DCC Level 0 Character Funnel is a Bad Concept

[overgeeked]

That's true. It just doesn't do anything for me, personally.

I'm just generally against any indication that preferring a play style that's more difficult is any sort of sign of actual moral rectitude.

Well, luckily that’s not happening. We’re talking about the PCs being heroes because they survived the funnel, not the players being heroes for playing through a funnel.

 

[TwoSix]

Well, luckily that’s not happening. We’re talking about the PCs being heroes because they survived the funnel, not the players being heroes for playing through a funnel.

Sure. Just wanted to make sure we're all clear that paragraphs like the one below are being obviously hyperbolic.

The advantage of the DCC approach is that the heroes that DO survive feel actually heroic. They have DESERVED their fame (and their class abilities). They have faced actual danger (as opposed to a game that works very hard to create an illusion of danger). They have seen their fellow party members die, sometimes through no fault of their own. They have persevered and willingly* entered danger despite the game not giving two shits if you live or die. That's real heroism in my view.
*) except when forced

 

[overgeeked]

Sure. Just wanted to make sure we're all clear that paragraphs like the one below are being obviously hyperbolic.

At no point in that quote does that poster claim to be a hero themselves because they played through a funnel, nor do they claim moral superiority for same, so I don't see how what you were saying connects to this.

And yes, playing through something makes it more real to the player because they made the choices, rolled the dice, and got lucky…or burned Luck, in DCC’s case. At a guess, most people would agree that actually playing through a scene is more memorable and visceral to them than reading about it. So yes, I can absolutely see why people would feel playing through something feels more earned than simply being told about an event after the fact.

To push things into a real-world example. You meet someone and within 60 seconds of knowing them they tell you they are trustworthy compared to spending 8-16 hours with that person living through intense situations where you learn first hand that you can trust that person. Which is the better gauge of the person's trustworthiness? The lived experience. In that situation the person has earned your trust. Similarly to how playing through harrowing situations with PCs bonds them together far more than writing "we're old friends" on a piece of paper ever could.

 

[TwoSix]

At no point in that quote does that poster claim to be a hero themselves because they played through a funnel, nor do they claim moral superiority for same, so I don't see how what you were saying connects to this.

The use of the word "deserved" and the term "actual danger" are generally red flags to me that the user is conflating "modes of play" with some kind of actual virtue. If that isn't the case here, then we have no disagreement.

And yes, playing through something makes it more real to the player because they made the choices, rolled the dice, and got lucky…or burned Luck, in DCC’s case. At a guess, most people would agree that actually playing through a scene is more memorable and visceral to them than reading about it. So yes, I can absolutely see why people would feel playing through something feels more earned than simply being told about an event after the fact.

I have no idea. I suppose to a lot of people it might. To me, it doesn't. I'm obviously aware that the funnel expects each player to have at least 1 0-level character survive, and if they don't, the player just makes up a new 1st level character anyway. I don't think anyone is advocating kicking the player out of the campaign if none of their 0-levels survive the funnel.

To push things into a real-world example. You meet someone and within 60 seconds of knowing them they tell you they are trustworthy compared to spending 8-16 hours with that person living through intense situations where you learn first hand that you can trust that person. Which is the better gauge of the person's trustworthiness? The lived experience. In that situation the person has earned your trust. Similarly to how playing through harrowing situations with PCs bonds them together far more than writing "we're old friends" on a piece of paper ever could.

I've had characters be close friends because the other player and I decided to add that into our backstories. I've had characters have close friendships because of a randomly rolled shared experience as part of our backstory in Beyond the Wall. And I've had characters become close due to experiences in a 0th level game, where it took 5 sessions before we even picked a class.

None of those distinctions changed how the character's friendship played out at the table. It's all still a fiction I choose to embrace in my roleplaying choices moving forward, regardless of its origin.

Again, I'm sure to some people it matters. And I think the 0th-level funnel is a fun experience, overall. But to me, it carries no weight of "actual danger". It's just one interesting starting scenario among others.

 

[overgeeked]

The use of the word "deserved" and the term "actual danger" are generally red flags to me that the user is conflating "modes of play" with some kind of actual virtue. If that isn't the case here, then we have no disagreement.

Again, I'm sure to some people it matters. And I think the 0th-level funnel is a fun experience, overall. But to me, it carries no weight of "actual danger".

"Actual danger" in the sense of the PC might die during the funnel whereas there's no "actual danger" in a PC's written background. The PC is already made, is already leveled, is already at the table ready to play. There's no risk of the PC dying in that written background. There is when playing through a 0-level funnel. That's what the "actual danger" means in this instance.

Sorry, but conflating that with some kind of moral superiority seems to be entirely a you thing.

It's just one interesting starting scenario among others.

For me, it's one of...if not the most interesting starting scenario. If not the proper 0-level funnel then starting at 1st level using old school rules where the PCs can drop like flies.

I have no idea. I suppose to a lot of people it might. To me, it doesn't.

So, if you recognize this, why are you arguing so much against it being a thing? Are there other play styles that don't work for you? Do you spend a lot of time arguing about how they shouldn't be a thing for other people because they don't do much for you?

 

[TwoSix]

Sorry, but conflating that with some kind of moral superiority seems to be entirely a you thing.

If you've never seen gamers act like playing a "harder game" makes them better gamers, then we've been traveling in different circles.

So, if you recognize this, why are you arguing so much against it being a thing? Are there other play styles that don't work for you? Do you spend a lot of time arguing about how they shouldn't be a thing for other people because they don't do much for you?

I never argued against the playstyle. In post #374, I said 0th-level funnels were quite fun.

I only posted because post #362 came across as a little bit too much of a "Play this actually hard game and put some hair on your chest!" type of post, which I always find a little silly.

If that wasn't your parsing of post #362, then we read it differently. And that's OK, we've subsequently discovered our disagreement in the later posts.

Posting to clarify disagreements on interpretation is a good reason for posting, I feel.

 

[overgeeked]

If you've never seen gamers act like playing a "harder game" makes them better gamers, then we've been traveling in different circles.

Ah. Yes. I was referring to this thread, not gamers as a whole. Yes, that's absolutely a thing. I just don't see it happening here and now in this thread.

I only posted because post #362 came across as a little bit too much of a "Play this actually hard game and put some hair on your chest!" type of post, which I always find a little silly.

If that wasn't your parsing of post #362, then we read it differently. And that's OK, we've subsequently discovered our disagreement in the later posts.

Yeah, I definitely read it differently than you did.

People play games for a lot of different reasons. Some of them mutually exclusive and some of them completely nonsensical to those who don't share that reason. Take challenge as a great example. Some people play games for the challenge, others don't, others still will avoid a game with anything approaching a challenge like the plague. I read "play this game because it's challenging" as the poster saying that game's level of challenge in game play is important to them. I read "that game's too challenging" as the poster saying that game's level of challenge in game play is too much for them. Nothing more. Morality doesn't enter into it. It's all about what you find fun.

Sometimes you want to play Elden Ring, others Darkest Dungeon on Stygian, others still Civilization on Settler. None are objectively better or worse, they just suit different reasons for playing games better or worse than others.

Posting to clarify disagreements on interpretation is a good reason for posting, I feel.

Absolutely.

 

[MNblockhead]

I'd wager that I've have played D&D as long as many people here. (I started DMing in 1989.)
I've never said that I mind character death or that I want characters to be superheroes.
I just don't like games where the PCs are worse than everything encountered. Even in the earliest editions of D&D, a magic user's spell could come in clutch. Or a fighter might have better armor or more hit points than a goblin.
To me, the funnel just seems bad design. It's also what DCC bases the product line upon. It's the primary selling point: a Session 0 adventure.

You don't have to play the funnel and it is not DCC's "primary selling point." Yes, they highly encourage trying it out, it is a valued part of the DCC "ethos" but an even more valued part of the DCC ethos is to kitbash and play the game how you want.

"The judge is always right. Let the rules bend to you not the other way around" and "[f]ear no rule. I know you will homebrew this game: I trust it will remain recognizable but different from as I conceived it. Such is as it should be." Dungeon Crawl Classics Role Playing Game 314 (8th Printing).

If you like the system over all, but hate the funnel, then just role up some level 1 characters and have at it. But if you then find you had the randomness of magic, races as classes, and other rules that lean into OD&D, then, yeah, probably not the game for you.

You are in good company if you think all of this is "bad design", decades of game design have evolved TTRPGs far beyond OD&D. But then a good number of people liked the simplicity, randomness, and deadliness of "old school D&D". DCC is one of the systems that fills this demand, with an extra dash of the weird and the random. It works for a lot of people and is a good design for them.

If you like the rest of the rules, don't mind the "funny dice", randomness of spell casting, etc., but hate the funnel, then...don't use the funnel. Simple.

 

[MNblockhead]

That's true. It just doesn't do anything for me, personally.

I'm just generally against any indication that preferring a play style that's more difficult is any sort of sign of actual moral rectitude.

DCC isn't more difficult, actually the rules are pretty easy to learn. It is not the only TTRPG where PC death is more common. Paranoia, Call of Cthulu, Dread, Warhammer Fantasy and others lean into this with various mechanics.If you want PC death or madness to be rare, then these are not the type of systems for you.

I agree that there are those in the OSR crowd, Warhammer crowd, etc. who obnoxiously denigrate other styles of play and the systems that support them. But those who denigrate deadlier and more random styles of play are just as obnoxious. As someone who enjoys a wide variety of styles of play, I have a hard time understanding why some people feel the need to put down styles that differ from their preferred stye.

 

[MNblockhead]

If you've never seen gamers act like playing a "harder game" makes them better gamers, then we've been traveling in different circles.

Outside of a small number of people in TTRPG discussion boards, I've not seen such folks in person since highschool in the 80s. I'm glad to be traveling in different circles these days.