The Gaming Den

Any thoughts on this yet? I downloaded the PDF to check it out. It has some fail from some ancient D&D DNA, like races as classes, but it also mashes in some 3rd ed stuff like the three saves. And no Vancian casting. Add to this the 0 level start with a pool of characters ala old Dark Sun.

The game uses a lot of tables which would require lots of looking through pages during a fight.

But the variable spell effects, luck, and the fighter deeds stuff seem like it may be worth a shot.

Has anyone played in a game of this yet and formed opinions as to whether or not it is a playable system in the long term?

I've only seen the Beta version, but I thought it might be okay for a kind of silly beer 'n' pretzels game. But for a longer term game, I think it has too much random "death, no save" baloney in it for my taste.

It's made by grognards for grognards. Which isn't to say there isn't some neat stuff in their, for instance they let the cure wounds spells do more, ultimately you don't need a spell like restoration to regrow a limb. The way they handle spells is interesting, you make a spellcraft check and depending on how well you roll you get different effects. I know very few people who could play a caster in that system without grinding things down to a halt.

DCC is not quite like 3.5 D&D on a core level. In 3.5 you are supposed to be invested in your character and your character is supposed to handle a wide range of challenges. In DCC characters seem almost expendable. In fact they recommend that the first session of a new campaign each player brings 4 random 0-level characters so that the MC can kill off multiple characters without having to stop the game for more chargen. DCC seems to be more focused on straight up dungeon crawling.

Never heard of this RPG till now, but I will say the art kinda throws me off, pieces like this, look pretty "heroic" to me. Even it's Conan-like sound, makes me wonder, as hell Conan himself did some heroic stuff (climbed a mountain tirelessly for days, fought an elephant sized dragon with but sharp bamboo sticks, etc).

The second picture makes me loathe at the thought of reading it.
I mean really? The damsel in her underwear in a cage that needs to be rescued by the sole male lead?
Is it one of 'those games' or am I just overreacting?

Well, I can't tell if the figure in the first picture is male or female, but, yeah, the second picture with chainmail bikini and furry loincloth just... ugh. I'm bored. Seriously, that kind of shit used to be titillating, but now, if I wanted to look at porn, I'd go look at actual porn, this cheesecake stuff is fucking dumb. A few high level characters who are protected by amulets of Supreme Mage Armour and Bracers of Armour enhancement, who have high str, con and cha and thus run around with only the bare essentials covered to show off the physique they're so proud of is fine, but really, the only way to justify shit like that on a grand scale is to say that being an adventurer removes you from society to the point where you can't relate to the common person, and then really you have shit like wizards going to meet the common people in galloshes, night gowns and shower caps like early Harry Potter. It's not like it's actually that difficult to make a practically dressed character alluring. Seriously, the joke is tired, and the style is lazy. Hell, put the girl in a shift, at least it's a logical piece of clothing for the "distressed damsel who has to be rescued."

This RPG says that it aims to be in the vein of Appendix N. You know the fabled list that Gygax put in the 1st Ed DMG.

It is full of crit and fumble tables, luck effects, varying spell effects, corruption for failing at spell-casting, lots of save-or-die effects, no rules for treasure as it shouldn't be "predictable", monsters should be unique, magic items are rare, etc.

One thing I like is a complete break from power-gaming mentality. The ability scores don't give the big bonuses like in 3rd Ed.

There's a lot of complete randomness for sure. I would like to try it at least.

cthulhudarren wrote:This RPG says that it aims to be in the vein of Appendix N. You know the fabled list that Gygax put in the 1st Ed DMG.

Of course, that's mostly a big fat lie. The main characters rarely die in those Appendix N stories, whereas PCs are expected to die fairly frequently in DCC (at least at low levels).

Of course, that's mostly a big fat lie. The main characters rarely die in those Appendix N stories, whereas PCs are expected to die fairly frequently in DCC (at least at low levels).

You misunderstand the masochism of some grognards. Those main characters rarely die because they already got to high levels. In DCC, you play the supporting cast who die all the time, at least until your character gets a few levels under his belt. So instead of playing Conan, you play the faithful Hyrkanian sidekick who (if he doesn't get maced in the face by a Stygian or something) will eventually be the protagonist of his own spinoff book.

Basically, it's more like the G.R.R. Martin RPG, only instead of Jaime Lannister and Eddard Stark you play Hot Pie, and aspire to one day become Bronn.

PoliteNewb wrote:

Of course, that's mostly a big fat lie. The main characters rarely die in those Appendix N stories, whereas PCs are expected to die fairly frequently in DCC (at least at low levels).

You misunderstand the masochism of some grognards. Those main characters rarely die because they already got to high levels. In DCC, you play the supporting cast who die all the time, at least until your character gets a few levels under his belt.

To be fair, I've only seen the playtest version of the rules which covered the first few levels. Does the DCC game lose some of its "Gygax-death-no-save" aspect at higher levels?

This is all true. You WILL die. Especially early in your career.

But so what, too many players since 3rd Ed have become pussies who think their characters should never die. It's part of the game.

If there's no risk of death, it's not as fun.

And from the looks of the crit tables, high level characters will also die from the monster (particularly the dragon) crits. A higher HD dragon rolls a 20 to hit, rolls high on the crit table you are dead.

Oh, and the maiming. There's a lot of that.

hogarth wrote: Does the DCC game lose some of its "Gygax-death-no-save" aspect at higher levels?

I think some of the higher end of the spell effects are very potent, and I haven't read most of the spells, but it is possible it's still in there.

I think your luck score is the only thing that can mitigate many "you're dead, no save" effects. And your luck modifier helps mitigate crits against you.

But higher level creatures have crit tables with plenty of auto-death results. Like it rips off your arms and beats your friends with them. Literally, it's in there.


I downloaded the final rules on bit torrent to check it out. But I'll probably buy the book, it's a pretty good read for what it is. There's plenty of fluff.

cthulhudarren wrote:

hogarth wrote: Does the DCC game lose some of its "Gygax-death-no-save" aspect at higher levels?

I think some of the higher end of the spell effects are very potent, and I haven't read most of the spells, but it is possible it's still in there. The highest level is 10th and the highest level spells are 5th level.

I think your luck score is the only thing that can mitigate many "you're dead, no save" effects. And your luck modifier helps mitigate crits against you.

But higher level creatures have crit tables with plenty of auto-death results. Like it rips off your arms and beats your friends with them. Literally, it's in there.


I downloaded the final rules on bit torrent to check it out. But I'll probably buy the book, it's a pretty good read for what it is. There's plenty of fluff.

Prak_Anima wrote:Well, I can't tell if the figure in the first picture is male or female, but, yeah, the second picture with chainmail bikini and furry loincloth just... ugh. I'm bored. Seriously, that kind of shit used to be titillating, but now, if I wanted to look at porn, I'd go look at actual porn, this cheesecake stuff is fucking dumb. A few high level characters who are protected by amulets of Supreme Mage Armour and Bracers of Armour enhancement, who have high str, con and cha and thus run around with only the bare essentials covered to show off the physique they're so proud of is fine, but really, the only way to justify shit like that on a grand scale is to say that being an adventurer removes you from society to the point where you can't relate to the common person, and then really you have shit like wizards going to meet the common people in galloshes, night gowns and shower caps like early Harry Potter. It's not like it's actually that difficult to make a practically dressed character alluring. Seriously, the joke is tired, and the style is lazy. Hell, put the girl in a shift, at least it's a logical piece of clothing for the "distressed damsel who has to be rescued."

I can't tell if you're serious.

About what? I seriously am just bored of the cheesecake chainmail bikini shit.

CatharzGodfoot wrote: I can't tell if you're serious.

The first picture is PROBABLY a guy, but what's that based on? Practical clothing? Comparing the figure to the woman in the second picture?

The first picture is someone with long hair. Seen from the back. If we didn't have any preconceived notions, it could be either. But I expect it was intended to be male (because if not, there'd be much less armor).

deaddmwalking wrote:The first picture is PROBABLY a guy, but what's that based on?

Wide shoulders, narrow hips.

Since I've just been watching Women's Olympic Swimming, I wouldn't take that as a 'guarantee' of the gender of the picture.

Again, I think it's supposed to be a guy, but if the artist told me that it was a girl, I'd have to take (his?) word for it.

I didn't think to look closely enough to note body structure.

Prak_Anima wrote:About what? I seriously am just bored of the cheesecake chainmail bikini shit.

The whole point of DCC is being old-fashioned. It's not designed to appeal to you; it's designed to appeal to your D&D-playing grandpa, or your niece who never played anything but 4e and wants to slum it with some old skool gaming.

Prak_Anima wrote: It's not like it's actually that difficult to make a practically dressed character alluring.

I saw "grier.jpg" in the filename and immediately assumed it would be something like this:

Has anyone here actually played this game?

I started a play-by-post game with the beta rules, but we never got beyond the character creation stage, which was kind of fun in a dumb way. I had a peasant with a cart full of straw, a hunter with a shortbow and a mirror, and an elf with a pound of clay. The elf was the only one with a stat above a 12.

hogarth wrote:Has anyone here actually played this game?

I started a play-by-post game with the beta rules, but we never got beyond the character creation stage, which was kind of fun in a dumb way. I had a peasant with a cart full of straw, a hunter with a shortbow and a mirror, and an elf with a pound of clay. The elf was the only one with a stat above a 12.

I have to admit that the idea that by default you cannot min/max is appealing. And I like that the stats are less essential than in 3.5 And that NO magic items are 'expected'.

cthulhudarren wrote: I have to admit that the idea that by default you cannot min/max is appealing. And I like that the stats are less essential than in 3.5. And that NO magic items are 'expected'.

I have no idea how you make the leap from "X is rare" to "X is less necessary".

hogarth wrote:

cthulhudarren wrote: I have to admit that the idea that by default you cannot min/max is appealing. And I like that the stats are less essential than in 3.5. And that NO magic items are 'expected'.

I have no idea how you make the leap from "X is rare" to "X is less necessary".

They are two different things. Necessary means how in 3.5 they are expected in the EL system, so if you do low (rare) magic in 3.5 then you are behind in the challenge rating game.