Anyone play? I just ordered starter kit and the humble bundle pdfs. Gonna give it a go with the family. Seems alot like the old adnd stuff.
 UFOs Are A Psyop Shirt $21.68 |
 |
UFOs Are A Psyop Shirt $21.68 |
Anyone play? I just ordered starter kit and the humble bundle pdfs. Gonna give it a go with the family.
Unfortunately DCC doesn't have much of a presence on tg. I came late to the party, myself. A biref overview didn't really appeal to me, given the weird dice, and the massive tables. However, learning how it all fits together, I came to love DCC. I still don't like the weird dice, or the massive tables, but the game as a whole is easily my favorite, well.. dungeon crawler. Thats not to say it doesn't have some other issues, but really thats up to preference and tone. For instance, Spell Burn. With that mechanic a level 1 Wizard can basically drop a nuke and kill a dragon or bbeg in 1 lucky roll... how zany the system can be can lend itself to some hilarious and amazing one-shots, but for a longer term campaign, you'll have to reign the rules to your liking. Its not difficult to change this or that, but some people would call that heresy.
Anyway, love it and would love more discussion of it, but hey.
I'm interested in it but don't have anyone to play with. Might give DMing a try, I really want to see those fumbles and corruption rolls.
I think the weird dice would be cancer in-person, absolutely nothing wrong with it if you play online and use dice rolling bots and apps.
Does it give anybody HackMaster vibes? Seems a bit tongue-in-cheek.
If you want tongue in cheek play the Mutant Crawl Classics. (Gamma world hack), really suits the game system better and the whole weirdness factor than the fantasy setting.
I posted in your thread, I mostly prefer the fantasy settings, and I'd like to tack on additional rules like domain play and such. Umerica is a little bit more interesting to me than MCC, though I'd like something a little bit more toned down than even Umerica.
It's tough to call tongue in cheek. It plays everything straight but it is inherently ridiculous and leans into it. It's not trying to make fun of anything though.
>It's not tongue in cheek because it plays it straight!
The idiom means to present ridiculous things seriously. Playing things straight does not disqualify it as being tongue in cheek. It is a requirement for it.
I play it and like it. It's fun but if you're not into gonzo fantasy it might not be for you, it's basically made to be used with the modules, and man do the modules really ham it up.
Just for the love of God don't let people fall into the "ooh my god it's great for level 0 funnels we need to do funnels!!" And then never actually play anything besides those. Funnels are fine, but so many people only interact with DCC through them and nothing else.
What are your rules for rolling up a character, if you decide to forego funnels?
At least rolling up 4 dudes gives you some element of choice if you can keep them alive.
NTA. It probably depends on what sort of adventure the DM is running. If a module, most of the level-1 adventures seem to be designed for 6 or 7 characters. Some, like Doom of the Savage Kings, have a listed range of 6-12 characters. When my DM ran that adventure, we rolled up 3 each for a total of 9 characters. Only 5 survived to the final battle, and more would have died if the elf didn't enlarge a warrior with the maximum result. So, doubling or tripling up on level-1 characters might be a good idea for smaller tables. At my table, the rules for rolling them up were simple: level up any survivors from the Sailors on the Starless Sea funnel and use the purplesorcerer generator for level-1 characters with default settings, no halflings allowed, and 3 characters total.
Are halflings OP in real play? I've ran a funnel solo and leveled a couple to level 1, and only just now noticed their dual-wield mechanics.
I played once a week.
It's fun.
Honestly yea, Halflings are really damn powerful. In my game we ended up houseruling their abilities to only effect mundane circumstances. Their ability to effect spells/healing are by far the most powerful bit.
My DM wasn’t concerned about power, he just believes they stick out like a sore thumb when they’re taken out of Middle Earth.
Meant for
How tough is it to control multiple level 1 characters at once?
It looks more involved than OSR type games. Casters can cast spells so long as they make their spell checks, and only lose their spells when they fail a check (with a 5% flat chance per cast of failing spectacularly and mutating into some kind of weird freak).
Level 1 characters are not difficult to wrangle, provided you are not in command of more than a single caster. They each have more than a couple subsystems even at first level. Granted, should the extra caster die, which is not at all unlikely, the issue resolves itself.
I'm not saying to never do funnels, I'm just saying most people run DCC as a one-shot funnel and then never actually get to the meat of the game.
So if I were to get a group together to try DCC for the first time, do you think I should just skip the funnels and let them choose one of their 0 level chars to progress to level 1 automatically just so they don’t get turned off by the funnel?
I'd recommend doing a single funnel but try your best to have it be done in a single session.
if your timeslot couldn't fit it then just skip it, it's optional. I'd still recommend having everyone roll up 4 level-0s and picking 1 to use. Start them with nothing extra and let them grow.
Some funnels are really fun, but they aren't representative of the rest of the game and aren't necessary to make more level-0s.
I ran through a published funnel in solo play, some of them seem like they’d take over 3 hours which is what I’m targeting for a session. From what I’ve seen it’s just a few puzzles that do 1d3 damage if failed or some that kill one or two PCs outright, potentially a few waves of opponents to thin the herd, and maybe a Thanos-style finale reflex save that kills a quarter or half of the remaining party
After running through it I’ve thought of just making my own, something like an abstracted hexcrawl without encumberance but with resource tracking with limited rations, not enough to go around for the entire party leading to some tough choices. Throw in a couple combat sequences and simple traps and call it good when they reach civilization
The rewards I’ve seen for funnels typically have been stuff like +1 luck, opportunities to reroll birth augur and swap or reroll stats, etc. and maybe 1 magic item or enough gold to equip the character
The one in the book is pretty good, and so is Sailors of the Starless Sea but that one takes about 8 hours. For traps, you could also have them do subdual damage if you want them to do limb damage instead of killing a character outright from loss of fingers. I'd suggest other stuff to include in your funnel would be an overarching reason for them to stick together, a luck based mutation table (the 1d6 luck check ones you find), tools for level 1 PCs, and most importantly a spot to pick up more level 0s in case things go south
I would do the funnel, it is actually a lot of fun, just separate from the meat of the game. Now I would also make sure to run it as the starting point as the first main quest or start of the mercenary company that is the PC group, I think a lot of people forget to do that and just do it as a one off
You should do the funnel, but don't forget there is more than just a funnel. Level 0 smuck funnel is unique and a lot of fun, but the meat n potatoes of the rules are for beyond level 0 and you're missing out on the game otherwise.
I've played a few modules and I loved it. This anon
I think is right re: funnels. We did it and I kinda liked it, but the game got much more fun at levels. This is a fun game and I wish I could play with you.
Style over substance and lolrandumb shit that make you experience a past that never was. I don't think many people play it for actual campaigns rather than for wacky one-shots.
>Style over substance and lolrandumb shit
This man has not played DCC.
Do you guys add any rules for encumbarance, hexcrawling, etc.?
The core rulebook doesn't seem to cover any of that as far as I can tell, so I've been thinking of running with OSE or ACKS rules for the campaign I want to run.
The published modules seem okay, but they're not exactly OSR dungeons even with lethal traps.
Osr stuff can work as inspiration, but you def have to change it to fit the system. I try to incorporate occupations for the trained/untrained and run dungeon/hexcrawls with these changes.
Torches last for 1d6 turns and blindness follows the mighty deed table to -8, antidotes/antiserums +1d vs poison/disease for 1d4+2 hours, 2h weapons are +1d crit tables, and being downed also causes a cumulative -1AC repairable damage to armor, but shields always take the hit for it.
Clerics can store up to their class level in sacrifices, elves/wizards follow spellcasting per their class pages (luck effecting mercurial magic/elves don't get familiars, etc), and the entire group can be stealthed by the thief using their roll but with the highest penalty of the party.
E.g. 1d20+ dex+cl-armor check(-9 plate and shield)
Second part for exploring: I use a d10 for generating encounters on the road: so dungeon, treasure, animal, npc, monster etc and roll up some stuff before hand
Now when players are exploring, one PC is the navigator and rolls for each event 1d10+int mod or 1d20+ int if they're trained via occupation to navigate the area they're in. That result determines how severe that encounter is with a 10 being pretty good and a 20 being great, so for monsters this could be more or less monsters in the group and levels of surprise for the party
It's not the worst thing out there, but it's pretty shit.
>no real class balance: the elf is objectively superior to the wizard, the fighter is objectively better than the dwarf, the thief is objectively better than the halfling
>"just wing it bro" for magic items and treasure, which translates to "we didn't want to do the work"
>cringe little motto in the introduction chapter
>languages in the appendix instead of in the character creation section
>subsystems galore
>pointless as frick spell duel system
>dumb in -jokes in the two-headed troll
Like all in all it's not a BAD system and I'm actually in a DCC campaign right now. But there's a lot wrong with it, more than what I pointed out, and I would rather be playing something else. They did do some things right: spell rolls, mighty deeds, unifying saving throws, etc. Still, there are systems that are better.
The spell duel system seems cool though, you could potentially just wreck your campaign with an equal opposed roll.
Ya I don't view that as a positive. Like I said, it's not all bad, but I think there's better shit to do. Though it definitely avoids the "coffee table OSR book," so there's that, but that's some faint praise.
The idea and the final results of a spell duel can be cool. The system itself is extremely cumbersome. The most simple spellduel is a sluggish combat round nested within a single turn. At its worst, it brings the rest of the game to a halt in order to resolve a sub-encounter. As I remember it, correct me if I'm wrong, you must track the changing momentum of each spellcaster, reference the spellcheck matrix, roll on the various subtables modified by momentum, repeat the latter two steps for additional duelists, repeat the whole thing if it continues for another round. It can be pretty cancerous.
I don't understand what would be lost by simplifying it even a smidge. Here's a quick alternative off the dome: select a valid counter-spell; roll both spell checks; reduce the offensive-spellcheck by an amount equal to (counter-spellcheck minus the counterspell's failure threshold). Done. And if the spellchecks are identical, there's a fun phlogiston disturbance table for it.
Yeah I got that impression, I'm nogames when it comes to DCC but it does seem like things could get bogged down in the subsystem. But part of me is just okay with that because I want to see what kind of whacky shit comes out of the results, so I don't know if I'd be bored listening in on the spell duel.
>class balance
I only really agree that the Elf is objectively superior. But at the same time, you have to roll an Elf and a decent INT for them to be worthwhile.
>"just wing it bro" for magic items and treasure
Have to keep in mind the ruleset was made during the era of 3eD&D where there was an absolute glut of content like this. DCC was a step away from that kind of thing.
>cringe little motto
Frick you it's fun.
>languages in the appendix
Sure, I'd rather they weren't in the game at all. Languages RAW tend to be dreadful.
>subsystems galore
Not a whole lot come to mind for me. The system might seem filled up with them, but in actual play they're real simple, all except for...
>spell duel system
Yeh this shit sucks and I don't know why it's in there except the tables are cool.
I've been at a table that tried to use it once and it was pretty awkward.
I think the biggest crime DCC commits is having too much stuff spread out across the book. Most rules only pertain to a single class, so I really think they should just be grouped together in the rulebook.
Also I really don't understand the following:
>They did do some things right: spell rolls, mighty deeds, unifying saving throws, etc
You basically listed out the entire part of the rules that gets used.
I don't see any class requirements for any class? Vanilla you roll occupation and if the stars align and you have an elf worth playing and it makes it through the funnel, you're all set.
What about my post brought up requirements? I just mentioned that an Elf would need decent INT to be worthwhile playing.
You have to roll to be an elf. You don't get to choose ANYTHING for your funnel characters raw. Iirc some of the professions are called out as specifically elf, dwarf or halflinv.
Has never played the game
>no real class balance: the elf is objectively superior to the wizard, the fighter is objectively better than the dwarf, the thief is objectively better than the halfling
You're an idiot. HAlfling is the most broken class there is, it basically can pump the rolls of the entire party and recovers luck really fast, and starts with the ability to make 2 attacks.
Two non shitty attacks. Dual wielding sucks unless you're a halfling or have max agil
I played it once at a friend’s place. I got super bored. But that’s because those friends are terrible to be around.
I love the SHIT out of this game, especially the holiday, halloween and horror adventures (also crawling under a broken moon/Umerica). I'd love to run a campaign for DCC but I am nofrenz.
I want to play anon. Are you down for a discord game?
No frenz here either, I just plan to run it with my wife, kids, bro, and Dad. I used to lay on the carpet watching my Dad, grandpa, mom, and their friends playing AD&D, so trying to run this game just for some wholesome nerd fun.
Very wholesome anon.
My girlfriend's brother plays.
I like the concept of chaotic magic but it seems too gonzo and silly to me.
The funnel thing is okay but not for a serious campaign.
I don't hate it I just would rather take ideas from it for my own OSR shitbrew. Of course, I feel the same about ACKS so maybe I am just impossible to please.
I played and hated it. The guy GMing did his usual shit of forcing another rules-light system to cover for him not wanting to ready any rules beforehand, and once again he was blindsided by very basic questions about the game. Demanded my cleric roll for alignment and then tried to backpedal when he saw that Chaos deities were just Cartoonish Evil. The stupid funnel thing was just a waste of time because he really blatantly started fudging rolls at the end to have exactly one character survive per player, reducing our party of 14 to four in the last three turns of the final encounter. And the survivors got cursed into mentally-disabled furry mutants because we’re supposed to be pathetic outcasts not heroes.
Now you can shrug and say that my issue was obviously the GM and not the system and that DCC played no role in the trashfire that was that session, but I’ll counter with “DCC attracts the most obnoxious fake-grogs in the hobby with it’s art style, reputation, and specific brand of autism.” In this very thread we see the sort of ilk that make up DCC’s fanbase: if you do anything but slavishly felate the system, they just cry that you never actually played and must be lying, because what other explanation could there be?
OP, flee this system and never look back. There’s still time.
It's stupid to kill off all the characters if they fairly make it through the funnel, but I don't see what that has to mean you get to play all 14 characters among your player group of 4. Just advance 1 to first level and have the others waiting in the wings, or available as retainers, or some shit.
As far as the alignment system goes, why is it even a big deal outside of mechanics? I like systems that simplify to a single axis.
Admittedly, the alignment thing isn’t that critical, his backpedaling was even a bit funny. I included the bit about the Cleric because it was the clearest example of him just not reading anything before starting the game, and four months later I’m still steamed over that. Dude kept pissing and moaning (or outright sabotaging) games other people ran because he didn’t like the systems, and he couldn’t be bothered to read the system he was running, because “rulings not rules! Roll and shout, amirite?!”
DCC seems a bit finnicky to go rulings not rules for the systems that they do define.
A absolutely love DCC. It's actually the basis for the TTRPG I'm working on.
At first I was pretty skeptical of a lot of things. My impressions after having played it for a few years have shifted significantly.
At first I hated the idea of funnels, but after the first time I actually grew to love them. They're not required, though. People ONLY running funnels seems lame, though, if that's really a thing that people do. You're missing out on like 95% of what the game has to offer if you do that.
The wacky, zany spells are not quite as overpowered in practice as most assume. There is always risk in casting spells and using magic, and the rewards are far from guaranteed. That said, in my experience it's not quite as insanely overpowered as people assume by just reading the highest level results (which you honestly can't achieve with 1st level Wizards unless you get extremely lucky AND the Judge allows you to spell burn crazy amounts, something which, in my game, you are guaranteed to be allowed to do in just any circumstance. It might require a ritual, or some kind of pre-planning to even make the attempt, and the consequences can be significant if you do.)
The class balance is WAY better in play than it seems on paper. People claiming the Elf is "objectively better" forget one thing -- you have to actually roll an Elf. You don't pick them, it's random. Another thing, and this is purposefully left ambiguous, but I choose to rule it this way in my games: Elves don't get automatic access to Spell Burn. I've personally ruled that Elves can only burn Personality under normal circumstances, and this has resulted in pretty balanced play for three different campaigns with Elf PCs.
Overall, it's not quite as over the top gonzo zany insanity as a lot of people make it out to be. The experience is not identical to OSR D&D, but it's similar enough in all the ways that seem to matter for me, and in many ways I think it's much better.
>The class balance is WAY better in play than it seems on paper [because] you don't pick them, it's random.
I don't really see your logic here. If I roll a Shit-Farming Peasant and another player rolls Unstoppable World-Destroyer, the imbalance will still exist within the party. At the end of the day, I will have less mechanical support for doing useful things than another player.
Why do all the classes have to be balanced?
Because I would like to have as much mechanical support for doing useful things as another player.
But people arent balanced
NTA, but the class balance and character generation balance isn't as skewed as people like to think it is. I'm 100% of the opinion that people don't actually read the rules for the classes, and tie them together without understanding their roles. For example, wizards are better casters than elves due to having better mercurial magic and the chance to have a familiar, while elves are more martial spellcaster themed. Damned thing with dwarves and warriors, where warriors are designed as 2h weapon fighters with expanded crit range and improved init and dwarves are tactical fighters with a shield bash that allows a second mighty deed, a core function for the warrior/dwarf
I find it funny how you ignored Thief. It's obvious why though. Thieves are absolute trash.
Except they're not. Great bonuses to skills like stealth that don't have opposed checks, backstab criticals, and a regenerating luck pool that just makes into a scaling dice pool of bonuses. People don't pay attention to how you can burn luck on any roll you make and think it can only be for saves or skill checks or something
>backstab criticals
A CHANCE (not a guarantee) to be able to MAYBE deal less damage ONCE at the start of combat PROBABLY than a Warrior does every round. Nice.
Backstabs are automatically a critical if the attack hits, the backstab gets a bonus to your attack modifier that starts at +3 + your reg stuff at level 1 (or more depending on alignment) and is for if the enemy is unaware OR if you are behind the target/distracted in some way like a fighter hitting it, so every round. Again, you can add luck to it, so burning 4 points of luck at level one means you add 4d3 to your 1d10 dagger + whatever you rolled for your crit. Also, is your argument that "oh no, the skill monkey can't slap shit as hard as the martial :("?
>OR if you are behind the target/distracted in some way like a fighter hitting it, so every round
That is simply incorrect.
Page 34 of the core rulebook:
Backstab: The most successful thieves kill without their victims ever being aware of the threat. When attacking a target from behind or when the target is otherwise unaware, the thief receives the indicated attack bonus to his attack roll. In addition, if he hits, the thief automatically achieves a critical hit, rolling on the crit table as per his level
Focus on the first two sentences. "The most successful thieves kill without their victims ever being aware of the threat. When attacking a target from behind or when the target is otherwise unaware" The importance of the target's awareness of the thief is doubly emphasized. "Or otherwise aware" would mean that attacking from behind is one circumstance in which a target might be unaware. Might be. Every example of a backstab given in the book is a situation in which the target has no idea that there is a thief present. Therefore, if the target knows that a thief is behind him, there is no backstab. It is not a 3.x sneak attack.
GYG
I could say the same to you. Splitting the text into 2 scenarios implies that there is more to it than the target being unaware, otherwise they would have left it as that. It's written like that to imply a dirty fighting style so that if someone is fighting the same target, the thief can stab them in the back. It's very much the sneak attack/flanking analogue of the game
Right, and these are not just +1d6 or +2d6 damage things, or double damage, criticals can be absolutely brutal. The high end ones can be stuff like pierced through the heart or decapitated!
That's kind of the point
Backstab has never been an every round thing in OSR. That's zoomer territory. Backstab is an opener at best.
Every round against an enemy who knows you're there? Probably not. More than once during a combat? If the players are creative enough to make it happen plausibly I'll allow it. I reward improvisation and creativity liberally -- just don't be lazy, keep it in the bounds of what your character can actually attempt, and you're golden.
Like if an enemy was fighting an opponent and can't stretch his attention to in front and behind him so the thief strikes in a blind spot? Neat
Good thing DCC isn't OSR then. But it's good to know that your ESL translation and feelings trump what's written in the rulebook
It’s OSR adjacent
Oh I guess that's why people love talking about it in the OSR general
> If I roll a Shit-Farming Peasant and another player rolls Unstoppable World-Destroyer, the imbalance will still exist within the party.
You won't be, though. No character is a world destroyer at level 1, but even if the classes themselves are "unbalanced," you also have to roll a bunch of other things and get that character to actually survive Wow, you have an Elf! Too bad he has 5 Luck and 1 Hit Point. You can roll a Wizard who is much better. You don't pick and choose stats and then pick one class that's better, and the ceiling for which set of rolls (including class) creates a more capable character does not result in what you're describing.
Seriously, just try it. Play the game. It isn't what it looks like at first glance.
If the "Shit-Farming Peasant" and "Unstoppable World-Destroyer" are both Warriors then they aren't that different.
If you think that TRPGs are about balance then you're probably some poor git who has never ran a game and has terminal videogame brain.
All the players are WORKING TOGETHER. Their class's skills are not set against each other, only against the challenges the Judge has.
This review is helpful in that it helps me understand that I wouldn't like it. I know people who would, though.
>Overall, it's not quite as over the top gonzo zany insanity as a lot of people make it out to be.
This has been my experience, too.
Most of the shit people say about it online is completely unfounded. After having played and ran it for a short time I realized that most people complaining online couldn't have played the game.
For a character to be especially powerful you need a moderate amount of luck and even more skill at actually playing the game. This isn't 3.5e or 5e where there are character "builds." I've had very capable characters in my DCC campaigns who had fricking shit stats, including a Warrior with 7 Strength who still became a fricking monster and eventually ended up a warlord.
I like DC a lot for shaking things up with players. Funnels alone do that, but random generation also helps.
In general, what I appreciate is just the overall focus on PLAYER agency and PLAYER stories. There's way too much focus on characters and the narrative in modern RPGs when probably one of the most fun things to do in a game is literally YOU the player wants to do.
Again, I like it a lot, and it's really useful for breaking storyteller mindsets and cracking them open to other flavors of play (that isn't murder hobo, but also isn't an improv sessions)
how is Mutant Crawl Classics?
>Meme dice
Trash
The "meme dice" work really well within the system, people seem to have a lot of hate for this for some reason I just can't really understand.
DCC is pretty solid and I enjoy a lot of what it brings to the table. Funnels, mercurial magic, corruption, spellcasting in general, roll tables, etc. But I've found myself preferring other systems lately. Mainly because I've gotten sick of classes and how swingy the d20 is. Especially in a system like DCC where most modifiers are insignificant. If the GM is running the game well that shouldn't matter, but it's still a flaw of the system. My current go to for OSR, dungeon crawls, or rules lite is Macchiato Monsters. D20 roll under is incredibly refreshing, and as a GM I love that most rolls are done by the players. It also does away with classes, which I absolutely love for flexibility. That all said, enjoy DCC. It'll always have a place on my shelf.
Seems like swinginess is the point in DCC.
Do you roll your own or go with modules? Can you do OSR type megadungeons?
The modules are pretty good, but I homebrew all of it. The best way to think about the playstyle would be something like Korgoth of Barbaria. As for a megadungeon, I would use some of the suggestions in the thread or be careful doing a conversion, it's not the same as OSR. I would play heavily into racial features (dwarves smell gold so you could make dwarven art smellovision with different alloys), and with trained/untrained checks
The only thing I don't like about DCC is that the book is 3x longer than it needs to be for how little playable content it contains. It's padded out with bad art, oversized tables, and weird rants on how roleplaying ought to be. Not very helpful when I'm trying to consult the book at the table, especially with all the different subsystems and roll tables. Plus, the book is poorly organized to begin with.
That said, it does a lot right. I love how spells, magic swords, and even characters can be customized via randomness, and stuff like spellcasting and deeds are far better than D&D 3.5. Oh, and the published adventures are top tier. I just wish the game was easier to play without opening that damn book every time someone makes an attack.
This may be an unpopular opinion but I think it could use a second edition that unifies some of the subsystems, cleans up the book, splits the more philosophical content into a GM's guide, and turns the funky dice into an optional thing.
It’s an all-in-one core rulebook though, it isn’t any longer than if you stacked 3e PHB, DMG, and MM.
I do dislike that the pdf on the trove isn’t hyperlinked properly though.
Forgot to mention, another point against the book is the amount of ambiguity from strange wordings, like the backstab discussion happening in this thread. I can respect a "let the GM decide" approach to rulings, but if you're going to rely on that then why not just be clear about it? I've had games grind to a halt over the exact kind of rules lawyering that made me sick of Pathfinder.
I believe the amateurish vibe is part of the charm but sometimes you just want to know if you can backstab the troll or not.
Why not just adapt what you like to 3e?
Don't get me wrong, I really like DCC, it's great fun and it holds a special place in my heart as the game that taught me to think of RPGs as fun hobby projects rather than immutable sets of rules and story points.
That said I've pretty much moved onto systems like Knave and OSE that match DCC's tone but are easier to run. I still save DCC for Halloween funnels, or if I have a shitload of people at my place who want to play something.
Idk, I like how it's supposed to have everything in one spot and the tables for random types of the same enemies is nice
The formatting is literal dogshit too, it's like the entire thing was formatted in microsoft word and I was genuinely blown away to find out that it was not.
funnels suck ass
also, even with mighty deeds, casters make fighters look like children
OSR paypiggies will shell out for anything that promises reactionary politics and has "I know a guy who can draw" illustrations. I mean, it's 100% a modern system with abilities that scale up as you level and weird custom dice.
>Consent checklist
Is this a parody?
did you read past the third page
Must suck to be mentally ill
Stop spreading this shit in every thread you visit you autist. Your shilling is as bad as the shit you are whinging about.
Actually an awesome and fully playable OSR dark rpg.
absolute trash
it appears to be a long winded shitpost
Are we doing true Shadow Doom Dark RPGs?
the descriptive text for each step reads like its from kingdom hearts and it honestly pisses me off
Is this game still popular, do you ever see open table groups or LGS running it?
I can see why OSR style play might be a problem, by default there is no xp for gold mechanic and xp seems to be assigned arbitrarily by the judge. Has anyone experimented with other XP system? How would you set up the thresholds? I’d say with 10 levels, just assume everyone progress as an Elf would, level 1 is already very powerful in DCC.
Only problem I see with it are how powerful wizards/elves are out of the funnel. Suppose you have three or four surviving characters and roll them all as Wizards. That's suddenly a lot of fire power.
Yeah but max HP for a lvl 1 elf/wizard is 16/14 when weapons deal 1d6- 1d10 and they don't have any AC
There's also some enemies that just reflect or negate magic as well
IMO elven weakness to iron should have more mechanics, like +1 damage or something if being targeted by iron weaponry.
I'm not all that interested in elves so didn't look at them to see how OP they are, wizards of course are OP if you get the right stats I think but you have to realize you're risking your character at 5% every time you cast a spell. The way I read it is that you can either play your wizard cautiously, or burn him and by level 5 be a deformed monstrosity with possible mechanical drawbacks associated with that.
Elves have the same broad abilities in OSE, but then they also take a lot of time to level compared to other classes so it's a bit balanced in that way.
That doesn't apply to DCC, of course.
I've thought about putting in cold iron to just block magic, and make it something like -10 or -15 to the check if you're manacled. Also bags of powdered iron could really frick over an elf
It does sound cool to have elves in iron manacles basically powerless
Has anyone tried these rules out?
That is an old unfinished version, Anon
It has the only well designed fighter in all of D&D-like games.
Unfortunately the stupid dice and the horrible wizards and clerics ruin it.
Does anyone have any suggestions for the magic rod spell? I have a pretty good idea for wands, but need something for clerics. I like the system, but I wish they wouldn't have taken the cop out on "just homebrew your own stuff!" Lazy route that everyone does nowadays