Dungeon Crawl Classics..the game.

[jeffb]

Been out for a year now, what do folks think? How does it run with the extra chart lookups?

I finally got to peruse a copy, and it seemed to do alot of things I have been trying to do with my OD&D/S&W mashups, whicth is to integrate some 3e and 4e isms..."better" math, "stunts", more character options, simplified monster stats but slightly more granular than od&d, among other things.

This would be run for my kids group ....13/14 yos. . I printed off some of the free charts and tables available online and showed them. They loved the deeds, deed die, crits, spell variability, etc...fumbles, not so much no funnels either, they expressed extreme disinterest for that idea.


But they tend to get bogged down in complexity and hate slow combat ( I run TOtM style, with no minis/grids, and simple group initiative rolled each round). I figured with the charts, they will not have new rules to learn/retain..just roll the dice and read the result.

Anyone care to share their experiences?

[doc]

This is the game I wanted to play way back when I entered the hobby in the early 80's. The characters are assumed to be amoral, death is an almost certainty, and magic is wild and unpredictable, even for powerful wizards. The game systems all work well to convey a feel of dark, gritty, almost grimy fantasy that is just a blast when compared to the implied Heroic Fantasy of most other games. The book is profusely illustrated with losts of flavor. My only complaint is that there is an overwhelming amount of information presented; I would have done it as a player's book and DM book. Overall, I think it's a great game. Even if you don't play it, it's worth a thorough read-through.


Doc

[Finarvyn]

DCC is a wonderful game and I highly recommend it. It has a great atmosphere and both the rulebook and modules are well illustrated to help give that awesome feel to them. You can play with all of the rules or trim out some that seem heavy to you. (For example, I don't like Mercurial Magic, which makes each spell slightly different for each caster. It's just a detail I don't want to bother with, so I made it go away and don't feel the loss at all. Maybe someday I'll have a player who wants to do it, so I'll let him use the rule.)

I'd say you can help yourself out a lot with a little pre-game prep. Print off a few key charts in advance, or make yourself a GM screen. (You can download some nifty sheets from the Goodman website. I have a "player's sheet" and a "GM sheet" printed on cardstock that I keep handy when I run a game.) Also, print off the spell pages that your wizard characters will need. Spells aren't complex, but each one has its own chart. If those things are handy, it removes a huge obsticle and keeps things easy to manage. In other words, the thick rulebook is really an illusion if you have a few pre-printed props.

Either buy funky dice or think through the combinations needed. I playtested DCC for months before I bought d14's and the like, and didn't really think it was a big deal but the dice thing seems to really annoy some players. Most of what you need can be done with a regular polyhedral dice set and a little imagination.

[cleverkobold]

Pretty much what Fin said. I would like to add that funnels are way more fun than they seem; especially if you use the online 0 lvl character generator to speed things up. The modules for it are really very good, i'm reading the Croaking Fane right now and can't wait to play it.

0 lvl party generator purplesorcerer.com/create.htm

[jeffb]

Hey thanks for the words of advice all. I went ahead and ordered a copy of the book along with a set of dice we will all have to share- freakin dice cost half as much as the book!

I have been over to the resource thread at the GG forums and downloaded several versions of charts/tables/ sheets for play.

Any good articles/references for conversions of older D&D or 3.x modules? The DCC adventures assume a ton of PCs, and the kids do not like running more than one character apiece...been there, done that.

[jeffb]

definitely I was inspired by the Appendix N flavor. despite the fact I run newer games too, my "fluff" heart lies in D&D's literary roots.

However I do like alot of what I see in DCC mechanics, and many ideas I was already using in my OD&D/S&W games ("martial" dice, for example)


And it looks to be MUCH easier to convert not only older O/AD&D and OSR materials to DCC, but also 3.X/PF. I will admit that this Grog really really loves his 4E Essentials, but there was a serious lack of quality adventure material, which makes life difficult as I usually have little prep time. I often run my OD&D/S&W games on the fly with a map, and an idea. I am hoping DCC will allow me to continue to do that, though I understand it is slightly more complex.

[Falconer]

I wish there were some format to get DCC in other than SINGLE MASSIVE TOME.

I’m thinking basically the 168-page “Beta Rules,” redone into nice little booklets and sold in a neat box, would have been a great project for John Adams. Maybe someday.

As a fan of AD&D, AS&SH, and Stormbringer — and an un-fan of “sensible” but dead 3e mechanics — I’m not sure I’ll ever run DCC. But, you never know.

[kesher]

I haven't actually played it yet, though I've read it and talked about it a lot.

Here are some of my thoughts.

I really dig the CRAWL! Fanzine...

[jeffb]

Thanks for the link to your Blog, Kesher.

My thoughts on the funnel- as a player I would have fun doing it..as a novelty type session....its that easy character death that was so prevalent back when I was starting out with the LBBs and a fighter with 3 HP.

That said, as a DM, the funnel does not interest me much at all, and running it for my Kids group, even less so. As you mentioned, I really do not see this as inherently appendix N-like , though it is inherently low level Od&d as written, and played * by some groups*

In addition the whole expected size of the adventuring parties in DCC, is totally not my thing, and never was back in the day..same issue with retainers. Not a fan of that concept. One of THE best things about 3e for me was the expectation of 4 PCs, as this was always my preference. 3 is OK, 5 is OK, 4 is perfect.

Ae an aside, the book arrived and I will be diving into it. I need to get familiar with the subsystems as well as either get to work on a intro adventure for the Kids, or convert something in my collection....

I have had a strong urge to convert The Legion of Gold (gamma world 1e), as it oozes DCC feel to me with some toning down of the tech.

[skars]

I'm a huge fan of DCC RPG and I have run about 20 sessions at this point. The funnel is a challenge for Judges because of the number of characters, but there are lots of recommendations on how to make this easier. It can be really great fun converting old modules (Gamma World works great, Albuquerque Starport)to a DCC funnel. The weak spots in the game can be easily smoothed over with house rules. But, unlike some OSR material it's not a toolkit. It really is a complete game in and of itself. Even though it looks like a duck in the 3e/4e sense, it really plays much faster without all the tactical crap stripped out-replaced with awesome abilities or mighty deeds that inspire creativity over grinding repetition. Have a go at it and enjoy yourself.

[jeffb]

Yeah, this is cool. I already knew it was a rules light 3.x engine, which is how I run 3.x/PF when I do, but it keeps the bloat at bay,by removing feats and rolling in some neat class abilities, and magic subsystems. Nice simple skill system, if you can call it that..essentially what I do in my S&W games.

Moreso, just some fun reading..very inspiring, and definitely brings me back to those days when the LBBs and the wild and wooly campaign was the norm. No need to codify and categorize everything. No feeding off and regurgitating D&Ds own established canon/brand of fantasy like it has for the past 30 plus years

Had been contemplating running a pre made setting, but now think I may just wing something....we shall see...

[kesher]

I've always thought there are tons of implied setting bits in the book itself, from spells and Patrons to the illustrations themselves (those slaver-giants just beg to be put in a campaign...)

[jeffb]

Sept 20, 2013 8:29:31 GMT -6 kesher said:

I've always thought there are tons of implied setting bits in the book itself, from spells and Patrons to the illustrations themselves (those slaver-giants just beg to be put in a campaign...)

Yup, that is what I was getting at/thinking...just pull flavor text and aesthetic impressions into a basic outline of a setting.


The kids really enjoy setting flavor and the different settings I have utilized over the past couple of years (Golarion, Greyhawk, OGB Realms, The Known World, Haunted Highlands)...the deities good and bad, some history, NPCs and the goofy voices I give them (Just so everyone knows, Blodgett has an Australian accent) , geography. Awhile back one of them asked me what exactly happens to the souls of the dead and it turned into a hour long discussion of the planes/deities/great wheel, lol.

I like Homebrews but established settings make my life easier. I can spend more prep time on adventures.

[cleverkobold]

Sept 20, 2013 8:29:31 GMT -6 kesher said:

I've always thought there are tons of implied setting bits in the book itself, from spells and Patrons to the illustrations themselves (those slaver-giants just beg to be put in a campaign...)

Who was it that was saying they thought that Nehwon was the implied setting for DCC? I love that idea, as Nehwon is my default setting anyway.

[jeffb]

Sept 21, 2013 22:08:29 GMT -6 cleverkobold said:

Sept 20, 2013 8:29:31 GMT -6 kesher said:

I've always thought there are tons of implied setting bits in the book itself, from spells and Patrons to the illustrations themselves (those slaver-giants just beg to be put in a campaign...)

Who was it that was saying they thought that Nehwon was the implied setting for DCC? I love that idea, as Nehwon is my default setting anyway.

I definitely get a Nehwon/Lhankmar feel more than anything else appendix N, from the DCC rulebook.

And that is not a bad thing.

On a similar Appendix N note... I am finding Mongoose's Ruins of Hyboria( for the Conan RPG) an absolute goldmine for DCC style adventure material.

[jeffb]

If anyone peruses the JG/Wilderlands section here they will will see that I ended up using the Wilderlands, which I feel is anexcellent match for tye system.

Overall the session went well. My son immediately started to use Deeds, both of his own description, and the examples provided ( I essentially described deeds as having a "do something cool" ability for each round).

Having a couple spells fizzle made for some more dangerous combat than would be likely in 3/pf/4e or even O/b/x/s&w. Magic user player was a bit annoyed but mentioned the increased tension overall made for more fun.

I messed up on a ruling using the clerics lay on hands ability (forgetting about level maximums), but the rolls were low enough where it probably did not add much benefit.

Fumbles are scary.crits moreso, the Cleric was critted by alizardman, dropped to 3hp before the lookup, and luckily was only disarmed. I thought she was toast. Reminds me of Rolemaster BITD.

I really enjoyed the "same but different" play of the game. The interesting bits that have become humdrum...healing, basic spells, are much fun and the new stunt type system...deeds... seemed to go over well. My son got really creative, which was nice to see. I felt like the system,despite the added crunchy bits played pretty smoothly ( I spent alot of time printing up tables and spells for quick reference and converted my 4e screen). It was not quite as smooth or easy as running ODD/SW, but I made a point to play up the excitement of crits and fumbles and spell rolls, which made for more "hurry up..what happens?" Comments rather than " this takes too much time to figure out" comments I get sometimes with modern D&Ds.

"feel" of the session certainly leaned towards old school/od&d, rather than "3e lite which was my fear.

[kesher]

Nice. Thanks for reporting that out--it's a useful perspective!

[coffee]

Never ran it, only played, but I like it a lot.

I waffle back and forth on the Funnel system, but currently I love it. Once you finally get a character up to first level, you want to hang on to that guy for a while! (Doesn't mean you will, though...)

This can make you cautious, but fortune favors the bold. It's a tense, fine line to walk, and I think it adds to the enjoyment immensely.

Also, the game as a whole provides a pleasant antidote to the late 3.5 game I was in, where death came often but was never permanent.


Tip: If you're running the game for players brand new to it, print out several of the 4 character funnel sheets from Purple Sorceror and have the players pick randomly. Gets you into actually playing the game much faster.

[chiisu81]

The artwork is incredible.  The writing is so enthusiastic and encouraging, absolutely the best-written fantasy RPG I've come across so far.

I like most of the rules, even the 3E-style saves.  The funnel is fun to play at times, otherwise we just roll up lvl-1 PCs. I will say if it wasn't for Purple Sorcerer's site and app, I probably wouldn't run the game at all.

[kesher]

I'm pretty sure that, were I to run it, I'd skip the funnel. Probably still have players roll on the occupation table to see what they used to be, but for me the whole funnel concept, though I get where they're coming from with it, is actively ANTI Appendix N.

I also happen to be reading Fafhard and the Grey Mouser stories right now and man, their influence is all over DCC! Pretty awesome.

[Deleted]

The funnel doesn't reflect Appendix N. The funnel reflects the shared experience of decades of first level TSR D&D characters.

It's also a shorthand simulation reflecting the now often missing wargaming experience of learning from your losses.

Appendix N is inspirational, but the play of D&D is not reading a work of fiction, and starting D&D characters are not yet heroes told of in tales.

[skars]

May 28, 2014 21:20:51 GMT -6 kesher said:

I'm pretty sure that, were I to run it, I'd skip the funnel. Probably still have players roll on the occupation table to see what they used to be, but for me the whole funnel concept, though I get where they're coming from with it, is actively ANTI Appendix N.

I also happen to be reading Fafhard and the Grey Mouser stories right now and man, their influence is all over DCC! Pretty awesome.

I strongly recommend giving the funnel a try and also to allow players to roll up their own characters. I know the purple sorcerer utility is really great, but I have found players really enjoy rolling up these guys and it only takes a few minutes to roll through all 4.

The funnel concept is more of an ANTI-metagaming measure IMO, as you can't pick and choose where your stats end up, nor even choose your class until 1st level. This is an absolute godsend for those Judges out there with perhaps one or two players struck with analysis-paralysis or powergaming tendencies. The occupation list (which could of course be amended by the judge) is also a way to determine the frequency of demi-humans in your campaign. No Deathstar starting character builds, fellas, just gong farmers and Halfling haberdashers.

[ravenheart87]

Missing the funnel is missing half the fun. My players still control 3-4 characters at once but when one dies they roll zeroes as reinforcement (everyone has a milestone to reach in my campaign to roll first level characters in place of the losses). It became part of the logistics and resource management to keep alive these new hirelings and henchmen until they reach first level. Also it's pretty much like Game of Thrones as one of my players pointed out: he's always excited to see who lives and dies by the end of the session.

After first level survival rates are drastically increased, especially if you have a few clerics in the party.

[kesher]

May 28, 2014 22:49:16 GMT -6 @droll said:

The funnel doesn't reflect Appendix N. The funnel reflects the shared experience of decades of first level TSR D&D characters.

It's also a shorthand simulation reflecting the now often missing wargaming experience of learning from your losses.

Appendix N is inspirational, but the play of D&D is not reading a work of fiction, and starting D&D characters are not yet heroes told of in tales.

I mean, I get all that; my point (which I may well not be making clearly) is that the text of the game itself is focused on how this game was written to "emulate" Appendix N literature. I don't doubt for a moment that running a character funnel session or two would be fun; however, IMO, it's the only thing in the game that doesn't do a good job of actually emulating the inspirational fiction.

Also, again, in my case, the people I play with don't have any of the potential issues for which the funnel adjusts. I think the game as a whole is genius; I think the funnel is a case of YMMV...

Now, all that being said, if I said "Hey doods--let's play DCC!", and they were all like "WooHoo! Start with the FUNNEL!", well, I'd suck it up and run the funnel.

Also it's pretty much like Game of Thrones as one of my players pointed out: he's always excited to see who lives and dies by the end of the session.

ravenheart87: Now, that's a way of looking at it that hadn't occured to me... I'd like to see a halfling haberdasher Take the Black...

[Finarvyn]

Jun 3, 2014 8:23:11 GMT -6 kesher said:

my point (which I may well not be making clearly) is that the text of the game itself is focused on how this game was written to "emulate" Appendix N literature. I don't doubt for a moment that running a character funnel session or two would be fun; however, IMO, it's the only thing in the game that doesn't do a good job of actually emulating the inspirational fiction.

This is a legitimate statement and an astute observation. DCC clearly is designed to be a "back to the roots of gaming" RPG, which means aiming at Appendix N literature, but there aren't any examples of Appendix N where a bunch of redshirts charge into battle and mostly die off in strange (and often humorous) ways. I agree that this particular facet of DCC doesn't "simulate" Appendix N well.

The funnel is a lot of fun, but you can't make an entire campaign out of it.

[ravenheart87]

Jun 3, 2014 8:23:11 GMT -6 kesher said:

I mean, I get all that; my point (which I may well not be making clearly) is that the text of the game itself is focused on how this game was written to "emulate" Appendix N literature. I don't doubt for a moment that running a character funnel session or two would be fun; however, IMO, it's the only thing in the game that doesn't do a good job of actually emulating the inspirational fiction.

DCC does emulate appendix N pretty well, but it's not all about doing just that and nothing else. It's about fun and crazy stuffs, and the funnel does that very well. By the way I'm pretty sure if you go through Lovecraft's or Clark Ashton Smith's stories you will find plenty of zero level mortals, even if they don't have the "zero to hero" element.

[cadriel]

if you created an Appendix N RPG from first principles, it wouldn't look much like the DCC RPG, or like D&D for that matter. Aside from specific references like the King of Elfland (Dunsany), DCC seems mostly to have turned the Tolkien influences down and amplified some non-Tolkien (particularly sword & sorcery) influences: Howard, Leiber, Moorcock, Lovecraft. Honestly it doesn't feel Appendix N at all to me, reading more like a mash-up of older D&D, Warhammer Fantasy and Rolemaster.

Appendix N is much more far-reaching. As the recent Chained Coffin Kickstarter pointed out, it involves Manly Wade Wellman's tales of rural Appalachia. It also includes post-apocalyptic fiction (Hiero's Journey, Sign of the Labrys, Changeling Earth, Hawkmoon, nominally Andre Norton's Daybreak - 2250 A.D. as well) that would imply mutations and psionics and witchcraft. There's some planetary romance (Burroughs' Mars and Venus, Brackett and Carter, and on the scientific side, Weinbaum) and some hidden-world science fantasy (Pellucidar, Merritt). Most of the authors listed by name without any specific work recommended primarily wrote science fiction. An Appendix N game would be "gonzo," bursting with sci-fi stuff and mutations and weird magic (even moreso than in DCC) and strange gods and a lot of jokes.

(As a side note, much like E.R. Eddison or C.L. Moore, Clark Ashton Smith is not in Appendix N. Of course he should be on anyone's reading list.)

[deathanddrek]

Sept 18, 2013 10:02:40 GMT -6 Falconer said:

I wish there were some format to get DCC in other than SINGLE MASSIVE TOME.

Yeah, I desperately want to play it but lifting the thing is like, nah. I should stop being such a baby about it.

[ravenheart87]

When I lift the DCC RPG core book I feel powerful. I can kill characters with it's contents. I can kill players with the book itself.

[geoffrey]

Jun 4, 2014 5:31:27 GMT -6 ravenheart87 said:

When I lift the DCC RPG core book I feel powerful. I can kill characters with its contents. I can kill players with the book itself.