DCC Level 0 Character Funnel is a Bad Concept

[Reynard]

That the goal isn't actually to "win" or "complete your build". The goal is to collectively share an experience, and that this experience becomes richer, not poorer, if it not only contains triumphs and successes, but setbacks and losses as well.

I don't find that achieving a "build" is a very common goal for 5E players (mostly because the character generation system is front loaded and shallow). Rather, the difference I see is that many (maybe most) people come into a D&D campaign expecting to be a competent protagonist in a cinematic story. Among other things, that translates to plot armor or at least the promise of a dramatic and meaningful death.

Which is fine. People should play how they want to play. And 5E is made for that kind of game. Go nuts.

But if someone goes into DCC or Shadowdark or OSE expecting that, they are going to suffer a disconnect between their expectations and the system.

The reverse is, of course, true as well. Trying to use out of the box 5E for an old school style game is the wrong tool for the job.

 

[payn]

It is very liberating if you have experienced a lot of the entitlement that ordinary D&Ders sometimes fall foul of. The notion that your character "should" have an 18 in some stat. The notion that unless you get to finetune every little detail the character is "unplayable". The notion that the character is a bunch of numbers that "belong" to the player.

Min-maxing a character over 20 levels is a substantial effort, so that must mean the DM won't take that away, or my participation is "wasted", amirite? (Far from every D&D group plays this way, and lots of groups don't need any help at all.... but many groups do contain at least some of this type of thinking...)

That, and now I'm slightly exaggerating, roleplaying isn't about collectively telling a story. Instead, let's assume and take for granted that my PC will reach level 20, and the actual campaign is just there to create the details on how that goal was reached...

What's so liberating about DCC is how you get reminded of how your character dying can be a valuable and important part of our shared story.

That the goal isn't actually to "win" or "complete your build". The goal is to collectively share an experience, and that this experience becomes richer, not poorer, if it not only contains triumphs and successes, but setbacks and losses as well.

 

[Ralif Redhammer]

Yes. I am very satisfied to have tested the game - it has made be a better gamesmaster!

And there are a lot of very cool DCC adventures (the ones written specifically for the DCC ruleset)

Likewise, I grew as a GM by running DCC. And yes, it has some really cool adventures. And settings! There aren't many, but pretty much every one of them is so well done.

 

[CapnZapp]

I don't find that achieving a "build" is a very common goal for 5E players (mostly because the character generation system is front loaded and shallow).

I guess a more accurate description would be players using 5E mostly because WotC doesn't offer anything more intricate.

It should be said that most other games than D&D just don't stand up to scrutiny balance wise.

(DCC for instance. While I loved many aspects of DCC, I really need to use its concepts and ideas in a less chaotic system. DCC celebrates randomness well beyond the point where randomness adds any value)

 

[CapnZapp]

And that's what DCC can teach you. If you only eat hard tacos, DCC and its soft tacos will come as a revelation to you.

If you don't know there is an alternative, you can't choose.

 

[payn]

And that's what DCC can teach you. If you only eat hard tacos, DCC and its soft tacos will come as a revelation to you.

If you don't know there is an alternative, you can't choose.

I think plenty of folks are aware of the alternative, its the constant need to draw lines in the sand that causes the friction.

 

[CapnZapp]

I think plenty of folks are aware of the alternative, its the constant need to draw lines in the sand that causes the friction.

I think that if all you have experienced is games that encourage you to take your heroism for granted, DCC is a real eye-opener.

Of course there will be gamers who don't need DCCs teachings.

 

[CapnZapp]

Likewise, I grew as a GM by running DCC. And yes, it has some really cool adventures. And settings! There aren't many, but pretty much every one of them is so well done.

To me, the difference between the for-DCC adventures and the earlier adventures is a real eye-opener.

To me this difference tells me how games like 3E and 4E (and especially 4E) channels adventure authors into creating in a certain way. A way that must have severely hamstrung the DCC writers, as shown by the creativity explosion that is the DCC-specific adventures.

3E scenarios spend far too much time busying itself with stat blocks, and you always need to keep balance (in mosters, in gold, in loot) in mind.
4E scenarios read as if they're a completely different game. A trail of crumbs where each crumb is a meticulously designed combat encounter.
And in both games (all D&D games except possibly OD&D) you always take it for granted the players play heroes. And that these heroes are expected to win, almost no matter what.

All of this - again to me - served to distract and derail the DCC writers. At least, that's the only explanation I can think of why the difference between pre-DCC adventures and for-DCC adventures are like night and day.

Suddenly with DCC you were free to never think of balance and Challenge Ratings ever again. The rule of cool was set free! You could face gods at first level! Everything suddenly became mysterious and unrestricted and freaking mind-blowing! Nobody no longer cared about numbers and stat blocks and giving your NPCs just the "correct" amount of loot. You were free to have seriously cool but dangerous encounters and traps and meetings. Adventures were free to mess with the player's minds and their characters' bodies!

Not saying this is unique to DCC. You could have much of this with other OSR games.

 

[Retreater]

I guess the problem I have with this concept of "but DCC is hardcore and challenging" - I have no problem in killing characters and entire parties. (I have likely had more TPKs than most of the GMs on this board.) It's not difficult to write an adventure and have a trap that melts a character who steps on the wrong tile. Or have an overpowered, megalithic skeleton appear that is immune to all damage and just kill characters.
It's not creative. It's not unique. It's not exceptional in the least in the OSR sphere.
But ... how about presenting a unique site-based adventure with great puzzles and traps? Corridors and rooms that befuddle the characters (and their players)? Encounters that can be won with good strategy, luck, and character ability?
Balance - and the concept of a fair fight and a good challenge - is difficult to do. I think that's why we don't see it often in the OSR community. So many games in the OSR field go the easy route of "we didn't playtest this, don't really understand game design, and are essentially republishing the same rules from 1974 with minimal effort."
To make something where a more balanced, long-form experience is possible, that's more challenging. But honestly, you might as well play HeroQuest as many of these OSR games.

 

[Ralif Redhammer]

To me, the difference between the for-DCC adventures and the earlier adventures is a real eye-opener.

To me this difference tells me how games like 3E and 4E (and especially 4E) channels adventure authors into creating in a certain way. A way that must have severely hamstrung the DCC writers, as shown by the creativity explosion that is the DCC-specific adventures.

3E scenarios spend far too much time busying itself with stat blocks, and you always need to keep balance (in mosters, in gold, in loot) in mind.
4E scenarios read as if they're a completely different game. A trail of crumbs where each crumb is a meticulously designed combat encounter.
And in both games (all D&D games except possibly OD&D) you always take it for granted the players play heroes. And that these heroes are expected to win, almost no matter what.

All of this - again to me - served to distract and derail the DCC writers. At least, that's the only explanation I can think of why the difference between pre-DCC adventures and for-DCC adventures are like night and day.

Suddenly with DCC you were free to never think of balance and Challenge Ratings ever again. The rule of cool was set free! You could face gods at first level! Everything suddenly became mysterious and unrestricted and freaking mind-blowing! Nobody no longer cared about numbers and stat blocks and giving your NPCs just the "correct" amount of loot. You were free to have seriously cool but dangerous encounters and traps and meetings. Adventures were free to mess with the player's minds and their characters' bodies!

Not saying this is unique to DCC. You could have much of this with other OSR games.

The 3e Goodman Games modules felt very much like they were trying to recapture a feeling that was often at odds with the design choices of 3e. Some of them were very good, mind you, but there is a huge difference between them and DCC RPG's adventures are. In general, I think it's no coincidence that the OSR hit when it did, when people were starting to feel the strictures of the editions at the time.