&D.

DCC has already "figured out the Fighter class" by giving the Warrior Mighty Deeds, thus making him a bad ass in combat. The style of bad ass is between the player, the DM, and whatever horrible gods they worship.

DCC has already figured out that you don't need to split the Cleric into "priest and cleric". There is only one cleric and he can heal, swing a mace, and call down the wrath of his god to destroy his enemies, raise the dead, and part the seas.

DCC has already figured out that Vancian magic is accounting and boring. DCC has made the Wizard scary for monsters and scary for party members. Wizards are not for the faint of heart.

DCC has already figured out that without the risk of death and dismemberment that the games gets old and boring. DMs and players should not know if their adventure will be successful. Rather than considering it a failure and therefore no fun, DCC tells you to make your own story around character death.

Goodman Games has already given me the game that I want and I trust them to do right by the game. WotC 'might' have a game out later this year, but I have very little faith that they will produce the game that I want to play. And, even if they do, I trust that the powers that be at the company will eventually screw it all up. So, I follow what's going on with DDN for no other reason than the fact that WotC and DDN will be so big that they will have a major impact on the RPG hobby industry, which means they could accidentally have an impact on the games that I do play. Unfortunately, I don't think WotC has earned the right to have such a big influence over the industry of the hobby I love.

 

[Janaxstrus]

I'm going to make a declaration. DCC RPG is Dungeons and Dragons Next, but WotC hasn't figured that out yet. Every time I read one of Mike Mearls articles on design goals for DDN, I realize that the good folks at Goodman Games have come to the same conclusion, already addressed the issue, and are releasing the game in May 2012 instead of starting playtesting in May 2012.

DCC has already captured the look and feel of Old School Dungeons and Dragons by going back to the original source material created by Gygax and Arneson and even hiring the original artists to create the artwork.

DCC was already written to attract adults by creating an atmosphere based on Appendix N stories in which the heroes are a bit shady and the bad guys are really bad. I know this will also work for kids because I was 10 years old when I started with AD&D.

DCC has already "figured out the Fighter class" by giving the Warrior Mighty Deeds, thus making him a bad ass in combat. The style of bad ass is between the player, the DM, and whatever horrible gods they worship.

DCC has already figured out that you don't need to split the Cleric into "priest and cleric". There is only one cleric and he can heal, swing a mace, and call down the wrath of his god to destroy his enemies, raise the dead, and part the seas.

DCC has already figured out that Vancian magic is accounting and boring. DCC has made the Wizard scary for monsters and scary for party members. Wizards are not for the faint of heart.

DCC has already figured out that without the risk of death and dismemberment that the games gets old and boring. DMs and players should not know if their adventure will be successful. Rather than considering it a failure and therefore no fun, DCC tells you to make your own story around character death.

Goodman Games has already given me the game that I want and I trust them to do right by the game. WotC 'might' have a game out later this year, but I have very little faith that they will produce the game that I want to play. And, even if they do, I trust that the powers that be at the company will eventually screw it all up. So, I follow what's going on with DDN for no other reason than the fact that WotC and DDN will be so big that they will have a major impact on the RPG hobby industry, which means they could accidentally have an impact on the games that I do play. Unfortunately, I don't think WotC has earned the right to have such a big influence over the industry of the hobby I love.

Cool story bro.

However, after 35 years of Vancian magic, I'm pretty sure THAT is more D&D than non-Vancian magic. I never found it to be boring accounting.

Also, 5e isn't on schedule until next year, so they won't have any stuff out this year. No "might" about it.

I am happy you found your game that you like though. Sounds like you are good to go.

 

[P1NBACK]

Meh.

I love the DCC RPG. It's truly fantastic (and worth buying for the art alone).

But, it's not "D&D Next". In fact, it's the opposite.

DCC RPG is designed as if it were D&D using the Appendix N with all the knowledge we have about game design today. The goal is to create a game that would be popular in 1974, but have the updated game mechanics and whatnot.

It's inspired by Appendix N source material and uses that as the core design ethos. DCC RPG is 110% pulpy, fantasy goodness. Joseph Goodman went back and re-read all of Appendix N and then wrote a game like D&D using that source material for inspiration. He didn't go back and play all the old editions and new editions looking for "what makes D&D be D&D". Instead, he asked, "What would D&D look like if it was written in 1974 but had all the RPG tech we have today...?"

D&D Next however isn't doing that at all. Instead, it's inspired by... D&D. Instead of rewriting the game by going back to what inspired D&D in the first place, the designers of 5E are designing the game by going back to D&D itself. Mike Mearls and Co. are asking, "What about all these editions of D&D is the best? And, how can we bring them together to make a game all D&D players can enjoy?"

Different goals. Different inspiration. Different result (most likely).

I fully expect 5E to look a lot different than DCC RPG, and maybe even be a better game, but DCC RPG will destroy 5E in terms of how it oozes Appendix N atmosphere and sheer awesomeness.

 

[Alaxk Knight of Galt]

DCC has already "figured out the Fighter class" by giving the Warrior Mighty Deeds, thus making him a bad ass in combat. The style of bad ass is between the player, the DM, and whatever horrible gods they worship.

Mighty Deeds is perhaps the best innovation for fighters I've seen in a long time. It's simple, it encourages roll [Edit: or Role] playing, and it provides unlimited options for fighters in combat. Wizards NEEDS to look at the this mechanic for Next.

Oh, and Goodman Games sells DCC in PDF form. I can't wait to purchase both a hard copy and a digital copy of this game.

 

[Scribble]

Wish they had made the races as classes bit optional.

 

[Alaxk Knight of Galt]

Wish they had made the races as classes bit optional.

House rules fix a lot of things
I plan on allowing races to pick from their racial class or the other four.

 

[Scribble]

House rules fix a lot of things
I plan on allowing races to pick from their racial class or the other four.

Haven't seen enough about the game to know what this would do.

 

[P1NBACK]

I actually like race-as-class a lot. And, I've found (using the ACKS book) that race as class provides more flavorful, unique classes.

And, the whole argument about not being able to play an "elven cleric" or whatever is kinda moot when you can just create a new class that is called Elven Cleric and it can be more flavorful and tailored than a generic Elf + Cleric race/class combination.

 

[DimitriX]

Haven't seen enough about the game to know what this would do.

It depends on how its handled. The simplest way to let race simply be fluff sometimes. For instance, a player has a 0-level dwarf miner that he needs to level up to 1. According to DCC rules, this character has to become a level 1 Dwarf. But, the DM could rule that the player could chose another class and make the race "dwarf" just fluff. So, if the player went with Warrior, then he would be playing a Warrior that happens to be Dwarf. The character would get all of the benefits of being a Warrior, but none of the benefits of being a Dwarf.

The thing that this breaks is that it allows players more of a chance to play a demihuman, which is fine if the campaign world allows it. If the DM wants to keep demihumans strange and special, then he runs the risk of them becoming ordinary because all of his players are elves, dwarves, and halflings. But, that's not really a big deal unless it breaks the world that the DM wants to play in. Besides, PCs are supposed to be strange and special. Only about 1 in 100 people ever reach level 1.

 

[Scribble]

I actually like race-as-class a lot. And, I've found (using the ACKS book) that race as class provides more flavorful, unique classes.

And, the whole argument about not being able to play an "elven cleric" or whatever is kinda moot when you can just create a new class that is called Elven Cleric and it can be more flavorful and tailored than a generic Elf + Cleric race/class combination.

True, I don't like hate them or anything, but I guess I wish they added more options as far as race/class combos.