Dungeon Crawl Classics RPG from Goodman Games

[JeffB]

People spend 2-4 hours building a detailed 3.X, 4E, or PF character combing through book after book , or a DM spends as many hours building an encounter- often with the necessity of some kind of computer software.


And yet people are complaining that Combat will grind to a halt due to the complexity of fllipping to a page in a book and rolling dice a couple of times to get a spell result?

Really?

:smacksforehead:

 

[TarionzCousin]

Sounds like an epic inter-brand bunfight at $37 altitude.

That typo is awesome.

 

[mach1.9pants]

OK, so how does that prevent the groundwork from being from Goodman's house rules? And why is that a bad thing to say?

Because House Rules are used at The House, i.e. one place. This is a game from a publisher, used in many Houses in play-testing and also cons therefore not a house rule. House Rule implies one person/groups personal opinion with little to no outside input. There fore DCC RPG is not House Rules. Unless every RPG is House Rules on the first ever DnD.

However what annoyed me was the posters 'Meh this is just crap like all the rest when' a) neither he (nor me) have ever seen it and b) it is a published rule set b a reasonably large sized company (take out WotC and Paizo and they are right up there). I much prefer to judge things when I see them.
"A popular trend is seized upon by people just trying to cash in on a fad with low-quality products that increasingly reduce demand and split the loyalty of customers." That is a pretty hard statement about a respected RPG company. If that poster is talking the truth we need a max limit on RPG games (or maybe d20 games) and the ruthless cull of all others! Rubbish, the more the merrier. I want innovation, adaption and new games.

Yes it will be driven by one person's or a small groups vision, as are all RPGs. But, although I don't know, I am pretty sure it won't be a "low-quality product", a cackhanded pile of poo.

 

[kaomera]

And yet people are complaining that Combat will grind to a halt due to the complexity of fllipping to a page in a book and rolling dice a couple of times to get a spell result?

Really?

Ayup.

Prep is one thing, because you can do it solo, in pieces over the course of the week or whatever. Slowing things down once everyone's gathered around the table is much more significant. I'm not worried yet, I don't sweat previews when I can avoid it, but it's a valid concern. Now founded or unfounded is another issue, but only the actual release will tell.

 

[Filcher]

Yes it will be driven by one person's or a small groups vision, as are all RPGs.

Agreed. Better a game driven by a vision, than focus groups attempting to determine "what people want."

 

[ProfessorCirno]

People spend 2-4 hours building a detailed 3.X, 4E, or PF character combing through book after book , or a DM spends as many hours building an encounter- often with the necessity of some kind of computer software.


And yet people are complaining that Combat will grind to a halt due to the complexity of fllipping to a page in a book and rolling dice a couple of times to get a spell result?

Really?

:smacksforehead:

Which is worse:

Spending your time in the week between games making a character at your leisure?

Spending everyone else's time flipping through your book to find the table for your spell every time your turn comes up?

Or watching as the wizard spends yet another half an hour casting his spell so you can spend half a minute saying "I attack" then rolling two dice?"

 

[mach1.9pants]

^ Going slightly of topic there but to clarify from the DCC forum.

You are looking at 4-6 spells per Mage, therefore easily have the tables of results in card form, like 4E.. although they will be slightly larger!
Warriors

I'm starting up a new thread to answer this question to keep it distinct.

To stress a point that needs to be constantly reinforced: this game is in playtest mode, meaning the rules played today are different from the rules played yesterday. We're trying different ideas at different sessions, trading notes, and tweaking constantly. What you're about to read is the result of that tweaking and not yet final...but definitely moving in the right direction.

Regarding the specific question, something DCC RPG tries to achieve is the feel of pre-D&D sword & sorcery. In practical terms, that means not just interesting magic, but also amazing stunts by warriors.

In game terms, D&D has done this for generations and consistently created complex sub-systems as a result. 3E did it with feats, 4E with powers, prior systems with other mechanisms, and they tend to create complexity and limit the warrior far more than what the literature suggests. Conan, Elric, and John Carter didn't specialize in a single weapon style or a special type of fighting to become they heroes they were. They were good at it all.

What I'm playing with right now is base attack bonus. In traditional D&D, fighter types get +1 at level 1, +2 at level 2, +3 at level 3, and so on. In DCC RPG right now, warriors get d3 at level 1, d4 at level 2, d5 at level 3, and so on.

By "d3 at level 1," I mean the warrior rolls a d3 on every attack roll. This attack is d20+d3+Str mod; next attack is d20+d3+Str; etc. It's not a d3 made at the level-up time, but rolled anew every attack.

The sum of these dice forms the attack roll, which is compared to AC as usual.

If the overall attack roll hits, AND that d3 is a 3 or better, the warrior can perform a cool stunt declared at moment of attack. We call this a Mighty Deed of Arms.

Examples of actual Mighty Deeds performed in play:

* When fighting opponents on a staircase, someone used a sword to stab the opponent and then lever them over the edge of the staircase

* In the same battle, someone attacked the foe's legs to knock them off balance and off the staircase

* When fighting a carven image with eyes that shot laser beams, a warrior used a mace to smash out the carved eyes (and thus disarm the laser beams)

* When fighting a basilisk with a hypnotizing gaze, a warrior tried to stab it in the eye to disable its gaze

* When fighting a flying skull that was out of melee reach, a warrior tried to leap off the back of another character into a flying lunge that connected with the skull in mid-air (very cool)

* When hurling flasks of burning oil at a giant toad, a warrior aimed for the toad's open mouth to throw the oil down its gullet

* In a battle with enemies arrayed in a single-file line, a warrior hurled a javelin straight through the first enemy to spear it to the next opponent in line, entangling the one foe with the corpse of his ally

All the examples above were off-the-cuff maneuvers declared by players in-game at the moment of dice rolling (about half these examples came up in my games over the last two days).

At level 2, the warrior rolls d4 instead of d3. A roll of 3-4 on the d4, on an attack that beats AC overall, allows for a Mighty Deed of Arms.

At level 3, the warrior rolls d5 instead of d3. A roll of 3-5 on the d5, on an attack that beats AC overall, allows for a Mighty Deed of Arms.

And so on. It's fast, it's easy, it's ad hoc, and it allows for amazing in-game fighter maneuvers without the cumbersome elements of feats and prior edition attempts to do this. The rules do include DM guidelines on how to handle classic instances of Mighty Deeds (disarm, parry, bull rush, etc.) but in play so far almost every example I've seen is a really cool unique situation-specific maneuver - exactly what I am going for.

There are a couple other wrinkles, too. The "action die" (as I'm calling the d3, d4, d5, etc.) is also added to damage. (The same roll as for the attack -- if you get a 2 on the die for the attack, you add 2 to the damage.) Warriors with multiple weapons roll one action die and attach it to both weapon attack rolls. Etc.

Hopefully that makes sense. It's working out great in play so far.

From here: Goodman Games • View topic - Warrior mechanics

Seems to me that the pointy stick guys will still be getting a fair bit of love with their crit tables and the Mighty Deeds.

Another point is the randomness of this game, it is a feature not a bug. This is going to put a LOT of people off, I think. Joseph has stated that the randomness will stop any form of real min/maxing, 'cos you just cannot control it! To that point, if you start at the bottom, you star with 3 PCs... hopefully between the party there will be enough left for one each at the end of your first adventure

 

[Neonchameleon]

Because magic missile is a D&D staple, it provides a good example of what I mean by “lack of predictability in spellcasting.” In traditional D&D editions, magic missile includes a modicum of unpredictability: for example, in 3.5, each missile did 1d4+1 damage, and a higher-level caster receives a predictable number of additional missiles. In DCC RPG, magic missile is fundamentally more variable. Here is the table of spell results. Remember that the caster rolls 1d20, and adds his caster level and Intelligence modifier, so a level 1 wizard is usually adding +2 or +3:

Quote:
1-11: Lost. Failure.
12-13: You can throw 1 missile that does 1 point of damage. You must have line of sight to the target. The missile flows unerringly and never misses, though it may be blocked by certain magic (e.g., magic shield).
14-17: As above, but 1 missile does damage 1d4 + caster level.
18-19: As above, but 1d4 missiles that each do damage 1d4 + caster level. All missiles must be aimed at a single target.
20-23: As above, but 1d4 missiles that each do damage 1d6 + caster level. You may aim each missile at an individual target.
24-27: As above, but one extremely powerful missile that does damage 4d12 + caster level. Range is increased to 1,000’, provided line of sight is maintained.
28-29: As above, but 1d8 missiles that each do damage 1d8 + caster level. Range is increased to line of sight, as long as missiles travel in a direct path.
30-31: As above but 1d10 missiles that each do damage 1d8 + caster level. Each missile may be aimed individually. Range is line of sight, regardless of whether a direct path exists; e.g., the caster may launch a magic missile through a crystal ball or other scrying device. These missiles have limited ability to defy magic shield and other protections; compare this spell check against the spell check used to create the magic shield. If the magic missile check is higher, the magic shield has only a 50% chance of absorbing the missiles (roll individually for each missile). Any missiles that make it through do damage 1d8 + caster level, as noted above.
32+: As above but 1d10 missiles that each do damage 1d10 + caster level. The caster may direct these missiles individually as a single action, or may direct them all at a single target who is not present or visible, provided he has specific knowledge of that target. In this case, the caster must have a physical memento of the target (hair, fingernail, vial of blood, etc.) and spend 1 turn concentrating to cast the spell, then continue concentrating as the missiles seek their target. The missiles will aim for this target even if it is concealed or invisible, though they have a maximum range of 100 miles. The missiles will turn, curve, re-trace their route, and make every effort to reach the target, although they cannot cross planes. The missiles can travel up to 10 miles per second provided no obstacles are present, but speed is much lower if, for example, they must navigate underground caverns. Provided a direct route exists, the missiles will strike the target unerringly.

Right. Good to know that level 10 casters rule the world. Seriously, that jump in power once they hit the possibility of an ability check of 30 is huge. It turns a combat spell into a utility assassination spell the wizard doesn't have to leave his tower to cast. And because he doesn't have to leave his tower, he can keep casting and scrying until he gets it right. Therefore just one caster of level 10 means that no one dares let themself be scryed on or give up a lock of hair or toenail clippings or they could easily end up dead, whatever precautions they took; the things are even shield piercing.

That and Joseph Goodman's claim that greater variability inhibits min-maxing are two things putting me right off.

 

[Wystan]

It turns a combat spell into a utility assassination spell the wizard doesn't have to leave his tower to cast. And because he doesn't have to leave his tower, he can keep casting and scrying until he gets it right. Therefore just one caster of level 10 means that no one dares let themself be scryed on or give up a lock of hair or toenail clippings or they could easily end up dead, whatever precautions they took; the things are even shield piercing.

Note that they are not door or window piercing.... Obstacles Stop them dead...

And I am sure that there are protections against scrying....

 

[Filcher]

Note that they are not door or window piercing.... Obstacles Stop them dead...

And I am sure that there are protections against scrying....

And the mis-casting any spell has the chance of swallowing your soul.