Dungeon Crawl Classics RPG (DDC RPG)?

[RTGoodman]

Just saw on Twitter (@GoodmanGames) that Goodman Games is coming out with a new RPG system this year sometime. While based in d20-era mechanics, they're calling it "Pre-D&D Swords-and-Sorcery." Three preview articles are up:

1. What It Is and What It Isn't (http://www.goodman-games.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=60&t=7154)
2. Pre-D&D Swords-and-Sorcery (Or, Brought to You by Appendix N) (http://www.goodman-games.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=60&t=7663)
3. What Do You Mean, "Vancian?" Or, Spellcasting in the DCC RPG (http://www.goodman-games.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=60&t=8530)

The last two in particular have me REALLY interested in the game. A couple of years ago I did the same thing, trying to read the most influential fantasy works (including Leiber, Moorcock, Vance, etc.), and it really made me long for old-school gaming (that I never actually played in its time). The magic system itself just seems really neat and might convince me to play a Wizard for the first time in a LONG time.

What are you guys' thoughts? Have you heard of the system yet? Is it something you think might get pretty big? (It is from a major gaming company, after all.)

A sample from the first article:

It is not a retro-clone.

It is an OGL game.

It uses a rules engine derived from the 3E d20 system.

It is not compatible with 1970s/1980s D&D rules.

It plays like a 1970s OD&D session.

It is generally compatible with other d20-derived systems.

It does not include complexities like attacks of opportunity, prestige classes, feats, or skill points.

It does not utilize miniatures or a grid-based combat system.

It utilizes races as classes -- you can be a warrior, or an elf.

It utilizes six ability scores, including one called Luck.

It is built on the assumption that some characters will die.

It is built on the assumption that the strongest characters will provide long-term campaigns.

It is built for low-level, mid-level, and high-level play.

It does not require that you start at 0-level (though doing so is fun).

It does not use the traditional D&D spell system associated with memorizing spells.

It uses spellcasting rules influenced by the foundational authors of swords & sorcery.

It uses a Vancian magic system…if you use the term “Vancian” to mean “based on a reading of Vance’s original works,” not “what D&D does.”

It is grounded in the fundamentals of Appendix N.

It is a proud descendant of a long tradition.

It is an opportunity to showcase outstanding art in a classic fantasy style.

It is lots of fun to play.

It primarily uses the conventional dice suite: d4, d6, d8, d10, d12, and d20. Most combat and spell checks are resolved with a d20 roll.

It also utilizes Zocchi dice. All of them. Including the d5, d7 and d24.

It is, in my humble opinion, a version of what D&D could have been, if the early pioneers had access to an existing, robust rules engine to which to adapt their Appendix N inspirations, instead of dedicating their energies to building the foundational blocks from scratch.

It is, as Harley described it early on, “pre-D&D swords & sorcery.”

[Thurbane]

...I wish they'd just stuck with making 3.5 adventures and campaign settings. Same with Paizo/Pathfinder. :smallfrown:

Oh well, something to keep an eye on.

[RTGoodman]

I guess that's a vote in the "Not Interested" category? Anyone else actually maybe looking forward to this?

[Cartigan]

...I wish they'd just stuck with making 3.5 adventures and campaign settings. Same with Paizo/Pathfinder. :smallfrown:

Oh well, something to keep an eye on.
I wish Paizo hadn't tried to implement "3.5, but now with more nostalgia and bad rulings!"

[Tyndmyr]

It is...interesting. Variability in spellcasting is something a *lot* of people have put out there.

Still, I don't like the implementation.

See, the thing with magic missile is that it's a poor example. The entire point of it is to have less variability, and thus, it gets reliability in return for relatively low damage. If such a system were in place, there is little reason to ever use magic missile. So, instead of having more variety, we have less.

Also, the spell no longer scales with anything other than int well. This is annoying, especially to sorcs. So long as you have levels, and hp scales, you want attacks to scale proportionately.

For a level 1 sorc, this basically means about half the time, you blow your attack for no effect(or effectively no effect). Oh look, now you're level 2. Everyone has about double hp, and you're doing exactly the same damage. In return, you get another almost-worthless spell slot.

No, this would not be fun to play at all.

[Matthew]

Should be interesting, but honestly I am not sure what more they can bring to the table than any other D&D type rule set out there.

[RTGoodman]

Also, the spell no longer scales with anything other than int well. This is annoying, especially to sorcs. So long as you have levels, and hp scales, you want attacks to scale proportionately.

For a level 1 sorc, this basically means about half the time, you blow your attack for no effect(or effectively no effect). Oh look, now you're level 2. Everyone has about double hp, and you're doing exactly the same damage. In return, you get another almost-worthless spell slot.

Since it's a whole new system, though, I'm going to assume either there ARE no sorcerers (Wizards-only is part of a lot of the OSR games, which this is close to), or that they will have separate spells that run off of Charisma.

Also, they DO scale with level, since the "Spell Check" is a Caster Level check. Assuming you don't lose caster levels, you should be good. It doesn't scale as far as, say, normal 3.x HP, but I would imagine the HP system is different too (and with everyone having fewer HP to start).

[Tyndmyr]

Since it's a whole new system, though, I'm going to assume either there ARE no sorcerers (Wizards-only is part of a lot of the OSR games, which this is close to), or that they will have separate spells that run off of Charisma.

Eh, Im ok with limited class selection.


Also, they DO scale with level, since the "Spell Check" is a Caster Level check.

Gotcha. Still, it's not at all linear. At first level, you're running about a 50/50 shot of getting either nothing or a single point of damage. In even the squishy system, this can be summarized as a wasted turn and spell slot. Given the historical limited nature of spells slots at first level, a wizard isn't actually going to be casting spells, because they are better off using weapons badly than trying to do so.


Assuming you don't lose caster levels, you should be good. It doesn't scale as far as, say, normal 3.x HP, but I would imagine the HP system is different too (and with everyone having fewer HP to start).

Squishy is a thematic choice. However, have not all D&D styled games scaled hp at least linearly(with some faster)? If thats the case, attacks of all forms should scale linearly as well, or they decrease in value.

Ability damage for spellcasting is not inherently bad. What's bad is that they add undefined fiat in the form of "deals" to do so. Selling your soul to the devil to get magic missile to cast crosses the line from interesting to illogical.

They also have a crit fail chart for spellcasting with things involving "instant death". This is terrible.

If you want to make a game without spellcasters, just do that.

I would feel a lot more optimistic about this game if they used principles of game design and playtesting to make rules than by simply drawing inspiration from fantasy. Just 'cause it's great in a story doesn't mean it'll be a good game. Also, using d5s, d7s, and d24s is just annoying.

[Queen Ardana]

I would say give it a go. I like the idea of magic being so unpredictbable, even though very soon everyone will know some tables by heart ...
and then taht is the one thing I deem what makes it less-successfull: the rolling in a extra table for every single spell. This makes it a lil less playable compared to other "fast paced" systems. And yet, having played rolemaster (and not being ashamed of it), I'm still opting to give it a try.

[Jolly Steve]

The classes are going to be the same as in Basic D&D (fighter, cleric, magic-user, thief, halfling, dwarf and elf).

Of these, only fighters and thieves are really adventurers in sword & sorcery (and the distinction between them isn't that clear).

So their claim to be reworking the assumptions of D&D doesn't seem very credible to me.

However the variable results for spells, and 0-level characters, both seem interesting.

I wonder if the most common use of the game will be that people will take some rules from it and use it in their D&D games.

[Knaight]

It looks clunky and poorly designed, given what little they've shown of the mechanics so far. Plenty of swords and sorcery games already exist, and I'm not optimistic that this will be any better than Barbarians of Lemuria, let alone Blood Sweat and Steel.