Dungeon Crawl Classics RPG from Goodman Games

[jdrakeh]

And, BTW, what? No d30?!

It's not exclusively a Zocchi die. In fact, they weren't even the first ones to produce a 30-sided die.

 

[frankthedm]

Streamlining is good. Edit: If the loss of flavorful skills is the cost to avoid cherry picked feats and PRCs, I'll take it

I might have preordered, but some unknown variables made me old off.

• Approximate Page count is important. I'm not expecting 400 pages for $35, but 96 pages would be too small.
• Not sure if they would charge my paypal account right away for a preorder.
• Want to make sure this won't be a bare bones Base Book then separate Player & GM books like WW does.

 

[Remathilis]

(I’m not privy to sales, so take this with a grain of salt, but …)

The DCC RPG is first and foremost the fantasy game that Joseph wants to run and play, rather than the game that is going to make him money.

//H

I wasn't doubting that. In fact, I think its gusty to make another fantasy rpg in a world so littered with them. Kenzer brought their IP home in Hackmaster Basic, and Paizo supports their material with Pathfinder, so I guess its no surprise Goodman Games wants to do the same.

I'm just leery on yet-another fantasy RPG that is completely incompatible with the others. The beauty of the OGL/3e era was that I could drop in material from Kenzer, Paizo, Goodman, and WotC into the same game and worry little about conversion, since they all ran on the same d20 kernel. Now, each of them have games as different as can be while still using d20s to hit. (I think. Does HM:B use d20s?)

I secretly had hoped DCC RPG was going to be more d20 compatible so I could again use DCCs in my Pathfinder game (or switch to DCC if it was simpler than Paizo's offering). What has been said though makes it sound like the apple's fallen a bit too far from the tree, and making a DCC module work in PF would require the same amount of work as making a 1e module or a Palladium one work. (aka extensive re-write).

As a former Goodman Games/DCC fan, that saddens me.

 

[jaerdaph]

Streamlining is good.

Exactly. As I get older, less* is more.

*less rules, less prep, less setup, less learning curve, etc...

 

[Harley Stroh]

I'm just leery on yet-another fantasy RPG that is completely incompatible with the others. The beauty of the OGL/3e era was that I could drop in material from Kenzer, Paizo, Goodman, and WotC into the same game and worry little about conversion, since they all ran on the same d20 kernel. Now, each of them have games as different as can be while still using d20s to hit. (I think. Does HM:B use d20s?)

I secretly had hoped DCC RPG was going to be more d20 compatible so I could again use DCCs in my Pathfinder game (or switch to DCC if it was simpler than Paizo's offering). What has been said though makes it sound like the apple's fallen a bit too far from the tree, and making a DCC module work in PF would require the same amount of work as making a 1e module or a Palladium one work. (aka extensive re-write).

As a former Goodman Games/DCC fan, that saddens me.

I hear you. I hope you'll take a peek at the playtest rules and weigh in.

//H

 

[delericho]

Meh.

I used to love Goodman, and its "back to the dungeon" feel. This, however, leaves me cold.

Yeah. Sadly, me too.

There's an awful lot I like about what they say this game is going to be. I like the idea of streamlining the rules, and I like going back the Appendix N for inspiration (without slavishly sticking with the D&D interpretations of that material).

But, as with 4e, it seems that for everything I like and/or agree with, there's something I really don't like. Here the big two are "races as classes" and using odd-shaped dice.

Still, more games out there means there's more chance that everyone will find some game that suits them, so that's got to be good. I wish Goodman the best of luck with this.

 

[NN]

My concern - will the game support "open-sandboxy-old-style-campaign-play".

Races as classes?: depends on the multiclassing rules.

 

[frankthedm]

And I'm really hoping for less Priest = Band Aid. Nothing wrong with Crusaders killing monsters in the dungeon, but leave the stitching up to time, potions and primitive chirurgery.

 

[vagabundo]

The 4e DCC seemed to have stopped coming this year 2010. Thats a shame. Although I always though they should have published adventures for both 3e (PF compatoible) and 4e.

In fact DCCs and the new essential classes go hand in hand I think.

 

[aboyd]

For those complaining about the dice, I would point out that this interest of Goodman's is not new. In Sinister Secret of Whiterock (DCC 51.5), the encounter tables used d5s and had a sidebar about Gamescience Dice which read like a small advertisement. I was turned off enough by that to convert the wandering monster table to a d% roll.

Having said that, I would note that otherwise the module was lovely, and I ran it 3 times. So if Goodman's new RPG rules are otherwise fine, and if the modules are otherwise fine, I'm inclined to buy it.

I very much appreciate moving away from the battle mat. I very much do not want to go back to races as classes. Not only is that uninteresting to me, but multiple old-school products already do that.

Having said that, I suspect it doesn't matter. If Goodman is making the RPG he wants to play regardless of sales potential, he'll be fine with a product that only appeals to a tiny sliver of a tiny market.

He'll be running a playtest at DunDraCon. I will be there, so I will try to get in on that.