Updated 0th level character sheet

I have updated the 0th level sheet, the new sheet can be found here.

My next DCC projects:

• Make a 1st/2nd level sheet. I am thinking it should probably be two characters per sheet.
• Make some sort of marching order tracker, maybe something as simple as little character nametags that can be pushed around as characters die change march order.
• Spells record sheet. Instead of printing out gobs of text about each spell I think a simplified cheat sheet for players to fill out would work well. One stop shop for all of the relevant information (mercurial magic, manifestation, brief summary of spell effects, etc.).

DCC RPG 0th Level Character Sheet

Update: I have made some minor changes to the character sheet based on player feedback. Here is the new 0th level record sheet.

So, my few readers, the blog has obviously been not doing much since I started my new job this fall. Projects begun and largely abandoned. I am okay with this I think. I've run a fairly good Swords & Wizardry campaign, which I am now throwing overboard to begin a long awaited Dungeon Crawl Classics game. I am going to be running the game on the Isle of the Unknown to get me past the world creation point I always get completely stuck at: the basic map.

My resolutions:

1. Actually work on fleshing out my game world. I have always enjoyed this but have gotten flummoxed since my return to gaming with the whole map thing. Having removed the map from the equation I should have no more excuses.
2. Work on creating things that I wish I had access to. For example a 0th level character sheet for Dungeon Crawl Classics.
3. Post the crap I create for my game.
4. Post no more random ramblings.

I have wanted a good character sheet for funnel play in DCC. Full character sheets are a waste at this phase and you can go through a lot of index cards.

So I made one: 0th Level Record Sheet. Link updated 2/18/2013.

Feedback is welcome, this was my first time using Scribus (or any layout software for that matter).

DCC Critical hits for S&W

I want to use DCC critical hits and fumbles for my Swords & Wizardry game. Fumble table maps directly. The classes map as follows:

Fighter --> Warrior
Cleric --> Cleric
Thief, Assassin, Monk --> Thief
Magic-user --> Wizard
Paladin, Ranger --> Dwarf
Druid --> Elf

The only thing I haven't decided is whether to keep the levels the same. DCC is only a 10 level game, S&W is theoretically 20. I think it might work fine to just keep the levels the same though. This fits with the flattening of the power curve after level 10. That being said it would be something to strive for at high levels.

DCC thoughts - Now that I have played a bit

Alright, last time I wrote about my love of DCC I had not actually played yet. Now I have. Not a ton mind you, but played I have. To be specific I have run DCC three times (once in person, twice online), and played once online.

And now, some random blatherings:

Ability Checks

Well, this is a d20 game with no skills, so I find myself calling for a lot of ability checks. This is partly a practice thing but I'm not especially consistent yet about which scores and what DCs. If you don't know, "skill checks" in DCC are made with a d20 if you are reasonably trained (by occupation or class) or d10 if you are not. I like ability checks over skill checks because it is less rulesy but I'm not positive that I prefer it over the flat die rolls for things like listening in pre-d20 D&D. I do very much like it for thieving abilities though. DCC offers an excellent thief system if you ask me (thieves have a list of skills that they get bonuses in by level).

Saving Throws

DCC uses the modern three save system. This has pluses and minuses. I like it because, well, there is something a little funny for having people save against breath weapons or whatever every time they are dodging something. So, selecting which save is easy and non-arbitrary, the DM needs to determine if the character is able to dodge, and whether it is a physical or mental effect. Easily covers any scenario. It gets finicky with DCs though and rapidly leads to DC escalation. Someone out there in the OSR blogosphere (I don't remember who, sorry) wrote about how save or die is not such a big deal in OSR games because in the traditional saving throw system your odds always get better over time, whereas there is a DC arms race in modern games. This is potentially problematic.

Combat

Mighty deeds of arms are fantastic. Fighters (and dwarves) get to do cool things but there is not a lot of looking in the book needed (remember that the mighty deeds in the books are intended as examples, not as rules). Having the critical and fumble tables right in front of you is a MUST.

Magic

Awesome, but very table heavy. Like the criticals and fumbles, having your spell tables at hand is necessary.  The rules themselves work well and are relatively non-complicated. There is a fair amount of up-front work require of wizards.


And as a final note, I have been collecting the Goodman Games adventures as they come out. So far they are excellent. Some people don't like published adventures ("I can do better myself!") - I was of that camp as a kid - but as an adult, I love collecting modules, and these are first rate!

Urban Swords & Sorcery

Kotor Circa 1600

I have been thinking about the setting for my upcoming G+ DCC game. The main requirements are that there needs to be lots of opportunity for weird adventure in a small space.  The more I think about it, an a city fits all of my needs. I don't like bookkeeping in the ACKS sandbox rules sense, but I do want things to make a certain amount of sense. If the setting is too small, it is implausible to have access to things like armorsmiths, apothecaries, and sages. In a small town, it may even be difficult to find basic supplies for sale. A city solves this problem.

Krakow circa 1500

A city is also a plausible location for a megadungeon. Mines, caves, catacombs, sewers,  buried ruins.

Map of the Odessa Catacombs

In fact, in ancient city is wouldn't be implausible for their to be many layers of such things built upon one another.

For low-fantasy DCC it is important that the city be more like Vornheim, and less like Waterdeep. That means that the place is strange and magical, but the economy is mundane. There are no magic item shops, or wizard schools. Magic is strange and shocking, but yes, you can buy a horse or a suit of plate-mail.

I think if I am going to go for a city, it needs to be dense. Going halfway will make things too ordinary.

Cross-section of Kowloon

A city also explains professions like elven falconers. It's hard to imagine the more esoteric professions showing up in a tiny hamlet all at once.

Istanbul, 1638

A city gives plenty of options for adventure if it is large enough. Ancient ruins, dark under-cities, strange temples and laboratories; and there can always be outlying areas for wilderness adventure and other locations. Small towns will tend to cluster around the city providing a wealth of options.

There are more options still if it is a weird city. Portals to distant lands and other planes. Monstrous inhabitants. Shifting roads.

Istanbul, 1730

Options in Dungeon Crawl Classics

I talked last about how there seems to be a desire in the DCC community for more character options. I'm going to talk a bit about why I think there are already plenty and about some of the options that may not be so obvious.

First of all, one can always have options through roleplaying. What is a ranger anyways other than an outdoorsy warrior? You don't need permission from the rules to be outdoorsy. Likewise, isn't a bard just a rogue standing in the back with a lute? You don't need permission for doing that either? Oh, I see, you want a mechanical advantage. Well, I think there are lots of options out there already:


Backgrounds:

Backgrounds determine your initial skill set? Want to play something specific? Well, ask the DM if you can choose your background! If its because you have a character concept I think I would say yes for one. There are lots of backgrounds, and if you don't see what your looking for, here is an easy place to make up your own (although again, I think there are plenty).

Cleric:

Clerics are very different from each other! Different powers and weapons based on alignment (and deity) and different spells! Each cleric will be unique based on their spell selection and the more you flesh out the religions the more variety you can have. I see no reason to have paladins when clerics are as awesome as they are in this game (I know you want the warrior hit die and mighty deeds of arms, but well, no, because I like niche protection).

Thief:

Different ability sets by alignment mean like the cleric you have three subclasses. Join a guild or other roguish organization to flesh your character out more. If you want to buy a lute, buy a lute. A thief could also decide to be outdoorsy.

Warrior & Dwarf:

Every warrior should be different! They have lots of options just looking at mighty deeds, weapons, and armor. Be creative and there is no need for other warrior classes. Maybe a ranger specializes in bows, a barbarian wears light armor and carries two-handed weapons, a paladin (if they are not a cleric) is heavily armored with sword and shield.

Wizard & Elf:

The limited access to spells will inevitably make every spellcaster unique. Spells are rare, and a wizard or elf will only be able to master a few of them over the course of a career. The master of the elemental magics will be quite different than the wizard who traffics chiefly with otherworldy beings, who will be very different than the roguish enchanter.

Halfling:

I admit that halflings stump me a little. The only class that does not just seem to be obviously teeming with options to my eye. But, roleplaying, roleplaying, roleplaying! Just because halflings are sneaky and good with two-weapon fighting does not limit you to playing them that way!



I don't feel like I explained my thinking well but I wanted to give at least a glimpse of the options I see in the core classes. True, there may not be that many differences in the way a Pathfinder player would view them (the characters "powers" will be the same) but there are plenty of viable ways to play any character class. I think this is a game that gives a lot of options to players based on creativity and roleplaying, I don't think new rules are necessary.

The Desire for Options

It has been fascinating to watch the birth of Dungeon Crawl Classics. The game has been enthusiastically received by its fan base, and well, the game is fantastic. Goodman Games has a series of modules lined up (a few are out already) as do a few other publishers. There is a fanzine, and at least one setting kickstarter. Goodman Games has a decent listing of these projects here. Not to mention the blogs and forum posts.

The thing that has been really interesting for me was the desire for among the fans of the game for character options. From what I have been seeing, many of the projects (other than the modules) are providing options, and people got straight to work the forums creating alternate classes, skill systems, new spells, etc.

I think I have gone on the record as loathing too many options. DCC has 7 very distinct classes, and that seems like plenty to me. In fact characters within the same class have lots of opportunity to be very different from each other (more on this later). I think the skill system is fine (it is basically the AD&D secondary skill system). There are lots of spells already (they take up at least half the book). I certainly don't begrudge anyone the right to play DCC however they like, to tinker, to add, to subtract, to completely change. In fact the game is somewhat unusual in that tinkering and house-ruling is given official blessing in the rulebook.

The seemingly massive desire to add options to what is theoretically an OSR game has made me stop and think. That desire for options that creates the rules-bloat of 3e and Pathfinder, the baroque eclecticism of 2e, is present in the OSR as well.

Where does it come from?

Upcoming I will have my thoughts on the hidden character options of DCC.

Recruiting for UA-LC DCC game

Under the auspices of UA-LC I am going to run a 2 session arc of Dungeon Crawl Classics. It will start with a home-brew funnel and then probably a level 1 adventure. To simplify things people should use http://purplesorcerer.com/create.htm to generate their 4 0's (feel free to discard and try again if you don't like your results) and we will go from there.

I am looking at two Thursday nights, 7/12 and 7/19, from 8:00pm-11:00pm EDT on G+ (we will probably use twiddla for mapping).

There are four or five slots available (one slot is reserved if that person is available and still wants it). Comment here or at the post on UA-LC and if there are not enough slots I will determine who gets them randomly (hopefully tomorrow).

Lost in the hexes

I have started working on things for my DCC campaign using some constraints. This is helping. I love running games but I often find myself breaking down into analysis paralysis during planning. I often find myself worrying obsessively about distances, hex sizes, and other things are not really that important. My constraints are helping enormously.

I have decided to make use of:

1 wide-ruled composition notebook
The Dungeon Crawl Classics RPG core book
The Tome of Adventure Design
The Swords & Wizardry Monster book

And maybe some modules if the mood suits me.

After about an hour's work I have a reasonably fleshed out area map. Normally I would never reach this stage because I would be too worried about hex sizes. The lack of scale is liberating. I could always take it, scan it, and apply a hex grid after the fact if I want some more precise distances.

I am also focusing on the small world notions of DCC RPG (the book suggests 100 miles square - 10,000 sq. miles -  as being plenty for a lifetime of adventure). What I have in my tiny map so far: one tiny farming village, one small town, a haunted* forest, a weird monastery, a few ruins, and plenty of woods, hills, and marsh to put more goodies into.

I think from now on, I will stick with drawing first, worrying about distances and the like after, this is working so much better for me.

*or at least that's what people say.

Of course now that I am finally getting smart about how to plan for a game, my group appears to be on the verge of disintegration.

Dungeon Crawl Classics - First Session

Got to play DCC last night!

I ran Portal Under the Stars for four players: one person very experienced with both OSR games and modern games (he had read the beta rules but not the final rules), one with some experience with both but no knowledge of DCC, one really only a modern D&D player, and one who had never played an RPG before. Each created four characters and 8 out of the 7 survived.

Things I noticed:

• Portal Under the Stars is a very solid adventure in play, nice to have something so high quality in the rule book. It is full of great opportunities for creative play and problem solving.
• For sustained play it would be really good to have multiple copies of the rulebook, with all of the table referencing that is required. If we keep playing in a sustained way I am sure it will wind up full of tabs like my old MERP book was.
• I would really like to see spells handbook, maybe spiral bound!
• It seemed like people rolled a lot of demihumans in character creation (1 elf, 2 dwarves, and 3 halflings).
• Modern RPG players are very concerned with distances and movement rates. I tend to be imprecise about these things when I am not forced to be accurate. This caused the only consternation over description, theater of the mind, what have you.
• Zero level play is excellent for new players. Having few rules and no abilities let our rookie player focus right in on what is important in the game - asking questions, exploring, experimenting, and problem solving. For example . . . [[SPOILERS!]] when the statue started shooting fireballs, she had her characters run and leap on to the statue instead of simply fleeing, from there the statue had no shot at them. Also, after collecting the demon horn, she searched around for places to put it.
• Except for my most dedicated modern-games-only player everyone loved it. Still two in my group who were out of town to test it out on.
• Luck is an awesome way to select targets.
• I don't foresee any problems mixing 0 and 1st level characters (although this is yet to be tested) making it a good game for inconsistent groups.
• Random occupation and equipment is awesome and brought out the best in my players. Most of the time they entered rooms pushing the wainwright's pushcart ahead of them for cover. Saved at least one life.

 Looking forward to playing more.

I love you DCC RPG

The DCC RPG arrived this week. I fell instantly in love. I waited to write this post until I had read the whole book (minus spell and monster descriptions) and had a chance to reread some sections. I wanted to make sure I had read thoroughly and the fires of lust had cooled a bit before commenting.

This is a game for a specific audience, and being part of that audience I am very happy. I love that this is not a game for beginners. Assuming that the readers are experienced is a great place to start. There is no attempt to make the game bad-DM proof.

They have taken the good of modern D&D - the d20 system and the save system - and combined it with many things I find excellent about traditional D&D: simple combat, skills based on profession, race as class, single axis alignment, and high-risk adventuring. Something that I in particular find appealing but others may not: institutionalized low-magic. Throughout the book it talks about the rarity of magic, the specialness of magical items, the unusual nature of adventurers.This is something I have tried to bring into D&D but the systems often seemed geared towards high-fantasy play.  I also love the focus on low-level play. I suspect that DCC will become my fantasy RPG of choice.

With the possible exception of halflings as two-weapon fighters I love the treatment of every class. Clerics are awesome holy crusaders, thieves are cool and useful, warriors are mighty, wizards are probably about as much as fun as I can imagine (although if you don't like randomness they won't be for you), and the demihumans are special. I also like how alignment plays into actual game mechanics.

The elimination of wisdom and charisma is an excellent choice. Personality is a much more useful statistic and I like the way luck plays into the game in a variety of ways.

The experience framework is brilliant. Getting experience granted for surviving encounters and based on the difficulty of the encounter can help solve some of the fairness issues I have been talking about. An example of a 4xp encounter is one in which you expend all of your resources and have to retreat. So even if you run, you can still potentially learn something and advance.

That being said there are some annoying vague areas and contradictions. The book explicitly states that it is not intended to be comprehensive (that it is a framework not a straightjacket) and that one should feel free to fill in the blanks but there are areas where clearer intent would be appreciated. For example, as one spends luck (which for most classes is a permanent expenditure) does your luck bonus degrade? Basically, is luck spent like a regular statistic or like hit points? The fact that it is a statistic (and that there are areas where luck uses the initial bonus) says the former is probably accurate but it would be nice if that was a little more spelled out. Likewise, it is not entirely clear that deeds of arms do not need to succeed for the attack to succeed (I am almost certain this is the correct interpretation, but again, not entirely spelled out).

The one major contradiction I have found is with wizard spells known. Most parts of the book seem to imply that the wizard's "spells known" is the maximum spells that they can know. So a 10th level wizard can know up to 16-18 spells depending on intelligence. However, the book also says (on p. 126) that if a wizard "should ever know more than this many spells [referring to the master spell list] he will be a great mage." Since a 10th level character is a semi-divine, a few times in history power level character, he would certainly seem to be a great mage. So what exactly is the spells known? Is it supposed to be a minimum? There is other evidence in a few places in the book for each interpretation.

I realized that I spent more space talking about what I didn't like than what I did, but that does not reflect how much I love this game. There is just more to talk about with the confusions.

***Update***

Probably should have posted this a while ago . . . . Got some clarification on this apparent contradiction from the man himself here.

I also wanted to add that there has been some people confused and or unhappy with the treatment of alignment in DCC. I will definitely go on the record saying I love it. First of all, it is single axis which is good. Second, at least under my interpretation, law is not at all a proxy for good, and chaos is not a proxy for evil. Elves are chaotic, goblins are lawful. This bothers a lot of people on the forum. I like the nuance of it. Elves, while being generally non-destructive, traffic with outsiders, exchanging favors, souls, whatever, for personal power.  While goblins might generally be in opposition to humans, live in communities and pursue their own communal goals. Law and chaos is not the same thing as good guys and bad guys.