The charts give me pause. Not because they're too cumbersome. Some quick copying to full sheets or even a card will make it easy enough. The randomness of charts like the ones in DCCRPG is fun at first, but becomes repetitive over time. We used Arms Laws for Rolemaster in 1E AD&D. The first time someone fumbled and rolled "tripped over an unseen imaginary dead turtle" it was fun. The 20th time, not so much. I've found that if I am going encounter repetitiveness, I will enjoy myself much more if the outcome is reliable. Like a D&D spell of any edition. The (usually) only variable is hit or miss (or save/no save). Otherwise the spell always does what's advertised.
I'll respond to this part of your post specifically than give some general feedback. DCC will be using random charts including spells. If you like a spell to do what is advertised that won't be the case in DCC. The spell will be like in Vance's work or other fantasy from the 60s and 70s--it will vary based both on user will and fate, moreso to user will but not always.
Also, thanks for the dialogue. I think it helps clarify one way that DCC can played (how I'm running it) and provide some insight for those curious about the game.
Here's a quick recap of what I like about DCC and what I saw working in the playtest I've run. I'll try to be factual and I may clarify with opinion after the facts.
1. No map or minis needed. I see this as a huge feature and not a bug. I can engage with the players more and the map less, I have less to buy and carry around, and it cuts down on adventure prep time (I don't have to find the right minis and maps). I didn't experience communication problems. In fact, no map and minis kept my players from getting distracted by counting squares and looking at the map rather than the scene in their mind's eye.
2. Combat not think so hard does that mean the game is it dumbed down?--I see what you mean. My point is I didn't have to juggle conditions, track marks, put skulls on for bloodied and handle multiple interrupts. Or in PF terms I didn't have to monitor various conditions with variable durations, AoO, reach, auras, look up lots of spells/monster abilities for monsters etc. Is the game dumbed down (ie more like a boardgame?). Not at all--in fact the board is gone and so are all the game pieces so the players have to treat things more like an ongoing story and react based on what is in their mind. They have to ask questions to clarify what is going on and respond to things as they unfold.
So less dumbed down or more smarted up I'd say--if you are looking to shift the player focus from tactical conflict with roleplay and exploration in between to a more seamless flowing narrative.
My brain can handle the story-based unfolding of events much more easily than my brain and hands can juggle all the fiddly bits of 4E and the conditions and page flipping of PF. I like both those systems but they are a lot of work to coordinate and run smoothly. Lots of planning, lots of details in the adventure (terrain info and conditions for 4E, looked up spells and abilities in PF etc.).
3. Is there a risk that the game will become silly, slapstick, or grind to a halt with too many character deaths? If the players don't play well, yes. Do I think players who are engaged and into the game will see things fall apart or get silly? No.
The playtest showed the opposite--a zero-level TPk and I offered to start the next game at 1st. Players said no, we want to earn 1st level. They became extremely engaged and dedicated to the game very quickly (one pick-up game in fact was all it took and they started recruiting more players).
The judge needs to ground the player characters (give them some names to pick from, a village, and some people they know) and the rest flows just fine. I wouldn't want to play DCC in a vaccum (no NPCs, no village, no flavorful names) for long-term though.
4. Overall, the judge and players need to communicate clearly (one-shot versus campaign, go over trust issues), play nice together (be okay with character death but not strive for it, work together to decide how some things work), and play well (the judge and players not just the system are in control of game balance).
I like the fact that the DCC game rules become another piece of the story my players and I are telling and part of the world we're building. 4E uses rules to create balance from which story can flow which is fine. PF uses rules to give structure to fantasy module writing/stories which is also fine. DCC rules become part of the story (in the form of fate and interference by gods and demons) that is somewhat controlled by the judge and players jointly but in some ways is a whole other part of the game with a will of its own. Also fine (and in fact my preferred method).
All three games are great and do different things and do those different things well. Just depends on what you're looking for and have time to work with.
